Posted: Sun Aug 19, 2007 3:08 pm
You've got me there Dig, what is this?outbreak of FMD
Your source on the web for daily archaeology news!
https://archaeologica.org/forum/
You've got me there Dig, what is this?outbreak of FMD
Dunno where you got that idea, Dig. In fact I'm a great fan of the Solutrean theory. I even went so far as to post a couple maps. But that pertains to Pleistocene ocean crossings. Those were one-way crossings, though. And not by sea, but roving the ice shelf, hunting prey. Walking!Digit wrote:It's to do with you refusing to accept the evidence of Atlantic crossings pre BC.
Nice links. Thanks Digit.Digit wrote:This seems to about sum it up Beag.
http://www.arableplants.fieldguide.co.u ... HC=1&PSD=1
This sums up some of the results of the 'giant step forward'.
http://www.beyondveg.com/nicholson-w/an ... 4-1a.shtml
In case you're not aware of it – and apparently you aren't – Inuit, a.k.a. Eskimos, can live all their lives, for many generations, on the ice. Never even touching land.Digit wrote:
In case you are not aware of it RS the attempts at crossing ice carrying or hauling supplies has resulted in a number of deaths as it is not possible to take sufficient supplies for the journey.
No, but I would walk 10 miles each day in search for food.
Would you walk some 4000 miles?
No need: seal, whale and penguin fat burns like a charm, Dig. And it's all around you, on the ice.
You could not even carry sufficient fuel to cook with.
There were not trying to go to another continent. They didn't even know there was another continent! They were simply chasing their prey.Digit wrote:
Along with these bloody mythical Penguins, and why the hell would they bother to walk all that way when, to quote yourself in other posts, they wouldn't know the land was there.
Yep, but not to cross oceans. They are for short hunting and fishing trips only.
By the way, the Inuit use boats! Several types of skin boats!
The first Americans, according to the standard view, arrived about 12,000 years ago by way of a land bridge that once connected Siberia and Alaska. Thanks to a handful of sites like Cactus Hill, it is now beyond dispute that some people got here much earlier. Asia remains a likely source for migrations, because of its proximity and the fact that today's Indians indisputably have ancestors who lived there. But Asia may not be the only source, and there's good reason to think it wasn't.
In truth, there is a Stone Age technology that looks an awful lot like Clovis, and its existence troubled Stanford and Bradley: The culture that produced it wasn't found in Siberia, where just about everybody would have expected it, but at the other end of the same landmass-in modern-day France and Spain. It's called Solutrean, and it vanished some 20,000 years ago. Stanford and Bradley were especially intrigued by the fact that the greatest concentration of Clovis sites occurs in the southeastern United States: If the technology is native to the Americas, it was probably invented in this area. If it wasn't native, then this was probably the site to which it was imported-on the side of the North American continent facing Europe. But a pair of insurmountable obstacles appeared to separate the Clovis and Solutrean cultures: several thousand years, and a large ocean.
The difference? That's easy: the difference is the goal of the (boat) trip. 10 mile 'hops' would be for hunting, chasing prey. Then you set up camp. Next day: next hunting trip. After which you set up camp again (on the ice pack). So on, so forth. But they would lead the Solutreans eventually, automatically, to NA. BY ACCIDENT!Digit wrote:RS. Please explain the difference between a boat trip of, say 20 mls, and one of a 1000mls done in stages?