Skip to comments.
'First Americans Were Australian'
BBC ^
| 6-15-2003
Posted on 06/15/2003 9:18:19 PM PDT by blam
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-60, 61-80, 81-100 ... 141-150 next last
To: lizma
You are so right. The tendency is to cling to the old conventions ignoring anything that's radical or might upset the status quo. I've read that the Chinese have records stating the their ships sailed to South America and California. The Olmec statues have african faces. The 10,000 year old skulls that they found in the Pacific Northwest and the tribe there tried to keep from being analysed was caucasian. Who knows?
61
posted on
06/16/2003 1:21:19 PM PDT
by
dljordan
To: dljordan
62
posted on
06/16/2003 4:04:26 PM PDT
by
blam
To: blam; Porterville
It's just another piece of the complicated puzzle of the settling of the Americas. Which I believe was done by people from all continents over many thousands of years ocassionally interrupted by world affecting catastrophic events. Considering that Australia was settled upwards of 50K years ago by the aborigines, it's not too much of a stretch to consider that they also managed to make it here. The Americas were also likely visited by people from Asia and Europe across the northern ice flows.
Why did the Asians come to dominate? I was reading at one point that the Asians had a crucial innovation: the domestication of the dog. This gave them a big advantage versus some of the big nocturnal predators that inhabited the Americas at the time (an early warning at 3am that a sabertooth is around would make a big difference in your survival prospects)
63
posted on
08/04/2003 5:48:44 PM PDT
by
SauronOfMordor
(Java/C++/Unix/Web Developer === needs a job at the moment)
64
posted on
08/04/2003 6:00:15 PM PDT
by
SauronOfMordor
(Java/C++/Unix/Web Developer === needs a job at the moment)
To: blam
The first Americans were American.
65
posted on
08/04/2003 6:03:21 PM PDT
by
DoctorMichael
(>>>>>Liberals Suk. Liberalism Sukz.<<<<<)
To: blam
I think they found Asian remains that were older from news reports I read months ago.
I think this is a battle of scientists running around claiming they were first and they DON'T acknowledge other findings.
66
posted on
08/04/2003 6:08:45 PM PDT
by
A CA Guy
(God Bless America, God bless and keep safe our fighting men and women.)
To: SauronOfMordor
Why did the Asians come to dominate? I was reading at one point that the Asians had a crucial innovation: the domestication of the dog. This gave them a big advantage versus some of the big nocturnal predators that inhabited the Americas at the time (an early warning at 3am that a sabertooth is around would make a big difference in your survival prospects)" "Before 135,000 years ago Neanderthals had domesticated dogs. 100,000 years ago they also had sheep, goat, cattle, pig and possibly reindeer. It's very possible that these special relations with animals evolved through the use of signals and simple instruments used for communication during their hunting activities . These animals weren't domestic in our sense of the word, rather they roamed around freely, and could be called upon. This same method was used in many parts of Scandinavia. Dogs probably played a key role in both hunting, driving animals and for defense and protection. They also knew the properties of various plants. Stimulants were used to tamper with activity level."
From this excellent article: The Neanderthal Theory
67
posted on
08/04/2003 6:14:15 PM PDT
by
blam
To: A CA Guy
"I think they found Asian remains that were older from news reports I read months ago. " I don't think so. There aren't any Native Americans/American Indian ever found that are older than 6,000 years old. All skeletons found that are older than 6,000 years are of totally different people, most are similar to Kennewick Man but, some are different than anyone alive today. One of the most unusual is simply named 'Stickman,' 9,000+ years old.
68
posted on
08/04/2003 6:22:41 PM PDT
by
blam
To: SauronOfMordor
69
posted on
08/04/2003 6:25:17 PM PDT
by
blam
To: RichInOC
Nope the cave writing said in big bold letters:
DRINK FOSTERS!!
To: Porterville
>...does it ever end????
No, it never ends. They came from everywhere, including outer space. Eveything but widely accepted science.
71
posted on
08/04/2003 6:31:03 PM PDT
by
Celantro
To: Porterville
"""This crap never ends...There from West Africa/East Asia/Northern Russia/Greenland/Atlantis and now Australia...does it ever end????"""
Not as long as the grant money continues to pour in!
To: blam
The Asian remains were far older than 6000 years old. I think they could have been older than 30,000, but that is a distant memory of a read article trying to recall here.
I do know the Asian remains were super old and by far the oldest.
I wish I had that on hand.
73
posted on
08/04/2003 6:45:22 PM PDT
by
A CA Guy
(God Bless America, God bless and keep safe our fighting men and women.)
To: A CA Guy
"I think they could have been older than 30,000, but that is a distant memory of a read article trying to recall here. I do know the Asian remains were super old and by far the oldest.
Found in the Americas? I don't think so. The oldest skeleton ever found in the Americas is 'Spirit Cave Woman,' see post #2 on this thread. The 2nd oldest is Luzia whos' picture is at the top of this thread.
74
posted on
08/04/2003 6:55:27 PM PDT
by
blam
To: blam
All I remember was it was Asian, ancient and recently in the news. I have to go see if I can help you and I by trying to look it up later.
It is not uncommon for scientific snobs to ignore the findings of others.
75
posted on
08/04/2003 6:57:44 PM PDT
by
A CA Guy
(God Bless America, God bless and keep safe our fighting men and women.)
To: blam
The Australian aborigines are Caucasoid are they not?
76
posted on
08/04/2003 7:00:05 PM PDT
by
RightWhale
(Destroy the dark; restore the light)
To: RightWhale
"The Australian aborigines are Caucasoid are they not?" I don't know.
James Chatters in his book, Ancient Encounters, says that he thinks that an ancient group of people traveled across the Asian steppes from Europe (evolving as they went over thousands of years) into Asia and it was this group (Kennewick Man like people) who evolved into the Asians, Jomons, Polinesians(sp) and then streamed back and also became the Caucasians of Europe.
77
posted on
08/04/2003 7:09:40 PM PDT
by
blam
To: blam
Another small thing is the origin of the word aborigines. Rather than meaning original, it could mean 'from the mountains' or 'beyond the mountains.' If so the term would have the same origin as oriental, which means from the mountains or in the mountains. The mountains of Turkey, by the way, which was once considered the Orient. From Greek, oros, mountain. The word origin is derived from the Latin origo, rise, which would have a similar meaning as mountain, which is related to montere, to climb. The famous formula y = mx + b also contains the m which is short for French monter, to climb, thanks to Descartes.
78
posted on
08/04/2003 7:18:52 PM PDT
by
RightWhale
(Destroy the dark; restore the light)
Comment #79 Removed by Moderator
To: SauronOfMordor
"Considering that Australia was settled upwards of 50K years ago by the aborigines, it's not too much of a stretch to consider that they also managed to make it here" Makes sense. I suppose they wouldn't have had to come from Australia to America, perhaps they came from elsewhere? Or does the timing preclude it?
80
posted on
08/04/2003 7:34:35 PM PDT
by
Sam Cree
(Democrats are herd animals)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-60, 61-80, 81-100 ... 141-150 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson