We learn something new every day. Re: the Fox story. Now it appears that humans were using some kind of boat to get to what is now Crete about 100,000 years ago. That used to be the age mark of when humans had barely begun to establish any kind of culture.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/16/science/16archeo.html?ref=science
Everybody from just 5,000 years ago? Nah. I scent just a little whiff of someone trying to find proof of a young earth.
Joe(hail, brothers and sisters)Nation
Something i find more amazing is that at some time between 2000 and 1500 years ago, people from either Borneo or the Celebes struck out across the Indian ocean in outrigger canoes, and eventually made landfall on the island we now call Madagascar. That has to be the most spectacular voyage of pre-modern humans.
Crete can be reached from the mainland of the Peloponnesus by a series of voyages from one island to the next, each island being in sight of the previous one. To get from Borneo to Madagascar, you have to sail out of sight of land for weeks, or even months, in the Indian Ocean, where the waves have sunk, in seconds, European warships which broached to within the last two centuries. Now that was seamanship!
The most spectacular voyage of pre-modern humans was by the Australian Aboriginee. They came in two waves to Australia, the latest about 40,000 years ago, and went as far as South America, where they were later wiped out by the Ameri-indians when they invaded.
@Ionus,
Ionus wrote:. . . and went as far as South America, where they were later wiped out by the Ameri-indians when they invaded.
I'd be curious to know if you have some reliable evidence that this is so.
@Setanta,
Certainly. It is always a pleasure to deal with polite people of an intellectual nature.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/sci/tech/430944.stm
and the first inhabitants of North America were white europeans.
If Australia was settled by man 40,000 years ago, and as your BBC source claims, stone tools have been found in Brazil at sites which are 50,000 years old, then it cannot reasonably be claimed that South America was first settled by Australian Aborigines. Furthermore, the article you link speaks of a skull found in a stratum which is described as being no older than 12,000 ybp, and artwork no older than 17,000 ybp--which rather beggars other claims in the article about a timeline running back to 50,000 ybp. Now it may well be that the people who came over the Asian land bridge approximately 11,000 ybp were not the first inhabitants of the two American continents, but this argument is not sustained by any evidence they present to the effect that the first inhabitants came from Melanesia--they could as easily have come from the east, as from west. I find the article tendentious and suspect. I don't deny that you contention is correct, but i see no evidence in the BBC article to assure that it is.
As for Europeans in North America, although there is some compelling inferential evidence for the Solutrian hypothesis, it is not an established fact and to say that the first inhabitants of North America were Europeans as though it were is intellectually irresponsible.
@Setanta,
Quote:If Australia was settled by man 40,000 years ago, and as your BBC source claims, stone tools have been found in Brazil at sites which are 50,000 years old, then it cannot reasonably be claimed that South America was first settled by Australian Aborigines.
Of course it can. You are assuming the dates disqualify all other evidence, but those dates are based on similar evidence THAT HAS BEEN FOUND. Surely I do not have to explain the problems with such evidence ?
Quote:they could as easily have come from the east, as from west.
Where is the evidence of Africans sailing west ? There is evidence of the Aboriginees sailing east. Perhaps you dont give full credit to skeletal evidence.
Quote:As for Europeans in North America, although there is some compelling inferential evidence for the Solutrian hypothesis, it is not an established fact and to say that the first inhabitants of North America were Europeans as though it were is intellectually irresponsible.
So who do you think the anatomical features of these early people best represent ? The evidence has been studied but are you aware the evidence has been buried by Ameri-Indians ? Perhaps for political power...If everyone says maybe it is true then the evidence will continue to be destroyed.
You are already familar with the following but I include it for anyone following the debate :
My former chiropractor is half chinese and half japanese. He told me that the Koreans, Japanese, and Chinese all originally came from China. He then told me we are definitely all closely related. I have noticed that many people seem to have hangups about being told there are races related to their own. Don't know why. Unless you actually look down on another race that may be related to your own, then it really should not bother you. I am not saying that Chinese, Japanese, and Koreans are all the same thing. I just don't see how they could not be related to one another.
readers have to understand the fact that Mongols and mongoloids are two different things. Mongoloid refers to the features or the structures of body in which one is built. for instance Caucasian(white), Aryan, Afro, Mongoloid. The latter one lived in Oriental Asia and spread worldwide.
