Humans in N. America Earlier Than Thought

[Michael Hardner]

CBC

The recent discovery of ancient tools in a Texas creek bed shows human settlers arrived in North America about 2,500 years earlier than originally believed, say archeologists.

"We have found evidence of an early human occupation … 2,500 years older than Clovis," Michael Waters from Texas A&M University said in a release.

The Clovis people — once thought to be the continent's oldest human culture — go back to about 13,000 years ago, which would make these newly discovered artifacts about 15,500 years old.

This scientist was on Quirks & Quarks this week, and said he believes the earliest people arrived by boat from Asia.

This America truly is the New World, don't you think ?

[GostHacked]

http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index.php?showtopic=16997

[Michael Hardner]

Thanks, I linked that thread to this one.

[kimmy]

(is this the part where C-R arrives to explain that advanced human cultures existed in North America while humans in the rest of the world were still somewhere between lemurs and sloths on the evolutionary ladder?)

-k

[WIP]

CBC

This scientist was on Quirks & Quarks this week, and said he believes the earliest people arrived by boat from Asia.

This America truly is the New World, don't you think ?

I notice that they say these seafarers were also Asiatic. The article doesn't mention it, but there is geologic evidence now that during the Ice Age, the first settlers across the Bering Land Bridge were trapped in southern Alaska because of a wall of ice that blocked the way. So, it's not surprising that early mariners would be the first to arrive in North America. The present genetic mix of Aboriginals in North America indicates that the vast majority are descendent from those who made the land crossing after the glaciers had receded enough to allow a path through the glaciers.

If you recall the big flap about Kennewick Man, found in Washington State a few years ago; that skull was older than the tribes who later settled the area, and was also suspected to be part of a group that had been traveling by small boats along the coasts. A lot of white supremacists got themselves worked up to orgasmic levels by the appearance of the skull - which looks somewhat European in appearance. But genetic analysis showed that appearances can be deceiving, and Kennewick Man was also from Asia, but of different origins than the later tribes settling the area. So, the groups that concocted a "Salutrian Theory" of North American conquest have to look elsewhere for evidence that white Europeans were here first, and therefore tear up all of those first nations treaties.

[Michael Hardner]

I'm not sure of the timing, but Dr. Waters ( I assume he is a Phd. that is ) indicated that the ice bridge would have been closed at the time that these peoples would have had to come over, so he indicated that sea transport would have had to bring them over.

[scouterjim]

CBC

This scientist was on Quirks & Quarks this week, and said he believes the earliest people arrived by boat from Asia.

This America truly is the New World, don't you think ?

Was everything bigger in Texas back then too?

[ToadBrother]

If you recall the big flap about Kennewick Man, found in Washington State a few years ago; that skull was older than the tribes who later settled the area, and was also suspected to be part of a group that had been traveling by small boats along the coasts. A lot of white supremacists got themselves worked up to orgasmic levels by the appearance of the skull - which looks somewhat European in appearance. But genetic analysis showed that appearances can be deceiving, and Kennewick Man was also from Asia, but of different origins than the later tribes settling the area. So, the groups that concocted a "Salutrian Theory" of North American conquest have to look elsewhere for evidence that white Europeans were here first, and therefore tear up all of those first nations treaties.

The assumption right now is that Kennewick Man was an outlier of the earliest populations in Asia, of which the Ainu of Japan may be a surviving population as well. That's not to say that they know that Kennewick and the Ainu are related, but it's an interesting link that you have this population in Japan, which genetically, seems more closely related to the Australians and the New Guineans than to the Japanese. A hypothesis is that you had the first migrations into Asia along the coast of the Indian Ocean, with some splitting off to New Guinea and Australia, and others moving north along the China Sea and up into Siberia and Japan (where populations like the Nivkh and other groups from the Sakhalin Islands also represent possible outliers). Kennewick Man may have simply been the Westernmost descendant of this original group, pushing along the North Pacific coastline, which despite the glaciers, still had pockets of ice free land.

Edited March 27, 2011 by ToadBrother

[Oleg Bach]

Saw the documentary a couple of weeks ago...the people who are native to say Alaska - share the same genes as those native to Chile...we underestimate human intelligence..we assume as we go into the future we some how evolve..and that those that are thousands of years back in time were less intelligent. These people travel not only on land but by sea also..Humans have been around for millions of years in their present form. We have risen to great heights and fallen just as fast and far. It is facinating to understand the fact that this earth has always had human beings - differnt tribal families have different traits as they have today. What we consider cave men were actually just an ugly clan...not a product of evolution - we still have cave men running about...most have entered politics.

[charter.rights]

The fact remains that archaeologist made a huge mistake 30 or 40 years ago. They created the Bering Strait theory and then quit looking for earlier occupation of the Americas.

There are indications and finds that suggest that human occupation in the Americas goes back 60,000 years (that would be 15-20,000 years before the known occupation of Europe.) While the excavations that have uncovered artifacts from 30-40,000 years ago have yet to be verified, the potential is there - such as the cited case - that occupation began through other means and that the Bering Strait theory as the only migration has been debunked.

[Wild Bill]

we assume as we go into the future we some how evolve..and that those that are thousands of years back in time were less intelligent.

Quite right, Oleg! There is an extremely popular notion about evolution that we automatically become more and more advanced. Comic books, cheap science fiction and Hollywood have for years portrayed men from the future as far more intelligent than present day.

As I said, the idea is almost universally popular but it is also dead wrong!

All evolution means is that a species will adapt to changing conditions. Intelligence became a survival factor to some of the great apes. Smarter ones were more likely to live to reproduce than those that weren't. It was as simple as that!

When we were in the trees, those great apes had feet that looked like hands, as apes do today. When we came down onto the prairie grasslands, being able to walk more efficiently and eventually run faster than the lions became major survival characteristics. So our hips and our feet changed.

Nowadays, we're already more than smart enough to survive in our environment. The vast majority of us don't need to run faster than the lions or bears, either. So evolution of our intelligence or our feet stops!

The important thing is that a species changes ONLY if it has to for survival! If it doesn't have to then it simply doesn't!

There IS NO evolutionary program in our genes to make us continually evolve towards some superior being! Mankind has evolved little or none over the last 50,000 years or more and unless something drastically changes it will not evolve any more over the next 50,000.

[Smallc]

(is this the part where C-R arrives to explain.....

Apparently, yes...

Edited March 27, 2011 by Smallc

[DogOnPorch]

Apparently, yes...

Yes...was going to say, as well.

[DogOnPorch]

Mohawk nation circa 1000BC Edited March 29, 2011 by DogOnPorch

[charter.rights]

Mohawk nation circa 1000BC

Laugh all you want. 1100 AD Mohawks were much more democratic and organized than the cabbage breeding ergot-eating Europeans of the same era.

[DogOnPorch]

Laugh all you want. 1100 AD Mohawks were much more democratic and organized than the cabbage breeding ergot-eating Europeans of the same era.

Maybe you can feed us some BS re: variola infected blankets next.

[charter.rights]

Maybe you can feed us some BS re: variola infected blankets next.

NO. You have been eating too much that you think it tastes good...

[DogOnPorch]

NO. You have been eating too much that you think it tastes good...

Mmmmmmmmmmmm....variola infected blankets. Pass the carrots.

[GostHacked]

Maybe you can feed us some BS re: variola infected blankets next.

The native population probably were immune to the infection. The Europeans were not. How were they to know?

[DogOnPorch]

The native population probably were immune to the infection. The Europeans were not. How were they to know?

The natives were immune to variola and the Europeans were not?

[WIP]

Laugh all you want. 1100 AD Mohawks were much more democratic and organized than the cabbage breeding ergot-eating Europeans of the same era.

Ignore the thinly disguised racist bullshit! Maybe I would be on the same modernization and economic expansion bandwagon as the capitalist deadenders here too, but, the problem is that our wonderful modern lifestyle (at least here in the West) may be already hitting the wall imposed by Planet Earth's finite resources for us to use. Our modern cities give us a false sense that we are somehow separate from nature, and can engineer nature when needed to suit our growing needs. All this has done is expand populations and energy & resource demands to the point where we are going to hit the wall even harder when the limits to growth arrive.

Fifteen years ago, Jared Diamond wrote a book based on archaeological evidence from Easter Island, which showed how Polynesian sailors arrived at this extremely remote South Pacific island rich in natural resources; but eventually exploited and consumed their way to extinction....leaving their giant statues behind as their legacy. Diamond considers our modern unwillingness to deal directly with natural environmental limits to be a situation that could make the entire Earth one big Easter Island, and lead to the possible extinction of the human race as well: http://www.skeptically.org/env/id12.html

I'm waiting for more economists to ponder the modern day dilemma of transitioning from an economic system dependent on continuous growth, to one that can function in a world where both environmental impact and resource impacts have to be reduced; so far, I've only found one who's considered the issue, but not much of the work is translated into english: http://www.goodplanet.info/eng/Economy/De-growth/Degrowth/%28theme%29/2386

[WIP]

The assumption right now is that Kennewick Man was an outlier of the earliest populations in Asia, of which the Ainu of Japan may be a surviving population as well. That's not to say that they know that Kennewick and the Ainu are related, but it's an interesting link that you have this population in Japan, which genetically, seems more closely related to the Australians and the New Guineans than to the Japanese.

The haplogroup genes of the Ainu indicate that they also originated in northern Siberia. I remember years ago, that the Ainu were classified as Caucasian, because of their appearance...lack of eye-folds, extensive body hair etc.; but just like Kennewick Man, appearances can be deceiving. Likely because all of the genes that manifest as racial characteristics can be found in the DNA of every population anywhere on Earth. The differences arise out of a combination of environment and sexual selection. So different populations in similar environments could take on some similarities of appearance without having any recent contact with each other.

A hypothesis is that you had the first migrations into Asia along the coast of the Indian Ocean, with some splitting off to New Guinea and Australia, and others moving north along the China Sea and up into Siberia and Japan (where populations like the Nivkh and other groups from the Sakhalin Islands also represent possible outliers). Kennewick Man may have simply been the Westernmost descendant of this original group, pushing along the North Pacific coastline, which despite the glaciers, still had pockets of ice free land.

I read a few articles awhile ago about the genetic research on Native American populations. What I recall is that there is substantial evidence of a Polynesian component in the populations in Central and South America, but not much in North America. This group that found it's way into Texas, and others like the group Kennewick Man belonged to, were likely very small in number, and were overwhelmed by sheer numbers once a passage way through the ice allowed overland travel through North America.

[GostHacked]

The natives were immune to variola and the Europeans were not?

It's a possibility. If the native population has lived around the ailment for a while and not be affected by it, chances are they could have built up some immunity towards it. If the Europeans never encountered the ailment, then they would not have an immunity to the disease. But what I am saying here is purely hypothetical.

[TimG]

were overwhelmed by sheer numbers once a passage way through the ice allowed overland travel through North America.

Or they were simply exterminated by the groups moving in.

[Oleg Bach]

Quite right, Oleg! There is an extremely popular notion about evolution that we automatically become more and more advanced. Comic books, cheap science fiction and Hollywood have for years portrayed men from the future as far more intelligent than present day.

As I said, the idea is almost universally popular but it is also dead wrong!

All evolution means is that a species will adapt to changing conditions. Intelligence became a survival factor to some of the great apes. Smarter ones were more likely to live to reproduce than those that weren't. It was as simple as that!

When we were in the trees, those great apes had feet that looked like hands, as apes do today. When we came down onto the prairie grasslands, being able to walk more efficiently and eventually run faster than the lions became major survival characteristics. So our hips and our feet changed.

Nowadays, we're already more than smart enough to survive in our environment. The vast majority of us don't need to run faster than the lions or bears, either. So evolution of our intelligence or our feet stops!

The important thing is that a species changes ONLY if it has to for survival! If it doesn't have to then it simply doesn't!

There IS NO evolutionary program in our genes to make us continually evolve towards some superior being! Mankind has evolved little or none over the last 50,000 years or more and unless something drastically changes it will not evolve any more over the next 50,000.

Try using SKYPE...the brilliant technologists can't even match the voice with the image..you would think they would have worked that out by now. I truely believe that people have existed in our present form for millions of years. As for being in the trees...I gave that up when I was 12...I did my time as a monkey as a child.