n a radical new view of pre-history, two prominent archeologists say North America's first inhabitants may have crossed the icy Atlantic Ocean some 18,000 years ago from Europe's Iberian Peninsula. The theory, presented at a weekend conference, is at odds with the long-held notion that the continent's first settlers came across a land bridge from Asia. The conventional view is the stuff of college entrance exams and Far Side cartoons _ wandering cavemen wrapped in animal hides and lugging enormous spears, crossing the land bridge from Asia to hunt woolly mammoths. Archeologists say some nomads almost certainly made their way into Alaska and found an ice-free highway down into the continent some 13,500 years ago. Their culture has been named Clovis for their distinctive weapons that have been found in digs nationwide. But according to the new theory, the continent's first inhabitants may have crossed the Atlantic more than 18,000 years ago from Europe's Iberian Peninsula _ the area that is now Spain, Portugal and southwestern France. Belonging to a group known as the Solutreans, these pre-modern explorers are believed to have originally settled the Eastern Seaboard, according to the researchers.

http://www.abotech.com/Articles/atlantictheory.htm

1) Were ancient Europeans (Solutreans) Caucasian, or pre-Caucasian?

2) What does this mean for American politics, including "Native Americans"?

3) How is it we didn't discover this until now?

4) Does this mean the theory of Atlantis has some truth to it?

Whatever. I'm feeling paranoid.

Sounds far fetched. Especially about taking three weeks to cross the Atlantic in open boats (no sails). Columbus took two months with sails and using favorable (trade) winds.

Remains from areas as diverse as Ireland, Iberia, and Africa have all been found in the United States. Mitochondrial DNA research indicates that haplogroup X, which most resembles Europeans, is likely the youngest of the several, and is so named for being unusual. Haplogroups A, B, C, and D all bear markers to Asia. But there are many questions still to answer.

As to the questions listed:

(1) I don't know. Possibly African.
(2) Nothing, or perhaps very little.
(3) The evidence isn't always easy to come by. And interpretations of the evidence are sometimes difficult to justify or communicate.
(4) This in and of itself seems somewhat insignificant to the Atlantis myth.

The only source I can note at present with any accuracy is Barry Fell's America, B.C.. I can't recall the source for the mtDNA studies, but I first picked it up in the late 1990s. Scientific American or some-such, and I couldn't even begin to tell you what issue to look for. I'll dig around online.

back in the 1840s british ships still only travelled about 5kmph on average. take 350 years from that and colombus was using a slow assed ship.

Who were the first people to inhabit America,

is not as important as who will be the last.

I've heard that Vikings may have traveled to the Americas.
1.Does it matter? There's surely no pure members of that race alive today.
2.Probably has more to do with Native American history than politics.
3.Most of what we do discover about the past isn't searched for specifically. That probably has a lot to do with why it took so long.
4.That would make it a lot easier to believe that they crossed the Atlantic. I've always thought that Atlantis would be in the mediteranean, since it is a greek myth. Also if it existed in the Atlantic, that would mean that there was an ancient world that was connected. It would be circumstantial evidence though.

it is very possible...

but boats.. often... carried alot of men.. and few women.. if any.

and boats, do get lost, and sent out to sea...

and if they found land, it was probubly the usa...

but being of such a small number and without women... it wouldnt of been fun.

-MT

"I've heard that Vikings may have traveled to the Americas. "

These is archeological evidence for Viking settlement in Newfoundland, but it didn't last very long.

n a radical new view of pre-history, two prominent archeologists say North America's first inhabitants may have crossed the icy Atlantic Ocean some 18,000 years ago from Europe's Iberian Peninsula. The theory, presented at a weekend conference, is at odds with the long-held notion that the continent's first settlers came across a land bridge from Asia.This only puts them in competition with the conventional model of Asiatic migration, which had the first of three waves arriving about 14,000 years ago, generating most of the population and both of the civilizations of the pre-Columbian Americas. More recent research disputes this notion and suggests that the first migrants from the west were not Siberians who walked over a land bridge during the Ice Age with its low sea levels, but coastal Asiatic people who whose seafaring ability at least 40,000 years ago is well established. They could have hugged the seemingly endless coastline and sailed all the way to South America.But according to the new theory, the continent's first inhabitants may have crossed the Atlantic more than 18,000 years ago from Europe's Iberian Peninsula _ the area that is now Spain, Portugal and southwestern France. Belonging to a group known as the Solutreans, these pre-modern explorers are believed to have originally settled the Eastern Seaboard, according to the researchers.There is faint, scattered, and not universally acknowledged evidence all over the Western Hemisphere from various times of the migration--or perhaps more properly exploration--of people from a variety of starting points. Perhaps none of them taxes our understanding of the adventurous nature of Paleo- or Mesolithic people more than Kennewick Man, a skeleton whose DNA is pure European, discovered in Washington on the Pacific coast--and buried 9,000 years ago!

We know that humans have been sailing the open sea for 60,000 years because that's when they reached Australia. So for Africans, Europeans, Polynesians, and/or Asians to have set foot on these shores at any time since then is not a stretch of the imagination. Nonetheless, the earliest explorers apparently did not found durable communities because there is no continuity. The only evidence of an actual "wave" of migration resulting in permanent colonization and the establishment of surviving bloodlines--rather than camps built by people who came here on an adventure and either went back home or died without leaving any surviving progeny--goes back to the first wave in the three-wave model. I don't know what they're calling it now. Amerind, Athabascan, Na-Dene? It changes every five years. I guess we'll have to wait for some consensus on carbon dating of an adequate number of archeological sites to fix a date when intermittent exploration gave way to wholesale colonization.1) Were ancient Europeans (Solutreans) Caucasian, or pre-Caucasian?I have read nothing to indicate that the earliest Homo sapiens migrants into Europe were not all of the Caucasian branch of the species. They only go back about 25-30,000 years. The branching of Homo sapiens's Eurasian population into Caucasoid and Mongoloid happened at least ten thousand years before so there were no "pre-Caucasian" people at that time. The people in Europe before that were Neanderthals, not sapiens.2) What does this mean for American politics, including "Native Americans"?The Kennewick Man controversy has already stirred that up. The local Indian tribes tried to invoke the rule about not disturbing the remains of their ancestors to prevent the analysis that revealed the startling information in the first place. As a result, two things are clear. 1) Kennewick Man is not their ancestor because he is a European. 2) Even if you grant him the ability to marry into a local family and spread his genes into the pool, the ancestors of the current tribes had not arrived in the area 9,000 years ago. They were in the second wave, which came over around 4000BCE, and squeezed the earlier migrants into more southern climes. So even Kennewick Man's children, if he had any, were not ancestors of the people who live up there now.3) How is it we didn't discover this until now?I'm not sure what you mean. The Solutreans are a well-known Paleolithic culture from about 20,000 years ago. The similarity between their tool technology and that of some of the earliest tool technology discovered in North America is well known. (I'm just getting this from googling, just like any of you can do.) It is possible that they migrated on foot across the top of the Atlantic when they got run out of Europe by the next wave of migrants from Asia. It would have been sort of the reverse of Beringia. Rather than walking on land that was uncovered by low sea level, since there isn't any up there, they could have walked along the edge of the nice solid ice pack that was created by the same Ice Age.

For them to have arrived 20,000 years ago puts them at a time which, according to many current scholars, could place well-established paleo-Indian tribes in eastern North America.

There's also the easily forgotten fact that the limits of Stone Age technology do not foster the proliferation of styles that we find in artifacts from later eras. For two unrelated cultures on two continents with no communication to have developed the same tools is entirely unremarkable.

And... the DNA of the aboriginal people of the Americas is clearly descended from Asian people. The Solutreans, Kennewick Man, Easter Island Polynesians, and any other acknowledged or hypothetical people who popped in for a visit did not make enough of a lasting impression to leave genetic markers. So to call them the "earliest arrivals" or the "earliest inhabitants" is just a fine point of semantics. They do not yet have any claim to be the biological, cultural or spiritual ancestors of the First Americans. It would make more historical sense to call the Incas and Mohawks the descendants of the "First of the Mongolian Hordes." :)4) Does this mean the theory of Atlantis has some truth to it?For more information on Atlantis than you could digest at one sitting, start by searching just SciForums. We've discussed it here on many threads. I find the evidence overwhelming that the Atlantis myth accreted around the factual history of the Mediterranean island of Thera, which had a prosperous civilization and was destroyed by natural calamities. Just keep in mind that to the people of the civilizations of that era, "the sea" was the Mediterranean, not the Atlantic.Whatever. I'm feeling paranoid.Don't be. This is all just plain old science. We have a lot to learn about the migrations of prehistoric humans, but that doesn't mean that we don't already know quite a bit. The discovery that there were adventurers so long ago who accomplished amazing feats of travel gives us a nice reassuring sense of the constancy of human nature: they had the same yearnings we do. But don't slip into the trap of thinking that every man who has walked across a continent is Marco Polo.

There's been a lot of new DNA research since this (http://www.geocities.com/TheTropics/Lagoon/1345/caucasian.html) piece was written, but I think it is worth reading, and most of its basic ideas still hang together.

2) What does this mean for American politics, including "Native Americans"?

I must admit that my knowledge about the details of all legal relationships between Native Americans and the American government is limited to what most would learn in highschool but, despite what modern science tells law makers and the public alike about the first inhabitants of a land, it has no effect or bearing on the existing legal arrangement between the government and its Native Peoples.

The existing legal arrangements between a government and its Native/Aboriginal population establish the rules, if you will, for which the two will co-exist with one another. The question, better yet a controversial answer to the question of 'who was here first' is rather mute given these arrangements are with peoples who are here now.

So I don't think this new 'discovery' has any bearing on the established legal relationship between Native American Peoples and the US government, thus no bearing politically.

it is very possible...

but boats.. often... carried alot of men.. and few women.. if any.

and boats, do get lost, and sent out to sea...

and if they found land, it was probubly the usa...

but being of such a small number and without women... it wouldnt of been fun.

-MT
It's entirely possible that these people actually did travel with enough women and in large enough groups to settle a faraway land.

It's entirely possible that these people actually did travel with enough women and in large enough groups to settle a faraway land.The Polynesians certainly did. Two groups of them from two different places settled Hawaii at two different times.

Sounds like what the Mormons believe...

yes... the mormons, would suggest a long ago mass migration by ship, of not only the northern barbarians, but the older races of the equartorial band... who learning sea farring long ago, applied it... and settled the new world.

but then what??

a natural disaster??? enough to destroy our feeble world, and set our people back by over 10,000 to 20,000 years.

if any of that is possible.... then maybe joseph smith wanst a con-man.

-MT

From what I understand we're pretty ignorant when it comes to history. Because the Smithsonian will only display historical artifacts that correlates with the accepted norms.

Well duh. It's run by the government!

New support for Mormonism! Hot Damnation!

Sorry but this sounds like political/cultural machinations to me.

Similar to the extremely tenuous theory proposed by Pan-African nationalists that the Olmecs were originally from West Africa despite their being practically NO evidence for this apart from some statues found in South America.

Maybe humans ancient primate ancestors were already in those lands (America) when the continents began to peel away from each other as Pangea was broken apart?

The lack of archeological, anthropological or paleontological evidence of human ancestors in the Americas prior to 40,000BCE at the earliest (and I'm way exaggerating for safety) is overwhelming.

There are not even any species of apes in the New World, the only primates are monkeys.

What's all this crap about calling whites Caucasians? Why aren't white people ever satisfied with who they are? Are they from the Caucus Mountains now? Imagine in 200 years time when a teacher asks a kid where white people come from and he says the Caucus Mountains.

Thats like saying Ohio State Buckeyes are really Buckeyes( Go buckeyes!)

Or calling them "white", for that matter. Define "white'. Then try to define it at the edges, like in Iberia, or Persia, or at the genetic level. Reducto ad absurdam.

What's all this crap about calling whites Caucasians? Why aren't white people ever satisfied with who they are? Are they from the Caucus Mountains now? Imagine in 200 years time when a teacher asks a kid where white people come from and he says the Caucus Mountains.

Religious people invented the term - Noahs Ark was supposed to have stranded in the Caucasian mountains - and the white caucasians were the tribe of Japheth , son of Noah .......

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caucasian_race

It's the Caucasus Mountains. The region known as the Caucasus includes the lowlands around the mountains. The Caucasus can also be called Caucasia but I've never seen it used in modern writing.

It's the Caucasus Mountains. The region known as the Caucasus includes the lowlands around the mountains. The Caucasus can also be called Caucasia but I've never seen it used in modern writing.

Sorry teacher -in the caucasian lingo it is called caucasian mountains ....my mistake ... I promise to say the caucasus race in the future....

http://www.regnum.ru/english/565734.html
http://www.russianwoman.siteburg.com/gallery/caucasus.html

anyway,

from what I understand, they would not have sailed the open ocean, the theory is that they gradually migrated along the ice that connected north America and Europe, hunting seals, polar bears, or whatever is there. so the migration may have taken more than a lifetime. they kill most of the large animals in one area, and move west until they find land.

here is where I heard about it:
http://www.pbs.org/saf/1406/video/watchonline.htm

I heard they were fishermen, and slowly migrated south from the bearing straight, in search of game.

But then again i've also heard the mormon side of it, which is a little off in my own opinion.

But the point of the matter is any theorys on who settled here first is purely speculation. About the only thing people have agreed on is that most indian tribes have a genetic connection to people from parts of asia.

A team led by two Texas A&M University anthropologists now believes the first Americans came to this country 1,000 to 2,000 years earlier than the 13,500 years ago previously thought, which could shift historic timelines.
The team’s findings are outlined in a review article in “Science” magazine titled “The Late Pleistocene Dispersal of Modern Humans in the Americas,” which synthesises new data suggesting the migration from Alaska started about 15,000 years ago.

Read more (http://dmc-news.tamu.edu/templates/?a=5920&z=15)

It is VERY hard to say. For instance Kennewick man might have just been an "Adventurer", that really did travel 1000s of leagues. I find it amazing modern man cannot comprehend these types of journey's because even modern man likes to do crazy shit like that and our ancestor's were certainly more adventurous than we are now.

What *I* find interesting is mass grave coverups. Large skeletons in mass graves - red hair, really not fitting the NorthAmerican profile for 4000BC. This kind of find is much more indicitive of a "local" than Kennewick man(whom was equiped for travel). Kennewick man suffered a lot of abuse, which makes me think he was an outsider even more. Though one particularly nasty wound, he probably could not have treated himself and he survived it(arrow to the thigh -embedded to the bone- I believe). So someone probably helped him, again I just suspect another companion adventurer like himself.

I really resent calling Kennewick man "White" or "European". Whatever culture or people he came from is pretty far removed from the sterotypes these words conjure in modern culture and lexicon. Yeah, he probably looked like a modern "white" man. His skin(and modern "white" people) was probably light brown. We are all so many shades of brown.

What *I* find interesting is mass grave coverups. Large skeletons in mass graves - red hair, really not fitting the NorthAmerican profile for 4000BC. "Coverups" are very rare in this kind of field - exaggerations of small incongruities are more common.

Hair sometimes turns red in graves. A local mutation for red hair would have found unusually cooperative circumstances among the early wanderers into North America. Not that I'm making claims -just pointing out that life is strange.

My own guess is that coastline and inland waterway boat travel has been underestimated as a dispersal mechanism into North America.

"Coverups" are very rare in this kind of field - exaggerations of small incongruities are more common.

Hair sometimes turns red in graves. A local mutation for red hair would have found unusually cooperative circumstances among the early wanderers into North America. Not that I'm making claims -just pointing out that life is strange.

My own guess is that coastline and inland waterway boat travel has been underestimated as a dispersal mechanism into North America.

Not in the 1800s it wasn't and can easily be carried on(Smithsonian). We are supposed to believe the official line that these people just "forgot" how to work metal, instead of an ancient times massacre.

well the theory is that they crossed the now gone ice bridge from Asia/what is now Russia. So basically the original Americans were actually Russians!

and jesus was actually a russian too!, in fact everything good that ever came from anything in the world was russian!

well the theory is that they crossed the now gone ice bridge from Asia/what is now Russia. So basically the original Americans were actually Russians!

Didn't "Russia" startup in the 1600s from Scandanavian ancestors?

Yeah I hate equating a modern nationality to people whom lived 6000 years ago...anywhere.

Didn't "Russia" startup in the 1600s from Scandanavian ancestors?

Yeah I hate equating a modern nationality to people whom lived 6000 years ago...anywhere.


well Scandinavians were one of the mixes. But Russia as a united country was born in 900 A.D after Christianity became the main religion...before that the Russians believed in many Gods such as Perun

http://clover.slavic.pitt.edu/tales/images/bakst_perun.jpg

RUssians always lived in their own land, they were the original tribes across the land who were mixed with everyone who decided to join us like Scandinavians.

and jesus was actually a russian too!, in fact everything good that ever came from anything in the world was russian!

:p yeah ok I sense sarcasm there

:p yeah ok I sense sarcasm there

NO....not at all

From what I understand we're pretty ignorant when it comes to history. Because the Smithsonian will only display historical artifacts that correlates with the accepted norms.

What we need is a National Musuem of Crackpot Theories. :D (We can have an enitre exhibit filled with people who think they've proven Einstein wrong. Preferably those people should be stuffed and posed, like in a Natural History Museum.)

Museums are just bad places to try to suss out the standard theories from less accepted conjectures. If you are constantly bombarding visitors (who, remember are looking at dozens or even hundreds of exhibits that day, not all of them in depth) with both the generally accepted versions and with conjectures, it's hard to keep them straight. People wandering away would probably not be able to keep them straight, and the result would be people spreading the conjectures as if they were the generally agreed upon norm.

Classrooms are a better place to deal with controveries.

The Smithsonian MADE the accepted norms. (while carefully "losing" all kinds of arifacts that fall outside the official-politically acceptable, story)

The Smithsonian MADE the accepted norms. (while carefully "losing" all kinds of arifacts that fall outside the official-politically acceptable, story) The Smithsonian doesn't have that kind of control of "the story" - which is about seven stories right now, and changing all the time.

The Phoenicians were seafaring people who traded with India and China long before Marco Polo headed that way. They were crushed by the Romans when Carthage went down. I suspect if the Romans hadn't wiped out so many other nations we'd have a better idea who, if anyone, made it to the Americas from Europe or Northern Africa.

The Smithsonian doesn't have that kind of control of "the story" - which is about seven stories right now, and changing all the time.

Tenured people who have politically appointed jobs run museums and universities. They know which side their bread is buttered on.

Classrooms are a better place to deal with controveries.

within the ivy walls of academia, the intelligentsia plotted and planned
the final solution

Tenured people who have politically appointed jobs run museums and universities. They know which side their bread is buttered on. Tenured people butter their bread on whichever side they choose. If you want to put political pressure on a tenured academic job, best start and finish before the appointment. Which is possible, but requires serious effort.

And there are dozens of researchers (in competition to catch each other out), several different academic fields over several generations of expertise, dozens of people running muesums, hundreds of students and so forth, that would have to be in on any such conspiracy - and no motive at all. What is supposed to be the point of all this conspiring and suppressing ?

in general....

the nea butters the bread
no to sourdough
yes to rye

fundies conspire
cos jesus is coming

culture wars
awesome stuff

The censoring of our museums (http://www.newstatesman.com/200507110035)

An act not of censorship but of stewardship (http://www.americanexperiment.org/publications/1999/19991208kersten.php)

now
about dem caucs

from memory
blumenbach, a retard, had in his collection of skulls, a standout. a georgian skull. presumably unearthed in the caucasus.
furthermore these georgians had been observed (in the wild, mind you), to be both long lived and of impeccable stature

he co-opted them hastily
caucasians r' us
hoo haa

turned out they were dirty semites
zero nobility

oh
......in Russia, Caucasians (including Georgians) are relatively dark-skinned and
abused as "chorniye" or "blacks. (nyt-11/10/98)

oh
......in Russia, Caucasians (including Georgians) are relatively dark-skinned and
abused as "chorniye" or "blacks. (nyt-11/10/98)

a lie. Georgians are not dark-skinned and they are defenetly not abused by anyone. Georgians are the wealthiest of them nations in Russia, that does not make them good thou.

Tenured people butter their bread on whichever side they choose. If you want to put political pressure on a tenured academic job, best start and finish before the appointment. Which is possible, but requires serious effort.

And there are dozens of researchers (in competition to catch each other out), several different academic fields over several generations of expertise, dozens of people running muesums, hundreds of students and so forth, that would have to be in on any such conspiracy - and no motive at all. What is supposed to be the point of all this conspiring and suppressing ?

Anyone recall how well Watson and Crick were received by their peers for their ground breaking work on genetics?

a lie. Georgians are not dark-skinned and they are defenetly not abused by anyone. Georgians are the wealthiest of them nations in Russia, that does not make them good thou.


shut yer mouth, boy!

shut yer mouth, boy!

1) don't curse
2) I speak the truth

this is a typical Georgian, he does not look black

http://www.regent-holidays.co.uk/images/GMAN.jpg

Anyone recall how well Watson and Crick were received by their peers for their ground breaking work on genetics? You've lost me.

"Human DNA from dried excrement recovered from Oregon's Paisley Caves is the oldest found yet in the New World - dating to 14,300 years ago, some 1,200 years before Clovis culture - and provides apparent genetic ties to Siberia or Asia, according to an international team of 13 scientists."

Read more (http://pmr.uoregon.edu/science-and-innovation/uo-research-news/research-news-2008/april/researchers-led-by-uo-archaeologist-find-pre-clovis-human-dna)

Latitude: 42.73, Longitude: -120.55

"The Paisley Caves are located in the Summer Lake Basin north of Paisley in south-central Oregon. The site is composed of 8 caves and rockshelters in a west facing ridge of scoriacious basalt."

Latitude: 42.761300N Longitude: 120.5514W

Read more (http://www.uoregon.edu/~ftrock/paisley_caves_description.php)

You've lost me.

When Watson and Crick explained how DNA works they were laughed out of the field by their superiors and peers who knew that proteins were the ticket.

When Watson and Crick explained how DNA works they were laughed out of the field by their superiors and peers who knew that proteins were the ticket. In the first place, bullshit. In the second place, so what?

You are alleging a large, organized, multi-generational, crossdisciplinery conspiracy of mutual dishonesty to prevent the recognition of early Caucasian immigration to North America ? Got a motive for all these people - one strong enough for them to forego fame and fortune for a groundbreaking discovery ?

?
Native americans are quite obviously brown skinned primitive caucasians (from before caucasians worked out how to handle booze). They even have a classically european pagan-like culture.

Maybe a dash of mongoloid, but more caucasian. Just because asians are used to represent native americans in movies doesn't make them asian.

Actually, hmm, I remember seeing a documentary about a tribal people off the north coast of japan that were very much like native americans, but they oddly seemed white as well. Anyone know the tribe I'm talking about?

?
Native americans are quite obviously brown skinned primitive caucasians (from before caucasians worked out how to handle booze). They even have a classically european pagan-like culture.

Maybe a dash of mongoloid, but more caucasian. Just because asians are used to represent native americans in movies doesn't make them asian.

Actually, hmm, I remember seeing a documentary about a tribal people off the north coast of japan that were very much like native americans, but they oddly seemed white as well. Anyone know the tribe I'm talking about?

before booze that like more than 15000 years ago

Actually booze is more like 12 000 years old, and didn't hit europe untill more recently than that, BUT I was curious and looked it up and apparently native americans independently made their own booze about 1500 years ago, so I don't know what to make of that.
They certainly suck at drinking it now, in alaska they drink untill they pass out in fields and freeze to death. I assumed they were like australian aborigines who never came into contact with alcohol in their history untill europeans arrived, and consequently a disproportionate percentage of them became dysfunctional drunks.

I guess native americans have no excuse, other than the crippling deep depression at the core of their collective spirit.

In the first place, bullshit. In the second place, so what?

The same thing happened with the guy who discovered surgeons washing hands before surgery saves lives. The guy eventually went nuts because noone would listen to him despite his research. Don't put so much faith in the scientific community's willingness to accept new ideas.

You are alleging a large, organized, multi-generational, crossdisciplinery conspiracy of mutual dishonesty to prevent the recognition of early Caucasian immigration to North America ? Got a motive for all these people - one strong enough for them to forego fame and fortune for a groundbreaking discovery ?

Why would the church burn people alive for saying the earth revolved around the sun?

Don't put so much faith in the scientific community's willingness to accept new ideas. It's not a new idea. There just isn't any evidence for it. The new ideas that have had evidence (the discovery of the Clovis culture, the current push for older immigration waves than the standard model), even a little bit of evidence, have no problem getting support from various mavericks and young turks.

And the medical community around the handwashing controversy, like the religious community around the Galilean controversy, was not a scientific one - they didn't get their status by having new and bright ideas, they didn't have standard ways of introducing discovery and comparing it with older work.

There is often great resistance to a new idea - but that's not the same has making it vanish, preventing it from picking up persuaded research. Fame and glory await anyone who makes a major advance in the knowledge of the early immigration to North America.

If the Caucasion hypothesis holds water genetic testing will have to confirm or deny it. Time will tell.

?

Actually, hmm, I remember seeing a documentary about a tribal people off the north coast of japan that were very much like native americans, but they oddly seemed white as well. Anyone know the tribe I'm talking about?

Ainu (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ainu_people).

What we need is a National Musuem of Crackpot Theories.

It could be added as a new wing to the Creation Museum :D

like I said...the first Americans were actually Russians...they traveled across the frozen ice shelf bridge to Alaska and than to what is now Washingthon Dc. and settled on Washingthon D.C...and after ages it all sort of came down together and USA formed

When Watson and Crick explained how DNA works they were laughed out of the field by their superiors and peers who knew that proteins were the ticket.

You're thinking of Frederick Griffith

n a radical new view of pre-history, two prominent archeologists say North America's first inhabitants may have crossed the icy Atlantic Ocean some 18,000 years ago from Europe's Iberian Peninsula. The theory, presented at a weekend conference, is at odds with the long-held notion that the continent's first settlers came across a land bridge from Asia. The conventional view is the stuff of college entrance exams and Far Side cartoons _ wandering cavemen wrapped in animal hides and lugging enormous spears, crossing the land bridge from Asia to hunt woolly mammoths. Archeologists say some nomads almost certainly made their way into Alaska and found an ice-free highway down into the continent some 13,500 years ago. Their culture has been named Clovis for their distinctive weapons that have been found in digs nationwide. But according to the new theory, the continent's first inhabitants may have crossed the Atlantic more than 18,000 years ago from Europe's Iberian Peninsula _ the area that is now Spain, Portugal and southwestern France. Belonging to a group known as the Solutreans, these pre-modern explorers are believed to have originally settled the Eastern Seaboard, according to the researchers.

http://www.abotech.com/Articles/atlantictheory.htm

1) Were ancient Europeans (Solutreans) Caucasian, or pre-Caucasian?

2) What does this mean for American politics, including "Native Americans"?

3) How is it we didn't discover this until now?

4) Does this mean the theory of Atlantis has some truth to it?

Whatever. I'm feeling paranoid.

I saw a documentary on this - and to be honest the evidence was pretty weak - particularly in the face of archaeological and genetic evidence - worth a watch though.

1. dunno - don't care
2. hopefully nothing
3. So much research - so little time/money
4. Has no bearing on it at all - besides its hardly a theory - more like simple speculation.

"The University of Miami (UM) Rosenstiel School of Marine and Atmospheric Science has been awarded funding from the National Geographic Society, and is working with divers at The Florida Aquarium, to explore a marine archaeological site at Little Salt Spring. The excavation, led by UM Marine Affairs and Policy Associate Professor, Dr. John Gifford, is searching for evidence of human habitation in Florida from 10,000 B.C. or 12,000 years ago. "

Read more (http://www.rsmas.miami.edu/pressreleases/20080715-lss.html)

First Americans were Russians...yes Russians settled America...so this is our land, subjugate of a Russian Federation.

just when you think he can't get nuttier he does

I'd think the first Americans were humans since that is a race of peoples that settled here.

I've heard that Vikings may have traveled to the Americas.
1.Does it matter? There's surely no pure members of that race alive today.
2.Probably has more to do with Native American history than politics.
3.Most of what we do discover about the past isn't searched for specifically. That probably has a lot to do with why it took so long.
4.That would make it a lot easier to believe that they crossed the Atlantic. I've always thought that Atlantis would be in the mediteranean, since it is a greek myth. Also if it existed in the Atlantic, that would mean that there was an ancient world that was connected. It would be circumstantial evidence though.


Wasn't it South America they went to, they got slaughtered.