| FORUM | ARCHIVE |                    | TOTAL QUIZ RESULT |


  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - Clovis were Amerindians! (not Solutreans)
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login


Welcome stranger, click here to read about some of the great benefits of registering for a free account with us and joining us in our global online community.


Clovis were Amerindians! (not Solutreans)

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <123>
Author
toyomotor View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2014
Location: Tasmania, AUST.
Status: Offline
Points: 4394
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote toyomotor Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21 Mar 2014 at 09:47
beorna:
Just a small point, but the latest estimates are that the Australian Aborigines arrived in Australia up to 60,000ybp.
"Tá mé bródúil as mo oidhreacht na hÉireann".
Back to Top
Sponsored Links


Back to Top
fantasus View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 07 May 2009
Location: Denmark
Status: Offline
Points: 1943
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote fantasus Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21 Mar 2014 at 10:02
Originally posted by beorna beorna wrote:


Yes, a surplus population is supposed to move on. But for such a scenario a region must have had the maximum population. But the scenario above by pinguin has a few kilometers per year. Unlikely, that the maximum population for a region was reached within a few month or maybe a few years.
I do not understand precisely this idea about ""maximum population". There could still be unused ressources left when migrants found better ressources elsewhere. If You have the choice between living "well" at place A, but find better "abundant" game in place B, it is likely that at least someone leave for B, or what? 
Originally posted by beorna beorna wrote:


The scenario I support is, that Amerindians already arrived in America around 25ky BP and remained there and populated the continent till the glaciers opened 9000 y BP. maybe there was already before some contact with Asia via the coastal zone.
 
Back to Top
beorna View Drop Down
General
General


Joined: 03 Dec 2007
Location: Lower Saxony
Status: Offline
Points: 799
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote beorna Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21 Mar 2014 at 10:14
Originally posted by toyomotor toyomotor wrote:

beorna:
Just a small point, but the latest estimates are that the Australian Aborigines arrived in Australia up to 60,000ybp.

I mentioned that above. But that artefacts in Australia are dated to 60,000 yBP or even 62,000 years doesn't mean, that these people were the ones who left Africa 70,000 years ago. These artefacts may be as well results of modern humans who migrated before, like those of Qafzeh e.g.. Nobody can say this with certainty. But we have another difference. All those regions lay in a quite similar tropis/sub-tropical area. In America the polar or sub-polar fisher-men or mammoth-hunters had to cross several climatic zones.
Etiam si omnes, ego non.
Back to Top
beorna View Drop Down
General
General


Joined: 03 Dec 2007
Location: Lower Saxony
Status: Offline
Points: 799
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote beorna Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21 Mar 2014 at 10:21
Originally posted by fantasus fantasus wrote:

Originally posted by beorna beorna wrote:


Yes, a surplus population is supposed to move on. But for such a scenario a region must have had the maximum population. But the scenario above by pinguin has a few kilometers per year. Unlikely, that the maximum population for a region was reached within a few month or maybe a few years.
I do not understand precisely this idea about ""maximum population". There could still be unused ressources left when migrants found better ressources elsewhere. If You have the choice between living "well" at place A, but find better "abundant" game in place B, it is likely that at least someone leave for B, or what? 
Originally posted by beorna beorna wrote:


The scenario I support is, that Amerindians already arrived in America around 25ky BP and remained there and populated the continent till the glaciers opened 9000 y BP. maybe there was already before some contact with Asia via the coastal zone.
 


With maximum population I mean the population that can live in an area. It depends of course not only on the habitate itself, but as well on the economy, the living style of the population.
But that is exactly what I mean. If it were fisher-men, then they went fishing. Maybe they were hunting seals as well. And if there are too much fisher-men in an area, some will move on. But it is hard to believe, that these fisher-men decided as well to move on the plains or somewhere else so fast. The Clovis-theory tries to tell us, that the few immigrants nearly immediately, within 1000 years populated all habitates of North and South America, besides the fact, that it cannot explain older sites (more than 15ky BP)
Etiam si omnes, ego non.
Back to Top
fantasus View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 07 May 2009
Location: Denmark
Status: Offline
Points: 1943
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote fantasus Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21 Mar 2014 at 13:37
Originally posted by beorna beorna wrote:

Originally posted by fantasus fantasus wrote:

Originally posted by beorna beorna wrote:


Yes, a surplus population is supposed to move on. But for such a scenario a region must have had the maximum population. But the scenario above by pinguin has a few kilometers per year. Unlikely, that the maximum population for a region was reached within a few month or maybe a few years.
I do not understand precisely this idea about ""maximum population". There could still be unused ressources left when migrants found better ressources elsewhere. If You have the choice between living "well" at place A, but find better "abundant" game in place B, it is likely that at least someone leave for B, or what? 
Originally posted by beorna beorna wrote:


The scenario I support is, that Amerindians already arrived in America around 25ky BP and remained there and populated the continent till the glaciers opened 9000 y BP. maybe there was already before some contact with Asia via the coastal zone.
 


With maximum population I mean the population that can live in an area. It depends of course not only on the habitate itself, but as well on the economy, the living style of the population.
But that is exactly what I mean. If it were fisher-men, then they went fishing. Maybe they were hunting seals as well. And if there are too much fisher-men in an area, some will move on. But it is hard to believe, that these fisher-men decided as well to move on the plains or somewhere else so fast. The Clovis-theory tries to tell us, that the few immigrants nearly immediately, within 1000 years populated all habitates of North and South America, besides the fact, that it cannot explain older sites (more than 15ky BP)
An alternative view could be people that were already controlling some ressources may have had more surplus for exploration. That "surplus" may not only consist in material items, but also being better nourished, more healthy, and having a psykological edge. Populations would probably have more such "surplus" well before reaching any "maximum", or stage of "over-population".
Back to Top
beorna View Drop Down
General
General


Joined: 03 Dec 2007
Location: Lower Saxony
Status: Offline
Points: 799
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote beorna Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21 Mar 2014 at 14:07
Originally posted by fantasus fantasus wrote:


An alternative view could be people that were already controlling some ressources may have had more surplus for exploration. That "surplus" may not only consist in material items, but also being better nourished, more healthy, and having a psykological edge. Populations would probably have more such "surplus" well before reaching any "maximum", or stage of "over-population".

If these populations would have been sedentary, one could support your claim. But the early americans weren't. And of course we need a scenario which can explain, how people who migrated to the Americas in 15000 could arive in 14800 in Chile or in 16000 in Meadowcraft Rockshelter, Pennsylvania.
Etiam si omnes, ego non.
Back to Top
fantasus View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 07 May 2009
Location: Denmark
Status: Offline
Points: 1943
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote fantasus Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21 Mar 2014 at 14:46
Originally posted by beorna beorna wrote:

Originally posted by fantasus fantasus wrote:


An alternative view could be people that were already controlling some ressources may have had more surplus for exploration. That "surplus" may not only consist in material items, but also being better nourished, more healthy, and having a psykological edge. Populations would probably have more such "surplus" well before reaching any "maximum", or stage of "over-population".

If these populations would have been sedentary, one could support your claim. But the early americans weren't. And of course we need a scenario which can explain, how people who migrated to the Americas in 15000 could arive in 14800 in Chile or in 16000 in Meadowcraft Rockshelter, Pennsylvania.
How is it relevant wether they were sedentary or not? And I do not advocate any specific "Clovis theory", or have any fixed opiniion about when precisely events happened.
Back to Top
beorna View Drop Down
General
General


Joined: 03 Dec 2007
Location: Lower Saxony
Status: Offline
Points: 799
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote beorna Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21 Mar 2014 at 15:29
I think it is difficult to controll ressources if you are not sedentary. Of course can one controll an area, but that doesn't make much sense, if the prey is migrating. And if a special group controlls more ressources than necessary, wouldn't they grow, untill there are not enough ressources for all?
Etiam si omnes, ego non.
Back to Top
fantasus View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 07 May 2009
Location: Denmark
Status: Offline
Points: 1943
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote fantasus Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21 Mar 2014 at 18:49
Originally posted by beorna beorna wrote:

I think it is difficult to controll ressources if you are not sedentary. Of course can one controll an area, but that doesn't make much sense, if the prey is migrating. And if a special group controlls more ressources than necessary, wouldn't they grow, untill there are not enough ressources for all?
Perhaps the word "control" was misleading? there may be some problems with the word "possess" too. So let me express it in a different way: Ancient populations could very well be more inclined to migrate when they were still comparatively healthy, well fed and with new ressources of food available were they were located, if only they knew about a still better place somewhere else. So they would not necessarily wait untill a situation of scarcity emerged. But for me population "maximum" indicate scarcity, less food or other necessities.
Back to Top
toyomotor View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2014
Location: Tasmania, AUST.
Status: Offline
Points: 4394
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote toyomotor Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22 Mar 2014 at 01:11
beorna wrote:
"I mentioned that above. But that artefacts in Australia are dated to 60,000 yBP or even 62,000 years doesn't mean, that these people were the ones who left Africa 70,000 years ago. These artefacts may be as well results of modern humans who migrated before, like those of Qafzeh e.g.. Nobody can say this with certainty. But we have another difference. All those regions lay in a quite similar tropic sub-tropical area. In America the polar or sub-polar fisher-men or mammoth-hunters had to cross several climatic zones."
 
Nor does it mean they weren't.
 
I don't know who you mean when you suggest that they may have been modern humans who migrated before.
 
No one knows when the Australian Aborigines first left Africa, the same as no one really knows when the migration into the Americas began. And I don't necessarily mean the arrival date, I mean the date when they started moving in that direction.
 
Artefacts can only suggest habitation at a certain point in time. Further finds could turn current day belief on its head.
 
I think to say that Clovis were Amerindians could be putting the cart before the horse.
"Tá mé bródúil as mo oidhreacht na hÉireann".
Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 15238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22 Mar 2014 at 03:17
Originally posted by toyomotor toyomotor wrote:


 My dear chap, that's precisely what I'm suggesting!
 
Not all American Indians have Asian Phenotypes. Some of the tribes of the northern, what is now, USA have distinctly European features.


That's for sure. That's because admixture with Europeans. That's something pretty well known.
And also in South America we have a lot of indigenous people with abundant European blood. The only places you find natives relatively pure is in Mexico and Peru, because those populations were large. In the U.S., on the other hand, human density at contact was pretty low, so the invaders quickly outnumber natives.

Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 15238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22 Mar 2014 at 03:19
Originally posted by toyomotor toyomotor wrote:

beorna:
Just a small point, but the latest estimates are that the Australian Aborigines arrived in Australia up to 60,000ybp.


Indeed. That was an early wave of humans that migrated from Africa into Southern Asia, that established mainly in India, south East Asia, New Guinea and Australia.
Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 15238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22 Mar 2014 at 03:23
Originally posted by beorna beorna wrote:


I mentioned that above. But that artefacts in Australia are dated to 60,000 yBP or even 62,000 years doesn't mean, that these people were the ones who left Africa 70,000 years ago. These artefacts may be as well results of modern humans who migrated before, like those of Qafzeh e.g.. Nobody can say this with certainty. But we have another difference. All those regions lay in a quite similar tropis/sub-tropical area. In America the polar or sub-polar fisher-men or mammoth-hunters had to cross several climatic zones.


But as I said early, there is lot of evidence these early explorers in the Americas were fishermen. And, once again, the temperature along the Humboldt is pretty cold, all the way down. And, if you go up to the Andes in the tropics, don't forget to bring your jacket Wink
Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 15238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22 Mar 2014 at 03:24
Originally posted by beorna beorna wrote:


If these populations would have been sedentary, one could support your claim. But the early americans weren't. And of course we need a scenario which can explain, how people who migrated to the Americas in 15000 could arive in 14800 in Chile or in 16000 in Meadowcraft Rockshelter, Pennsylvania.


Quite simple: they walk.
Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 15238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22 Mar 2014 at 03:30
Originally posted by toyomotor toyomotor wrote:

 
No one knows when the Australian Aborigines first left Africa, the same as no one really knows when the migration into the Americas began. And I don't necessarily mean the arrival date, I mean the date when they started moving in that direction.
 
Artefacts can only suggest habitation at a certain point in time. Further finds could turn current day belief on its head.
 
I think to say that Clovis were Amerindians could be putting the cart before the horse.


No sir. The analysis of the Clovis child's DNA is a proof that all the baloney about Solutreans is wrong. The Clovis were Amerindians! And that's it.

Now, I bet the process of peopling of the Americas is by now a lot better understood than the migrations to Australia. We know from where the natives came from (Siberians), and now we know they stayed 10.000 years in Beringia. We know what languages they spoke before and after crossing, and which people is related with which. Come on! We even know that teepees exist both sides of the Bering strait! What's more, there are customs in Siberia, like artistic patters and rituals that have their exact equivalent in the Americas.

Even more, we know with lot of precision the evolution of the populations of the Americas, the origin of agriculture and civilizations, and the extraordinary array of cultures, languages, writing, astronomy, mathematics, metalurgy and inventions in general. For all those reason, and because in many countries of the region it is a matter of pride to have at least an Amerindian in the family tree, I could say we are quite clear of what happened in the New World, and when happened.



 
Back to Top
toyomotor View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2014
Location: Tasmania, AUST.
Status: Offline
Points: 4394
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote toyomotor Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22 Mar 2014 at 08:09
penguin wrote:
"Now, I bet the process of peopling of the Americas is by now a lot better understood than the migrations to Australia."
 
Your arrogance is astounding! Angry.
 
YOU obviously don't know much about the arrival of our Aborigines into Australia, but most people of my age do.
 
Not that it's relevant anyway.
 
I regard the rest of your post, as more ethnocentric dribble.
 
I think it would be more correct to say that Clovis became the American Indians.
 
But you can't respond to the Creek Indian phenotypes that I posted, can you. And don't say they were of mixed origin, because they weren't.


Edited by toyomotor - 22 Mar 2014 at 08:12
"Tá mé bródúil as mo oidhreacht na hÉireann".
Back to Top
toyomotor View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2014
Location: Tasmania, AUST.
Status: Offline
Points: 4394
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote toyomotor Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22 Mar 2014 at 08:16
penguin wrote: "But as I said early, there is lot of evidence these early explorers in the Americas were fishermen. And, once again, the temperature along the Humboldt is pretty cold, all the way down."
 
Are you saying they were all fishermen?
 
They didn't all follow the coastlines to reach their final destinations.
"Tá mé bródúil as mo oidhreacht na hÉireann".
Back to Top
beorna View Drop Down
General
General


Joined: 03 Dec 2007
Location: Lower Saxony
Status: Offline
Points: 799
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote beorna Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22 Mar 2014 at 11:59
Originally posted by toyomotor toyomotor wrote:

beorna wrote:
"I mentioned that above. But that artefacts in Australia are dated to 60,000 yBP or even 62,000 years doesn't mean, that these people were the ones who left Africa 70,000 years ago. These artefacts may be as well results of modern humans who migrated before, like those of Qafzeh e.g.. Nobody can say this with certainty. But we have another difference. All those regions lay in a quite similar tropic sub-tropical area. In America the polar or sub-polar fisher-men or mammoth-hunters had to cross several climatic zones."
 
Nor does it mean they weren't.
 
I don't know who you mean when you suggest that they may have been modern humans who migrated before.
 
No one knows when the Australian Aborigines first left Africa, the same as no one really knows when the migration into the Americas began. And I don't necessarily mean the arrival date, I mean the date when they started moving in that direction.
 
Artefacts can only suggest habitation at a certain point in time. Further finds could turn current day belief on its head.
 
I think to say that Clovis were Amerindians could be putting the cart before the horse.

Genetic studies seem to show, that the recent human population goes back to a wave that left Africa 70ky BP. Modern humans appear outside Africa already earlier, namely around 120ky BP and the first modern humans evolved 200ky BP, not to mention, that haplogroup A0 is even more than 300ky old. If we find artefacts, which are connected with modern humans, we can't say, whether these modern humans left Africa before 70ky, 120ky or 200ky. That's all I said.
Etiam si omnes, ego non.
Back to Top
beorna View Drop Down
General
General


Joined: 03 Dec 2007
Location: Lower Saxony
Status: Offline
Points: 799
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote beorna Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22 Mar 2014 at 12:01
Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:



But as I said early, there is lot of evidence these early explorers in the Americas were fishermen. And, once again, the temperature along the Humboldt is pretty cold, all the way down. And, if you go up to the Andes in the tropics, don't forget to bring your jacket Wink

Clovis is hardly a fisher-men-culture
Etiam si omnes, ego non.
Back to Top
beorna View Drop Down
General
General


Joined: 03 Dec 2007
Location: Lower Saxony
Status: Offline
Points: 799
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote beorna Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22 Mar 2014 at 12:03
Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:

Originally posted by beorna beorna wrote:


If these populations would have been sedentary, one could support your claim. But the early americans weren't. And of course we need a scenario which can explain, how people who migrated to the Americas in 15000 could arive in 14800 in Chile or in 16000 in Meadowcraft Rockshelter, Pennsylvania.


Quite simple: they walk.

If I start my walk at 10 o'clock in the morning, I'll have some problems to arrive at 8 o'clock on the same morning! especially if my destination is hundreds or thousands of miles away.
Etiam si omnes, ego non.
Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 15238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22 Mar 2014 at 16:32
Originally posted by toyomotor toyomotor wrote:

penguin wrote:
"Now, I bet the process of peopling of the Americas is by now a lot better understood than the migrations to Australia."
 
Your arrogance is astounding! Angry.


Why it is arrogant to tell the truth? There have been a lot more scientific research in the field of the settling of the Americas than Australia. Besides, you are aware that the events in the Americas are from around 15.000 years ago, but the arrival to Australia happened 60.000 years ago, which is 4 times earlier!!! And, of course there are less evidence for such a remote event.

Originally posted by toyomotor toyomotor wrote:


YOU obviously don't know much about the arrival of our Aborigines into Australia, but most people of my age do.


You are absolutely wrong. One of my favorite cultures outside the Americas are the aborigines of Australia. I have been fascinated with theirs inventions, like the boomerang and the didjeridu. I am also fascinated with theirs astronomy, legends, art and thinking. I am also surprised with the agriculture of theirs cousins, the natives of New Guinea.
Please, try to read and understand what I said before debunking it.

Originally posted by toyomotor toyomotor wrote:

I regard the rest of your post, as more ethnocentric dribble.
 

Absolutely nonsense. My ethnicity is Chilean. I am mainly Southern European in ancestry (Spanish, Italian, French), perhaps with some Arab and Jewish flavoring (for same reason my name is "Omar"), but certainly I must have some indigenous ancestry as well. But I am not ethnically indigenous, and I am not in an indigenous campaign to regain lands, not in a revenge crusade. I just want that the truth about Amerindians is know! However, I have the common worldview of Latin Americans. Nothing else.

Originally posted by toyomotor toyomotor wrote:


I think it would be more correct to say that Clovis became the American Indians.
 

The correct anthropological and technical name is "paleoindians".
 
Originally posted by toyomotor toyomotor wrote:


But you can't respond to the Creek Indian phenotypes that I posted, can you. And don't say they were of mixed origin, because they weren't.


Sir. Native Americans mixed quite a lot with Europeans all over the Americas. The case of Pocahontas was not an isolated event. Besides, it is well known that some Amerindians resemble Europeans, and the other way around as well. Otherwise, you wouldn't explain how some people convinced the rest they were Indians, when in fact were Europeans! For instance, the famous ecologist Grey Owl was British!!! And nobody noticed for a long time Confused




Edited by pinguin - 22 Mar 2014 at 16:34
Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 15238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22 Mar 2014 at 16:37
Originally posted by toyomotor toyomotor wrote:

penguin wrote: "But as I said early, there is lot of evidence these early explorers in the Americas were fishermen. And, once again, the temperature along the Humboldt is pretty cold, all the way down."
 
Are you saying they were all fishermen?
 
They didn't all follow the coastlines to reach their final destinations.


I am trying to explain you guys that the peopling of Southern South America was done first by fishermen. That's why you find natives in the Land of Fire around 12000 ybp, just a few centuries after they entered Beringia. And certainly, the migrants divided in different groups that settled in all the environments of the Americas, which is a region with lot of variety in ecological places.
Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 15238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22 Mar 2014 at 16:39
Originally posted by beorna beorna wrote:


Clovis is hardly a fisher-men-culture


Certainly. Therefore is unlikely the settlers of Southern South America were Clovis, because the first cultures that reached this region were fishermen.
Back to Top
toyomotor View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2014
Location: Tasmania, AUST.
Status: Offline
Points: 4394
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote toyomotor Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23 Mar 2014 at 00:57
penguin:
 
But wait, there's more!
Re your "Fishermen" comment-see the below hyperlink to articles, very interesting.
 
 


Edited by toyomotor - 23 Mar 2014 at 06:49
"Tá mé bródúil as mo oidhreacht na hÉireann".
Back to Top
toyomotor View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2014
Location: Tasmania, AUST.
Status: Offline
Points: 4394
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote toyomotor Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23 Mar 2014 at 06:51
Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:

Originally posted by beorna beorna wrote:


Clovis is hardly a fisher-men-culture


Certainly. Therefore is unlikely the settlers of Southern South America were Clovis, because the first cultures that reached this region were fishermen.
So, if they're not of the Clovis culture, they're Solutrean, right?
Wink
"Tá mé bródúil as mo oidhreacht na hÉireann".
Back to Top
beorna View Drop Down
General
General


Joined: 03 Dec 2007
Location: Lower Saxony
Status: Offline
Points: 799
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote beorna Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23 Mar 2014 at 09:35
Originally posted by toyomotor toyomotor wrote:

penguin:
 
But wait, there's more!
Re your "Fishermen" comment-see the below hyperlink to articles, very interesting.
 
 

I would like to know, why the great wave has to be the pacific coast migration and the small the rocky mountain way migration?

Originally posted by toyomotor toyomotor wrote:


That there is DNA found in western asia or eastern europe which is similar to native american DNA doesn't mean, that native american have such ancestry. It only shows, that people in that regions share some DNA with native americans, that's all.
Etiam si omnes, ego non.
Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 15238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23 Mar 2014 at 15:12
Originally posted by toyomotor toyomotor wrote:

So, if they're not of the Clovis culture, they're Solutrean, right?
Wink


Please. Take a quick introduction to logic. Confused
Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 15238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23 Mar 2014 at 15:18
Originally posted by beorna beorna wrote:


I would like to know, why the great wave has to be the pacific coast migration and the small the rocky mountain way migration?


Who is talking about great and small waves? The question was other. It was asked how much it would take to peopling the Americas once people crossed from Beringia, and the answer was just a few centuries. That has nothing to do with the hypothesis of two or more waves that crossed across Beringia.

Originally posted by toyomotor toyomotor wrote:

That there is DNA found in western asia or eastern europe which is similar to native american DNA doesn't mean, that native american have such ancestry. It only shows, that people in that regions share some DNA with native americans, that's all.


They not only share DNA, but some cultural patterns and the origins of theirs languages. Native Americans are Siberians cousins, whether you like it or not.

 
Back to Top
beorna View Drop Down
General
General


Joined: 03 Dec 2007
Location: Lower Saxony
Status: Offline
Points: 799
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote beorna Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23 Mar 2014 at 16:33
Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:

Originally posted by beorna beorna wrote:


I would like to know, why the great wave has to be the pacific coast migration and the small the rocky mountain way migration?


Who is talking about great and small waves? The question was other. It was asked how much it would take to peopling the Americas once people crossed from Beringia, and the answer was just a few centuries. That has nothing to do with the hypothesis of two or more waves that crossed across Beringia.

toyomotors first link says this. Hunters and gatherers can't get unlimited numbers of children. Cos they are wandering, there can only be a child every three years are something like this. So an increase of the population was limited. It is still unbelievable, that 42,5 million sq.km were populated within a few centuries, where it needed millenia to settle the old world.

Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:

Originally posted by toyomotor toyomotor wrote:

That there is DNA found in western asia or eastern europe which is similar to native american DNA doesn't mean, that native american have such ancestry. It only shows, that people in that regions share some DNA with native americans, that's all.


They not only share DNA, but some cultural patterns and the origins of theirs languages. Native Americans are Siberians cousins, whether you like it or not.


I wrote this, not toyomotor. And you as well misunderstood my posting. I answered to toyomotor and his links, who link europeans with native americans.
Etiam si omnes, ego non.
Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 15238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23 Mar 2014 at 16:49
OK. I got it.

Well, I will answer just one problem above. It is not necessary to fill a whole hemisphere to put people all over the places. For instance, when the first men arrived to Land of Fire I doubt the rest of the continent was fully populated. They could be perhaps a hundred bands of some 50 individuals each the full population in South America at that time (which would make 5.000 people!). But because they moved at random, certainly they would reach the southern edge sooner or later. The only point is that this happened 12000 ybp and probably crossing started perhaps no more than 3.000 years before that date.

Now, even at the time of contact, the density of the New World was lower than in the rest of the world, and that's why it could be invaded with relative easy.


Edited by pinguin - 23 Mar 2014 at 16:52
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <123>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 11.10
Copyright ©2001-2017 Web Wiz Ltd.

This page was generated in 0.218 seconds.