LUZIA(11,500 years old, Brazil)
Posted on 04/02/2020 6:12:29 AM PDT by rktman
Tens of thousands of years ago, two gigantic ice sheets smothered the northernmost parts of what has since been named North America. They towered more than two kilometers high and contained 1.5 times as much water as Antarctica does today. They were daunting, impassable barriers to the early humans who had started moving east from Asia, walking across a land bridge that once connected the regions now known as Russia and Alaska. But once the ice started to melt, these peoples—the ancestors of the Americas’ Indigenous groups—spread southward into new lands.
What happened next?
Genetic studies, based on ancient remains, had already suggested that once the first American Indians got south of the ice, 14,600 to 17,500 years ago, they split into two main branches. One stayed north, giving rise to the Algonquian-speaking peoples of Canada. The other headed south, giving rise to the widespread Clovis culture, and to Central and South Americans. That’s a very rough outline, but a study from J. Víctor Moreno-Mayar and his colleagues fleshes it out. They showed that whatever happened south of the ice, it happened fast.
(Excerpt) Read more at getpocket.com ...
P.S. Dear grrrrrreta. Thinking that SUVs and coal powered generators did NOT cause the noted ice sheets to retreat.
I don't know about the coal powered generators, but doesn't it make sense that those people had SUVs if they spread across the Americas so fast? Something pre- IH Scout or Range Rover at least?
Most likely they had bison power, instead of horsepower...
It was a golden age. Nothing to do by hunt stupid big game and make babies for a couple of hundred years.
HUH? Have you discovered the long sought after roadbeds for the early inter-continent freeways? :-)
LUZIA(11,500 years old, Brazil)
Thor Heyerdahl thought it would only have taken about ten years for wandering tribes to have traversed North America. (There was no reason for anyone to remain in the bleak, snow-covered north, when bountiful lands with plenty of game
were just head of them.)
Not too off topic, it’s always been remarkable to me that N. American native people were STILL ‘stone age’ when Europeans arrived.
In Indians’ early interaction with Europeans, they had a dread fear of blades. It’s something that was clean unknown to them, since they did not work metal at all. They called Europeans the ‘long knife’.
Tribes were very primitive and warred constantly with one another. It took Europeans a long time to understand their cultures and tribal interactions... which ones got along and which ones didn’t, etc.
Native = people who were there first. By your definition Europeans aren’t native either.
OLD CHESTNUT:
Man from Government talking to Indian and promising a ‘better’ life if they voluntarily move to the newly formed ‘Reservations’
Tonto stroked his chin and said...
“Let me see, I sleep till nine wake up to meal that woman cooked. Dress in clothes that woman made and keeps clean, go out and fish for a while, bring catch home, woman clean, take nap, eat meal that woman fix, then go hunting for a while. Catch me some game, bring it home, woman clean game, woman store game for later, fixes me meal, I have my pick of young ladies then go to sleep.
Next day the same, then the same etc etc-
NOW, tell me how you are going to make things better?”
Well, that's easy. Since so much water was tied up in North American ice, it exposed large areas of the Pacific and they island-hopped in their dugout canoes.
Nope. Back to Pangea.
Already in your index?
I’m thinkin’ ancient jet skis.
Why would you move camps so often with abundant and stupid big game everywhere?
I would think a 20 mile per year pace to be more likely. That would be about 1-2 hundred years to cover the two continents.
Starting from a very small base of maybe 70 people, and doubling every 20 years, roughly, it takes a hundred years to reach a couple of thousand people. You are up to 70-140 thousand in two hundred years, and close to 40 million by the end of the third century of colonization.
Genetic studies show the base to be very small, indeed. The over-all pattern that is emerging suggests that the Americas were colonized by a small number of individuals (effective size of about 70), which grew by many orders of magnitude over 800 – 1000 years.[21][22] The data also shows that there have been genetic exchanges between Asia, the Arctic, and Greenland since the initial peopling of the Americas.[22][23]
Polish jets?
According to our/my DNA, my siblings and our descendants have zero Cherokee/Choctaw/???? ancestors.
Yet,genealogical documents show over 100 ancestors were Cherokee/Choctaw/???. The math genius in our family jokes that we would need a Cray computer to calculate our % of so called American Indian going back just a few generations. Yet, our current Ancestry.com DNA shows 0%.
Also we have documented DNA showing that I have 3 % African DNA, and a sibling has 2% of different neighboring African tribes. Her daughter supposedly has 2% of the same African tribes and her children have the same African DNA that I have.
The older and hopefully wiser I get, often makes me feel that many of our so called historians and scientists were BSers creating BS papers to get published and to keep their jobs.
I’m getting the damn T-shirt. :-)
Well then we are all native to everywhere!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.