New evidence suggests Stone Age hunters from Europe discovered America


dumpthemonarchy
#1
If Ploynesians were able to go all over, then so were Europeans. Thor Heyerdahl showed in his trip on the Kon-Tiki that trans-oceanic travel is possible for the adventurous with very basic boats. Fish from the sea (sushi), and water from rains. Sometimes you sail near the coastline and islands, sometimes you take a chance and go off course by design or accident-a storm.






New evidence suggests Stone Age hunters from Europe discovered America - Americas - World - The Independent (external - login to view)



New evidence suggests Stone Age hunters from Europe discovered America








David Keys (external - login to view)


Tuesday 28 February 2012


Latest in Americas












1 / 2












The Stone Age Europeans believed to have migrated to North America along the edge of the then frozen northern Atlantic would have had to adopt a lifestyle similar to that of traditional Eskimos depicted here in this 19thcentury print









div.slideshow #slideshow-6138605 .galleria-thumbnails-container {height: 70px;bottom: 0;position: absolute;left: 10px;right: 10px;z-index: 2;}div.slideshow #slideshow-6138605 .galleria-container .galleria-stage {height: 385px;}div.slideshow #slideshow-6138605 .galleria-thumbnails .galleria-image {height: 60px;width: 60px;background: #000;margin: 0 5px 0 0;border: 1px solid #000;;float: left;cursor: pointer;}div.slideshow #slideshow-6138605 .galleria-counter {bottom: 83px !important;}New archaeological evidence suggests that America was first discovered by Stone Age people from Europe – 10,000 years before the Siberian-originating ancestors of the American Indians set foot in the New World.


A remarkable series of several dozen European-style stone tools, dating back between 19,000 and 26,000 years, have been discovered at six locations along the US east coast. Three of the sites are on the Delmarva Peninsular in Maryland, discovered by archaeologist Dr Darrin Lowery of the University of Delaware. One is in Pennsylvania and another in Virginia. A sixth was discovered by scallop-dredging fishermen on the seabed 60 miles from the Virginian coast on what, in prehistoric times, would have been dry land.

The new discoveries are among the most important archaeological breakthroughs for several decades - and are set to add substantially to our understanding of humanity's spread around the globe.

The similarity between other later east coast US and European Stone Age stone tool technologies has been noted before. But all the US European-style tools, unearthed before the discovery or dating of the recently found or dated US east coast sites, were from around 15,000 years ago - long after Stone Age Europeans (the Solutrean cultures of France and Iberia) had ceased making such artefacts. Most archaeologists had therefore rejected any possibility of a connection. But the newly-discovered and recently-dated early Maryland and other US east coast Stone Age tools are from between 26,000 and 19,000 years ago - and are therefore contemporary with the virtually identical western European material.

What’s more, chemical analysis carried out last year on a European-style stone knife found in Virginia back in 1971 revealed that it was made of French-originating flint.

Professor Dennis Stanford, of the Smithsonian Institution in Washington DC, and Professor Bruce Bradley of the University of Exeter, the two leading archaeologists who have analysed all the evidence, are proposing that Stone Age people from Western Europe migrated to North America at the height of the Ice Age by travelling (over the ice surface and/or by boat) along the edge of the frozen northern part of the Atlantic. They are presenting their detailed evidence in a new book - Across Atlantic Ice – published this month.

At the peak of the Ice Age, around three million square miles of the North Atlantic was covered in thick ice for all or part of the year.
However, the seasonally shifting zone where the ice ended and the open ocean began would have been extremely rich in food resources – migrating seals, sea birds, fish and the now-extinct northern hemisphere penguin-like species, the great auk.

Stanford and Bradley have long argued that Stone Age humans were quite capable of making the 1500 mile journey across the Atlantic ice - but till now there was comparatively little evidence to support their thinking.

But the new Maryland, Virginia and other US east coast material, and the chemical tests on the Virginian flint knife, have begun to transform the situation. Now archaeologists are starting to investigate half a dozen new sites in Tennessee, Maryland and even Texas – and these locations are expected to produce more evidence.

Another key argument for Stanford and Bradley’s proposal is the complete absence of any human activity in north-east Siberia and Alaska prior to around 15,500 years ago. If the Maryland and other east coast people of 26,000 to 19,000 years ago had come from Asia, not Europe, early material, dating from before 19,000 years ago, should have turned up in those two northern areas, but none have been found.

Although Solutrean Europeans may well have been the first Americans, they had a major disadvantage compared to the Asian-originating Indians who entered the New World via the Bering Straits or along the Aleutian Islands chain after 15,500 years ago.
Whereas the Solutreans had only had a 4500 year long ‘Ice Age’ window to carry out their migratory activity, the Asian-originating Indians had some 15,000 years to do it. What’s more, the latter two-thirds of that 15 millennia long period was climatologically much more favourable and substantially larger numbers of Asians were therefore able to migrate.

As a result of these factors the Solutrean (European originating) Native Americans were either partly absorbed by the newcomers or were substantially obliterated by them either physically or through competition for resources.

Some genetic markers for Stone Age western Europeans simply don’t exist in north- east Asia – but they do in tiny quantities among some north American Indian groups. Scientific tests on ancient DNA extracted from 8000 year old skeletons from Florida have revealed a high level of a key probable European-originating genetic marker. There are also a tiny number of isolated Native American groups whose languages appear not to be related in any way to Asian-originating American Indian peoples.

But the greatest amount of evidence is likely to come from under the ocean – for most of the areas where the Solutreans would have stepped off the Ice onto dry land are now up to 100 miles out to sea.

The one underwater site that has been identified - thanks to the scallop dredgers – is set to be examined in greater detail this summer – either by extreme-depth divers or by remotely operated mini submarines equipped with cameras and grab arms.
 
bill barilko
#2
Quote:

Thor Heyerdahl showed in his trip on the Kon-Tiki that trans-oceanic travel is possible for the adventurous with very basic boats. Fish from the sea (sushi), and water from rains.

A few notes-Heyerdahl used a raft not a boat-Polynesian canoes were much more sophisticated.

Also no one need eat uncooked food aboard a boat-a fire in a bucket of sand suffices I know I've eaten many a meal while fishing @ sea in dugouts in Central America-and a few flat stones will do as good as a bucket.
 
Spade
+3
#3
Geesus, I thought it was migrants from Siberia who discovered America. I must have lost all my Berings. Just goes to show WTF I know.
 
MHz
+2
#4
America does have two coastlines. Some artifacts in South America are said to have an oriental history. Didn't horses originally come from the Americas, died out in the America and reintroduced by the Spanish.

Quote: Originally Posted by bill barilkoView Post

fishing @ sea in dugouts in Central America-

When do we leave Captain, all I have is this little dingy and those lotto winnings

 
bill barilko
#5
Quote: Originally Posted by SpadeView Post

Geesus, I thought it was migrants from Siberia who discovered America. I must have lost all my Berings. Just goes to show WTF I know.

There's evidence that the Americas have been settled for a long long time (external - login to view) -but the pieces of evidence are small/worn/few and far between-we haven't heard the last of this.

Of course there's the political angle-if there were people other than direct ancestors of today's aboriginals living here then a case could be made that they aren't 'first nations' at all.

I take no position-yet.
 
CDNBear
+5
#6  Top Rated Post
Quote: Originally Posted by bill barilkoView Post

Of course there's the political angle-if there were people other than direct ancestors of today's aboriginals living here then a case could be made that they aren't 'first nations' at all.

First, second, third, irrelevant, the contracts were signed by the people that were in possession of the land at contact.
 
MHz
+1
#7
Did you ever get set Strait?
 
Cliffy
+1
#8
The only evidence in the OP is that of the personal prejudices of the poster. Evidence of European migration to NA can be found in the DNA of many eastern American nations predating the last Ice Age. Archaeologists have known this for some time. There is even older evidence pointing to Polynesian, Aborigine (Australia) and African migrations far preceding Columbus. All these new tool findings do is validate what is already known and give new fuel to Dumpy's already inflated Caucasian ego.
 
darkbeaver
+2
#9
12'800 years ago virtually all flora and fauna were exterminated in North America, the horse was native up until that time and the natives of the day were the Clovis culture. No one knows how many times new lands have been discovered by old peoples. We all come from somewhere else, we move around according to climate and game, nothing changes with people.
Last edited by darkbeaver; Mar 4th, 2012 at 03:44 PM..
 
Cliffy
+1
#10
Quote: Originally Posted by darkbeaverView Post

12'800 years ago virtually all flora and fauna were exterminated in North America, the horse was native up until that time and the natives of the day were the Clovis culture.

Actually, the Clovis culture myth has been debunked. The sites that were supposed to be the origins of the Clovis culture are actually newer than the ones found in North America and so the culture probably originated here. The migrations during and after the ice age between NA and Asia were probably a two way street.
 
darkbeaver
#11
Quote: Originally Posted by CliffyView Post

Actually, the Clovis culture myth has been debunked. The sites that were supposed to be the origins of the Clovis culture are actually newer than the ones found in North America and so the culture probably originated here. The migrations during and after the ice age between NA and Asia were probably a two way street.

I hadn't read that Cliffy, give me a link if you have time, thanks.
 
Ron in Regina
+2
#12
Quote: Originally Posted by SpadeView Post

Geesus, I thought it was migrants from Siberia who discovered America. I must have lost all my Berings. Just goes to show WTF I know.


Maybe America was "discovered" many time in waves from different
directions by different people at different times. I'm not sure just how
important it is as to who's on First, what's on Second, & I don't know
who's on Third....sort'a thing. Those taking credit are most likely the
Johnny'come'lately's in the tale.
 
MHz
#13
Discovered and then destined for extinction. I don't recall that being in the brochure.

Throw a stick in the ocean off Africa and it is going to hit land a lot quicker than crossing than Pacific on a raft. With the ocean levels some 400ft lower would the currents be moving faster, making the journeys that much shorter. The Sahara wasn't a desert in that time period so it's West coast could have been crawling with people.
 
L Gilbert
#14
It's just evidence backing up previously found evidence. There's nothing new about the idea. Anthropologists have known that there were people scooting around North America a lot earlier than FNs or Clovis peoples. Inhabitants have been traced back to around 25 to 28,000 years ago or possibly even older (but the findings are still being debated about this).

www.daysknob.com/ (external - login to view)

www.daysknob.com/Nichols_Site.htm (external - login to view)

www.daysknob.com/LV.htm (external - login to view)
Last edited by L Gilbert; Mar 4th, 2012 at 05:15 PM..
 
Bar Sinister
+2
#15
Quote: Originally Posted by bill barilkoView Post

A few notes-Heyerdahl used a raft not a boat-Polynesian canoes were much more sophisticated.

Also no one need eat uncooked food aboard a boat-a fire in a bucket of sand suffices I know I've eaten many a meal while fishing @ sea in dugouts in Central America-and a few flat stones will do as good as a bucket.


Actually Heyerdahl used both. In his Ra Expedition he used a reed boat based on ancient Egyptian designs in an attempt to prove that ancient Amerindian civilizations in the Americas could have been influenced by ancient Egyptian civilization.
 
damngrumpy
+1
#16
The native attack of the week has come. A few weeks ago we were talking about the
Asians who crossed the land bridge to North America and at that time the natives were
from there. I wouldn't be surprised to see the next headline stating the natives came
from the last migration from Mars.
For those engaging in looking for the roots of the natives you are going to have to do
better than this.
 
Cliffy
#17
Quote: Originally Posted by damngrumpyView Post

The native attack of the week has come. A few weeks ago we were talking about the
Asians who crossed the land bridge to North America and at that time the natives were
from there. I wouldn't be surprised to see the next headline stating the natives came
from the last migration from Mars.
For those engaging in looking for the roots of the natives you are going to have to do
better than this.

Although the evidence of multiple migrations is mounting, we still have barely scratched the surface of how long humans have lived in the Americas. In spite of what the genome project says, I think humans have been living here for at least 100 thousand years. What most people don't realize is that archaeology, anthropology and ethnography were stifle for almost a hundred years with the Bering Strait Land Bridge theory. Those in charge would not allow anything that disputed this theory from ever being published or any follow up research to be conducted. And I hold little hope that the future will see any quantum leaps in progress in the field.

When I looked at the evidence while researching my book on the Sinixt, I came to the conclusion that the Bering land bridge theory did not make sense. Then we had a young archaeologist come to town on a dig, so I quizzed him about my findings and he said, yes, they've known that for some time. I sad, then why has nobody heard about this? Basically he said that the public are at least twenty years behind the pros and that very little is released to the public anyway. Most of what we know comes from magazine articles that sensationalize certain stories and many of them are contradictory. Very few people want to read through thousands of pages of dry and boring studies to find the whole story.

In researching my book, I did read a number of those studies as they pertained to the Sinixt, but I also read hundreds of articles published by the Smithsonian, National Geographic and other sources. I also read a number of books by Aboriginal authors to get their perspective as well as interviewing Sinixt elders. What I found was that if the stories that the Sinixt hold as their traditions are true, and I have no reason to doubt them, they would blow gaping holes in, not only, our history but but would make just about everything we've been told a lie of biblical proportions.
 
Nuggler
+1
#18
I hear tell me ancestors were headin for the sunny south of Europe, got confused and boogied across the Bering land bridge, bringin their stone axes and whatnot with them. Also a few beer caps to throw around and confuse the anthropologists.

This would make me a direct descendant of the original peoples.

Think I'll go blockade a highway or something. the wife says I'm big enough.
 
MHz
#19
Doesn't the 'land bridge just mean there was a shoreline to follow with some boats, the oceanic currents still should have traveled from Japan to the west coast of Canada and all the way down to South America. Walking would have been slower and slower means more food and with ice some two miles tall it could have come right to the waters edge. Get really drunk (sleep lots) on a raft for 10 days and you would almost be there, no coming back though.

Might be news but the ancient guys were smart enough to not walk around packing rocks. When they needed one they picked it up, if they had a 'favorite handle' they would use it, toss the rock away, carry the stick to new location some many miles way and then they would find another rock that they could tie to the handle.
 
dumpthemonarchy
#20
Quote: Originally Posted by MHzView Post

Discovered and then destined for extinction. I don't recall that being in the brochure.

Throw a stick in the ocean off Africa and it is going to hit land a lot quicker than crossing than Pacific on a raft. With the ocean levels some 400ft lower would the currents be moving faster, making the journeys that much shorter. The Sahara wasn't a desert in that time period so it's West coast could have been crawling with people.

I like that kind of speculation because I hadn't thought of it, and it makes sense. With lower sea levels ocean travel becomes much easier. That is the idea how the aboriginies made it to Australia. The ocean levels in the Indonesian archipelago were much lower, so it was easier to sail there by design or accident.

Trips from Europe across the Atlantic seem much easier. The trip from Africa to South America, already fairly short, gets even shorter. The Sahara desert was fertile in the BC era, and it could have fostered some developed peoples a few thousand years ago. The Egyption pyramids, a fantastic achievement of architectiure and mathematics, suddenly pop up.

Columbus might have been last as Europe, Africa and America were much closer a few thousand years ago. TV doc about this should be produced.
 
MHz
#21
The salinity of the water would have been somewhat higher also making boats more efficient no matter what the design. Sails would be enough to hydrofoil might be stretching it. Creating a permanent thunderstom just behind the boat might not be stretching it.
 
damngrumpy
#22
Well the people of Africa supposedly populated Europe son anything is possible I guess.
The Truth is we don't know the definitive answer and we may never know. The fact is
there were people here in the past few hundred years and the European invasion meant
they simply took the land from those living here and caused all kinds of problems that
we are dealing with today.
 
MHz
#23
I would think the ones alive back then would see it as them having the bigger problem with the consequences of the westward expansion of the 'boat people'.
 
dumpthemonarchy
#24
It was unlikely there was a mass migration, but occasional trips for sure by advanced groups. There is a huge amount of archeology that needs to be done here and many wish to suppress this sort of information because they are old fashioned, traditional, and not interested in learning. Progress rolls over the little people.
 
L Gilbert
#25
Quote: Originally Posted by CliffyView Post

Although the evidence of multiple migrations is mounting, we still have barely scratched the surface of how long humans have lived in the Americas. In spite of what the genome project says, I think humans have been living here for at least 100 thousand years.

Think what you want. There's no evidence of any homo sapiens having gotten further than southern Asia 100,000 years ago. Our nearest relative H. Neanderthalensis only reached northern Asia and eastern Europe.

Quote: Originally Posted by MHzView Post

Doesn't the 'land bridge just mean there was a shoreline to follow with some boats, the oceanic currents still should have traveled from Japan to the west coast of Canada and all the way down to South America.

Yep. People used to travel along the edges of ice sheets.
 
bill barilko
#26
Quote: Originally Posted by L GilbertView Post

Think what you want. There's no evidence of any homo sapiens having gotten further than southern Asia 100,000 years ago. Our nearest relative H. Neanderthalensis only reached northern Asia and eastern Europe.

Hueyatlaco is an archeological site in Valsequillo, Mexico where sophisticated human-made tools were discovered in geographic strata that multiple peer reviewed studies have dated to ca. 250,000 ybp (years before the present). (external - login to view)
 
L Gilbert
#27
Quote: Originally Posted by bill barilkoView Post

Hueyatlaco is an archeological site in Valsequillo, Mexico where sophisticated human-made tools were discovered in geographic strata that multiple peer reviewed studies have dated to ca. 250,000 ybp (years before the present). (external - login to view)

So, I might be wrong about evidence.
There have been a handful of various human subspecies throughout history. The earliest homonids reach back to the late miocene era. Those relatives of ours were Australopithecus. It's certainly possible for more than one subspecies to have existed around the planet if our particular subspecies started in southeast Africa.
 
Spade
#28
The scientific paper arguing a date closer to 11500 BP. Remember, Wikipedia is not peer reviewed.
JSTOR: World Archaeology, Vol. 38, No. 4 (Dec., 2006), pp. 611-627 (external - login to view)
 
L Gilbert
#29
Doesn't matter. Researchers are always finding new artifacts and stuff anyway. Someone could state something today and then overnight new evidence could be found that shows the person to be wrong. Like I said, it's no big deal. My knowledge is limited because I have only a mild interest in anthro.
 
Nuggler
+1
#30
Quote: Originally Posted by MHzView Post

Doesn't the 'land bridge just mean there was a shoreline to follow with some boats, the oceanic currents still should have traveled from Japan to the west coast of Canada and all the way down to South America. Walking would have been slower and slower means more food and with ice some two miles tall it could have come right to the waters edge. Get really drunk (sleep lots) on a raft for 10 days and you would almost be there, no coming back though.

Might be news but the ancient guys were smart enough to not walk around packing rocks. When they needed one they picked it up, if they had a 'favorite handle' they would use it, toss the rock away, carry the stick to new location some many miles way and then they would find another rock that they could tie to the handle.

History tells us some walked the land bridge, although with the big ice, would have been a challenge.

I wasn't there so I dunno if they "packed rocks" or not. Seems to me, if I had a neat rock tied to the end of my favourite stick to form my favourite club, damned if I'd throw it away. One would have to kill something to get sinews to tie on a new rock.

My great great great great great great............etc....................grandads club still sits above our mantel. Worth $29.95 on Antiques Roadshow.

Life's good, eh.
 
no new posts