Humans were in Brazil 30 000 years ago

[Big Bad Voodoo]

"To date, these are the oldest traces" of human existence in the Americas, she emphasized.

http://news.yahoo.com/prehistoric-brazil-artifacts-star-exhibit-spark-debate-070249845.html

[granpa]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedra_Furada_Site

[+DieChecker]

Very well could be.

I note that these are not the "artifacts" that are called arrowheads, but look like gravel.

[TheWizard]

There has been evidence of people in America before the widely excepted 12,000 year theory before. Hopefully this one has a longer lifespan. Thanks for the link.

[coolguy]

Very cool I bet humans go back farther then this

[Frank Merton]

While the Wiki article does point out that this theory is generally contested and not widely accepted, it downplays the opposition too much. That is getting more and more to be a problem with Wiki articles.

[The_Spartan]

This is not a new 'news".

The Pedra Furada Settlements and especially the Serra da Capivara Site has been explored thoroughly by Archaeologist Niede Guidon.

BBC did a special "Ancient Voices : Tracking the First Americans" which has speculated that the First Inhabitants of the Americas could have been aborigines from Australasia.

[The Puzzler]

This is not a new 'news".

The Pedra Furada Settlements and especially the Serra da Capivara Site has been explored thoroughly by Archaeologist Niede Guidon.

BBC did a special "Ancient Voices : Tracking the First Americans" which has speculated that the First Inhabitants of the Americas could have been aborigines from Australasia.

Yes, I particularly found that information very interesting.

The first Americans were descended from Australian aborigines, according to evidence in a new BBC documentary.

The skulls suggest faces like those of Australian aborigines

The programme, Ancient Voices, shows that the dimensions of prehistoric skulls found in Brazil match those of the aboriginal peoples of Australia and Melanesia. Other evidence suggests that these first Americans were later massacred by invaders from Asia.

Until now, native Americans were believed to have descended from Asian ancestors who arrived over a land bridge between Siberia and Alaska and then migrated across the whole of north and south America. The land bridge was formed 11,000 years ago during the ice age, when sea level dropped.

However, the new evidence shows that these people did not arrive in an empty wilderness. Stone tools and charcoal from the site in Brazil show evidence of human habitation as long ago as 50,000 years.

The site is at Serra Da Capivara in remote northeast Brazil. This area is now inhabited by the descendants of European settlers and African slaves who arrived just 500 years ago.

But cave paintings found here provided the first clue to the existence of a much older people.

http://news.bbc.co.u...ture/430944.stm

Even evidence here in Australia is showing that they may have arrived up to 50,000 - 60,000 years ago in Australia itself.

Although some studies have estimated his age at more than 60,000 years, the current consensus is that he is also about 40,000 years old.

There is evidence of human habitation of the area around Lake Mungo that is as much as 50,000 years old.

http://en.wikipedia....wiki/Lake_Mungo

These people are ANCIENT and I have no doubt they had plenty of time to travel elsewhere.

Edited October 10, 2013 by The Puzzler

[Leonardo]

While the evidence that humans arrived in South America well before the mongoloid peoples from Siberia managed to emigrate there seems strong, I would dispute the conclusion these people were Australoid in origin.

Consider the location of the finds - on the opposite side of the continent relative to Australasia and that no finds westwards of this location predate those in eastern Brazil would indicate to me a more reasonable conclusion is a westwards migration from Africa. That the skulls suggest a Negroid/Australoid admixture - similar to the original migrants to SE Asia and Australasia - suggests these people [in South America] were the same root stock as the original Australoids. Perhaps we are looking at that people migrating in two directions in Africa - one group northwards into the Middle East and from there onto to SE Asia and Australasia, and another group westwards into West Africa (or maybe south west to southern Africa) where population pressure from pre-inhabiting indigenous peoples kept driving them west.

It is a more reasonable proposal to then suggest a group going west across the Atlantic (the French woman archaeologist even remarks that a small group actually did this trip in 3 weeks) to land in East Brazil using the South Atlantic gyre to assist the crossing.

The crossing from Australia/Melanesia across the Pacific would have to factor in the South Pacific gyre, which would land the people in southern Chile - a very long way from east Brazil.

So, I would propose the original inhabitants of South America were Africans - the same root stock of whom also became the Australoids.

[questionmark]

So, I would propose the original inhabitants of South America were Africans - the same root stock of whom also became the Australoids.

Something not too farfetched as it has been shown that African fishermen accidentally landed in Brazil being drift off shore in Africa.

[The Puzzler]

While the evidence that humans arrived in South America well before the mongoloid peoples from Siberia managed to emigrate there seems strong, I would dispute the conclusion these people were Australoid in origin.

Consider the location of the finds - on the opposite side of the continent relative to Australasia and that no finds westwards of this location predate those in eastern Brazil would indicate to me a more reasonable conclusion is a westwards migration from Africa. That the skulls suggest a Negroid/Australoid admixture - similar to the original migrants to SE Asia and Australasia - suggests these people [in South America] were the same root stock as the original Australoids. Perhaps we are looking at that people migrating in two directions in Africa - one group northwards into the Middle East and from there onto to SE Asia and Australasia, and another group westwards into West Africa (or maybe south west to southern Africa) where population pressure from pre-inhabiting indigenous peoples kept driving them west.

It is a more reasonable proposal to then suggest a group going west across the Atlantic (the French woman archaeologist even remarks that a small group actually did this trip in 3 weeks) to land in East Brazil using the South Atlantic gyre to assist the crossing.

The crossing from Australia/Melanesia across the Pacific would have to factor in the South Pacific gyre, which would land the people in southern Chile - a very long way from east Brazil.

So, I would propose the original inhabitants of South America were Africans - the same root stock of whom also became the Australoids.

Sure, I don't think any article insinuated that they arrived in South America from Australia - but as you say, were of the same stock that arrived in Australia. (Even though the first sentence in the article could seem as though it is saying that - just that they were descended from Australian Aboriginals, not nec. having been in Australia at that time)

But I don't think your last sentence is correct - as they would say AFRICANS if they had come from Africa not Australian Aboriginals. The Pacific in times past may have been much easier to navigate when sea levels were lower.

They may have crossed the Bering Strait, when the Aboriginals who came to Australia were still in Asia - since Denisovans also display traits like Australian Aboriginals.

Just because we find nothing in North America doesn't mean that much - Aboriginal type people leave very little traces of themselves, they build nothing - Lake Mungo only shows evidence because of the nature of the dry lake yet they have been here over 50,000 years. Australian cave art is kept because of the nature again of the landscape, not everywhere imo is able to show traces of them. It's very easy to underestimate the harshness of the Australian landscape, seriously devoid of anything, only Aboriginals can live inland. As Midnight Oil famously sings "and no-one goes outback, that's that."

Edited October 10, 2013 by The Puzzler

[Leonardo]

Sure, I don't think any article insinuated that they arrived in South America from Australia - but as you say, were of the same stock that arrived in Australia. (Even though the first sentence in the article could seem as though it is saying that - just that they were descended from Australian Aboriginals, not nec. having been in Australia at that time)

But I don't think your last sentence is correct - as they would say AFRICANS if they had come from Africa not Australian Aboriginals. The Pacific in times past may have been much easier to navigate when sea levels were lower.

I would suggest the OP article, and the BBC documentary, were fairly clear in indicating the assumption these early migrants to South America came from Australasia. There is the assumption there that the migration north and east out of Africa of those people who became the Australoids, was the only migration from the African root stock of those people. This is what I dispute.

I propose two migrations out of Africa of the same root-stock of those people - one which went north then east and became the Australoids, and one west (or south and west) and became the original South Americans. Thus the original South Americans were as much African as those who originally migrated out of Africa to become the Australoids, and should not be classified 'Australoid' as they never went anywhere near Australasia/ Melanesia.

Perhaps a new classification 'Americoid' might be warranted to classify these American aborigines.

Edited October 10, 2013 by Leonardo

[Frank Merton]

All this seems based on evidence most paleontologists don't accept.

[questionmark]

All this seems based on evidence most paleontologists don't accept.

some paleontologists, and among those especially American paleontologists don't accept anything older than Clovis. But in this case it seems to be pretty difficult to just "talk away" the evidence. It is there.

[Leonardo]

All this seems based on evidence most paleontologists don't accept.

I would suggest a slight alteration to this to read "based on evidence most North American paleontologists don't accept."

Also, because Clovis first has become the accepted orthodoxy there is expected to be a certain inertia against changing that orthodoxy. That is natural to the scientific process.

[Frank Merton]

some paleontologists, and among those especially American paleontologists don't accept anything older than Clovis. But in this case it seems to be pretty difficult to just "talk away" the evidence. It is there.

I'm not competent to discuss this with any assurance, and so go with the authorities. My understanding is that all this is seen as fringe with no good evidence. I am sure web sites can be found saying, "It is there," and I would remain underwhelmed.

Speculation about human beings and what races they may have belonged to that early is another thing.

[The Puzzler]

I would suggest the OP article, and the BBC documentary, were fairly clear in indicating the assumption these early migrants to South America came from Australasia. There is the assumption there that the migration north and east out of Africa of those people who became the Australoids, was the only migration from the African root stock of those people. This is what I dispute.

I propose two migrations out of Africa of the same root-stock of those people - one which went north then east and became the Australoids, and one west (or south and west) and became the original South Americans. Thus the original South Americans were as much African as those who originally migrated out of Africa to become the Australoids, and should not be classified 'Australoid' as they never went anywhere near Australasia/ Melanesia.

Perhaps a new classification 'Americoid' might be warranted to classify these American aborigines.

Yes, OK, the article does indicate that I guess, I forgot it said that but I think the Denisovan finds could be new material that may show otherwise.

[The Puzzler]

I would suggest the OP article, and the BBC documentary, were fairly clear in indicating the assumption these early migrants to South America came from Australasia. There is the assumption there that the migration north and east out of Africa of those people who became the Australoids, was the only migration from the African root stock of those people. This is what I dispute.

I propose two migrations out of Africa of the same root-stock of those people - one which went north then east and became the Australoids, and one west (or south and west) and became the original South Americans. Thus the original South Americans were as much African as those who originally migrated out of Africa to become the Australoids, and should not be classified 'Australoid' as they never went anywhere near Australasia/ Melanesia.

Perhaps a new classification 'Americoid' might be warranted to classify these American aborigines.

Why doesn't it say the skulls matched those from Africa then? It doesn't, it says Australoid - it would say African otherwise and that is what I mostly dispute from your post Leo. There should be Australoid type skulls in Africa if your proposal is correct. And I 'propose' Atlantis existed but it doesn't make it true (with no evidence) no matter how much I try and place a large island in the Atlantic.

Why couldn't Australoids sail to South America? They got here 50,000 years before anyone else, when no-one else could. Perhaps we just under-estimate their abilities.

Edited October 10, 2013 by The Puzzler

[Leonardo]

Why doesn't it say the skulls matched those from Africa then? It doesn't, it says Australoid - it would say African otherwise and that is what I mostly dispute from your post Leo.

No, the skulls (and the reconstruction from the skulls) were found to exhibit a mixture of Negroid and Australoid features - exactly what we would expect from the African ancestral peoples of the Australoids and why I propose the ancestors of these South American aborigines were the African ancestors of the Australoids, not the Australoids themselves.

[The Puzzler]

No, the skulls (and the reconstruction from the skulls) were found to exhibit a mixture of Negroid and Australoid features - exactly what we would expect from the African ancestral peoples of the Australoids and why I propose the ancestors of these South American aborigines were the African ancestors of the Australoids, not the Australoids themselves.

To have any Australoid in the skulls would require part of them to be Australoid, which is why this conclusion has been made, that they are of an Australoid type and not from Africa - but I do appreciate an original proposal and might check it out some more.

It would mean we should find similar skulls in Africa c. 50,000BC and we don't, hence their conclusions.

[The Puzzler]

I'll take this post out, sorry.

Edited October 10, 2013 by The Puzzler

[The Puzzler]

Here is something I touched on a few posts back:

Skulls of peoples with Australoid morphologies have been found in the Americas, leading to speculation that peoples with phenotypical similarities to modern Australoids may have been the earliest occupants of the continent.^[13][14][15] These have been termed by some Pre-Siberian American Aborigines. If this theory is correct, it would mean that some Proto-Australoids continued the Great Coastal Migration beyond Southeast Asia along the continental shelf north in East Asia and across the Bering land bridge, reaching the Americas about 52,000 BCE.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australoid_race

This to me would be the most logical conclusion.

[Leonardo]

So Leo, you'd rather challenge the accepted conclusion by professionals in the field than accept an Australoid could sail across the Pacific?

I have never claimed the Australoids couldn't have sailed across the Pacific. My claim is that the finds in Brazil would be better interpreted to indicate an origin from Africa instead.

To have any Australoid in the skulls would require part of them to be Australoid, which is why this conclusion has been made, that they are of an Australoid type and not from Africa - but I do appreciate an original proposal and might check it out some more.

It would mean we should find similar skulls in Africa c. 50,000BC and we don't, hence their conclusions.

There is no basis for the claim the Australoid features developed exclusively after arrival in Australasia/Melanesia. If we look at the Andamanese aboriginals as belonging to the same migration that brought people to Australasia we can see the beginnings of the development of Australoid features (they are alternatively classified as proto-Australoid), and so it might have been for another group migrating south west/west instead of north and east.

In other words, the precursors for the development of Australoid features was already present in that African root stock, and in the two migrations we simply see a case of parallel development of those traits - but not to the extent of the Australoids in the other migration.

This would not suggest we would definitely find well developed Australoid features in some archaic West or South West African remains, but we could find the precursors for this development if such remains have been preserved and discovered.

[The Puzzler]

I have never claimed the Australoids couldn't have sailed across the Pacific. My claim is that the finds in Brazil would be better interpreted to indicate an origin from Africa instead.

There is no basis for the claim the Australoid features developed exclusively after arrival in Australasia/Melanesia. If we look at the Andamanese aboriginals as belonging to the same migration that brought people to Australasia we can see the beginnings of the development of Australoid features (they are alternatively classified as proto-Australoid), and so it might have been for another group migrating south west/west instead of north and east.

In other words, the precursors for the development of Australoid features was already present in that African root stock, and in the two migrations we simply see a case of parallel development of those traits - but not to the extent of the Australoids in the other migration.

This would not suggest we would definitely find well developed Australoid features in some archaic West or South West African remains, but we could find the precursors for this development if such remains have been preserved and discovered.

It appears to me from the Australoid race Wiki article I linked in my post above yours that they are quite different and did become Australoid once they reached the Asiatic/Australasian areas. I also stick with my above thoughts that they arrived in South America via the Bering Strait. Post #22. For once I'm going down the straight and narrow track because this seemed the most logical conclusion before I even read it.

If this theory is correct, it would mean that some Proto-Australoids continued the Great Coastal Migration beyond Southeast Asia along the continental shelf north in East Asia and across the Bering land bridge, reaching the Americas about 52,000 BCE.

http://en.wikipedia....Australoid_race

[Leonardo]

Here is something I touched on a few posts back:

Skulls of peoples with Australoid morphologies have been found in the Americas, leading to speculation that peoples with phenotypical similarities to modern Australoids may have been the earliest occupants of the continent.^[13][14][15] These have been termed by some Pre-Siberian American Aborigines. If this theory is correct, it would mean that some Proto-Australoids continued the Great Coastal Migration beyond Southeast Asia along the continental shelf north in East Asia and across the Bering land bridge, reaching the Americas about 52,000 BCE.

http://en.wikipedia....Australoid_race

This to me would be the most logical conclusion.

We then have the problem of the lack of evidence for such a journey between SE Asia/Australasia/Melanesia and the east coast of the South American continent. If we conclude a coastal migration happened, then we would expect the older sites in both American continents to be on the western seaboard and progressing eastwards, but that is not the case in South America. There, the older sites are in the east dating to around 50,000 years ago, and we have sites of around 16-17,000 years old in the west.