IGX

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstop ... erica.html

Stone-age Europeans were the first to set foot on North America, beating American Indians by some 10,000 years, new archaeological evidence suggests.

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.

Previous discoveries of tools have only been dated back to 15,000 years ago and prompted many archaeologists and historians to question claims that stone-age man managed to migrate to North America.

In all seriousness, that's fairly interesting.

it's VERY interseting, Kennyx, thank you for hsaring!

Actually, that theory has been around since the 1980s. Makes Frogs and Portagees the first Americans. Very controversial theory. Native Americans don't like it. (Monte!!! Join in). Recent DNA tests in Montana show conclusively that people here have the same genes as Crow and Blackfeet. 15,000 years ago. OK,but there may be European strains of "Native" Americans from 20,000 years. Called the Solutrean Hypothesis.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solutrean_hypothesis

WE WUZ KANGZ MANE

seeahill wrote:Actually, that theory has been around since the 1980s. Makes Frogs and Portagees the first Americans. Very controversial theory. Native Americans don't like it. (Monte!!! Join in). Recent DNA tests in Montana show conclusively that people here have the same genes as Crow and Blackfeet. 15,000 years ago. OK,but there may be European strains of "Native" Americans from 20,000 years. Called the Solutrean Hypothesis.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solutrean_hypothesis

I figured that theory wouldn't be a hit with the native peoples, in the United States.

I think The Problem is that we tend to moralize stuff like this. When I was growing up I learned that the Native Americans were running the show over here and then Colombus landed, and later, the Pilgrims. This was back before everybody decided that Columbus, and later the Pilgrims "...were evil Imperialists who should all be ashamed of themselves for taking the land away from the Indians." Whatever. It's not gonna stop me from going fly fishing on Columbus Day, but I digress.

The point is- shouldn't history adapt to keep-up with science? Well, some history, that is. Teach about the Revolutionary War as-is, but as anthropologists and scientists further explore, and make discoveries, why not use that as a means to teach this kind of history as more of a "living" thing?

Kazuya Mishima wrote:WE WUZ KANGZ MANE

Now let's talk about reparations for what They did to My People.

Kenny X wrote: The point is- shouldn't history adapt to keep-up with science? Well, some history, that is. Teach about the Revolutionary War as-is, but as anthropologists and scientists further explore, and make discoveries, why not use that as a means to teach this kind of history as more of a "living" thing?

Yes. This is what I like about Taleb (among others). Knowledge is always "on probation" and pending further input. A little humility is in order.

MUH NATIVE HOMELANDZ!!!!

On the Northwest Coast of BC about fifteen years ago an archaeological dig on First Nations land found artifacts and burials older than any others previously found.

Naturally the First Nations of the area jumped on that as further proof of their ongoing land claims against the government.

Until the DNA analysis came back, and the burials bore no relation to any known group, First Nations, or otherwise. Presumably the human remains belonged to whichever previous claimants the ancestors of today's tribes conquered and slaughtered to take the land they now occupy.

Robert E Howard (PBUH) loved shit like that.

seeahill wrote:Actually, that theory has been around since the 1980s.

I'm betting it has been around since 19,000 to 26,000 years ago.

'1491' and '1493' are both great histories. The first is a rewriting of pre-Colombian indigenous populations (more people and complexity and here for far longer than previously thought. The second is a massive history of the consequences of the Colombian Exchange. Charles C. Mann is the author.

This stuff fascinates me.

A little bit of Kenny X's backstory-

I attended a private, Baptist high school. Our US History was standard ops for what you'd get in an American high school, but stuff like Ice Ages, land bridges, the comings and goings of various peoples like the Proto-Indo Europeans, that stuff wasn't part of the curriculum.

Which brings us to now. I read about this stuff sometimes and I can't get enough of it.

seeahill wrote:Actually, that theory has been around since the 1980s.

Is that one where a bunch of South Africans from the future give the Confederates AK's and help them win the Civil War?

Here's a general interest article on pre-and post columbus western hemisphere stuff that I happened to come across last week...
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/arc ... 91/302445/

Kirk wrote:Here's a general interest article on pre-and post columbus western hemisphere stuff that I happened to come across last week...
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/arc ... 91/302445/

This is great, Kirk!

I thought it was pretty interesting, in particular the mix of viewpoints, which is appealing for a very casual history reader...

This is good info for the Mexicans that complain that we complain about them coming to our country illegally.

Is it posted somewhere on the 'net in spanish?