RE: The 'First Nations' have some explaining to do
February 29, 2012 at 11:40 am
(This post was last modified: February 29, 2012 at 11:48 am by Rokcet Scientist.)
(February 29, 2012 at 11:07 am)Rhythm Wrote: No, I understand. I'm not saying that having a hunch is a bad thing. I'm just wary of any claim that contains within it a reason as to why it cannot be proven (or implies so, if not making a direct claim).
For example, I can give you the bit about being buried underwater, we see that all the time (but we also find artifacts and remains underwater as well). Assuming that they made the trip, they would have followed the banks of a river when they came acrossed it, and so we would expect to find something, some bones, some artifact along those rivers (or where those rivers once were). The sea does not erase all traces of hominids elsewhere, so why are we assuming that it did in N. America? As an explanation for a lack of evidence? Unsatisfactory.
If they were gathering sea food (which was far easier, more productive [the whole family/tribe could partake], more nutritional, and much less risky than hunting game inland) there would have been plenty of reasons for not following rivers inland: too risky.
(February 29, 2012 at 11:07 am)Rhythm Wrote: (but we also find artifacts and remains underwater as well)
Hardly! Until now those are extremely rare finds. The era of underwater archaeology is only beginning. Bob Ballard paved the way.
But as underwater archaeology develops we will find more stuff, of course. We simply haven't found it yet. But that doesn't mean it's not there. In fact logic and circumstantial evidence tells us it must be there (if it wasn't eroded or perished)! It's just a matter of time before we identify it.
