30,000 year-old artifacts in Brazil show humans in Americas millennia before previously thought

Hanslune

JohnnyCanuck
Personally, I always figured that the fall of the Mississippian culture was based upon Joe Sixpack deciding that life was better in the bountiful woods than taking crap from the self-appointed higher-ups.

Most probably

Apparently, when the Spanish encountered the tail end of Mississippian Culture in Florida, a word comes translated back to us that the social elite used towards the common folk..."Stinkards".

A "let them eat cake" kind of dismissal with predictable results, then as now.

reply to post by JohnnyCanuck


More lines of nobility tends to last only a few generation sbefore they are killed off or replaced by others I think the longest surviving chain is the Japanese and I believe it even has some breaks and uh-ohs in the ine- Akihito is 125th in the line

Clearly, humans existed, flourished, and made a sustained comfortable life for themselves eons ago. More evidence is being discovered and then discredited ever time we turn around. Mainly, IMO, to keep us entrenched in a belief that we were nothing but a bunch roving band of near animals before Jesus Christ walked the earth.
I believe there has been many advanced civilizations that have gone before us. During a time when we were, as a species, more in tune with the ebbs and flows of the planet and that these civilizations either ran there course (like the Romans as the most recent example). We too will one day stop as originized societies (US, Russia, China) and most all of our history and evidence of our time will be ground to dust only leaving tell tail clues to our time here.
Only until we embrace new technologies which allow us to travel off world will we as a species stand a chance to evolve into an advanced race worthy of continuing to grow and prosper. Unfortunately, our current state of mind will not allow it as we are being lead by a powerful few that see monetary profit as the main reason for existing. That won't cut it.

We really do not know very much about the period going back past 10,000 years ago. People were smart then as they are now, I am sure there were some intrepid explorers who went all over the globe even then. If they built capable boats then, there would almost certainly be no traces of them to survive to the present day.

six67seven
reply to post by Blackmarketeer

 

Looks like a few dancing rugs, one of which has a very hairy right armpit.

Either way, the history books need to be revised.

Maybe that was prehistoric camouflage gear - they would never have been able to walk or run up to a deer and just poke it with a spear. Wearing a cloak made from the old fur cutoffs, bark and bits of twig would be the best way.

reply to post by wrkn4livn


Its a nice idea but there is no evidence to support the idea of such earlier civilizations

reply to post by Blackmarketeer


S&F for the thread. I have read for some time now stories of very old human remains being found, from all races, in the Americas, that many don't want to admit are anything other that "Native American". Many are clearly Caucasiod, and some are Negroid. Under the current accepted theories, only Mongoloid remains would be found, but that isn't the case. it seems the ancient peoples got around a lot more than was previously thought! Maybe at some point, we can get a new and more accurate picture of how people actually traveled way back then.

rickymouse
S&F..good article.

I still think that modern humans could have been out of Americas, either north or south. Out of Africa does not sound right, and because I have some neanderthal genetics in me it means that I am not all modern human. I have ancestors going back possibly a million or more years.

How do you know that about your genetics? Curious. I suspect I might, due to the larger frame, and apparently stronger bones (never seem to break them, and have done things that would have on many!).

LadyGreenEyes
reply to post by Blackmarketeer

 

S&F for the thread. I have read for some time now stories of very old human remains being found, from all races, in the Americas, that many don't want to admit are anything other that "Native American". Many are clearly Caucasiod, and some are Negroid. Under the current accepted theories, only Mongoloid remains would be found, but that isn't the case. it seems the ancient peoples got around a lot more than was previously thought! Maybe at some point, we can get a new and more accurate picture of how people actually traveled way back then.

The C world doesn't mean what you seem to think it means. The remains you seem to be commenting on (Kennewick man) were Asian but with indications of C, and was most linked to linked to the Ainu or Polynesians (they had not yet formed as cultures) . Trying to define race in the past is very tricky and ultimately a useless attempt. AFAIK no N remains have been found in the Americas. However, as we all seemed to have come from Africa at one point one has to take a long view on the question.

LadyGreenEyes

rickymouse
S&F..good article.

I still think that modern humans could have been out of Americas, either north or south. Out of Africa does not sound right, and because I have some neanderthal genetics in me it means that I am not all modern human. I have ancestors going back possibly a million or more years.

How do you know that about your genetics? Curious. I suspect I might, due to the larger frame, and apparently stronger bones (never seem to break them, and have done things that would have on many!).

Northern Europeans have higher levels of Neanderthal genetics in them. It is thought by some that the Neanderthals may have been very light skinned.

rickymouse

LadyGreenEyes

rickymouse
S&F..good article.

I still think that modern humans could have been out of Americas, either north or south. Out of Africa does not sound right, and because I have some neanderthal genetics in me it means that I am not all modern human. I have ancestors going back possibly a million or more years.

How do you know that about your genetics? Curious. I suspect I might, due to the larger frame, and apparently stronger bones (never seem to break them, and have done things that would have on many!).

Northern Europeans have higher levels of Neanderthal genetics in them. It is thought by some that the Neanderthals may have been very light skinned.

Well, that I have heard. Just wondered if there was some specific way a person could know. Pretty much all of my genetics are Northern European and British Isles, so there is most likely a good bit there.

I love studying where we came from. I have had family tree info that went a good ways back, but imagine if we could trace the pre-recorded-history links as well?? Wouldn't that be something?

Funny thing, the little pores or whatever they are at the tops of my ears (discussed someplace on here); my parents were told dated back to "prehistoric" people. No idea where that info came from, but I always thought it was pretty cool.

LadyGreenEyes

rickymouse

LadyGreenEyes

rickymouse
S&F..good article.

I still think that modern humans could have been out of Americas, either north or south. Out of Africa does not sound right, and because I have some neanderthal genetics in me it means that I am not all modern human. I have ancestors going back possibly a million or more years.

How do you know that about your genetics? Curious. I suspect I might, due to the larger frame, and apparently stronger bones (never seem to break them, and have done things that would have on many!).

Northern Europeans have higher levels of Neanderthal genetics in them. It is thought by some that the Neanderthals may have been very light skinned.

Well, that I have heard. Just wondered if there was some specific way a person could know. Pretty much all of my genetics are Northern European and British Isles, so there is most likely a good bit there.

I love studying where we came from. I have had family tree info that went a good ways back, but imagine if we could trace the pre-recorded-history links as well?? Wouldn't that be something?

Funny thing, the little pores or whatever they are at the tops of my ears (discussed someplace on here); my parents were told dated back to "prehistoric" people. No idea where that info came from, but I always thought it was pretty cool.

Those little pores are for installing antennas in so you can communicate with the aliens

I have never heard of those pores in the top of ears. I am sure they are a genetic trait from somewhere. Like a fingerprint defines a person. I guess they are called Preauricular sinus. I had to look them up, I wonder what they are actually used for by the body. Have you any particularly strong senses to things that others do not seem to realize?

rickymouse
Those little pores are for installing antennas in so you can communicate with the aliens

I have never heard of those pores in the top of ears. I am sure they are a genetic trait from somewhere. Like a fingerprint defines a person. I guess they are called Preauricular sinus. I had to look them up, I wonder what they are actually used for by the body. Have you any particularly strong senses to things that others do not seem to realize?

edit on 29-11-2013 by rickymouse because: (no reason given)

Oh, I and family have made antennae jokes forever, lol! Usually that it was where they were removed, why wans't I blue, etc.

Whatever they are, it's VERY hard to find any data. I actually asked a doc about them, and he was clueless. Strong senses? Well, sometimes knowing things, etc. Not sure that it's related, but who knows? Maybe it is. I looked up the term you mentioned. Some pictures look close, but most don't, and I have had these all my life, and almost NEVER have an ear infection, and never ANY sign of any infection or issue with these. None at all. The way one site talks, you are doomed to get them. So, I am not certain this is the same thing.

It could be that the carbon dating is skewed in this case :

ringtailcats.wordpress.com...

It is in any case a very interesting site, and rockshelter/cave sites have a tendency to produce surprises!

Heliocentric
It could be that the carbon dating is skewed in this case :
ringtailcats.wordpress.com...
It is in any case a very interesting site, and rockshelter/cave sites have a tendency to produce surprises!

Two comments:
a) One date is no date.
b) As I've noted for the last decade, chatter out of Monte Verde suggests human activity there some 40kya, but see a) above.

The story continues to be revealed and it ain't over yet.

reply to post by JohnnyCanuck


No of course not, why would it be over? It's a very interesting site, regardless if it's 2000 or 30 000 years old, and it could be both. Time and rigorous analysis will reveal that.

Caves and rockshelters are kind of like bus stops. If you ask at what time that bus stop was inhabited, you may not come up with an intelligible answer.

We think that the Chauvet cave in France was inhabited for 5000 years, or at two periods roughly 5000 years apart.

Alta Mira cave in Spain is even more complicated, we have dates ranging from 15 000 to 36 500 years, and we don't know if the earliest inhabitants were Cro-Magnons or Neanderthals.

reply to post by Heliocentric

What's key is that we recognise that the story is evolving, not hidden away as some delight in suggesting.

There is another site in Chile called "Monte Verde", it was found in 1975. Firsts excavation bring artifacts dated from 12.000 BC, new ones push further back to 30.000 BC but this need to be confirmed with more radiocarbon data.

en.wikipedia.org...




In this video you can see more about many early sites founds in America.

reply to post by Blackmarketeer


I launch this reply on this sentence in the OP link:

A new exhibit in Brazil showcases artifacts dating as far back as 30,000 years ago -- throwing a wrench in the commonly held theory humans first crossed to the Americas from Asia a mere 12,000 years ago.

that migration of groups & tribes across the ice bridge between Asia & N America is probably true to an extent...

but I would submit the earlier settlers in many different parts of the 'New World' were likely the smart & affluent explorers...likely boating from Africa to S America... for any number of reasons, including taking on the risk of the Sea , over being sacrificed as an "offering-to-the-gods" or becoming the community dinner Entre

And the waves of ice age migrations were likely the slow & not so smart groups who heard of the new-world from hearsay, the more advanced, smarter groups had long settled in the Americas long before the latecomers of that 12,000 year ago wave of immigrants which we have been taught were the first discoverers of the Americas...
Not


(it will take a lot of doing to change those biased history books ...eh