Saru Posted April 30, 2013 #1 Share Posted April 30, 2013 New evidence has been found which suggests humans reached South America far earlier than thought. Humans lived in South America at the height of the last ice age, thousands of years earlier than we thought, according to a controversial study. A team claims to have found 22,000-year-old stone tools at a site in Brazil, though other archaeologists are disputing the claim. Read more... 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
freetoroam Posted April 30, 2013 #2 Share Posted April 30, 2013 "Of course America had been discovered before Columbus, but it had always been hushed up"...Oscar Wilde. 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dark_Grey Posted April 30, 2013 #3 Share Posted April 30, 2013 You mean they weren't Israelites that later became the Indians and Mexicans? Joseph Smith couldn't be THAT off, could he? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank Merton Posted April 30, 2013 #4 Share Posted April 30, 2013 I will believe it when there is much better evidence than now; in the meantime a much later date seems more likely, although even then several thousands of years before Noah. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marcos anthony toledo Posted April 30, 2013 #5 Share Posted April 30, 2013 They have been hiding evidence of human settlement of the Americans likely the Americas was settled for centuries. It is more than likely a 100.000 to 250,000 year record of settlement exist but is denied for political and racist reasons. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bavarian Raven Posted April 30, 2013 #6 Share Posted April 30, 2013 Honestly, the 20-40 thousand year ago range seems most likely. Doesn't mean these populations were successful and could have easily died off due to disease or natural disasters, etc, but the 12 thousand year ago mark just seems too late. Humans are adventurous creatures after all and can/will spread whereever possible as quickly as possible. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paperdyer Posted April 30, 2013 #7 Share Posted April 30, 2013 (edited) This goes along with the dig on my company's plant site in Martin, SC. There is strong evidence that humans were in North America around that time as well. Edited April 30, 2013 by paperdyer 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Silver Surfer Posted April 30, 2013 #8 Share Posted April 30, 2013 Bloody hell... humans reached everywhere before everyone thought... recorded history doesn't mean sh*te! I think we should gift all our land in the world to the neanderthals (yes i know a few) they were there first. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sheep Smart Posted April 30, 2013 #9 Share Posted April 30, 2013 Where do they get the "2,000" from? Not 20, 000 but precisely 22, 000.?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calaf Posted April 30, 2013 #10 Share Posted April 30, 2013 You mean they weren't Israelites that later became the Indians and Mexicans? Joseph Smith couldn't be THAT off, could he? You forgot the Egyptians in the Grand Canyon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+DieChecker Posted April 30, 2013 #11 Share Posted April 30, 2013 From the OP Link: Stones falling from above can break, making them look like human-made tools. As a result, McNabb calls the evidence "suggestive but unproven". I tend to fall into this group. Many of the pictures I've seen online from the oldest of these Pre-Clovis sites appear (to me) to be randomly faulted gravel. I do agree that there is very good evidence in several places of pre-Clovis occupation, but some of the more ancient claims seem to be very less well evidenced, to put it kindly. Finding charcoal and findin faulted rocks does not equal human habitation. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Abramelin Posted May 1, 2013 #12 Share Posted May 1, 2013 (edited) Same topic, 6 weeks ago http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=244814 . Edited May 1, 2013 by Abramelin 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+DieChecker Posted May 1, 2013 #13 Share Posted May 1, 2013 Same topic, 6 weeks ago http://www.unexplain...howtopic=244814 There are the pictures of the gravel I was talking about. I've seen many much more arrow-heady stones walking randomly around the Oregon countryside. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coolguy Posted May 1, 2013 #14 Share Posted May 1, 2013 I think people where here sooner.but did they stay thats the question. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank Merton Posted May 1, 2013 #15 Share Posted May 1, 2013 As I understand the finds, and they are really not convincing, there may have been humans in the Americas 22,000 years ago according to the dating of materials found associated with what may be stone tools, but the association is debated. When the last ice age began to end, real movements of Siberian populations happened geologically very rapidly (less than a thousand years) and quickly populated the Americas head to toe. Subsequently several other waves of migration may also have happened and the Americas may have been visited but not settled successfully by Chinese, Japanese, Polynesians, Scandinavians, and maybe even Romans. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keithisco Posted May 1, 2013 #16 Share Posted May 1, 2013 (edited) From the article: The stone tool remains are not indiginous to the Dig Location. They came from 15Kms away, so those who dispute the findings will need to come up with a credible means for the translocation of these artefacts to the dig site. "Randomly Faulted Gravel" does not explain this. As for the dating: "The team dated the sediments in which the tools were buried using a technique that determines when the sediments were last exposed to light. Some tools were buried 22,000 years ago" Edited May 1, 2013 by keithisco 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parsec Posted May 1, 2013 #17 Share Posted May 1, 2013 From the OP Link: I tend to fall into this group. Many of the pictures I've seen online from the oldest of these Pre-Clovis sites appear (to me) to be randomly faulted gravel. I do agree that there is very good evidence in several places of pre-Clovis occupation, but some of the more ancient claims seem to be very less well evidenced, to put it kindly. Finding charcoal and findin faulted rocks does not equal human habitation. There are the pictures of the gravel I was talking about. I've seen many much more arrow-heady stones walking randomly around the Oregon countryside. Surely, given the implications, it requires further analysis, but this time things could be slightly different from other researches and findigs. Consider that Eric Boeda is one of the most authoritative European researchers and anthropologists of our times, so, if HE writes something like this, the least we can do is listen to him and think deeply before replying. To me sometimes we forget that we're not experts (at least, I can't consider me one), but (at the very best) well educated people with a well developed thinking method. It's always a good thing to think with our own minds and don't follow blindly what others say, but we have to consider that if someone who did this job for more than 30 years, who's spent three years on site and, like I wrote, is one of the most influential anthropoligists alive, well, maybe he knows what he's talking about and more than we do. And who knows, maybe you've just missed a great finding in Oregon, because of your untrained eye (obviously no offense intended, it's really hard to recognize stone tools)! That's why I'm very interested in the finding, because Boeda has a very well trained eye (much more than many of his collegues)! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Myles Posted May 1, 2013 #18 Share Posted May 1, 2013 Surely, given the implications, it requires further analysis, but this time things could be slightly different from other researches and findigs. Consider that Eric Boeda is one of the most authoritative European researchers and anthropologists of our times, so, if HE writes something like this, the least we can do is listen to him and think deeply before replying. To me sometimes we forget that we're not experts (at least, I can't consider me one), but (at the very best) well educated people with a well developed thinking method. It's always a good thing to think with our own minds and don't follow blindly what others say, but we have to consider that if someone who did this job for more than 30 years, who's spent three years on site and, like I wrote, is one of the most influential anthropoligists alive, well, maybe he knows what he's talking about and more than we do. And who knows, maybe you've just missed a great finding in Oregon, because of your untrained eye (obviously no offense intended, it's really hard to recognize stone tools)! That's why I'm very interested in the finding, because Boeda has a very well trained eye (much more than many of his collegues)! I didn't see where anyone posted that he was full of crap. As it is good for him to question current thinking, it is good for him to be questioned. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PersonFromPorlock Posted May 1, 2013 #19 Share Posted May 1, 2013 (edited) I can't see any reason why humans wouldn't have spread from Siberia to Alaska (and points south) as soon as they developed the ability to cross short stretches of open ocean, which must have been >40KYA. On the other hand, it's a little hard to see why the 'settlers' would have abandoned several hundred thousand years of stone-shaping technology, to judge by the crudeness of the 'tools'. Edited May 1, 2013 by PersonFromPorlock Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank Merton Posted May 1, 2013 #20 Share Posted May 1, 2013 You are talking about centuries. People walk pretty fast. Not to be perverse, but that really is all it takes. They will spread to the extremes first and then fill in the middle. It's not at all like the population pressure that tends to cause migrations into already occupied territory. If what's in front of you is empty of people, each generation will push on, even if country behind is left empty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parsec Posted May 1, 2013 #21 Share Posted May 1, 2013 I didn't see where anyone posted that he was full of crap. As it is good for him to question current thinking, it is good for him to be questioned. I didn't write it. Where do I write that someone thinks he's full of crap? I was answering DieChecker that, althought (like you wrote) it's good to question what someone says and not believe blindly to him/her, sometimes it's better wait further analysis before dismissing an hypothesis, particuraly if it's formulated by someone who knows well what he's saying. He's not a fringe selfmade "researcher", he's a "real" anthropologist. Maybe we can give him some credit. It's weird that we demand for more "official" archaeology and anthropology to be more "openminded" and then when some of the "officials" say something out of orthodoxy, he's dismissed as a probable misinterpretation of data. Anyway, let's close it here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parsec Posted May 1, 2013 #22 Share Posted May 1, 2013 They have been hiding evidence of human settlement of the Americans likely the Americas was settled for centuries. It is more than likely a 100.000 to 250,000 year record of settlement exist but is denied for political and racist reasons. What are you exactly trying to say? If you talk about "Americas", I'd say none said it was settled only for centuries. Never heard of Mexican temples or Bolivian Tiahuanaco for example? They're dated thousands of years old. If you're referring to North America, the same Clovis Culture is dated 13.000 years old. Which records are denied according to you? I'm very interested, since 100.000-250.000 is a big leap in the past. This goes along with the dig on my company's plant site in Martin, SC. There is strong evidence that humans were in North America around that time as well. Can you explain it more thoroughly? Where do they get the "2,000" from? Not 20, 000 but precisely 22, 000.?? Like keithisko quoted, the get that dating by thermoluminescence. As I understand the finds, and they are really not convincing, there may have been humans in the Americas 22,000 years ago according to the dating of materials found associated with what may be stone tools, but the association is debated. When the last ice age began to end, real movements of Siberian populations happened geologically very rapidly (less than a thousand years) and quickly populated the Americas head to toe. Subsequently several other waves of migration may also have happened and the Americas may have been visited but not settled successfully by Chinese, Japanese, Polynesians, Scandinavians, and maybe even Romans. Why according to you the finds aren't convincing? You are talking about centuries. People walk pretty fast. Not to be perverse, but that really is all it takes. They will spread to the extremes first and then fill in the middle. It's not at all like the population pressure that tends to cause migrations into already occupied territory. If what's in front of you is empty of people, each generation will push on, even if country behind is left empty. This topic always fascinated me. Your hypothesis works, but why someone should push on endlessy, or better, 'till the end of earth? They didn't know the American continent's geography, they didn't know what they would have found around the corner. I understand the "sense of adventure", but I guess that a group of few explorers would travel towards the unkown, not entire communities or tribes. Would you risk your children and family's life taking theme to an unknown place, without a real reason? If hunger didn't push them, then why? If you find a place that can give you food and shelter and that's a good place to live, why would you leave it? Can we assume that the whole North America wasn't a good place to live in? And Mexico too? Further, unless there was a physical obstacle that blocked their way (like some theories say), why going only south first? were they bidirectional? It doesn't make too much sense to me and I'd like your thoughts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cormac mac airt Posted May 1, 2013 #23 Share Posted May 1, 2013 (edited) They have been hiding evidence of human settlement of the Americans likely the Americas was settled for centuries. It is more than likely a 100.000 to 250,000 year record of settlement exist but is denied for political and racist reasons. Considering that there is no evidence for human migration in general out of Africa and extending anywhere other than the Levant and Yemen/Oman (the latter dating to c.106,000 BP) and no extensive migration prior to c.50,000 - 70,000 BP then no, it's not likely. cormac Edited May 1, 2013 by cormac mac airt Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Myles Posted May 1, 2013 #24 Share Posted May 1, 2013 They have been hiding evidence of human settlement of the Americans likely the Americas was settled for centuries. It is more than likely a 100.000 to 250,000 year record of settlement exist but is denied for political and racist reasons. I would like to know what these political and racist reasons are. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
freetoroam Posted May 1, 2013 #25 Share Posted May 1, 2013 They have been hiding evidence of human settlement of the Americans likely the Americas was settled for centuries. It is more than likely a 100.000 to 250,000 year record of settlement exist but is denied for political and racist reasons. I too would like to know, what political and racist reasons? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now