Slashdot Mirror
When Were the Americas Populated?
evil agent passes along an article in Scientific American reporting that new radiocarbon dating techniques have cast doubt on the accepted story of how the Americas were populated. In the traditional view, "[M]igrants out of northeast Asia slipped into the Americas bearing finely shaped stone projectiles, so-called 'Clovis points,' after the town in New Mexico where they were first uncovered. This Clovis culture rapidly spread throughout the empty continents and by 1,000 years after their arrival had reached the southernmost tip of what is now South America, making them the original ancestors of indigenous Americans." The new dating of Clovis sites suggests that "Clovis" was not a people, but rather a technology. That is, a new and more efficient method of making arrowheads for hunting spread rapidly through a pre-existing population in both North and South America, over at most 350 years.
Isn't this just the last gasp of the clovis-first proponents finally dying out? I have seen quite a number of documentaries about some archaeologist or other digging up evidence of 'pre-clovis' people for a number of years now. In each of the documentaries we hear about how the archaeologist is derided by the old guard who keep saying 'no, there couldn't have possibly been anyone here earlier'.
...have been around for 100's of thousands of years and they are not stupid. Who is to say that 60000 years ago somebody from Indonesia could not possibly have seen most of the world in a lifetime, if they had so desired? There wouldn't have been any evidence of small scale migration which modern archeologists could find, yet the written history is based only on mass movements of population.
TFA ends with I think there's enough evidence now to say that there were pre-Clovis people in the Americas."
Who is to say that it hadn't been happening for several times the 25000 year time scale they are talking about?
http://michaelsmith.id.au
With all due respect, Cremo is a wack-job^H^H^H rather fringe figure, and not really a credible archaeologist. He's a student of Indian religion, and believes in a "Vedic" theory of the origins of life vs. Evolution. I.e., scriptural revelation.
His articles are published in magazines like "Atlantis Rising" and "Back to Godhead", and he wrote chapters for the classic "Chant and Be Happy!".
Science is not perfect, nor complete, nor will it ever be. But talking about "all the dishonesty in science", and using that as an excuse to believe whatever ancient astronaut fantasies you find titillating, can not be taken seriously.
Oh nooo... I'm not going to make it _this_ easy for you. There is little in
Michael Cremo's factual research itself for me to defend and stand up for
because I don't have the foggiest whether his findings are true or not.
I am not an archaeologist nor a geologist. I'm just saying that it's there,
it's interesting and chances are that some of it may actually be correct.
What I personally find interesting in his book is how he details to what
length people go in the field to discredit the deviant author or even tamper
with or destroy evidence that is out of line with the body of officially sanctioned
theory. There is little tolerance for deviance in the science religion and
especially the archaeology churches of that creed are particularily vicious.
(Oh and that's not even talking about all the outside interests like the American
Indians who are upset by any theory they might well not be the first to
settle on these shores).
And then there _is_ a lot of evidence that points away from the official lore
of western university archaelogical 'science', just think of the recently
discovered Pyramid in Bosnia.
As far as calling Cremo a wacko.. just because he's a student of Hindu teachings
among other the Vedas. Until you discover them yourself I'd ask you not to belittle
them.
As far as being able to _verify_ the theories and findings of Michael Cremo is concerned I
find myself way out of my waters to have much of an opinion on that score. So what I do is I
limit myself to pointing out his research and that I find his research and his findings
interesting, especially in light of the growing body of evidence like the pyramid in Bosnia
I mentioned before. I try to reserve judgment on the credibility of Cremo's work because my
professional background does not prepare me for the task of evaluating his research and
that's why I'm a little surprised that your work in engineering allows you to have such a
strong opinion. (Especially when you call the man a possible nutjob when you could have used
a more civil epiphet).
I'll agree with you that dishonesty in science starts with the "little guy" making ends meet
to the best of his sometimes limited abilities, but the really damaging deceit takes place in the
clerical courts of science where the dogma is defended by the same zeal that fueled the
catholic inquisition.
I went to a conference years at which the head archaeologist of the Mashantucket Pequots in Connecticut spoke. He claimed that recent, casino-funded digs in the area had uncovered skulls which seemed to be much older than the 'land bridge' theory would allow for (about 30,000 years ago). The formation of the skull was also much closer to skulls found in France than anything being found locally. He didn't discount the possibility of people cross the Bering Strait, but suggested that more than one waves of migration had probably populated the Americas.
Some comments on this:
I did *not*, on a professional level as a historian, say that I consider Mr. Cremo to be wrong - I am (as you correctly observe) not qualified to do that, since I am an engineering scientist.
My disparaging remarks come from the angle that his arguments do not sound particularly credible to me *without* being a specialist in the field. Which means that I might overlook obvious things that would mark his statements as being true to an open-minded historian, but not to outsiders like myself.
However, it is one of my beliefs that a correct theory should at least sound plausible to outsiders without having to resort to conspiracy arguments ("the archaeologists of the world do not want these things to be known" - oh, come on, please!)
The history of science is rife with examples where the scientific establishment went out of its way to discredit correct new theories. Take plate tectonics, for instance. Derided as junk science right until the 1960ies. (!)
But history is *also* rife with bizarre theories which thankfully never gained much of a following, such as Hoerbiger's Welteislehre, to name one particular, delightfully bizarre example (which, incidentally, did gain quite a following of sorts in its day - go figure).
Personally, I believe that we are still in for a huge number of surprises as far as ancient history is concerned. However, this does not mean that everyone who finds a "pyramid" outside his hometown is automatically the next Heinrich Schliemann. Again, note that I do not rule out that the thing they found in Bosnia *is*, in fact, a pyramid. Personally, I just do not think that this is very likely - exciting as it would be, if this turned out to be true.
Finally, one more thing why I'm not comfortable with the style of Mr. Cremo:
Academic respectability is an ephemeral thing, but unfortunately very necessary for those working within academia (and not entirely without reason, either).
People who sound off on a grand scale like Mr. Cremo ("conspiracy of archaeologists") can seriously hamper the proper investigation of whole new ideas, because professional researchers will - perhaps foolishly - not want to endanger their careers by becoming associated with someone like him.
And, as a consequence, would not want to touch anything he proposes with a ten-foot pole.
This is not the way science should work, but properly verifying (or falsifying) any theory is probably just as much work for these guys as it is for us engineers.
With the finite amount of time any scientist can invest in the actual working on problems - well, good luck trying to explain having spent so much time on what everyone else considers a crackpot theory to your tenure comittee... if all you ever got from this was a negative result... (as in "we now conclusively know that this is not the case")... especially if the guy who proposed the whole idea in the first place sounds less than 100% convincing most of the time.
Again, the last paragraph is not meant to say that Mr. Cremo is wrong - it just attempts to give you an idea why the scientific mainstream does not need a centralised conspiracy to avoid a formal investigation of his ideas.
A.
Why is it that the further south you go into South America, the older the civilizations appear to be? Seems like they keep finding all kinds of ancient ruins there. Now what is the likelihood that people would wander from the north all the way down there before creating the civilizations they created? Could the Americas have been populated from Antarctica instead, before the polar shift? Prolly not, I guess there were no humans back then, but still...
Karma: Bad is the liberal way of saying this guy won't drink the kool aid here on slash dot. I wear my Karma with pride
I never said "might makes right". I don't personally identify with the Europeans who invaded the Americas.
"Might wins", well, yeah. And even today, the group with the right combination of the biggest stick and the most will to use it will win.
I've yet to see any culture master sustainability, except by failure to develop the technology to destroy their environment. Humans are short sighted.
Reducing our potato varieties to five is a short term advance - it makes mass production of the tubers in question easier. In the long run, yes, we're damaging the soil and getting slightly less nutrition than we might have.
Diplomacy IS a joke. Look at it... diplomacy is used by weak countries to feel as if they're important by browbeating militarily stronger countries. Diplomacy is otherwise used by most nations as a delay tactic.
Just because the West recognizes its own (major) flaws doesn't mean it isn't a pretty good civilization overall. The failure of individuals to take advantage of all our opportunities doesn't take away from the fact that this culture has produced more opportunities than any other.
Why is it that the further south you go into South America, the older the civilizations appear to be? Seems like they keep finding all kinds of ancient ruins there. Now what is the likelihood that people would wander from the north all the way down there before creating the civilizations they created? Could the Americas have been populated from Antarctica instead, before the polar shift? Prolly not, I guess there were no humans back then, but still...
Actually I wonder why this article says nothing about Monte Verde, the oldest known settlement in the Americas. It is located in the southern tip of Chile which makes it the southern most settlement site in the Americas and it dates to 12,500 BP (Before Present), so it was settled before the Clovis people were around. This dating also places the settlement before the opening of the Bering land bridge between Asia and America.
FalconShould there be a Law?
First of all, it's nice that you use the word "mantra", since that, by its basic meaning, is an instrument of thought; e.g., say a mantra to clear your mind in order to think deeply about things.
Second, and also a technicality, the Mormons don't view the Native American as the Lost Tribes of Israel. It's pretty simple: the Book of Mormon describes a group of displaced Jews (from the tribe of Manessah, Ephraim, and Judah). We have ideas about the Lost Tribe, to be sure, but only prophecies - many of which are shared by various other religions.
Third, while some Mormons share a cultural view on the origins of the Native American - that the Book of Mormon people are the "principle ancestors" - there is nothing in the texts to indicate this view. Many modern Mormons accept the genetic studies of Native Americans that indicate that their ancestral home is in Central/Eastern Asia and that the Book of Mormon peoples are a small aberration in the population of Pre-Columbian America whose genetic heritage may not be easily seen (if even still existent), especially after the decimation caused by the European conquest.
Fourth, about two hours.
For many people including myself, The Book of Mormon (a volume of holy scripture comparable and compatible with the Bible and an ancient record) answers the question "when was the Americas populated". The Americas were populated by one group who left Jerusalem circa 600 B.C, led by a man named Lehi, who branched out to become the Nephite and the Lamanite peoples. The other group, known as the Jaredites, came much earlier when the Lord confounded the tongues at the Tower of Babel.
You can read about it yourself by going to Mormon.org and requesting a free copy of the Book of Mormon for yourself, and you can learn more about the evidences of the Book of Mormon at Jeff Lindsay's website.
SEO Copywriter. Just Say ON
There's been evidence of earlier migrations for a lot of years the evidence was always dismissed as anomolous and obviously had another explaination. Something that is rarely mentioned is the fact that it was far easier to get here 16,000 to 20,000 years ago from either Europe or Asia. Sea levels were 250' lower and I believe they were 300' lower 30,000 years ago. This extends the coastline hundreds of miles reducing the distance they'd need to travel. There was even the potential of following the ice sheet. Fishing was excellent and there were even mamals to hunt. The ice sheet would have been at sea level in places allowing for landfall. There's been evidence for early migrations as far back as 35,000 years or more ago. There's also an unspoke problem with South America seeming to have been potentially colonized first. The very oldest evidence of humans in the americas has been found in South America. No one is sure why but there is a belief that pacific islanders managed to make it to South American. Part of the problem tracing the migration is it seems several of the migrations died out leaving no DNA traces. Unless bones are found it's going to be hard to prove to anyone's satisfaction. Why isn't more evidence found? A guess would be the earlier migrations lacked the tecnology to survive well in the americas that were still ruled by megafauna. Clovis points were fairly recent if there were migrations going back 35,000+ years. The earliest people may have never numbered more than a few hundred to a few thosuand making them suseptible to desease and droughts. It's not hard to kill off a population of a few thousand. Clovis technology allowed them to grow into the millions allowing humans to weather major die offs. There was even an extreme idea floated about aboriginals making it from Australia to South America by way of Antarctica. This borders on impossible because they never were seafarers and the strait between Antarctica and South America was barely passible by 16th century Europeon ships. Dugouts and skin ships would have zero chance of surviving a crossing.
There's a series of posts up this thread that touch on the subject, yet I want to separate my post from that particular context and start fresh from another angle.
Why were the american cultures 'discovered', while they had no inkling of other cultures across the oceans, nor their place in the panoramic view of the world?
Because they were not seafarers. The question I keep repeating to myself is: Why was that?
The reason why the ancient phoenicians, greeks, etc, set sail, was gigantic and in front of their noses: The Mediterranean Sea, which represented the shortest way between two points of commerce in a concave land: a straight line. Same with the norse people: The Baltic Sea.
Middle eastern cultures also developed seafaring capabilities, spanning the area from India to the eastern African coast.
Much more intriguing are the chinese, as their land is convex with respect to the ocean, so there is no obvious short term advantage to develop seafaring capabilities, yet they did have a majestic fleet of immense junks for a short period of time, during which they were gazing waaay over the horizon, and with noble intentions to boot.
In fact, it seems that in every region of the world, for one reason or another, civilizations set to the oceans with commerce and/or conquest in mind, yet excepting the colonization of islands in the Gulf Of Mexico, once settled, the pre-columbian people seem to have completely lost whatever sea legs they ever had.
The Gulf Of Mexico is concave, commerce between Yucatan, Veracruz and Florida seems like an obvious thing. Olmecs, Toltecs, Mayans, Aztecs, among others, inhabited the general basin area, yet while they navigated lakes, rivers and fished close to the coast, show no evidence of technology for longer term sea travel. What the hell happened? Why that gigantic, eventually fatal blind spot?
Maybe, just maybe, it's because of the fact that the Gulf Of Mexico, for half of the year, is smack in the center of hurricane alley. Maybe the Mayans, for example, tried and had their fleet decimated one time too often, then completely scrapped the endeavor. Yet I've read nothing on the matter, I've never stumbled upon pre-columbian academics even discussing the matter, so if anybody knows or has any ideas, please post! Thanks.
Lil' Thindime, lilting a lacrimose lament, krashes the kwaint konfines of Kokonino Kounty
Displacement of a culture and ethnic cleansing are different things. The first can happen quite peacefully and amicably, and proceeded that way to some extent in many places in north america. Ethnic cleansing, on the other hand, has a strong genetic component. It basically means "Kill all who have 'dirty' genes so the race will be purer". That's what happened in Europe, well, pretty much for all time. It's not what happened in America. (There was some of it early on, like the thing about giving blankets used by kids that had smallpox to the natives to help them)
In any case, whatever happened before the Civil War we can argue all we want. What happened after was a methodical, systematic campaign of genocide, and happened late enough in the period to be a good candidate for the word. If the Armenians want to define certain WWI events in Turkey as the First Genocide, I think we can make a case that the US beat the Turks to it.
Like what I said? You might like my music
You are so full of shit you look like a Christmas Turkey. For one thing. War in North American B.C. (Before Columbus). We never killed the women and children of or ememies. We only did that to you when you all started killing our children. Genocide doesn't really start until you start killing the breeding process ie. women and children. Yes we fought and had wars but nothing in compairision to what you folks brought with you and the idea of "Kill the savages in the name of God."
Yes you call us the savage yet we never fought a war in the name of God. God doesn't fight wars only men do. Yes we fought but our wars were between men and God played no part in it. God never told us to go kill anybody.
Lets talk about the Treaties you made. Over 6,000 entered into by the US with Indian people and NOT ONE! was ever upheld completely. You make a promise and then come back and take more! and more and more! Now that you have taken it all here we now go around the world still taking.
Hey stupid. I am sitting it this chair living and breathing. I do exist and no I am not going away. You missed and didn't kill us all. I am alive and I am Tsalagi (Cherokee).