Potentially stupid question about pre-Clovis

Frank Harrist · Post by **Frank Harrist** » Fri Oct 27, 2006 11:01 pm

Ok, this is only my opinion, but here goes. It is part of humankind's makeup that we are curious and that we will explore as far as our technology will allow. What other reason is there for our landing on the moon? Man just wants to know what's out there and will find out no matter the risk. People did get to amreica somehow and since the bering land bridge theory can't explain all of the early finds that are coming to light then they had to come some other way. Canoeing along the coasts seems perfectly plausible to me and as has been pointed out most of the evidence for this would be under water now. I think that every possible scenario we have discussed so far may have been true. They didn't all come at once and they didn't all come the same way. It's becoming more and more evident that people came here in many ways and over a very long period of time. Many different people came for different reasons and by different means. There will never be a "unified theory" on the peopling of the americas beacuse there was no "one way" that they came.
What's faffing? Some limey thang?

Post by **Minimalist** » Fri Oct 27, 2006 11:33 pm

What other reason is there for our landing on the moon

Cold War politics vis-a-vis the Russians.

You'll notice we haven't gone back.

(I guess all the science has been accomplished?)

marduk · Post by **marduk** » Fri Oct 27, 2006 11:37 pm

What's faffing? Some limey thang

yup faffing about
for "faffing" substitute "messing"

Frank Harrist · Post by **Frank Harrist** » Fri Oct 27, 2006 11:47 pm

Minimalist wrote:
What other reason is there for our landing on the moon

Cold War politics vis-a-vis the Russians.

You'll notice we haven't gone back.

(I guess all the science has been accomplished?)

We'll go back eventually. We'll even colonize it eventually. Just like people did the americas.

Essan · Post by **Essan** » Sat Oct 28, 2006 3:54 am

marduk wrote:
And if they were following the coastline then most evidence of their presence would now be under water.
you've been on that Hancock forum again haven't you

And I've been reading this revelatory book called Ice Age Civilisations

Actually, I've got a book at home to read on this subject (the migration of peoples into the Americas via Beringia) - one thing I do definitely think is that there was 'a' migration - there were lots of migrations by different peoples at different times. By and and sea.

Don't think any arrived by air though. Until the 1920s, anyway .....

marduk · Post by **marduk** » Sat Oct 28, 2006 8:43 am

And I've been reading this revelatory book called Ice Age Civilisations

did you get to the bit yet where it says according to darwin god is a bouncing monkey man
that was my favourite bit

DougWeller · Post by **DougWeller** » Sat Oct 28, 2006 12:06 pm

Essan wrote:Modern humans were in Australia perhaps as much as 60,000 years ago. Definitely by 40,000 years ago. They had to use boats to get there.

This is therefore no reason at all why some humans couldn't have continued around the Pacific rim and reached N America via Beringia and either an inland or coastal route by 40,000 years ago. And if they were following the coastline then most evidence of their presence would now be under water.

Doesn't mean they did. But they certainly could have.

Take a look at
Early humans followed the coast
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/5398850.stm

Post by **Minimalist** » Sat Oct 28, 2006 1:15 pm

I don't know why this is such a mystery. As late as the 1840's when the building of the railroads hit high gear sea travel was always considered faster, cheaper, and relatively safer than land travel. Even during the peak of the Roman Empire if you drove over the border your cart risked getting stuck in the mud.

Humans have always gravitated towards coasts and rivers.

War Arrow · Post by **War Arrow** » Sun Oct 29, 2006 12:24 pm

Stan - sorry about the inscrutable "limey" (heh heh - I haven't been called a limey since infant's school - there was an American kid in our class) vernacular. Shufty means look as in "well, I heard some pretty amazing claims made for this so-called ancient Sumerian trouser press so I thought I'd take a shufty for myself, guvnor."

Moon landings and lunar colonies (whilst I'm off topic) - I kind of have serious doubts due to the cosmic rays thing against which we have no convenient Star Trek style force-field defence. As I understand it, too long in space will mess up your insides. Probably also your psychology, I fear...

Where was I? As I've said, I don't object to the idea of ancient sea-crossings in principal although I have to wonder if I haven't accumulated a predjudice based upon reluctance to lend any credence to the sort of thing which the 'Mayans came from Atlantis' crowd.

Some possibly salient points thrown in just for good measure...

Polynesia must surely have been populated by canoe...
Rapa Nui also...
I know the distances involved now become prohibitive (although Rapa Nui itself is quite a distance from its nearest neighbour) but perhaps not so much as to completely rule out the possibility of the ocassional canoeful of lost souls washing up on a distant, hitherto unknown shore (and I'm not necessarily suggesting Easter Island as a point of origin, by the way). I suppose, given the broad span of human history, this must have happened at some point, surely?

The other possibility that occurs to me is that of larger purposefully exploratory expeditions, although these would surely require the sponsorship of a large, relatively progressive civilisation and er... excuse my shaky history... but was there anything of that time around the Pacific rim contemporary with the theoretical preClovis era? It seems unlikely. Maybe even irrelevant, now I come to think of it, seeing as the potentially preClovis artefacts suggest a fairly low level of technology.

Hmmmm. I guess I'm just thinking aloud here, but I'd be interested to see if anyone has an opinion on whatever the hell it was I've just been trying to say.

marduk · Post by **marduk** » Sun Oct 29, 2006 4:13 pm

Rapa Nui was populated from South America not the other way round

stan · Post by **stan** » Sun Oct 29, 2006 6:55 pm

Rapa Nui was populated from South America not the other way round

I don't know about that, but the sea currents do run in that direction, and not the other way. viz. Heyerdahl

DougWeller · Post by **DougWeller** » Sun Oct 29, 2006 11:05 pm

stan wrote:
Rapa Nui was populated from South America not the other way round
I don't know about that, but the sea currents do run in that direction, and not the other way. viz. Heyerdahl

Unless someone has undone the genetic research, we know the original settlers were Polynesian:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/horizon/20 ... land.shtml

"Erika Hagelberg has studied the DNA of skeletons unearthed on Easter Island. They contain a genetic marker, the so-called Polynesian motif, characteristic DNA that categorically shows the link between Polynesia and Easter Island's first settlers. They came to the Island from the west not the east, a journey which marked the furthest outpost of Polynesian society. Heyerdahl's hypothesis has been disproved."

marduk · Post by **marduk** » Sun Oct 29, 2006 11:33 pm

and the jaguar statue ?

War Arrow · Post by **War Arrow** » Mon Oct 30, 2006 3:21 am

Er... I just brought up Rapa Nui as part of a point about seafaring, so while it wasn't the point itself, we're here now and its nonetheless an interesting subject. Thanks for the link Doug, I thought they were of Polynesian descent but as usual, anything I "think" which isn't directly related to postclassic central Mexico is filed away either in a book I can't find or else under the heading of "I'm sure I read that somewhere."

Marduk - what jaguar statue? I've seen plenty of tattered birdmen carvings but no big pussycat, so far as I remember? I'm not doubting you by the way, just interested. I'll see what I can find on google I guess.

marduk · Post by **marduk** » Mon Oct 30, 2006 6:48 am

"I'm sure I read that somewhere."

is very appropriate in this case as well
I have even seen a picture of it but it was so long ago that the link I saved in my favourites folder is now dead
but I'm sure its there somehwhere inland
perhaps Doug can find it
I find it hard to believe that the Jaguar statue is a result of a direct travel to Rapa Nui from polynesia and iirc the story that Heyerdhal relates about the origins of the islanders is that they were from Polynesia and that they migrated to South america but on arrival found they were not welcomed by the locals so took back to the sea in an attempt to go home and got as far as Rapa Nui where they decided to settle
Shall we say that all the peoples of the area were originally from Asia
I don't think thats disputable