Note: this topic is from 10/21/2011. A re-ping. Thanks Renfield.
Posted on 10/21/2011 5:35:24 PM PDT by Renfield
...Hearing that the entire language group including the Algonquins (and the others more generically called Algonkians) is most closely related to Old World languages with a Megalithic connection was revealing to me because the peoples with the Algonquin-related languages are also ones that are otherwise compared to Western Europeans....
~~~snip~~~
...The book Men Out Of Asia by Harold Gladwin(mcGraw Hill, 1947) was also written when a more racist view of Physical Anthropology was the norm, and the book hypothesizes a series of different movements of people into America (Gladwin assumes via the Bering Straits)Gladwin's second migration dating from 15000 to 2500 BC, which he termed Folsom and Negroid: we would tend to think more Clovis and African (Out-of-Africa Solutrean CroMagnons, to be specific)The Third Migration as Gladwin saw it was Algonquin and 2500 to 500 BC. That might have started earlier but it is probably about the right time-window for both the origin of the Language group and the derivation of Megalithic culture, allowing that it survived longer in the New World. It would also presumably include the onset of the Adena mound-building period. Gladwin notices a variety of culture traits including ground-stone celts (small axheads or tomahawk heads)cordmarked pottery and useful woodlands adaptations such as birchbark canoes and snowshoes. In part the Woodlands culture was a lot like the European Mesolithic. Gladwin makes a guess that the basic original Algonquins were probably Mediterraneans but they mixed with peoples from across the whole of Asia: we might read that as meaning of the Eurasian language Superfamily. Gladwin specifically has a point of origin in Spain at 2000-2500 BC (p143-145)....
Thanks blam. Might be the makings of a topic of its own...
Note: this topic is from 10/21/2011. A re-ping. Thanks Renfield.
“Britons In USA In 6th Century - Shock Claim (Prince Madoc)”
Great link, but I’m puzzled...again.
Last I read, the “scholarly consensus” was that Arthur’s mere existence was unproven and doubtful. A legend incorporating elements of history with fiction, it was said.
Here there are flat assertions that Arthur I fought the Gauls, and there was an Arthur II who did this, that, and the other.
What happened?
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.
