PDA

View Full Version : 'America Discovered!', But By Whom?



Bismark
Friday, March 11th, 2005, 09:48 AM
In your opinion, who discovered America? Who was the first person, or group of people from the Old World to set foot on the New World (excluding the native inhabitants)?


Discuss..........

morfrain_encilgar
Friday, March 11th, 2005, 01:04 PM
In your opinion, who discovered America? Who was the first person, or group of people from the Old World to set foot on the New World?


Discuss..........


I wouls suggest various paleolithic migrations into the Americas, that included at least two racial types, and probably more.

Drömmarnas Stig
Friday, March 11th, 2005, 04:13 PM
The Vikings, if I'm not completely mistaken.

They tried to establish a colony but failed. That's all I know.

Theudanaz
Friday, March 11th, 2005, 06:30 PM
I wouls suggest various paleolithic migrations into the Americas, that included at least two racial types, and probably more.
Well put. What racial types did these involve? Mongoloid and possibly Caucasoid peoples, according to skull finds. Of course, can we apply the term "discovery" if there is no larger world forum for the paleolithics to report to? The first recorded discovery would have been in the 10th century AD by Biarni Herjulfsson, the accidental discovery which led eventually to Eiriksson's 1000 AD "discovery".

Lena_rus
Saturday, March 12th, 2005, 06:47 AM
I supose by Indians :D

Siegfried
Saturday, March 12th, 2005, 01:42 PM
I supose by Indians :D

Caucasoid remains have been unearthed that predate the earliest traces of an Amerindian presence, if I'm not mistaken.

morfrain_encilgar
Sunday, March 13th, 2005, 12:46 PM
Caucasoid remains have been unearthed that predate the earliest traces of an Amerindian presence, if I'm not mistaken.

My comment on this is both yes and no, because the Kennewick and Spirit Cave type(s) was an important element in the ancestry of later populations, in at least North America.

Awar
Sunday, March 13th, 2005, 03:40 PM
Palaeolithic migrants, of course.

The Chinese, Viking, Welsh, whatever other 'discovery' might be true, or not,
but the fact remains that Columbus opened the doors for colonisation of Americas.

Agrippa
Sunday, March 13th, 2005, 04:32 PM
The Spanish. But not because they colonized and others not, but because they finally made a map in which America was correctly included.
So they discovered the continent as a part of world and on the world map, whereas others just found land, but we cannot know if they knew that it was a new continent, since not even Columbus didnt know that first.
And this knowledge led to our modern maps and worldview, whereas the other "knowledge", if it existed, wasnt important for that development.
The Indians just found land, they had no idea where it was or how the world looked like.
That would be like saying because Mr. X found a chemical reaction 5000 years ago by chance, he "discovered" it for moderns, if his knowledge was lost if he even had any idea about what he did...

fenriSS_
Monday, March 14th, 2005, 09:25 PM
my brave ancestors sailed across the sea of worms. Established a small colony, but was unfortunatly killed my native skrælings:thumbdown.

Schutzstaffelor
Tuesday, March 15th, 2005, 03:15 AM
what's this about the chinese discovering america? i've never heard about it. the only major maritime expedition the Chinese sent out was by Zheng He, and that was in the other direction, to Africa.

Schutzstaffelor
Tuesday, March 15th, 2005, 06:27 AM
heh, i just discovered this book online:

http://www.1421.tv/the_book.asp



i think it's hilarious that the author himself is a blue-eyed englishman, retiree of the British Royal Navy

http://www.1421.tv/pages/content/index.asp?PageID=71



this article, by a former american navy officer, disproves his claims:

http://www.cronab.demon.co.uk/china.htm

for those of you too lazy to read it, basically all it says is that china had resources and technology to travel to america, but lacked the desire and intiative due to lack of external competition.

fenriSS_
Tuesday, March 15th, 2005, 03:44 PM
well the only explorer they sent was an evnukk, doesn't that say enught:D

King Yngvar
Monday, June 13th, 2005, 10:54 AM
Us, of course :D

Polaris
Tuesday, June 14th, 2005, 12:02 AM
The Vikings discovered America in 1000 AD; They were led by Eric the Red's son, Leif Erickson...

According to the definition of Vinland at www.dictionary.com:

An unidentified coastal region of northeast North America visited by Norse voyagers as early as c. 1000. The region, variously located from Labrador to New Jersey, was named for the grapes growing plentifully in the area.

SouthernBoy
Tuesday, June 14th, 2005, 12:36 AM
Indians
Phonecians
Celtiberians
Irish
Vikings
Spanish

Theres the list. America B.C. is a good resource on the subject. ;)

Polaris
Tuesday, June 14th, 2005, 01:23 AM
Leif Ericsson, Christopher Columbus, Jacques Cartier, and the brothers John and Sebastian Cabot are the Europeans most famous for early transatlantic voyages. But who were the first across? Two Irish scholars, Mr. Moon and Mr. Ashe, have recently suggested that their early forefathers have that honour.

The story is that early in the eighth century, monks and lay brothers of the ascetic Celtic Church left Ireland for Faroe. About the year 770, however, Norwegian Vikings attacked and colonised Faroe, Shetland, Orkney and the Hebrides or Western Isles. The invaders were ruthless and the Celts, their solitude broken and their lives endangered, set sail for Iceland in their small craft, taking with them their religious objects and writings and their tools.

In their new homeland, they maintained their faith, fished, raised sheep and grew a scanty harvest in the poor soil. Then, one stormy day in 874, a Danish trader named Gardar sought shelter in a cove and spent the winter there. When he went home he reported his discovery and, eleven years later, two Norwegian leaders named Ingolf and Hjorlaf arrived with a number of Viking compatriots, keen to settle.

We can well imagine the dismay with which they greeted the advent of the Norwegians. Setting off once more in their boats, they left their homes for ever and sailed on to Cape Breton, being the first White men to reach America, if the evidence is true. Nobody knows for sure where on Cape Breton Island they settled, but two young Eskimos who were kidnapped in 1016 by a Scandinavian named Karlsefi, on what is now the Labrador coast, told him of men dressed in white who dwelt by the Gulf of St. Lawrence and walked about singing loudly, carrying before them poles to which were attached pieces of cloth. This confirmed a report made by one Thorvald, a Scandinavian, ten years previously.

Mr. Moon goes on to say that, about the year 1000, one Bjorn Abrandson landed on Cape Breton and was found there in about 1029 by Gudlief Gudlangsson, living among a group of Irish people. The writer adds that the saga of Saint Olaf and the oldest of the nautical guides mention commercial contacts between Iceland, Ireland and Cape Breton Island, and place the Irish colony "west of the ocean near Vinland" (now called Newfoundland) and "some distance beyond". This colony, says Mr. Moon, was called "Greater Ireland" or "Huitramannaland" (literally, "Whitemanland"), later "Albania" ("the White Country"). Mr. Moon mentions an ancient Scandinavian map, probably made in 1565, used by a Scandinavian mariner about 1630, clearly showing the settlement on the southern shore of what must be the Gulf of St. Lawrence. In the appendix to the "Landnama Bok" the lands south of Greenland are listed as the country of the Skraelings. Markland, Vinland, and "White Man's Land", also called "Irland ed Mikla", was referred to as having been visited by Irishmen and Icelanders in past times.

Some readers will be aware that Scotland was also called Albania in former times, but this was a corruption of Alba, its Gaelic name. The modern republic of Albania, on the other hand, is so-called because a medieval Roman visitor compared its scenery to that of the Alban Hills.

Mr. Moon tells how the Celtic community dwindled, being partly celibate, with little fresh blood from new settlers and with only wood, fur and fish for trade. Their language and religious rites still survived in 1020, but eventually the Micmac tribe of Redskins assimilated the remnant of the colony.

When Europeans visited Cape Breton in the sixteenth century, they found evidence of adoration of the Cross among the inhabitants, who venerated it for its protective powers and asserted that it had been handed down from their ancestors. French explorers found crosses at the doors of councils, planted on tombs and at hunting and fishing grounds. And in 1604 Samuel de Champlain found a wooden cross in the grass, so old that it disintegrated into dust at the first touch.

Going further south, and further back into legend, the Irish historian Mr. Ashe points to the famous and, as he :says, largely fabulous Voyages of St. Brendan. The saint is said to have visited a country far across the Atlantic Ocean, which Irish popular tradition identifies as America, and certain passages in the story suggest that St. Brendan may even have reached Bermuda.

St. Brendan the Navigator defnitely existed, for he founded the monastery of Clonfert in County Galway about 558 and co-operated with Gildas and other pupils of St. Illtud. He was a seafarer who undoubtedly sailed to the Hebrides, like his compatriot St. Columba. So much is known. We are also told that he fared westward to seek the land promised to the Saints, the given or implied date being 525. But Mr. Ashe's precis and commentary are best left in his own words:


St. Brendan and his companions, heading northward from Ireland, come to a rocky isle with no obvious landing place. After sailing round it they discover a single cove where they go ashore. (St. Kildas)
They sail onwards to an island in northern seas where there are many sheep and a monastic community. (The Faroes)
They wander back and forth in an archipelago, staying ashore for long periods. (The Shetlands)
They sail north to another island, a place of fire and smoke, where it looks as if a great number of smiths are at work on glowing metal. As they watch, the mass blazes and becomes molten. (To Iceland, witnessing an eruption of Hecla)
After returning to a point previously visited and obtaining advice, they sail west for forty days.
They are surrounded by darkness, which is said to be the prelude to arrival in the land they are seeking. (Fog on the Newfoundland banks)
They come to a huge crystal pillar in the sea with a canopy over it. (They sight an iceberg drifting south with the Greenland current)
They reach an inhospitable coast where there are creatures with tusks and speckled bellies. (They put in briefly at Newfoundland and encounter walruses)
They sail into a semi-tropical lagoon. (They make for a warmer zone and eventually enter the Bahamas)
They put in at an island and are attacked by small, dark savages.
They sail over transparent waters where they can see a long way down. (Exploring the Caribbean fringes, they notice the famous transparent sea, still frequently observed)
They disembark in the Promised Land, which is sunshiny and warm and abounds in fruit. After forty days of exploration they reach a river. The land seems to stretch indefinitely beyond and they give up the attempt to find its limit. A celestial messenger tells them to go home; the country wlill be revealed to the world in God's good time. (Florida or the Gulf coast, an area which has since inspired similar fancies, both in the time of Ponce de Leon and in that of Coolidge)
Mr. Ashe tells us that the maritime historians, James Hornell and George A. Little, have agreed that a wooden ship of the period could have done this easily and dismisses as unimportant the fact that the Irish mariners had no compasses, sextants or chronometers. In common with the late Mr. Harold Gatty he suggests that they followed the flight of birds, ". .. on the correct assumption that they are not flying into absolute emptiness". He states that a bird track extends from Scotland at least as far as Iceland and the stars would act as a guide at night.

The author dismisses as irrelevant the question of St. Brendan's actual participation in the voyages. He points out that the Saint may be "... only a peg on which the exploits of anonymous seafarers have been hung and it is the exploits that most concern us, rather than the identity of the doers". He concludes thus: " St. Brendan's alleged voyage is only one of several clues pointing to an Irish knowledge of the New World ante-dating that of the Vikings." We wonder what the truth really was! Certainly, as Mr. Ashe puts it, St. Brendan's journeys are themselves mere incidents "in an impressive history of northern travel which the Celtic springtime inaugurated".
The article was pulled from this site http://www.nordzeit.de/discam.htm

Rhydderch
Tuesday, June 14th, 2005, 07:08 AM
I think it's fair to say that Colombus 'discovered' America. Captain Cook is always said to have discovered Australia, even though it's well known that it had been visited from at least a century earlier. 'Discovering' probably really has to involve setting up some sort of base or settlement there (and not just publicising the visit or sighting).

Jack
Tuesday, June 14th, 2005, 08:47 AM
The Spaniards, because they named it 'America'. Prior to that it was just a chunk of land where a bunch of scattered tribes lived.

Krissi
Tuesday, June 14th, 2005, 11:59 PM
The Spaniards, because they named it 'America'. Prior to that it was just a chunk of land where a bunch of scattered tribes lived.
Well, the vikings named it 'Vinland' hundreds of years before.

Jack
Wednesday, June 15th, 2005, 04:30 AM
Well, the vikings named it 'Vinland' hundreds of years before.And did they establish a state? A constitution? An army, a colony, a local economy? Put up a flag?

No :P Furthermore 'America' is not 'Vinland'.

Telperion
Wednesday, June 15th, 2005, 05:03 AM
And did they establish a state? A constitution? An army, a colony, a local economy? Put up a flag?

No :P Furthermore 'America' is not 'Vinland'.
The Vikings established a colony at L'Anse aux Meadows in Newfoundland. However, the colony failed before 1100 A.D. See:
http://www.pc.gc.ca/lhn-nhs/nl/meadows/index_e.asp

Beorncyning
Monday, May 15th, 2006, 10:27 PM
And did they establish a state? A constitution? An army, a colony, a local economy? Put up a flag?

No :P Furthermore 'America' is not 'Vinland'.

No, they didn't. But the question wasn't who colonized America and began settling it, but rather who first discovered it. And the answer to that is quite simply Leif Eriksson. Leif's brother was actually the first European to ever die and be buried in North America.

I remember reading a thread somewhere a while back. (Perhaps on skadi.net) about a theory that Irish monks found North America about 100 years or so before Leif Eriksson. I don't really buy into it, but has anyone else heard of this?

Leofric
Monday, May 15th, 2006, 11:00 PM
But the question wasn't who colonized America and began settling it, but rather who first discovered it. And the answer to that is quite simply Leif Eriksson. Leif's brother was actually the first European to ever die and be buried in North America.
Are you certain they were the first? They were certainly before Chris, but that doesn't make them the first. For years, we all thought Chris was the first, but now we've had to back off of that and give credit to the Norse (and they made it as far south as Cuba and the Yucatán, by the way). To whom will we have to give credit next? I don't think it's wise to assume that Leif or Bjarni or anyone else in that community was the first.


I remember reading a thread somewhere a while back. (Perhaps on skadi.net) about a theory that Irish monks found North America about 100 years or so before Leif Eriksson. I don't really buy into it, but has anyone else heard of this?
I have indeed heard of this. It's a relatively well known idea, in fact. I have never seen conclusive proof for it. But then, for centuries, the story about Leif was considered by everyone to be just an Icelandic old wives' tale. Now we know better. Perhaps it would ill-behove us to doubt the story about the Irish monks.

I think it's impossible to determine who was the first European to reach America. And all the records of Europeans who did say they encountered people already here. Consequently, I think an attempt to go back in time to the very first and declare him the discoverer is misguided. Leif, for example, may have arrived in America — but did he discover it? or did it remain covered or obscure to Europe after his arrival? For the most part, it remained obscure. The Little Ice Age made it completely obscure again — you might say it recovered America. The man who finally blew the cover off America in terms of Europeans' interaction with the continent was definitely Christopher Columbus. No one else advertised well enough to really dis-cover the place.

Digitalseal
Monday, May 15th, 2006, 11:09 PM
Australians and/or Melanesians were the first ones, but in the Western case it was the Vikings

lei.talk
Monday, May 15th, 2006, 11:19 PM
I remember reading a thread somewhere a while back. (Perhaps on skadi.net) about a theory that Irish monks found North America about 100 years or so before Leif Eriksson. I don't really buy into it, but has anyone else heard of this?

I have indeed heard of this. It's a relatively well known idea, in fact. I have never seen conclusive proof for it.references to irish monks in america (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=irish+monks+discover+america)

lei.talk
Monday, May 15th, 2006, 11:36 PM
Australians and/or Melanesians were the first ones (http://users.on.net/~mkfenn/page2.htm), but in the Western case it was the Vikings.

Oswiu
Wednesday, May 24th, 2006, 11:54 PM
The Spanish. But not because they colonized and others not, but because they finally made a map in which America was correctly included.
So they discovered the continent as a part of world and on the world map, whereas others just found land, but we cannot know if they knew that it was a new continent, since not even Columbus didnt know that first.
Aye. :nod

I checked who else voted for this, and found myself to be in good company. ;) ...and with "Poo Diddy Poo"... :hrm

Seems to me that near enough everyone whose lands are afacing America over the Ocean has ended up there sooner or later. These Australoid fellers seem to have left traces of themselves in Tierra del Fuego, and then the ancient Siberian Ainu paraEuropoid/as yet undifferentiated Eurasians seem to have wandered over, and then a few of our CroMagnon lot, and then the Indians.

Æmeric
Thursday, May 25th, 2006, 01:48 AM
I do'nt care who discovered America I'm just interested in maintaining possession of it.

Beorncyning
Wednesday, May 31st, 2006, 07:22 PM
I do'nt care who discovered America I'm just interested in maintaining possession of it.

History plays a crucial role in preservation.

Rev. Jupiter
Friday, January 7th, 2011, 04:33 PM
No single person or group discovered "America".

Plenty of people discovered pieces of land in North America over the course of many, many years.

Ardito
Friday, January 7th, 2011, 04:33 PM
Erikson did get there first, but his discovery was historically insignificant. Everyone had forgotten all about it by the fifteenth century, and Columbus discovered it afresh again, and that discovery is the significant one.

NatRev
Saturday, January 8th, 2011, 01:17 PM
I would suggest various paleolithic migrations into the Americas, that included at least two racial types, and probably more.

Yeah I'd opt for that, there's Kenniwick (sp) man found near Seattle which I've always wondered if he was a relative of the Ainu whom many believe are a relative of Caucasians.

http://www.town.shiraoi.hokkaido.jp/ainu-tradition/yamamaru/img/pic_yamamaru00.jpg

There's a lot of stone circles in New England which I believe may have been made by some branch of Caucasoids.

If you look at a map of Earth during the ice age:

http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/spaceart/earthicemap.jpg

It is not beyond the realms of possibility that some Caucasoids could've moved west along the ice coast and settled in North America several centuries BEFORE the Mongoloids from Asia who became the 'Red Indians'.

I did read about some Indian myth about Red haired 'Giants' that lived in the region before they came. They could be racially linked to the Tochorians who were a Caucasian race that lived in what is now part of China. Maybe related to a Cro-Magnon (I think) race that lived in relative isolation from now sea divided Europe.

http://www.bpib.com/illustrat/burian14.jpg

http://www.articlesafari.com/2010/10/red-haired-giants-north-america/

King Sitric
Saturday, January 8th, 2011, 01:33 PM
St Brendan, the Celtic monk paid a visit to the Americas too!

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

Totenkopf
Wednesday, February 9th, 2011, 09:49 PM
I thought that this matter was settled already. Didn't they find archaeological evidence of early Viking settlements in the Maritimes, which dated farther back than the Spanish conquest.

wittwer
Thursday, February 10th, 2011, 12:37 AM
North America was not "Discovered" by anyone its always been where it is. As for the discovery issue it should read "stumbled" upon. Perhaps the real question should be, "What stumbled onto N.A. first"? The answer would be the Dinosaurs... :D

Æmeric
Thursday, February 10th, 2011, 01:08 AM
We will never know who "discovered" the New World, it is likely that Phoenicians, Romans, Celts & other BC Europeans traveled to the Western Hemisphere, hundreds & over a thousand years before the Vikings & the Templars. It is the Columbus discovery that matters because it lead to a permanent contact between the Americas & Europe & allowed Europe to extend its cultural (and partially its racial) boundaries across the Atlantic.

kleine Lokomotive
Thursday, April 14th, 2011, 09:52 AM
If one defines discovered as the first who traveled there by sea my vote goes to ancient Egyptians. I think the stories about seafarers from the east among the Mesoamerican Civilications point to them.

Wotansthrone
Saturday, June 25th, 2011, 08:24 PM
Anyone heard of the Solutrean Theory? Interesting stuff. The theory states that our European ancestors discovered what is now North America around 17,000 years ago. Basically during the last Ice Age. This is backed by anthropological evidence and carbon dating on remains and artifacts found along the eastern United States. Artifacts found were pottery, arrowheads, and the like. What makes this different from the Amerindian is the use of clovis point technology. Clovis technology isn't known to the Asiatic people from where the Amerindians are decended from.

The Solutrean Hypohesis states that ancient Europeans crossed over the ice from Solutrea France and created settlements here in the Americas. For those interested go to youtube and type "Ice Age Columbus" into the search bar. It's a nine part episode that aired on the Discovery Channel several years ago.The DVD is hard to find and copies are kinda pricey for an hour and a half program. Worth checking out.

Lone Rebel
Wednesday, June 29th, 2011, 01:05 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=maziRFPYU14

This explains it for me.

norseking
Wednesday, June 29th, 2011, 06:46 AM
the vikings found america, my people

Goomer
Thursday, June 30th, 2011, 09:43 AM
The Indians were already living in America, but the first real wave of whites to come to America or *discover* it, as it were, were the Vikings.

There is some archeological evidence that a small number of caucasians may have been here at some point prior to many of the Indians.....but whether they were here in any significant number is impossible to tell. I still think the Indians lived here in largest numbers prior to the Viking's arrival.

Vonn
Sunday, November 6th, 2011, 05:01 AM
I'm new here so sorry I do this all wrong, I haven't be on a forum for awhile! But anyways, I heard it was actually the Vikings. They discovered the Americas but didn't get far with colonizing it.. obviously.

Wolfmother
Sunday, December 11th, 2011, 01:26 AM
The Spanish. But not because they colonized and others not, but because they finally made a map in which America was correctly included.
So they discovered the continent as a part of world and on the world map, whereas others just found land, but we cannot know if they knew that it was a new continent, since not even Columbus didnt know that first.
And this knowledge led to our modern maps and worldview, whereas the other "knowledge", if it existed, wasnt important for that development.
The Indians just found land, they had no idea where it was or how the world looked like.
That would be like saying because Mr. X found a chemical reaction 5000 years ago by chance, he "discovered" it for moderns, if his knowledge was lost if he even had any idea about what he did...

One word: Vinland

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

Jacob Suhl
Friday, January 13th, 2012, 12:07 AM
Once I was watching a documentary that proved that Ancient Egyptians had relations and continuous contacts with south american people.
I do not remember every fact, but one of them was the use of hashish from the egyptians. Apparently they tested the mummy's and found remains that proved that the royal families of egypt used to consume hashish which was produced only in south america. They used to eat the leaves, just like some south americans still do nowadays.
Has anyone ever heard about this theory?

svartleby
Saturday, January 21st, 2012, 07:56 AM
I personally hold to the viking theory. I mean, read Vinland saga.

That said, there's a lot of different theories out there about old world groups with contacts in the New World, there are even some latin american historians who say that the Olmec monuments were actually built a by a group of negroid colonizers from Africa. It actually sounds possible too, when you consider that the currently accepted theory for how the native peoples got there is that they boated along the Bering land bridge, and then along the Pacific Coast some 20,000+ years ago .

I think the general consensus right now is that we can't absolutely prove that anyone didn't get here, we can say with certainty which groups were able to get the largest foot holds.

The Horned God
Saturday, January 21st, 2012, 09:14 AM
The Vikings got there first, but they weren't too clear on where "there" actually was nor of the size of the continent. So in fact they only discovered a small corner of America and the knowledge of the discovery was eventually lost.
By the same token it could be claimed that St. Brendan discovered America 200 years before the Vikings.

Therefor I voted "Spanish". As the first country to map and permanently conquer large areas of the American continent they deserve the title of Discoverers.

Hersir
Saturday, January 21st, 2012, 01:50 PM
Evidence of human habitation before Clovis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clovis_culture)

Archaeological sites that predate Clovis that are well documented include the following:


http://cl.ly/3r0J2u3h0p312O1U2L3Y/Image%202012-01-21%20at%202.48.23%20PM.png
(Press to enlarge)


The controversial Solutrean hypothesis proposed in 1999 by Smithsonian archaeologist Dennis Stanford and colleague Bruce Bradley (Stanford and Bradley 2002), suggests that the Clovis people could have inherited technology from the Solutrean people who lived in southern Europe 21,000–15,000 years ago, and who created the first Stone Age artwork in present-day southern France.[52] The link is suggested by the similarity in technology between the projectile points of the Solutreans and those of the Clovis people.



Mitochondrial DNA analysis has found that some members of some native North American tribes have a maternal ancestry (called haplogroup X) linked to the maternal ancestors of some present day individuals in western Asia and Europe, albeit distantly, and has also provided some support for pre-clovis models.

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

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

Sal Saxon
Wednesday, May 9th, 2012, 06:18 PM
Greenland Vikings traveled here as the first Europeans. Whether or not this constitutes ''discovering,'' especially when it was technically inhabited, and they didnt colonize the Land really, I suppose is political.

Konrad Schreiber
Thursday, July 19th, 2012, 07:11 PM
After following one ground breaking archeological discovery after the other in North America for over a decade now, I've watched the evidence mount that the Amerindians first ... "Over the Bering Ice Bridge from Asia Theory" has to be relegated to the ash-heap of history. My mother was an anthropologist who followed this closely before she died and was greatly distressed at the degree to which even suggesting that the theory was incorrect and that our NOBLE SAVAGES and great American victims of White evil, Amerindians (or as they have come to so wrongly and brazenly call themselves, Native Americans) is not only Politically Incorrect but tantamount to a hate crime. Essentially, it was like kicking these poor victims yet again after they had been so wronged by white European immigrants. I shudder to think how many discoveries were shelved or suppressed due to this sickening phenomenon and it's numerous political spinoffs. The field of objective Anthropology has received a major black eye on this one. To be called racist revisionists the Anthro's who checked their politically incorrect findings again and again. just to be absolutely sure, have had to pay a high price for their integrity and dedication to scientific truth regardless.

For me it pretty much started back in the 90s with the Clovis weapon point discoveries that just didn't fit. What was strange is that these discoveries suggested that the stone tool technology found to be the oldest yet was actually superior or more advanced than that of the Amerindians that followed thousands of years later. This type of thing almost never happens. Once a better way is found, who in their right mind would abandon it in favor of something that works less well?

Then there was Kennewick man. I won't go into too many details suffice it to say that it was perhaps the most significant and controversial skeletal discovery made in the Americas up to that time. The first Anthro to get his hands on it immediately identified the approx. 9k year old nearly complete skeleton as Caucasoid not Mongoloid. He even prepared a facial reconstruction from the well preserved skull that resembled Jean Luke Picard of Star Trek fame. What happened then really upset people. Supported by a new law that makes study of Amerindian remains, matters not if they are pre-Columbian or not, a violation of their burial rights and the sanctity of their dead. It turned out it mattered not what kind of human remains it was, all pre-Columbian remains were categorically deemed to be Amerindian regardless and therefore off limits to further scientific or anthropological study. In short order the federal government not only stormed in and confiscated Kennewick man but proceeded to bulldoze the discovery site. Visions of Holocaustomania were dancing in my head.

Years passed and books were published that debunked the non-professional and racist findings of the orig. Kennewick Anthro. Yet, law suit upon law suit followed. Seems a small but courageous group of Anthros, among others, wanted to be able to let the facts speak for themselves. The truth was though that as time passed more and more lesser discoveries were being made across the country that made it clear that Kennewick wasn't a fluke and that Caucasoid were indeed here first. In the meantime, about 6 years ago I visited Canada and I discovered something unexpected. On a CBC TV broadcast about the "First Canadians," they just flatly came out and announced that it was proto-Europeans who first came to North America. Now mind you, this wasn't even declared to be controversial. It was clear to me at that point that the Cultural Marxism that precipitates political correctness in the US has ominously skewed what is permissible for public consumption. Regardless at this point there is unmistakable proof that Caucasoid peoples were here in the Americas well before the Amerindians were. ... what follows here is a piece I wrote only weeks ago just after I decided to run a Google search regarding "the first Americans:"

---------------------------

It happened again:

I ran a Google search on "who are the first Americans now?" Guess what came up. Everything that was PC first ... primarily represented by the NEW YORK TIMES, The Washington Post, Time Magazine to name just a few of the most well known and of course Freudo-Marxian / Judeocentric "bastions of objectivity" from our dominant mass disinfotainment establishment. They are scrambling though on this subject. I can just see them crying into their soups.

They are still doing their best to hold on to the Asian in-migration first via the Bering Straights ice bridge theory even though virtually all new and now proven evidence suggests something very different. The most terrible part about it for them is that it was Proto-Europeans or more specifically, peoples like the Salutrians (peoples from western France and Spain - the rest of northern Europe was under ice at the time) who came to North America some 10 thousand years before any ancestors of Amerindians ever arrived. This of course is very Politically Incorrect for our latter day purveyors of Judeocentric victimology politics. Suddenly, we are going from railing against the evil White Euros committing virtual genocide and criminal displacement and extermination campaigns against so-called noble native or aboriginal Amerindian savages to the exact reverse. It appears now that a likely scenario was that Amerindians invaded North America some hundred centuries after our European ancestors had settled here and not virtually but actually managed to exterminate them. This sure turns things on its head doesn't it? This is clearly worth further investigation and analysis. Let me just get back to my original point though.

Imagine, the average person does a search of who the first Americans were now and still comes up with same old BS Amerindians first theory unless they dig deep past the first few screens. How many people actually do that? I would venture to say not very many. This just illustrates again how our Disinfotainment Establishment Elite manipulates and controls information so that it reflects falsehoods that serve their purposes. The truth, it seems is less important to them. Surprise surprise! All I can do is reiterate ... evil is what evil does. ... and oh yes, it's hateful to point fingers at any group. Sheesh.

Catterick
Sunday, September 4th, 2016, 09:31 PM
The Vikings and Polynesians were there before Columbus, and the Vikings met the Hvitramannalanders there already - seemingly Irish colonists. Ancient texts imply a Phoenician knowledge of the Caribbean islands and perhaps mainland America beyond the Sargasso Sea.

The Japanese had knowledge of the Pacific North West Indians though maybe not before Columbus. Also across the Pacific there is evidence for a pre-Polynesian contact with Californian Indians, and the Jomon in Ecuador (Meggers).

These are just theories appearing in the proper literature not counting Negroid Olmecs, Prince Madoc and other "ancient mysteries" claims. So far the most interesting mystery about Vikings in the New World is in my opinion the Oak Island money pit which looks like a Viking ship vertically down a sinkhole.

SpearBrave
Monday, September 5th, 2016, 12:25 AM
Chances are it was Neolithic Hunters going across the ice pact from Europe were the first to inhabit North America, even before the Siberian land bridge.

GS5eDwYePiQ

Shadow
Monday, September 5th, 2016, 01:53 AM
Chances are it was Neolithic Hunters going across the ice pact from Europe were the first to inhabit North America, even before the Siberian land bridge.

GS5eDwYePiQ

There is no evidence for this theory at all. There is one stone point which some archaeologist thinks might be Solutrean.

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

Solutrean ended about 23,000 years ago. It was found only in France and Spain and then only regionally. These people ate primarily horses. Solutrean laurel-leaf point are what made them famous (Blattspitzen auf deutsch). But these leaf-like points were so thin they could hardly be used for anything practical. Meanwhile, Solutrean culture was much more than these pretty points. There was a whole stone culture, derived from the Mousterian, which comes along with this name.

So a point is found somewhere on the East Coast of America and it is claimed Solutreans came over from Europe and founded the Clovis culture, the stone culture responsible for killing off he megafauna in North America. Clovis is usually dated at 13,000 years ago, no more than 14,000, which makes a gap of almost 10,000 years between the European and American cultures.

Then there are the points themselves. Clovis spear points are large but nothing as elaborate as the ceremonial Solutrean points. The Clovis points are fluted. This means there is a place at the base of the point where stone is removed to accommodate a wooden spear as if the wood had been split in half and the point pushed into the wood and tied. Solutrean points are never fluted. But the remainder of the stone cultures don't resemble each other in look. What I mean is Solutrean, having come from Mousterian, is full of retouch. It has kind of a chippy look which is unmistakable. Clovis is much poorer in the quality and quantity of everything.

So in terms of style, function, and chronology, these two have nothing in common. We would all like a swig of whatever those archaeologists were drinking, however.

Catterick
Monday, September 5th, 2016, 10:56 AM
There is no evidence for this theory at all. There is one stone point which some archaeologist thinks might be Solutrean.

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

Solutrean ended about 23,000 years ago. It was found only in France and Spain and then only regionally. These people ate primarily horses. Solutrean laurel-leaf point are what made them famous (Blattspitzen auf deutsch). But these leaf-like points were so thin they could hardly be used for anything practical. Meanwhile, Solutrean culture was much more than these pretty points. There was a whole stone culture, derived from the Mousterian, which comes along with this name.

So a point is found somewhere on the East Coast of America and it is claimed Solutreans came over from Europe and founded the Clovis culture, the stone culture responsible for killing off he megafauna in North America. Clovis is usually dated at 13,000 years ago, no more than 14,000, which makes a gap of almost 10,000 years between the European and American cultures.

Then there are the points themselves. Clovis spear points are large but nothing as elaborate as the ceremonial Solutrean points. The Clovis points are fluted. This means there is a place at the base of the point where stone is removed to accommodate a wooden spear as if the wood had been split in half and the point pushed into the wood and tied. Solutrean points are never fluted. But the remainder of the stone cultures don't resemble each other in look. What I mean is Solutrean, having come from Mousterian, is full of retouch. It has kind of a chippy look which is unmistakable. Clovis is much poorer in the quality and quantity of everything.

So in terms of style, function, and chronology, these two have nothing in common. We would all like a swig of whatever those archaeologists were drinking, however.

The Vero mammoth is admissible evidence for a Franco-Cantabrian presence in Pleistocene America, but very little else.

SpearBrave
Monday, September 5th, 2016, 01:46 PM
There is no evidence for this theory at all. There is one stone point which some archaeologist thinks might be Solutrean.

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

Solutrean ended about 23,000 years ago. It was found only in France and Spain and then only regionally. These people ate primarily horses. Solutrean laurel-leaf point are what made them famous (Blattspitzen auf deutsch). But these leaf-like points were so thin they could hardly be used for anything practical. Meanwhile, Solutrean culture was much more than these pretty points. There was a whole stone culture, derived from the Mousterian, which comes along with this name.

So a point is found somewhere on the East Coast of America and it is claimed Solutreans came over from Europe and founded the Clovis culture, the stone culture responsible for killing off he megafauna in North America. Clovis is usually dated at 13,000 years ago, no more than 14,000, which makes a gap of almost 10,000 years between the European and American cultures.

Then there are the points themselves. Clovis spear points are large but nothing as elaborate as the ceremonial Solutrean points. The Clovis points are fluted. This means there is a place at the base of the point where stone is removed to accommodate a wooden spear as if the wood had been split in half and the point pushed into the wood and tied. Solutrean points are never fluted. But the remainder of the stone cultures don't resemble each other in look. What I mean is Solutrean, having come from Mousterian, is full of retouch. It has kind of a chippy look which is unmistakable. Clovis is much poorer in the quality and quantity of everything.

So in terms of style, function, and chronology, these two have nothing in common. We would all like a swig of whatever those archaeologists were drinking, however.

We have evidence, even if it is just one piece it is still evidence. I wonder how many Solutrean points have been found by amateur collectors and misidentified? There are hundreds of thousands of amateur relic hunters and collectors. It is more common for them to misidentify something than it is for them getting it right. Once a piece has made it into the hands of these collectors and relic hunters it is subject to being a fake. Flint is very common in my area, there are people who knap flint objects for a hobby, some of these people are experts so much that they can fake anything and are even better than the originals. This really confuses the matter very much about real evidence and what might have been lost.

Though evidence is still evidence and that is what we have to go on.

Catterick
Monday, September 5th, 2016, 02:05 PM
We have evidence, even if it is just one piece it is still evidence. I wonder how many Solutrean points have been found by amateur collectors and misidentified? There are hundreds of thousands of amateur relic hunters and collectors. It is more common for them to misidentify something than it is for them getting it right. Once a piece has made it into the hands of these collectors and relic hunters it is subject to being a fake. Flint is very common in my area, there are people who knap flint objects for a hobby, some of these people are experts so much that they can fake anything and are even better than the originals. This really confuses the matter very much about real evidence and what might have been lost.

Though evidence is still evidence and that is what we have to go on.

The issue is that none of the evidence is unambiguous. Similar tools recur independently around the world because their design is functional. The Clovis industry and its other New World relatives have Siberian predecessors and European man did not even practice deep sea fishing until the Mesolithic.

The kooky Solutrean theory is the White Nationalist version of Afrocentric claims about black Olmecs. If it makes you feel better the Amerinds have extensive white admixture from the Siberian side (Mal'ta).

SpearBrave
Monday, September 5th, 2016, 03:37 PM
The issue is that none of the evidence is unambiguous. Similar tools recur independently around the world because their design is functional. The Clovis industry and its other New World relatives have Siberian predecessors and European man did not even practice deep sea fishing until the Mesolithic.


Knowing how to knap flint objects myself, I very seriously doubt that the Solutrean point was made by random chance. It takes great skill and intention to come up with a point like that. Who ever said they were deep sea fishing? Most likely they would have been hunting sea mammals such as seals and walrus across the ice flows.

If the Solutrean did indeed come here, they were completely assimilated or wiped out by the peoples that came over the Siberian land bridge. However have you ever read up on the megalithic stone structures found in the North Eastern US?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/America%27s_Stonehenge



The kooky Solutrean theory is the White Nationalist version of Afrocentric claims about black Olmecs. If it makes you feel better the Amerinds have extensive white admixture from the Siberian side (Mal'ta).

Trust me I don't view this as a kooky theory, I only view people kooks that tend to not except new proven evidence. ;)

I have no White Nationalist agenda for this, as it would not change my feelings about Amerinds still being lessor racial others. It is just that I would like the truth and nothing more. :thumbup

Besides the video I posted was definitely not made with any White Nationalist intention. My guess if they did have a motive it would be the exact opposite and they are trying to tell the public that we are all one people.

While true I don't believe in Big Foot, Vikings in the Midwest , Welsh Indians or other such nonsense. However there is a strong chance Solutreans did visit here.

Catterick
Monday, September 5th, 2016, 05:38 PM
SpearBrave: how do you explain the greater overall siimilarity between Clovis and Dyuktai than between Clovis and Solutrean? Clovis by the way was ancestral to lithic traditions down to to Patagonia and Terra del Fuego - not a dead end!

The transatlantic Solutrean theory is not new. It died out in archaeology because it is poorly supported, and the weight of evidence refutes it. Besides: is there any evidence for Eskimo-like cultures in the Paleolithic? Their way of life depends upon advanced technology for a stone age people. Besides there might have been blue water navigators in SE Asia during the Pleistocene, but no evidence for this in Europe till the Holocene though admittedly great auks are depicted in Solutrean art and were harvested.

Englisc
Monday, September 5th, 2016, 06:42 PM
Re: The Solutrean Hypothesis. Among other problems, it's outdated because many archaeologists believe that the Clovis culture weren't actually the first humans in the Americas. Even if it was European in origin, that would not prove white people were the first to make it across to America.

---

Ofcourse we now know for a fact that the the first Europeans documented to reach America were the Greenlandic Vikings - though historians had suspected it from the Icelandic writings since the 1800s, excavations in the 1960s proved it beyond doubt.

However, while this episode is of historical note, ultimately it is of little importance in the history of the Americas and European contact with the continents. The Norse settlements in Newfoundland discovered so far are small and it does not seem a number of Vikings lived there for a long period.

It wasn't until the 1492 landing of Colombus in the Caribbean that Europeans in general came to know of America (beforehand "Vinland" was only known in the Icelandic sagas and to a few geographers who spoke of it), and it begun the Spanish and later English and French settlement that created the Americas as we know them today.

Shadow
Monday, September 5th, 2016, 06:57 PM
We have evidence, even if it is just one piece it is still evidence. I wonder how many Solutrean points have been found by amateur collectors and misidentified? There are hundreds of thousands of amateur relic hunters and collectors. It is more common for them to misidentify something than it is for them getting it right. Once a piece has made it into the hands of these collectors and relic hunters it is subject to being a fake. Flint is very common in my area, there are people who knap flint objects for a hobby, some of these people are experts so much that they can fake anything and are even better than the originals. This really confuses the matter very much about real evidence and what might have been lost.

Though evidence is still evidence and that is what we have to go on.

Before the Solutrean theory there was a Mousterian find along the US East Coast. Maybe you remember it. I forget the state, Maryland, perhaps. Out of a river gravel a good Mousterian point appeared. It was a sensation for a couple weeks until someone dug up records of an early European ship which had sunk there many years before. In the ballast of the ship, the same material was used as was found along with the point. Hundreds of years ago someone built a ship in Europe and loaded it with river gravel containing the Mousterian point. Mystery solved.

This Solutrean point under consideration is a bobble. This was the fluff of Solutrean culture, not a utilitarian item. Solutrean stone culture like all European Paleolithic stone cultures was varied and extensive. Imagine your tool box with screwdrivers, pliers, hammers, punches, saws, etc. The tool kit of European Paleolithic stone cultures had all these things. From year to year it is possible for anyone to follow the make of a car. A Toyota truck from this year is recognizable for someone who owned last year's model. Using this example, you can go back in time and see, with your own eyes, intuitively, from whence a stone culture comes. The shape, the fit and finish, of Clovis in other tools besides spear points is nothing like Solutrean. And Solutrean is far, far more complex.

One stone point cannot be the basis of a migration theory. This would be true if that Clovis point looked exactly like the Solutrean point, which it does not. This would be true if the timelines coincided which they do not.

Catterick
Monday, September 5th, 2016, 07:12 PM
Re: The Solutrean Hypothesis. Among other problems, it's outdated because many archaeologists believe that the Clovis culture weren't actually the first humans in the Americas. Even if it was European in origin, that would not prove white people were the first to make it across to America.

---

Ofcourse we now know for a fact that the the first Europeans documented to reach America were the Greenlandic Vikings - though historians had suspected it from the Icelandic writings since the 1800s, excavations in the 1960s proved it beyond doubt.

However, while this episode is of historical note, ultimately it is of little importance in the history of the Americas and European contact with the continents. The Norse settlements in Newfoundland discovered so far are small and it does not seem a number of Vikings lived there for a long period.

It wasn't until the 1492 landing of Colombus in the Caribbean that Europeans in general came to know of America (beforehand "Vinland" was only known in the Icelandic sagas and to a few geographers who spoke of it), and it begun the Spanish and later English and French settlement that created the Americas as we know them today.

Church records reveal the office of Bishop of Vinland - I have no idea what race his parishioners were but they must have existed. Proving more extensive European contact than is generally supposed. The medieval game of lacrosse also was introduced to the local Indians by some route or other.

On that note the Aztecs got backgammon from somewhere.

SpearBrave
Monday, September 5th, 2016, 07:30 PM
Does there have to be a connection between Clovis and Solutrean? No, there does not. The fact is we have evidence, now we have to prove one way or another objectively.;) Such closed mindedness is why new things/ideas never get discovered.

Going back to the Solutreans, can you give an solid explanation with proof of why the point was found here? If not, than you are lacking proof that they did not in fact cross the Atlantic ice cap. You can't say this is just chance. Often there are times when formal education gets in the way of common sense. I have had metallurgical engineers gaze and wonder at me when demonstrating smithing, because in the theories they were taught what I was doing was impossible, yet smiths having been bending, blending and stretching iron and steel by hand for thousands of years. Often times such educated idiots lack common sense or practical thinking.

Common sense says that a Solutrean point was found and it had to get there somehow. What would that somehow be?

SpearBrave
Monday, September 5th, 2016, 07:34 PM
The medieval game of lacrosse also was introduced to the local Indians by some route or other.


Lacrosse was transported to Europe by the French, when they controlled Canada. I read this years ago in an 18Th Century account by French Fur traders. ;)

Shadow
Monday, September 5th, 2016, 07:49 PM
Does there have to be a connection between Clovis and Solutrean? No, there does not. The fact is we have evidence, now we have to prove one way or another objectively.;) Such closed mindedness is why new things/ideas never get discovered.

Going back to the Solutreans, can you give an solid explanation with proof of why the point was found here? If not, than you are lacking proof that they did not in fact cross the Atlantic ice cap. You can't say this is just chance. Often there are times when formal education gets in the way of common sense. I have had metallurgical engineers gaze and wonder at me when demonstrating smithing, because in the theories they were taught what I was doing was impossible, yet smiths having been bending, blending and stretching iron and steel by hand for thousands of years. Often times such educated idiots lack common sense or practical thinking.

Common sense says that a Solutrean point was found and it had to get there somehow. What would that somehow be?

Can you post a picture of this point? Then can you post a Clovis point? The only similarity is they are both large.

SpearBrave
Monday, September 5th, 2016, 08:05 PM
Can you post a picture of this point? Then can you post a Clovis point? The only similarity is they are both large.

I'm not saying they are similar, I'm was asking rhetorically if they have to be and the answer is....no they don't.

Catterick
Monday, September 5th, 2016, 08:51 PM
Lacrosse was transported to Europe by the French, when they controlled Canada. I read this years ago in an 18Th Century account by French Fur traders. ;)

It was reintroduced because a similar sport was played in Scandinavia.

Shadow
Tuesday, September 6th, 2016, 12:10 AM
I'm not saying they are similar, I'm was asking rhetorically if they have to be and the answer is....no they don't.

The answer is those two archaeologists said they were. They said the Clovis point resembled Solutrean points and then came up with a theory of migration based upon it. If the connection cannot be made between the two points, then the whole migration theory falls apart. Actually, if fell apart upon inception due to a logical flaw which is you can't base a complicated theory on one simple, disputed, piece of evidence.

SpearBrave
Tuesday, September 6th, 2016, 01:03 AM
The answer is those two archaeologists said they were. They said the Clovis point resembled Solutrean points and then came up with a theory of migration based upon it. If the connection cannot be made between the two points, then the whole migration theory falls apart. Actually, if fell apart upon inception due to a logical flaw which is you can't base a complicated theory on one simple, disputed, piece of evidence.

I'm not saying that all migration occurred over the Atlantic, only that some did. So there is no need to connect Clovis with Solutrean. Those two archaeologists where wrong in their objective thinking of trying to link the two.

Yes, you can base a complicated theory on one simple piece of disputed evidence. Ask a prosecuting attorney that question and see what they say, if they give you an honest answer. ;)

Is it a Solutrean point?.......yes it is.
How did it get there?.............no answer.

Because most archaeologist are educated idiots. They are only thinking within the perimeters of what they know instead of asking the unknown. Instead of trying a new theory they tried clinging to the idea Clovis and Solutrean were related. This is not objective thinking, but only going with their trained thoughts. It is bad or lazy science, it happens all the time with so called experts.

The fact remains that you cannot prove that Solutreans did not migrate across the Atlantic and I cannot prove they did, other than of course than one piece of evidence. ;)

Shadow
Tuesday, September 6th, 2016, 02:41 AM
I'm not saying that all migration occurred over the Atlantic, only that some did. So there is no need to connect Clovis with Solutrean. Those two archaeologists where wrong in their objective thinking of trying to link the two.
I'm not saying that all migration occurred over the Atlantic, only that some did

Yes, you can base a complicated theory on one simple piece of disputed evidence. Ask a prosecuting attorney that question and see what they say, if they give you an honest answer. ;)

Is it a Solutrean point?.......yes it is.
How did it get there?.............no answer.

Because most archaeologist are educated idiots. They are only thinking within the perimeters of what they know instead of asking the unknown. Instead of trying a new theory they tried clinging to the idea Clovis and Solutrean were related. This is not objective thinking, but only going with their trained thoughts. It is bad or lazy science, it happens all the time with so called experts.

The fact remains that you cannot prove that Solutreans did not migrate across the Atlantic and I cannot prove they did, other than of course than one piece of evidence. ;)

Let's do this by the numbers.

1. I'm not saying that all migration occurred over the Atlantic, only that some did."

This is an extreme theory and it demands extensive proof. Where is your proof? Just one fact.

2. "Yes, you can base a complicated theory on one simple piece of disputed evidence."

Not in archaeology.

3. "Is it a Solutrean point?.......yes it is."

No, it is not and that is 100%, dead bang, absolute fact. It is nothing like Solutrean.

4. "How did it get there?.............no answer."

Here is the answer: Clovis people made it. It is a Clovis point.

5. "The fact is you cannot prove Solutreans did not migrate across the Atlantic.."

Yes I can. They were all dead by Clovis times for 10,000 years.

You are trying to advance a theory by saying I cannot disprove it. I can but that is not the point. To advance a theory, proof is needed. These two archaeologists provided the alleged point and said it was Solutrean. The remainder of the archaeologists said no and disproved the claim using a variety of methods. That brings it back to zero and to advance it again, new proof is needed.

SpearBrave
Tuesday, September 6th, 2016, 04:48 AM
Here is the answer: Clovis people made it. It is a Clovis point.


I don't think so, true it is a bi faced point, but it is not so similar to Clovis. I don't buy the theory of a parallel occurrence either. Things with that kind of skill don't happen by chance.

Even if the Solutreans died out before the arrival of Clovis and if they did make to North America, that would make them the first to discover this land. We may never know how advanced each peoples were given the fact that most of their possessions were probably of organic composition and decomposed. One thing is certain is that at this point all is just theory and not fact. As far as them crossing the Atlantic goes, greater feats under harsher conditions have been accomplished by modern man, that it is very much in the realm of possibility.

Shadow
Tuesday, September 6th, 2016, 05:03 AM
I don't think so, true it is a bi faced point, but it is not so similar to Clovis. I don't buy the theory of a parallel occurrence either. Things with that kind of skill don't happen by chance.

Even if the Solutreans died out before the arrival of Clovis and if they did make to North America, that would make them the first to discover this land. We may never know how advanced each peoples were given the fact that most of their possessions were probably of organic composition and decomposed. One thing is certain is that at this point all is just theory and not fact. As far as them crossing the Atlantic goes, greater feats under harsher conditions have been accomplished by modern man, that it is very much in the realm of possibility.

I'm going to let you have the last word on this. :thumbup