The 'First Nations' have some explaining to do

[Rokcet Scientist]

The 'First Nations' have some explaining to do. Because they weren't the 'First Nations': according to the most current research the Americas were first colonized by Europeans. I.o.w. by Caucasians. Solutreans, to be precise. During the last glacial max, via the ice sheet covering the north Atlantic. At least 10,000 years before the proto-Indians, the ancestors of the 'First Nations', streamed across the Bering Land Bridge in (relatively) great numbers.

The clincher is 'geological fingerprinting': “What’s more, chemical analysis carried out last year on a European-style stone knife found in Virginia back in 1971 revealed that it was made of French-originating flint.”

But when the Phoenician traders, Irish monks, Viking settlers, and Columbian conquistadores came looking, millennia later, there wasn't a Caucasian left. Only the 'First Nations'.
So what happened to the Caucasian earliest colonizers of America?

Those who first proposed this scenario of the Caucasian via-the-ice-sheet-colonizers, almost a decade ago, were ridiculed of course.
They have now clearly been vindicated.

[thesummerqueen]

Moving out of religion.

[Rhythm]

Ask the mormons, they know what happened. (I shit you not)

Does this mean I get to call myself a reconquistadore now?

[Minimalist]

http://www.amazon.com/Across-Atlantic-Ic...0520227832

Dennis Stanford must be feeling quite vindicated.

[popeyespappy]

I like the Solutrean Hypothesis. Beyond the tools themselves I find the Northeast out spread of the technology according to dates of some of the sites very compelling evidence. I do understand though that many of the old dates are not well accepted by mainstream American archeology. It’s also my understanding that people looking at the genetics in the last few years have rejected that part of the hypothesis too. So I think the whole thing is far from a done deal at this point.

It would have also been nice if the article linked in the OP had cited some sources for the more recent claims. Min, do you know if the new book you linked is the source for some of that? If so has any of it been peer reviewed yet?

[kılıç_mehmet]

[quote]

(29th February 2012 04:08)Rokcet Scientist Wrote:  The 'First Nations' have some explaining to do. Because they weren't the 'First Nations': according to the most current research the Americas were first colonized by Europeans. I.o.w. by Caucasians. Solutreans, to be precise. During the last glacial max, via the ice sheet covering the north Atlantic. At least 10,000 years before the proto-Indians, the ancestors of the 'First Nations', streamed across the Bering Land Bridge in (relatively) great numbers.

The clincher is 'geological fingerprinting': “What’s more, chemical analysis carried out last year on a European-style stone knife found in Virginia back in 1971 revealed that it was made of French-originating flint.”

But when the Phoenician traders, Irish monks, Viking settlers, and Columbian conquistadores came looking, millennia later, there wasn't a Caucasian left. Only the 'First Nations'.
So what happened to the Caucasian earliest colonizers of America?

Those who first proposed this scenario of the Caucasian via-the-ice-sheet-colonizers, almost a decade ago, were ridiculed of course.
They have now clearly been vindicated.

I don't think that there are explanations to be done:
-The colonizers were clearly of perhaps distinct human cultures who lived a hunter gatherer style. Even the major language families were not formed back then.
The reason they probably didn't see any caucasians in North or South America, is probably due to this:
Heavy intermarriage. As nations in the literal sense of the word did not exist back then, people did probably have less problems with intermingling, and of course, exchanging cultures.
They probably said, look, there is another human. That's it.
Besides, I'm not sure about the numbers of people who have supposedly emigrated to the Americas from Europe.

[Rhythm]

Well, with the exception of some outliers, genetic sequencing doesn't show anything like that Mehmet. Major language families had been developed, these were fully modern human beings. If europeans colonized the americas in any substantial way before the Native Americans (an amusing term, regardless, and discussions like this emphasize exactly why) they were either completely outclassed in the resource gathering dept, or in direct conflict, or both.

[Rokcet Scientist]

(29th February 2012 14:28)Rhythm Wrote:  Well, with the exception of some outliers, genetic sequencing doesn't show anything like that Mehmet. Major language families had been developed, these were fully modern human beings. If europeans colonized the americas in any substantial way before the Native Americans (an amusing term, regardless, and discussions like this emphasize exactly why) they were either completely outclassed in the resource gathering dept, or in direct conflict, or both.

Indeed.

(29th February 2012 09:38)kılıç_mehmet Wrote:  They probably said, look, there is another human. That's it.

Not bloody likely!
"Look there's the boogey man! Let's kill him!" is much more likely. They looked differently, they sounded differently, they probably smelled differently (important back then) and tasted differently too (maybe like fillet steak...), they were unknown (when they first met), they probably possessed what the others coveted, they were considered to encroach on the First Nation's turf/territory/hunting grounds, and they were vastly outnumbered.
Like Homo Sapiens Sapiens killed off the last Homo Neandertals and Homo Denisovans – boogey men to them, the First Nations probably wiped out the Solutreans/Caucasians. The competition. Simply because they could.

The first genocides among humans/homo probably took place 30,000 to 50,000 years ago. On Neandertals and Denisovans. The north American Caucasians were just another victim, 20,000 years later. And the 'phenomenon' has never left us since. As we know.

[Rhythm]

I wash my hands of this neanderthal genocide business, I'm carrying the soulless ginger gene thank you. Explains my stance on religion.
(I demand reparations.....?)

[Rokcet Scientist]

(29th February 2012 15:06)Rhythm Wrote:  I wash my hands of this neanderthal genocide business,

Sounds familiar.

Quote:I'm carrying the soulless ginger gene thank you.

Afaik that's considered an HN gene in some circles. So you shouldn't be here (anymore) in the first place...! You're living on borrowed time...!

Quote:(I demand reparations.....?)

I wouldn't if I were you. Killing you would be cheaper...