Europeans were the first to populate North America

You know no one is going to bother watching your Youtube link. Why not simply present your point in your own words?
 
The evidence for that is dubious at best. I personally found it amusing that the white supremacist types latched onto this theory so quickly when the largest modern group that shares the mDNA group with the "Solutreans" are Israeli Druze.
 
MaGZ said:
Europeans were the first to populate North America
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kNTXCMYjwEk
Click to expand...
Europeans were hunting sea mammals following the ice sheet which was present during the ice age. They settled in the east whereas the Asians settled in the west and when they met there was no conflict. They intermarried and got along happily until the second wave of white men came.

I'm trying to be ironic.
 
BrianH said:
The evidence for that is dubious at best. I personally found it amusing that the white supremacist types latched onto this theory so quickly when the largest modern group that shares the mDNA group with the "Solutreans" are Israeli Druze.
Click to expand...
Well, as far as white supremacist grops are concerned, the KKK would probably be happier with Israeli Druze than with Israeli (or any other) Juze.
 
MaGZ said:
The evidence is based upon a spear point found in Virginia which was similar to ones found in southwest Europe. The YouTube video presents a dramatization of how Europeans traveled via the ice shelf that dominated the North Atlantic.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solutrean_hypothesis
Click to expand...

Not a particularly convincing hypothesis, not supported by any evidence. If that's what you want to believe, MaGZ, be my guest, but I think that if you need to justify your white supremacist views with discredited or poorly evidenced hypotheses, you appear quite insecure in your views.
 
uke2se said:
Not a particularly convincing hypothesis, not supported by any evidence. If that's what you want to believe, MaGZ, be my guest, but I think that if you need to justify your white supremacist views with discredited or poorly evidenced hypotheses, you appear quite insecure in your views.
Click to expand...

The evidence is the spear point, the oldest artifact found in North America.
 
MaGZ said:
The evidence is based upon a spear point found in Virginia which was similar to ones found in southwest Europe. The YouTube video presents a dramatization of how Europeans traveled via the ice shelf that dominated the North Atlantic.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solutrean_hypothesis
Click to expand...
Ah! A dramatisation. Who could argue with that? Dramatised how they travelled across an ice shelf. Well, that's it then. The Good Ole USA was first populated by the Ku Klux Klan. What about the Black people who found themselves migrating into the place in shiploads during the 18th and 19th centuries? Not Europeans. No ice shelf. Problem, eh?
 
It sounds plausible that some isolate groups might have made it.

But were they the "first?"

I doubt it. They certainly weren't the most numerous.
 
The Don said:
The subject was covered by a documentary screened on the BBC a while ago. A spear point like a Solutrian spear point was found and it was suggested that Europeans had made it across the Atlantic ice floe hopping.

Here is a link to a different source:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/new...e-the-first-to-set-foot-on-North-America.html

It's just a "possible" theory.
Click to expand...
Mm. Well, let's see how "possible" your Daily Telegraph article is. Here's a quote.
In a discovery that could rewrite the history of the Americas, archaeologists have found a number of stone tools dating back between 19,000 and 26,000 years, and bearing remarkable similarities to those made in Europe.
All of the ancient implements were discovered along the north-east coast of the USA.
The tools could reassert the long dismissed and discredited claim that Europeans in the form of Christopher Columbus and his crew were the first to discover the New World.
Click to expand...
What do you make of that last sentence. I am baffled. Anyone wish to comment?
 
Craig B said:
Mm. Well, let's see how "possible" your Daily Telegraph article is. Here's a quote. What do you make of that last sentence. I am baffled. Anyone wish to comment?
Click to expand...

The spearpoints enabled Columbus to time travel?
 
Craig B said:
Mm. Well, let's see how "possible" your Daily Telegraph article is. Here's a quote. What do you make of that last sentence. I am baffled. Anyone wish to comment?
Click to expand...

Well I think it's clear that the assertion that:

Europeans in the form of Christopher Columbus and his crew were the first to discover the New World
Click to expand...

Is demonstrably untrue.


Professors Stanford and Bradley have looked at some tools, determined that they are very ancient and have suggested that they are European in design and origin. This seems to re-assert that North America may have been colonised from Europe. It seems to be a stretch but then again I'm sure that it's not the most ridiculous suggestion ever. I presume that over the years to come, the theory will either be supported, discredited or left to whither on the vine.
 
Craig B said:
Ah! A dramatisation. Who could argue with that? Dramatised how they travelled across an ice shelf. Well, that's it then. The Good Ole USA was first populated by the Ku Klux Klan. What about the Black people who found themselves migrating into the place in shiploads during the 18th and 19th centuries? Not Europeans. No ice shelf. Problem, eh?
Click to expand...

The Solutrean Hypothesis has been put forward by Professors Stanford and Bradley. Both belong to relatively well renowned institutions (The Smithsonian and University of Exeter) and I'm not aware of either having any kind of racist motive to suggest that North America may have been colonised from Europe 20,000 years ago.

Their hypothesis may have been hijacked by people who do have a particular axe to grind but as I said, I'm not aware of any such bias in Professors Stanford and Bradley.
 
uke2se said:
Not a particularly convincing hypothesis, not supported by any evidence. If that's what you want to believe, MaGZ, be my guest, but I think that if you need to justify your white supremacist views with discredited or poorly evidenced hypotheses, you appear quite insecure in your views.
Click to expand...

Is it your suggestion that Professors Stanford and Bradley (who have proposed the Solutrian Hypothesis) are motivated by racism ? If so, do you have any evidence to support that claim ?


Edited to add....

Here's the original paper:

http://planet.uwc.ac.za/nisl/Conservation Biology/Karen PDF/Clovis/Bradley & Stanford 2004.pdf
 
Last edited:
I have to agree with The Don. The theory is quite possible and ancient people did travel much further than most would think. However, it's hardly a proven theory, and there are a lot of other possible interpretations.

In the end though, it's more of interest to historians and archeologists that it would be to racist organizations (reason not being their strong suit). If primitive Europeans did come to North America, they obviously were either absorbed through intermarriage or conquered by the Amerindians.

I fail to see how that would support any white supremacy agenda or beliefs.
 
The Don said:
Is it your suggestion that Professors Stanford and Bradley (who have proposed the Solutrian Hypothesis) are motivated by racism ? If so, do you have any evidence to support that claim ?
Click to expand...

No, it is my suggestion that MaGZ is motivated by racism. That's the only reason he even takes a passing interest in this hypothesis.
 
uke2se said:
No, it is my suggestion that MaGZ is motivated by racism. That's the only reason he even takes a passing interest in this hypothesis.
Click to expand...

But you dismissed the hypothesis.

uke2se said:
Not a particularly convincing hypothesis, not supported by any evidence.
Click to expand...

Was that because you'd read the original paper and found it wanting or merely because MaGZ made you aware of it ? You admit that you didn't watch the YouTube so where did you gain the knowledge to dismiss the Solutrean Hypothesis ?

uke2se said:
As I said, no real evidence.
Click to expand...

Did you gain this insight form the original paper ? The authors are quite clear that archeological preservation in North America isn't great and that dating is problematical but I wouldn't be comfortable as a lay person dismissing the hypothesis without reading the original paper.
 
The Don said:
But you dismissed the hypothesis.
Was that because you'd read the original paper and found it wanting or merely because MaGZ made you aware of it ? You admit that you didn't watch the YouTube so where did you gain the knowledge to dismiss the Solutrean Hypothesis ?
Did you gain this insight form the original paper ? The authors are quite clear that archeological preservation in North America isn't great and that dating is problematical but I wouldn't be comfortable as a lay person dismissing the hypothesis without reading the original paper.
Click to expand...
Let MaGZ do what I asked him to do in my post #4
Give us your evidence, please, in your own words, with sources as appropriate.
Click to expand...
It is his failure to do that, and the conviction that I share with uk2se, that MaGZ is motivated by mere racism, that has aroused my sardonic cynicism. Moreover, a TV "dramatisation" is not really a very conclusive form of evidence.
 
Craig B said:
Let MaGZ do what I asked him to do in my post #4 It is his failure to do that, and the conviction that I share with uk2se, that MaGZ is motivated by mere racism, that has aroused my sardonic cynicism. Moreover, a TV "dramatisation" is not really a very conclusive form of evidence.
Click to expand...

Well you challenged me to interpret the last sentence in the Telegraph article. Did I do so to your satisfaction ?

Is the original paper lacking or couldn't you be bothered to actually read about the Solutrean Hypothesis before discarding it entirely ?
 
The Don said:
Well you challenged me to interpret the last sentence in the Telegraph article. Did I do so to your satisfaction ?

Is the original paper lacking or couldn't you be bothered to actually read about the Solutrean Hypothesis before discarding it entirely ?
Click to expand...
Yes, but I am still mildly baffled that you could in the first place recommend an article containing such rubbish. If I may reflect back the tenor of your comments to me: could you be bothered actually to read it before linking to it?

In fact I have encountered this hypothesis before, or something very like it, a good few years ago. Again illustrated by TV "dramatisations". I was not impressed, but of course I dismiss nothing out of hand! I can't receive YouTube here (in the mountains of Central Italy) but as soon as I can I'll have another look at the thing. In the meantime, can MaGZ support his embracing of this hypothesis using his own words and his own underststanding of the arguments pro and con? I would be most grateful for that.

My assessment of the motive for MaGZ's interest remains the same.
 
Craig B said:
Yes, but I am still mildly baffled that you could in the first place recommend an article containing such rubbish. If I may reflect back the tenor of your comments to me: could you be bothered actually to read it before linking to it?.
Click to expand...

Yes, and I read the original paper too, you know, the one I linked to. Have you ?

Like I said, it's an hypothesis.
 
The Don said:
Yes, and I read the original paper too, you know, the one I linked to. Have you ?

Like I said, it's an hypothesis.
Click to expand...
I like hypotheses, and I will peruse it when I can. I repeat my request to MaGZ. He's the one who raised the issue after all. If he provided me with an epitome of the argument, I would be much indebted to him.
 
Craig B said:
I like hypotheses, and I will peruse it when I can. I repeat my request to MaGZ. He's the one who raised the issue after all. If he provided me with an epitome of the argument, I would be much indebted to him.
Click to expand...

Well here's the basis for the hypothesis:

  • Clovis artefacts are found in North America
  • These have an early date
  • Solurian artefacts are very similar in style to Clovis
  • Other types of ancient techniques are much less similar
  • It is therefore possible that Clovis was developed in North America with Solurian methods as a basis
  • If this is the case then they are European in origin

Here's that link again to the original paper

http://planet.uwc.ac.za/nisl/Conservation Biology/Karen PDF/Clovis/Bradley & Stanford 2004.pdf
 
MaGZ said:
Europeans were the first to populate North America
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kNTXCMYjwEk
Click to expand...

My counter-argument:

Ericson, J. E., R.E. Taylor, R. Berger., eds. Peopleing of the New World. Ballena Press Anthropological Papers No. 23, 363 p.

The evidence is based upon a spear point found in Virginia which was similar to ones found in southwest Europe.
Click to expand...
Except that such evidence is far from sufficient, given the HUGE number of projectile points, knives, scrapers, skinners, and other stone tools found from Asia. I might be willing to entertain the notion that Europe and the Americas interacted in the more distant past than people assume, but coming here first? Off of ONE spear point? Not even close to sufficiently supported to warrant serious consideration. Come back when you find a whole village.

RobDegraves said:
I have to agree with The Don. The theory is quite possible and ancient people did travel much further than most would think. However, it's hardly a proven theory, and there are a lot of other possible interpretations.
Click to expand...
I agree that it's not pattently rediculous--hopping along the islands to the north in the Atlantic is how the Vikings did it, after all (and yes, I know that term is no longer used--we all know what I'm talking about, though, so it's useful). I just don't find a single spear-point to be sufficient evidence to support such a hypothesis. Too many counter-arguments, including different transport mechanisms (Heinrick Events can do weird things to sediments) and the fact that people working with similar rock will almost certainly find similar solutions to simlar problems. And MaGZ has made his racism quite clear in other threads (he's currently spaming the site with threads about ancient peoples, with the intent to prove that Europeans are somehow superior to at least Africans). The academic who put this idea forward isn't a crackpot, but the OP author certainly is.

The Don said:
You admit that you didn't watch the YouTube so where did you gain the knowledge to dismiss the Solutrean Hypothesis ?
Click to expand...
To pre-emptively answer this: the reason I dismiss this idea is the book I cited above. Also, I work with a bunch of archaeologists. They laugh when you bring this up, then we spend the rest of the day discussing the various evidence against it. 10-hour days monitoring excavations get boring (even if they're not borings! :D Sorry, a little geologist humor....), and talking about such things helps the time pass.
 
The Don said:
Well here's the basis for the hypothesis:

  • Clovis artefacts are found in North America
  • These have an early date
  • Solurian artefacts are very similar in style to Clovis
  • Other types of ancient techniques are much less similar
  • It is therefore possible that Clovis was developed in North America with Solurian methods as a basis
  • If this is the case then they are European in origin

Here's that link again to the original paper

http://planet.uwc.ac.za/nisl/Conservation Biology/Karen PDF/Clovis/Bradley & Stanford 2004.pdf
Click to expand...

They're going to need a lot more than just speculating on similarities between Clovis and Solutrean spearpoints to support the hypothesis that the New World was primarily settled via land-bridge from from Europe, not from Asia. Because the genetic evidence overwhelmingly supports the Asian land-bridge theory, and doesn't at all support Stanford and Bradley.
 
we assembled data from 52 Native American and 17 Siberian groups genotyped at 364,470 single nucleotide polymorphisms. Here we show that Native Americans descend from at least three streams of Asian gene flow. Most descend entirely from a single ancestral population that we call ‘First American’. However, speakers of Eskimo–Aleut languages from the Arctic inherit almost half their ancestry from a second stream of Asian gene flow, and the Na-Dene-speaking Chipewyan from Canada inherit roughly one-tenth of their ancestry from a third stream. We show that the initial peopling followed a southward expansion facilitated by the coast, with sequential population splits and little gene flow after divergence, especially in South America. A major exception is in Chibchan speakers on both sides of the Panama isthmus, who have ancestry from both North and South America.
 
There's also a theory that a Japanese expedition in the 12th century ended in New Mexico.

Hawaii was accidentally discovered by the Polynesians in about the 4th century.

Since humans have been capable of getting lost at sea for thousands of years, I'm not at all surprised to see some of them showing up very far from home. However, proving that some Europeans somehow got to America sometime in prehistory is far, far different than proving that Europeans successfully settled in America, let alone settled permanently.

An interesting footnote to prehistory but nothing more.
 
If the first human settlers in North America did come from Europe, they certainly weren't the most successful. Is there any genetic evidence in support of this theory, or is it based on one spearhead?
 
The documentary I saw a few weeks ago was filmed in Alaska.

They found at the edge of a melting glacier what appeared to be part of a spear.

The shaft had about 9 or 12 obsidian blades (very thin and sharp) inserted in grooves along the shaft.

There was no spearhead, but there was a notch on the end for a head.

It apparently is used in conjunction with a club for additional spear velocity.

I did not watch the entire program, but they did say that the people who brought this to Alaska came from Siberia across the Beiring when it was frozen.

The last I saw was the start of the search for obsidian.

Talk about a tough life!
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom