Archeology

[Misty_Morning]

If you look at a world atlas, you will immediately see that the West coast of Africa in the areas around modern Freetown or Monrovia makes the closest approach to the South American continent. It is not impossible that very early Africans were caught in a storm off the West cost of Africa and blown to South America.

RR...you got me thinking about something else that I saw. I was about a tribe of indegenous people in South America at the far tip of SA. At the time of the documentary there were only two survivors or the tribe, two sisters. What was so intrigueing was that anthropologists had been wondering about these people for quite sometime. Their hut building and there customs just didn't fit in with anyone else on the continent. I'm a little bit foggy on the facts right now but I do believe the DNA of the two sisters did indicate African origins. I can't remember the time frame of the genome.


Hmmm..I've got research to do....I hate not recalling information.

 

[R. Richard]

RR...you got me thinking about something else that I saw. I was about a tribe of indegenous people in South America at the far tip of SA. At the time of the documentary there were only two survivors or the tribe, two sisters. What was so intrigueing was that anthropologists had been wondering about these people for quite sometime. Their hut building and there customs just didn't fit in with anyone else on the continent. I'm a little bit foggy on the facts right now but I do believe the DNA of the two sisters did indicate African origins. I can't remember the time frame of the genome.


Hmmm..I've got research to do....I hate not recalling information.

Please do the research. We are uncovering a lot of interesting facts.

 

[Jenny_Jackson]

The problem with Kennewick Man, RR is even different than you are saying. He seems to be a total oddity. 93-9500 years ago nobody lived in the "Horse Heaven"/Tri-Cities area along the Columbia River. There seem to have been hunter-gatherer tribes that roamed the southern part of the Blue Mountains 40 miles north, but where he was found is a sand pile where nothing can live.

In fact, that is most likely where Kennewick Man came from. Since he had a clovis point buried in his hip means he didn't travel hundreds of miles from home.

What's irritating is he's become a political football being thrown around by the Confederated Tribes of the Columbia River Basin, which are the Nez Perce, Yakima's, Klickatats, Celilos and some others. Their claim is he is their ancestor. Since these tribes didn't move to the Pacific Northwest until around 1500 years ago, that's a hard claim to prove. He'd already been dead for 8000 years when they arrived from the plaines states.

Is there any valid reason to stop an investigation of Kennewick Man? The likely outcome would be to prove he is in no way related to the current tribes in the region. What is more likely is he is related to the Innuit people of Western Canada and the Gulf region of Alaska.

Would an examination of Kennewick Man advance out knowlege? There's a good chance, yes. How much? How can anyone answer that?

 

[R. Richard]

The problem with Kennewick Man, RR is even different than you are saying. He seems to be a total oddity. 93-9500 years ago nobody lived in the "Horse Heaven"/Tri-Cities area along the Columbia River. There seem to have been hunter-gatherer tribes that roamed the southern part of the Blue Mountains 40 miles north, but where he was found is a sand pile where nothing can live.

In fact, that is most likely where Kennewick Man came from. Since he had a clovis point buried in his hip means he didn't travel hundreds of miles from home.

What's irritating is he's become a political football being thrown around by the Confederated Tribes of the Columbia River Basin, which are the Nez Perce, Yakima's, Klickatats, Celilos and some others. Their claim is he is their ancestor. Since these tribes didn't move to the Pacific Northwest until around 1500 years ago, that's a hard claim to prove. He'd already been dead for 8000 years when they arrived from the plaines states.

Is there any valid reason to stop an investigation of Kennewick Man? The likely outcome would be to prove he is in no way related to the current tribes in the region. What is more likely is he is related to the Innuit people of Western Canada and the Gulf region of Alaska.

Would an examination of Kennewick Man advance out knowlege? There's a good chance, yes. How much? How can anyone answer that?

No one can tell in advance how much or how little might be learned from an examination of the Kennewick Man remains. The only way that knowledge can be gained is to do the examination. However, it is possible that an enormous amount of knowledge can be gained.

If examination of the Kennewick Man remains prove that he is indeed an Amerind, then the remains can be turned over to the Amerinds for proper burial.

If examination of the Kennewick Man remains prove that he is NOT an Amerind, then there is solid evidence that there is another group of immigrants to the new world from someplace. Where someplace is and how the immigrants got to the new world would be of enormous value in understanding our past and possiblyu the past of somewhere.

The problem is that knowledge of the distant past is acquired very slowly and what is acquired is tiny, scattered pieces of data. However, one tiny piece of data can open a whole new area of investigation.

The answer to your question is, the investigation of the remains of Kennewick Man is of very great importance. The investigation of the remains might yield nothing of importance. It is more likely that the investigation of the remains will yield truly important data. In any case, it is important to investigate the remains.

The remains of Kennewick Man are not going to be displayed at a carnival, the remains will be examined for scientific data and then either retained for more scientific examination or turned over to the Amerinds for burial.

 

[cloudy]

I posted this article about Kennewich Man in my NA thread almost a year ago.

Still doesn't prove anything, but it's interesting reading, just the same.

(and it feels really, really odd to be discussed like a race that's extinct, y'all)

 

[R. Richard]

I posted this article about Kennewich Man in my NA thread almost a year ago.

Still doesn't prove anything, but it's interesting reading, just the same.

(and it feels really, really odd to be discussed like a race that's extinct, y'all)

An interesting article Cloudy. It would seem that Kennewick Man was most likely not Caucasian, but more likely Asian from the Japan area. This last seems to agree with WH's analysis about the route from Japan.

The earliest immigrants to the Americas were almost certainly small groups of probably hunter gatherers. It now appears that some of them might well have arrived by boat, perhaps driven by storms. If they were small groups, they might well have experienced genetic drift from their original racial characteristics.

I know that Amerinds lack the vertigo that most Europeans have. I have no idea if the prehistoric Siberians also lacked the vertigo. If not, then the Amerinds may well have been a slight mutation fom the original stock. When you have a very small band of hunter gatherers, you can get a lot of change fairly quickly.

Also, it is not impossible that several groups arrived at not too distant intervals and possibly interbred.

 

[cloudy]

An interesting article Cloudy. It would seem that Kennewick Man was most likely not Caucasian, but more likely Asian from the Japan area. This last seems to agree with WH's analysis about the route from Japan.

The earliest immigrants to the Americas were almost certainly small groups of probably hunter gatherers. It now appears that some of them might well have arrived by boat, perhaps driven by storms. If they were small groups, they might well have experienced genetic drift from their original racial characteristics.

I know that Amerinds lack the vertigo that most Europeans have. I have no idea if the prehistoric Siberians also lacked the vertigo. If not, then the Amerinds may well have been a slight mutation fom the original stock. When you have a very small band of hunter gatherers, you can get a lot of change fairly quickly.

Also, it is not impossible that several groups arrived at not too distant intervals and possibly interbred.

Our teeth are also different than any other racial group. I think they call them "shovel" teeth, for some reason...the way they're shaped is different, even from our asiatic roots.

And, yep, I've yet to meet one that's the least bit afraid of heights. In fact, my SO used to do high rise rigging/window cleaning...never bothered him.

 

[Weird Harold]

Actually, there are sites in Brazil that date back to up to 50,000 years ago. However, the Clovis Police have effectively prevented any real discussion of the findings.

Like I said, those were the three oldest I knew of; I haven't seen anything about 50,000 year-old finds in Brazil. I think the Monte Verde site in Chile is 30,000 to 35,000 years old and that's the oldest I know anything about.

I'd like to know more about what the Florida site I mentioned has come up with; it was an underwater site in a spring, so it is difficult to excavate and difficult to date, but it was presumed to be mid-to-late Ice-age because it's below (modern) sea-level (or about 1,000 - 3,000 years or so pre-clovis.)

 

[R. Richard]

Like I said, those were the three oldest I knew of; I haven't seen anything about 50,000 year-old finds in Brazil. I think the Monte Verde site in Chile is 30,000 to 35,000 years old and that's the oldest I know anything about.

I'd like to know more about what the Florida site I mentioned has come up with; it was an underwater site in a spring, so it is difficult to excavate and difficult to date, but it was presumed to be mid-to-late Ice-age because it's below (modern) sea-level (or about 1,000 - 3,000 years or so pre-clovis.)

Cloudy was kind enough to post a very interesting link a few posts back. The link includes a listing of ancient new world sites. Check it out!

 

[Jenny_Jackson]

Like I said, those were the three oldest I knew of; I haven't seen anything about 50,000 year-old finds in Brazil. I think the Monte Verde site in Chile is 30,000 to 35,000 years old and that's the oldest I know anything about.

I'd like to know more about what the Florida site I mentioned has come up with; it was an underwater site in a spring, so it is difficult to excavate and difficult to date, but it was presumed to be mid-to-late Ice-age because it's below (modern) sea-level (or about 1,000 - 3,000 years or so pre-clovis.)

This is an interesting site, WH. There seems to have been to eras of occupation in the area. The oldest 12000-9000 years ago. The second 7000-5000 years ago. Both periods were after the last ice age. The older period consists of artifacts found in the sink hole itself. The Younger period consists of a grave yard just east of the site in a bog.

It's interesting that the site was given over to the University of Miami Department of Anthropology, who ran directly to the State Legislature and had the site sealed from everyone but their own people. This was some 10 years ago. Very little info has come out since then. But his is typical of the jealousy displayed in general by archeologists everywhere. They have the data and research and "you can't have it!" has been the attitute for many years.

Eventually there will be a critique of the work there. But when?

Louis Leaky's son finally published his father's last papers a year ago, some 35 years after his death

 

[Guest]

I came across a book a while back entitled something like "Columbus wasn't first" although I can't find it on Amazon, and I'm too lazy to go upstairs and look for it.

It was about possible pre-Columbian sea contact with the New World. A lot of it was hooey, with reliance on some guy who could translate found writings (or odd markings on rocks) to be whatever he wanted.

But, there was the one scientifically agreed pre-contact (The Norse) and several interesting ones that could be true.

The two most interesting and I thought valid, was 1000 AD era Japanese Pottery found in Ecuador. Fisherman fishing off Japan, if swept out to sea by storm, would find themselves in a current that would sweep along the Aleutians, past Alaska, and down the N.A. Pacific coast. Ecuador, sticking out, would be the first landfall. The journey would take 45 days drifting, so it is possible they'd live that long.

The other was the Polynesian. Their ability to navigate long distances two ways is well documented. They did get to Easter Island, which is closer to the S.A. coast than some of the distances they were known to travel. And a staple of Polynesian diet is the sweet potato. And the sweet potato is indigenous to...wait for it...S. America.

The landbridge still probably contributed the bulk of the DNA into the Americas, but these other contacts might have contributed more.

I also remember a visit to the hills of Tenn, and Virginia border and having some Mediterranean appearing people pointed out. They themselves don't know where they come from, only that they've been in those parts forever. This was pre-DNA tests and the thinking then was they were Phoenicians from a storm diverted ship.

 

[R. Richard]

But, there was the one scientifically agreed pre-contact (The Norse) and several interesting ones that could be true.

The other was the Polynesian. Their ability to navigate long distances two ways is well documented. They did get to Easter Island, which is closer to the S.A. coast than some of the distances they were known to travel. And a staple of Polynesian diet is the sweet potato. And the sweet potato is indigenous to...wait for it...S. America.

A man named Bjarni Herulfson was the first non-Amerind person actually documented to have seen North America. That was in the year 986. In or around the year 1010, Thorfin Karlsefni attempted to establish a colony in 'Vinland.' They have just recently found the remains of a typical Norse farm in Newfoundland. It is now accepted that the Northmen actually did try to establish a colony and that the farm they found is the remains. [The Northmen's religion allowed for evil creatures who could take the form of men. However, the evil creatures could not be killed. When the Norsemen encounterd 'skraelings,' actually Amerinds, they tried to kill them and succeeded thus establishing the humanity of the Amerinds. Were the Amerinds grateful? The Amerinds were not grateful and eventually drove the Northmen out of Vinland.]

The polynesians might have reached the shores of South America. They sailed everywhere, looking for new islands to colonize. However, the polynesians were actually quite warlike and may have assumed that the Amerinds they might have encounterred were also warlike. In any case, there is no record of polynesian settlement in the Americas.

You have to remember, that early sailors really had no navigational instruments and no weather forecasts. They went out on the water hoping for the best. A sudden storm could well have pushed some of them to the Americas. Of course, most sailing crews were all male. However, it is not too far out of line to imagine a tribe, including families that were fleeing from enemies and ran before a storm and wound up in the Americas. However, they never published.

 

[Guest]

A man named Bjarni Herulfson was the first non-Amerind person actually documented

...

You have to remember, that early sailors really had no navigational instruments and no weather forecasts. They went out on the water hoping for the best. A sudden storm could well have pushed some of them to the Americas. Of course, most sailing crews were all male. However, it is not too far out of line to imagine a tribe, including families that were fleeing from enemies and ran before a storm and wound up in the Americas. However, they never published.

I wasn't suggesting the Polynesian colonized--although they might have left a fathered child or two behind is all I was saying.

Just information I'm adding to the discussion...

This time I did try and find the book upstairs, but failed. Guess I need to clean up.

I have a book written back in the 60's where a guy tracked down Polynesian Navigators and sailed with them. They had quite a rich tool set of navigation abilities. Celestial navigation was handed down from generation to generation. They also had ability to tell about far off land by wave patterns, birds, items found floating on the sea etc. Detailed chants passed paths down generations.

Had they set off from Easter, heading East, they would have had a much information as Columbus had sailing West. The difference is, the Polynesians would have likely known sooner they were approaching land, than did Columbus.

 

[Misty_Morning]

I also remember a visit to the hills of Tenn, and Virginia border and having some Mediterranean appearing people pointed out. They themselves don't know where they come from, only that they've been in those parts forever. This was pre-DNA tests and the thinking then was they were Phoenicians from a storm diverted ship.

Absolutely correct Ted. That particular ethnic group is called Melungeon. They found primarily in Northeastern TN, SW VA, and KY. I have a friend whose father is Melungeon and he still resides in that area. Most believe they are Turkish, North African, American Indian, and European. Pretty cool actually.

 

[R. Richard]

Absolutely correct Ted. That particular ethnic group is called Melungeon. They found primarily in Northeastern TN, SW VA, and KY. I have a friend whose father is Melungeon and he still resides in that area. Most believe they are Turkish, North African, American Indian, and European. Pretty cool actually.

I checked Wikipedia. It would appear that some rather careful studies have been done and the church and tax records in the area indicate that the Melugeons came into the areas where they now live at about the same time as the rest of the Scotch, Irish settlers. Their genetic background is about what you might expect from the coastal area from where they most likely came. They have a little Scotch, Irish, Spanish, Portuguese, Amerind and Negro ancestry. Since the last was not too highly valued in the area, they became mysterious Melungeons.

 

[Misty_Morning]

I checked Wikipedia. It would appear that some rather careful studies have been done and the church and tax records in the area indicate that the Melugeons came into the areas where they now live at about the same time as the rest of the Scotch, Irish settlers. Their genetic background is about what you might expect from the coastal area from where they most likely came. They have a little Scotch, Irish, Spanish, Portuguese, Amerind and Negro ancestry. Since the last was not too highly valued in the area, they became mysterious Melungeons.

I find the Melungeons pretty fascinating just cuz of my friend. The more you learn about something the more you want to learn. Here's a couple of links that are useful Cyndi's List/ Melungeons and Sephardic Jews and Moors / Melungeons. I think this thread is great, I'm thinking about stuff I have considered in years. Thanks RR!

 

[CharleyH]

This will bore some of the Literotica people, but the growing acceptance that the Clovis people were NOT the first Americans is a major step in understanding our heritage. Comments?

Experts doubt Clovis people were first in Americas

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Clovis people, known for their distinctive spear points, likely were not the first humans in the Americas, according to research placing their presence as more recent than previously believed.

Using advanced radiocarbon dating techniques, researchers writing in the journal Science on Thursday said the Clovis people, hunters of large Ice Age animals like mammoths and mastodons, dated from about 13,100 to 12,900 years ago.

That would make the Clovis culture, known from artifacts discovered at various sites including the town of Clovis, New Mexico, both younger and shorter-lived than previously thought. Previous estimates had dated the culture to about 13,600 years ago.

These people long had been seen as the first humans in the New World, but the new dates suggest their culture thrived at about the same time or after others also in the Americas.

Michael Waters, director of Texas A&M University's Center for the Study of the First Americans, called the research the final nail in the coffin of the so-called "Clovis first" theory of human origins in the New World.

Waters said he thinks the first people probably arrived in the Americas between 15,000 and 25,000 years ago.

"We've got to stop thinking about the peopling of the Americas as a singular event," Waters said in an interview.

"And we have to start now thinking about the peopling of the Americas as a process, with people coming over here, probably arriving at different times, maybe taking different routes and coming from different places in northeast Asia."

Waters and co-author Thomas Stafford, a radiocarbon dating expert, tested samples from various Clovis archeological sites to try to get a more accurate accounting of their age. Technological advances enabled them to more precisely pinpoint dates for some Clovis sites excavated in North America.

The theory has been that the Clovis people first migrated out of northeast Asia across the Bering land bridge from Siberia into Alaska and traveled through a ice-free corridor into North America, populating that continent while their descendants journeyed into South America.

Asked who were the first people in the Americas if not the Clovis, Waters answered, "That's a good question."

"I think that's what we've got to work toward -- a new model for the peopling of the Americas, and I think we need to create a coherent model that's based on genetic data, geological evidence as well as archeological data."

I love history, anthropology, archaeology and geneology - so no real surprises to me, RR. It is nothing "really" new, yet I am sure a new theory will arrive one day, soon.

 

[R. Richard]

I love history, anthropology, archaeology and geneology - so no real surprises to me, RR. It is nothing "really" new, yet I am sure a new theory will arrive one day, soon.

There are any number of tantalizing little facts floating around the archeology community that just need to be analyzed until one provable non-land-bridge migration is discovered and then we will see all sorts of evidence that people were afraid to produce because of the Clovis Police.

 

[CharleyH]

There are any number of tantalizing little facts floating around the archeology community that just need to be analyzed until one provable non-land-bridge migration is discovered and then we will see all sorts of evidence that people were afraid to produce because of the Clovis Police.

LOL - KISS!

I disagree with the whole land bridge hypothesis. I think hominids and Neanderthals were here long before that.

 

[Jenny_Jackson]

If I remember correctly, the last ice age ended around 10,000 years ago. If Kennewick Man was wandering around the Mid-Columbia River 9500 years ago, then the Land Bridge theory falls apart. There was no need for it. Man simply walked across the ice to North America.

Does this mean there weren't people arriving by boat? I don't think that's an unlikely possibility. If you walk along the beach on the Oregon Coast, you find candy wrappers that were dropped in the Pacific in Tokyo. The currents carry all the way across the ocean, so why not a lost boat?

 

[Weird Harold]

I think hominids and Neanderthals were here long before that.

Problem with that viewpoint, is that there are, AFAIK, absolutely zero finds of Neanderthal and/or homonid remains in the Americas. I can understand why there might not be any homonid remains -- they're extremely rare outside of Africa and southern Asia -- but Neanderthal remains are pretty common, i.e. easy to find, in the areas where they lived.

 

[CharleyH]

can understand why there might not be any homonid remains -- they're extremely rare outside of Africa and southern Asia -- but Neanderthal remains are pretty common, i.e. easy to find, in the areas where they lived.

You are quite very wrong, and no offence, love.

 

[amicus]

Misty_Morning]RR...you got me thinking about something else that I saw. I was about a tribe of indegenous people in South America at the far tip of SA. At the time of the documentary there were only two survivors or the tribe, two sisters. What was so intrigueing was that anthropologists had been wondering about these people for quite sometime. Their hut building and there customs just didn't fit in with anyone else on the continent. I'm a little bit foggy on the facts right now but I do believe the DNA of the two sisters did indicate African origins. I can't remember the time frame of the genome.


Hmmm..I've got research to do....I hate not recalling information.

[/I]

~~~
Hi, Misty...I saw that piece also, the two sisters, but as I recall their heritage suggested a polynesian background if I remember rightly....really a great thread, sorry I missed it...


amicus...

 

[Misty_Morning]

[/I]

~~~
Hi, Misty...I saw that piece also, the two sisters, but as I recall their heritage suggested a polynesian background if I remember rightly....really a great thread, sorry I missed it...


amicus...

Thanks ami....I knew it was something rather unique to this particular tribe...ahhh, with age my memory escapes me. Any assistance is greatly appreciated.