The Cycle of Cosmic Catastrophes:
Flood, Fire, and Famine
in the History of Civilization
by Richard Firestone,
Allen West, and
Simon Warwick-Smith
Posted on 07/03/2008 4:55:14 AM PDT by Renfield
Research by a Valparaiso University geography professor and his students on the creation of Kankakee Sand Islands of Northwest Indiana is lending support to evidence that the first humans to settle the Americas came from Europe, a discovery that overturns decades of classroom lessons that nomadic tribes from Asia crossed a Bering Strait land-ice bridge. Valparaiso is a member of the Council on Undergraduate Research.....
(Excerpt) Read more at sciencedaily.com ...
Ping for GGG.
Soon to be discovered: Naive Americans are just that. They’ve always been here.
Naive = Native
The continent's first Democrats.
Why do we limit ourselves to a single migration theory?
the Asians chased the Europeans out before the Europeans chased the Asians out ?
now "progressives".
Global Warming requires a reduction of demand, not an increase in supply. This includes theories. Increased thinking promotes increased metabolism which increases greenhouse gas concentrations.
Thanks for straightening me out!!
Many Naive American tribes find the *current* theories to be offensive. There is no oral history of such migrations from Asia or Europe.
“Red Earth, White Lies: Native Americans and the Myth of Scientific Fact”
It was one of the Roosevelts (FDR?) who said: If it wasn’t for us, they would have killed themselves off.
It must of been Teddy. FDR was for Indian sovereignty.
Thanks for the post.
I grew up about 30 miles south of Valpo. I wonder if the sandhill my grandfather visited to get sand for my sand box was from one of those islands?
I’ve always thought Native Americans looked more Portugese than Asian. Just an opinion though.
A very murky topic that is gradually being revealed. I recall an article about a Savannah River site that shows evidence of human presence 50,000 years ago here in FR recently. The concept of ‘idee fixe’ applies to the long history of the idea that the ‘Clovis Point’ Amerindians being the earliest inhabitants from about 22,000 years ago. Now there are multiple archaeology sites that are blowing that idea away.
You had it right the first time. European Americans are naive. Otherwise we wouldn’t tolerate affirmative action, millions of illegal aliens within our borders, or be contemplating putting a guy named Hussein in the White House a mere seven years after 9/11.
That appears to be the case among the Indian tribes along the Eastern Seaboard, in places like North Carolina or New York, than in the West. Tribes like the Navajo clearly have an Asiatic appearance, as do many Mexicans and Mexican Americans, who are predominantly mestizo. Whether the somewhat Caucasian appearance of Eastern Indians is due to intermarriage with whites from the 17th Century forward or is the result of prehistoric migrations from Europe or North Africa is a matter of speculation. The Eastern states have instances of people who are not associated with any tribe, and whose appearance is similar to whites from the Mediterranean area or the Middle East, such as the Melungeons in Virginia and North Carolina and the Jackson Whites of New Jersey and New York. They either represent a post-1600 mixture of Indians with European and African settlers or are survivors of earlier migrations from the Old World.
Imagine that, Global Warming is what brought humans to this continent in the first place. No wonder the Democrats hate it so.
As far as this recent claim by one individual, I say, refute the overwhelming Geological/Anthropological evidence the supports the “Land Bridge” theory first. Otherwise, shut up and listen.
As far as this recent claim by one FReeper...
There’s not even overwhelming evidence of *just one* migration into the Americas, and there’s not even overwhelming evidence that the land bridge was used for ingress at all. The current non-Euro Arctic populations have languages which are related and haven’t diverged much, showing they’ve come over more recently than the variety of different (McWhorter describes it as a “riot” I think) languages elsewhere in the Americas.
The Cycle of Cosmic Catastrophes:
Flood, Fire, and Famine
in the History of Civilization
by Richard Firestone,
Allen West, and
Simon Warwick-Smith
Exploding Asteroid Theory Strengthened By New Evidence Located In Ohio, Indiana
Physorg | 7-1-2008 | University of Cincinnati
Posted on 07/02/2008 3:27:51 PM PDT by blam
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/2039949/posts
 |
||
| · join · view topics · view or post blog · bookmark · post new topic · | ||
|
|
|||
Gods |
Thanks Renfield.The Solutrean Hypothesis in North American archaeologyTo all -- please ping me to other topics which are appropriate for the GGG list. |
||
|
· Mirabilis · Texas AM Anthropology News · Yahoo Anthro & Archaeo · · History or Science & Nature Podcasts · Excerpt, or Link only? · cgk's list of ping lists · |
|||
That depends a lot on which tribes you’re talking about. Most of my Indian friends are Sioux, and they look more Asian than Portuguese, IMHO.
I think another person posted (and it makes sense) that the western Natives looked more Asian, such as Hawaiian and Sioux being more toward the west, you are probably right.
But the Seminole and Cherokee (originally from south US) tend to have the Portugese look I think. Didn’t the Portugese and Spanish discover the islands south of the US? The difference in Cherokee and Sioux are vast. The nose and eyes especially. The Western Natives tend to have a more mongoloid eye type and broader/flatter nose. Where the eastern Natives have the longer, thinner nose and a more European/Caucasian lidded eye.
Now I am talking out my butt here, I am in now way an anthrological expert at all and I am merely making some uneducated observations, so please don’t hate me or flame me. Sometimes when I post I feel so darn stupid, but I want to interject too, you know?
Anyway, if I am ever wrong, just tell me. I won’t get upset Freepers! I love to learn new things and I haven’t seen many stupid people on here, so I take your knowledge to heart.
Thanks
As a Freeper and a "Savage", I appreciate more theories and observations. Here's one that I came up with years ago (I'm talkin' grade school):
Thinking about the migration of peoples, in school we were told we all came out of Africa, and my people were wandering Asians..
I thought about this and about the emergence time stories from my family (Dine' or Navajo) and considered the different appearances of peoples.
Why do Asians have slanted eyes? Is it because of bright sun? if so, why do Africans lack this?
Who else has slanted eyes? The far north peoples - snow glare.
there's a bunch more but what I came up with is that modern humans or at least a sizable portion of them came from here, the Americas.
Blowing sands and dust in the Gobi Desert?
The Asian scientists and anthropologists have been arguing for years that *we* did not come from Africa, but from Asia. The eyes aren’t actually slanted, but have the mongoloid feature that gives them an extra fold of skin lower into the eye, that gives them a slanted look. I read an anthrological book once that was fascinating and the reasons people evolved how they did. And why. Although some remains a mystery.
Thanks for the ping. This is an interesting theory. Personally, I think there were multiple migrations from different places at different times.
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.
