Richard Day's picture

    CONSENSUS

    ANTHROPOLOGY

    I recall in the late 1960's that Anthropology professors discussed the problem involved in 'aging' the primates in this NEW WORLD.

    Well the 'consensus' was that 13,000 years ago, Homo Sapiens crept into our New World via the Siberian whatever....

    The latest ice age gave a land cross from Siberia to the Americas (read Canada) and from that land cross, people from the East found a new home.

    Okay.

    But I was also told, in the late 60's that 'man' had been here for 25,000 yearsl

    \I have no cites because I am going on memory but that is what I recall from those old days.

    Then I review these History Channel episodes and there was a Platonian Atlantis and of course it had something to do with Aliens and of course....

    Check these silly episodes out sometime. Hahahahahh I am struck by their dimensions. Hahahahahah.

    I will never eschew them because I am, at last, an idiot. I love old UFO controversies. Hahahha

    Anyhow, I am continually assaulted by blogs discussing the 13,000 year history of the New World.

    And yet, I was informed fifty years ago about a 25,000 year history of humanity in the New world.

    Anyway, the NYT presents a wonderful essay on the Brazilian Anthropologists who give us an entirely different discussion concerning their investigations of our NEW WORLD.

    The issue does not involve a 13,000 year old Homo Sapiens discovery of the so-called new world and the investigations by these scientists do not even keep to the line of 25,000 years as far as homo sapiens on these two continents.

    Do you remember Thor Heyerdahl?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thor_Heyerdahl

    This man spent his entire life attempting to demonstrate that 'man' could defy the seas and traverse to the new world.

    And he did it!

    And we have no problems with regard to the Aborigines of Australia populating that continent 40,000 years ago and only by way of boats, but we have problems with the proposition that 'man' somehow  could not come to the Americas via the Atlantic or Pacific oceans.

    I never understood this challenge even 50 years ago.

    If sailors could find their way to Australia, how come they could not find their way to the Americas?

    The Pacific sailors traversed the Seas in a 4,000 mile diameter circle, why the hell could they not get to the Americas?

    It never made any sense to me.

    And here was Thor, who never contended that Aliens brought life to this planet (which I really cannot in reality deny) and he just built these boats with the mechanical means available thousands of years ago.

    Well the CONSENSUS seems to be that the Old World found the New World 13,000 years ago or 25.000 years ago when I was schooled.

    But, Thor looks better these days, at least I think so. Hahhaha

    I came across this NYT monograph and it really attracted my attention.

    Before I get into this discussion, I am reminded of a Leaky Story.

    Leaky is in Africa, of course, and he finds all these 'split' rocks and stones and he comes to the conclusion that pre humans or early humans worked to make these rock fragments into tools.

    Now, this is from memory with no links, but Leaky was brought back to America in order to sell him, basically. And so Leaky ends up here to give speeches and such (cause all these folks knew how to make bucks even back then) and he cannot help himself in that he goes off to his own explorations and discovers other split rocks IN THE GOOD OLE US OF A, (hahahhahahaha) and decides to publish his findings that Early Man Was here. Hahahahhahaha

    So the powers that be, send Leaky back to Africa as fast as was possible at the time. Hahahahah

    You can split rocks intentionally for some purpose like making spear heads or arrow heads or some other machinations or you can watch them split through rock slides. Hahhaha

    This NYT essay really takes my previous assumptions to task.

    I mean, there are Brazilian Anthropologists who are sure that Homo Sapiens were on these two New World Continents 100,000 years ago! And these anthropologists use the same techniques as the establishment by extracting the ashes from old 'fire places' created by Homo Sapiens and using carbon dating techniques.

    And, there are 'experts' who disagree as to whether or not Homo Sapiens Sapiens have even been on this planet for 100,000 years or 250,000 years.

    This is a big deal. At least in my tiny mind.

    More recently, numerous findings have challenged that narrative. In Texas,archaeologists said in 2011 that they had found projectile points showing that hunter-gatherers had reached another site, known as Buttermilk Creek, as early as 15,500 years ago. Similarly, analysis of human DNAfound at an Oregon cave determined that humans were there 14,000 years ago...

    Paleontologists in Uruguay published findings in November suggesting that humans hunted giant sloths there about 30,000 years ago. All the way in southern Chile, Tom D. Dillehay, an anthropologist at Vanderbilt University, has shown that humans lived at a coastal site called Monte Verde as early as 14,800 years ago...

    Having their findings disputed is nothing new for the archaeologists working at Serra da Capivara. Dr. Guidon, the Brazilian archaeologist who pioneered the excavations, asserted more than two decades ago that her team had found evidence in the form of charcoal from hearth fires that humans had lived here about 48,000 years ago.


    http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/28/world/americas/discoveries-challenge-beliefs-on-humans-arrival-in-the-americas.html?ref=science

    Go ahead and view the video provided. NYT has provided a really fine essay.

    I have always, and I mean always been intrigued by the cave paintings.

    Picasso went nuts when he first viewed them in Spain and of course it changed his entire artistry.

    But in the New World, we have the same cave paintings.

    I always thought it strange that we have pyramids in the New World.

    My Anthropology Profs would proffer that the entire problems relate to the definition of what a pyramid is? But damn, look at the Cambodian pyramids and then go to the Mayan Peninsula and...

    WHY SHOULD I TAKE SO MUCH TIME ON A SUBJECT THAT SEEMS TO WANDER?

    Look.

    Please read this wonderful essay on the NYT. How often do we get to read something on the web over 2 pages?

    It is fun to read.

    But my point is this.

    How do we really know what we know?

    The repubs have taken the challenge on all of this.

    Forget the crap about the universe being 6,000 or 10,000 years old.

    Forget the crap about THE FLOOD wiping out all the sons and daughters of the consummation of Angels and Women and ….

    There really is and always has been this schism between the ESTABLISHMENT SCIENTISTS and the interested scientists.

    I do not have the cite right now, but there have been discoveries concerning ancient men who were found to be Caucasian and buried in the New World tens of thousands of years ago. It is a small percentage of all found skeletons, but Caucasian skeletons do exist.

    Take a look at the footage available at this NYT post.

    It is worth your while at least, it was worth my while. I mean I spent three years getting a four year degree in Anthropology.

    It was in my early 20's that I fell in love with Thor (I mean I always liked nekked ladies and such) but Thor built the damn boats and then he went ahead and sailed them!

    If Man could not cross the Atlantic 20,000 years ago or 50,000 years ago with trade winds and such, how the hell did Man get to Australia?

    Okay, so the point?

    The RIGHT loves to attack the ESTABLISHMENT Scientific Community.

    There is no climate problems created by Man because Exxon's scientists tell us so!

    We really have no idea how old the universe is let alone Earth because we have no pix?

    Well, here is this Brazilian Anthropologist who contends that 'Man' has been in this New World for a hundred thousand years.

    There are a whole bunch of issues that might arise from my simple brief.

    For instance:

    Why do we just accept what the 'experts' tell us?

    What is accepted science?

    WHAT IS CONSENSUS?

    I just watched another scenario from THE HISTORY CHANNEL telling me about ancient aliens.

    As far as I can tell, Trigonometry can tell me how far we are from the Sun.

    And that same science can tell me how far Jupiter is from the Sun.

    So what do I know, really?

    Well, I can tell you this for sure, new findings from Anthropologists in Brazil, give me a real pause as to when the first 'homo sapiens' actually walked in the New World.

    Did Noah really grab 2 million species and put them two by two in an ark to save them from extinction?

    NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO FRICKIN WAY. AHHAHAHAHAH But does the Establishment Scientific Community (whatever the hell that means) know everything?

    NO FRICKIN WAY.

    XXXX

    Oh and if you wish to see the origin of FOX NEWS, read this nice essay on Salon:

    http://www.salon.com/2014/03/29/rumor_gossip_nonsense_how_the_news_became_a_nightmare/

    It is kind of fun. haaahaahahahahah

     

     

     

     

     

     

    Comments

    Science, bah, how could they possibly know what happened 30 or 100's of thousands of years ago. I can't believe you're falling for that con. Like life came about after millions of years of no life and then "evolved" from one celled amoebas into dogs and cats and rats and humans and millions of other species. Use a little common sense. Do scientists really think we're that gullible?

    So I did some reading on Intelligent Design. But really, no one could be that intelligent to design something this complex. It would take a designer with an incredible amount of focus. Someone with a superhuman attention to detail. Someone able to memorize endless minutia and trivial facts.

    Then I did some reading from the words religions. Clearly god has some severe disabilities with social interactions. It doesn't seem capable of dealing with normal human interactions, it tends to fly into rages over the most trivial things.

    So what we have here is a very narrow and limited intelligence,  but in the narrow focus superhuman abilities and intelligence. Coupled with a near total lack of ability to deal with normal day to day life and ordinary social interactions. I think you can see where I'm going. Idiot Savant! I think the theory of Idiot Savant Design answers all the flaws in the theory of Intelligent Design.

    What more evidence do you need than this.

     

     


    Makes more sense than most theories of intelligent design. wink


    I know all about limited intelligence; hell I have been living with it for a long, long time. hahahaha

    Can you imagine though, Ocean, living a life that is soooo much fun? These rock and bone folks get to spend all this time looking into the Twilight Zone.

    At any rate, the NYT essay is real fun as far as a read.

    And I have this degree that means nothing, but damn, this is fun stuff!

    I know so little about Brazil anyway, but these cave paintings are wondrous.

    the end


    Are wisdom teeth intelligent design? Did God love oral surgeons?


    The Creator was more concerned at the time with how to get our hips to work while walking on hind legs all the time. The teeth thing probably was outsourced when the draft sketch was mistakenly approved by an intern.


    No absolutely not. No one intelligent would include wisdom teeth in the design. That's just one of the many problems with Intelligent Design. But my theory of Idiot Savant Design solves those problems. I think its about to go viral once those in the evangelical community hear of it. Most of them are half idiot savant already.


    It might interest you to know that the Beringian land bridge existed 35,000 years ago as well as 15,000 years ago. Genetic studies also indicate that most (if not all) native Americans are descendants of people who came via Siberia. Now, that's not to say that it's impossible that there were some peoples who came via Oceania (or who traveled to Oceania), but so far there has been very little evidence supporting this, whereas there is ample evidence supporting travel over the Beringian land bridge. So, while we cannot rule it out, oceanic travel is definitely not required to explain how people came to inhabit various regions of the Americas. Of course, neither is the existence of aliens. smiley


    That is another omission in our 'historical past' that I marvel at.

    There was not one ice age for crissakes!

    Anyway, I am one of sea proponents; 'man' whatever you define him as, floated upon the seas.

    Certainly some of our Native Americans look Asian but damn, a lot of those folks do not.

    Anyway, this is a fun essay and I am so sick of the same ole same ole when it comes to the Web.

    NYT for crissakes!

    A fun read for sure!


    I do not mean to completely discount the sea theories. While not conclusive, there has been plenty of intriguing evidence supporting the idea. While there is not the scientific consensus for it that there is for the land bridge, neither is there a scientific consensus that there was no sea settlement.


    I read the same story, Dick, loved it, and thought... "Hey! I'll bet Dick read this!"

    Good man. 

    Main thing is, we need to know how little we know.

    Hope you got some sun and some heat happening out your way.

    Q


    Q it was in the forties today for crissakes and all this melting and such.

    Supposedly we have this big storm acomin tomorrow!

    Honestly, I am getting so old that I actually get stuck sometimes in the banks. hahahahah

    I was so pitiful last week when I was stuck in some drift on the way back from the store that I almost wished for one of those contraptions where you can yell:

    I FELL DOWN AND I CANNOT GET UP.

    hahahahahah

    Anyway, there is a sun that peaks out over 12 hours now and I shall walk with impunity soon.

    hahahaha


    Best thing is, when you see some kid walking along looking down, reading their cell phone, you can slam right into them, and then give them a glare of disapproval like it's their fault, and THEY HAVE TO TAKE IT!

    LOL!

    Sweet, eh? 

    Man, I love getting older.


    I was right, it is Quint Eastwood. Now about those damn Vietnamese...


    The nice thing about science is peer review.  Scientists argue back and forth for years about something until technology comes along to prove what is right.  Religions just go to war and try to kill each other over their blind faith. They try to bully people into believing like they do. 


    Another is scientists don't have to run for election.


    What you say is so so true.

    Peer review is of the utmost import.

    And these scientific journals are of import.

    I was just struck by the fact that anthropologists in South America show me things I have never seen!

    And anthropologists should not be apologists for the 'consensus'. hahaha

    Anthropology is the study of man (and women of course, hahahah), not the study of Americans at the exclusion of all others.

    Here is the fire place, here are the ashes and such and here are the carbon dating results.

    At any rate I find this stuff a lot of fun!


    It's hard to leave a trail of breadcrumbs on the ocean. smiley

    It is reasonable to conjecture that homo sapiens made sea voyages just to see what was "out there". I mean, if curiosity was only in the realm of modern man, there would be no modern man.

    And it's also reasonable to conjecture that not all of the First Americans arrived via a land bridge. (I mean, I've always had this picture in my head of a bunch of Chinese fellers marching single file over the land bridge and magically turning into Indians just before they got here but keeping the Epicanthic eyelid just for fun.) But, not all of the indigenous (for lack of a better word) could have arrived that way. There are just too many variables in the appearances of modern Indians.

    So, it just seems reasonable that others arrived in the New World by sea, even if it was by accident. Because that's the only other way they could get here, right? Barring aliens.


    Anyhoo, here's a little tidbit of information that you might enjoy, Mr. Day: According to many Native American oral histories,there are not three races, but four. In order of creation, first was Asian, next came NA's, then Black, and lastly White. You won't find this written down in any book. This is pure oral tradition.


    It will always remain a shame that a lot of historical knowledge of the New World was dismissed by the "discovering" Europeans simply because of the method of recording.
    Hopefully, that is changing. There is a small horde of young NA anthro's working on blending the information.


    I think you're underestimating how quickly appearances can change. After all, look how many new wild and crazy dog breeds we've introduced in the last two centuries alone.

    As for the breadcrumbs, while you're considering the phenotype (the variables in the appearances), geneticists have been examining the genotype, and the genotype largely bears out the land-bridge hypothesis. Of course, by "land-bridge", we're talking about something on par with Texas:

    Again, that's not to say that it's impossible for people to have reached the Americas by sea, it's just that the genetic evidence supporting such a theory has been lacking, as far as I know. (It's not my field, so new data might have changed this.)


    There is compromise theory out there.

    I call it the coastal float.

    You are on the sea but only float along coastal lines. 

    After all, in  the Pacific you might go from island to island but you will lose sight of land for awhile.

    But the coastal floaters never lost sight of land, or rarely lost sight of land.

    You can carry more stuff on a raft/boat than on your back and you can fish in coves for food and you can land from time to time for your greens or other more meaty dishes.


    I don't think I was underestimating how quickly appearances can change. I think I was saying just exactly that.

    I cannot underestimate how quickly appearances change, especially in the case of NA's, simply because there are so few genetic examples of full-blooded Indians left to examine. Most of these members remain isolated by choice.

    The mingling of races, or mutts, to use the dog example, were not only a result of opportunity but of necessity in order to survive European diseases. There were practicalities to consider.

    So, of course there was a quick and direct change in appearances. Yet there are profound indicators of race that can't be bred out of us. I will use the example of the epicanthic eyelid because while it showed up on my face, it is absent from my three sisters. In fact, I am the only one that gets asked if I am a "real" Indian.

    Those NA's that were able to resist the diseases and retain their full-blooded status were and are from tribes originally located mostly in the North Eastern parts of North America. The theory that I've heard is that there must have been some mingling with the Norse in the long time ago that provided some health protection to those able to resist. The Norse would have arrived by sea, probably doing the "coastal float" as Mr. Day suggests. Seems feasible to me and would also indicate that there was a mingling between races very early on.

    Exactly who are the genetic purebreds? Even poodles started out as wolves.


    I loved your oral history, where did the four or five or whatever races of Homo Sapiens arose and where they arose. Hell that is why I put in my fable about Leaky.

    And from what I have read over the many decades involves all these different humans we espy in the Americas today and a century ago.

    Hell, Columbus notes in his diaries that Black folks were already here when he arrived although his diaries also note UFO's. hahahaha

    Some of these 'tribes' in the tropical forests down south, do not look like (whatever not look like means) Ojibwas up here. Or the Sioux or many other tribes still extant today despite 'our' plan to wipe them all out.

    And there has been all of this cultural diffusion going on for centuries, hell millennia!

    I love your parables more than some of our 'established science' of where 'we' come from.

    And Flower, you already know that oral histories and songs created the Iliad and the Odyssey and Genesis. All three books just record in writing old old old songs of the past.

     


    You're absolutely right to point out how the specter of disease could have had a profound impact on our current-day efforts to try to work backwards in trying to determine what the population of the Americas looked like prior to 1500.

    My point about how quickly appearances can change is just that I think it's entirely feasible that we could have gotten the wide variety of indigenous peoples we see in the Americas even if all of them arrived originally over the Bering land bridge. (And of course, you're right that there is some evidence of the insertion of Norse genetics in the extreme north eastern regions of the Americas.)

    I hope you understand that my reference to dogs was not meant in anyway to compare the indigenous peoples to dogs, at least no more than it is to compare all peoples to dogs. I cast my lot in with the group that believe that dogs have domesticated us as much as we domesticated them. As for genetic purebreds? Either all of us or none of us, depending on how one defines it.


    It is possible that the diversity in appearances already existed in Siberia from various tribes who decided that it was best to migrate for whatever reason, the conditions being so bad where they were that they took their entire nation across the bridge. The ones who re-migrated back theoretically and have the appearance of North American inhabitants may have looked that way before crossing the bridge.

     

     

     


    This is not a stupid perspective.

    You know Trope, what I found interesting in my short lifetime were the pix of folks like Khrushchev and Brezhnev.

    Here is Nikita:

    Bundesarchiv Bild 183-B0628-0015-035, Nikita S. Chruschtschow.jpg

    And here is Leonid

    Leonid Brežněv (Bundesarchiv).jpg

    Leonid clearly has more 'Asian' features than Nikita.

    But then again, we get the term 'Russia' from the Russ who were Vikings and yet we have Genghis Kahn running throughout what we now know as Russia into Asia with no discernable Viking traits I can find except a need for rape and pillage. hahahahah

    Somehow Anthropologists just decided there were three 'races of men' and then there was the New World and there were kind of four races of men but they decided that Native Americans were all 'Asian' and then....

    Then there were the Australians. hahahahahah

    Again, I just found this discussion about Brazilian Anthropologists really interesting. 

     


    Latest Comments