|
Teriyaki Hairpiece posted:I've never really got what those people's deal was. I think for a while, evidence of pre-Clovis stuff really was sketchy, including several high profile sites that ended up being definitively proven post-Clovis. That kind of thing will really make people set in their thinking even as additional evidence comes out that's more definitive. It doesn't help that (last I checked at least) there's no clear explanation for why pre-Clovis societies were either extremely sparsely populated or left behind far fewer archeological remains per capita than you'd expect, and also no real consensus on how they got into the Americas (either they took boats across the Pacific or walked down the solid glacier of Western Canada). I got all of this basically by reading 1491 so if anybody in this thread has something more up-to-date I'd really be interested in hearing it.
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2017 03:31
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 07:36 |
|
|
Teriyaki Hairpiece posted:I've never really got what those people's deal was. Who the gently caress knows. They're bad at their fields. You have to be willing to toss out old ideas with new evidence. It's totally fine and appropriate to be skeptical of a radical new result like this one, but there are multiple pre-Clovis sites like Monte Verde that are not at all controversial and haven't been for a long time.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2017 03:31
|
|
|
cheetah7071 posted:I think for a while, evidence of pre-Clovis stuff really was sketchy, including several high profile sites that ended up being definitively proven post-Clovis. That kind of thing will really make people set in their thinking even as additional evidence comes out that's more definitive. Small correction, the common theory (or at least the one I was taught recently) for boating is that they essentially shore hoped along siberia and then along Beringia, using boats to move faster and past the glaciery bits and landing for shelter or to camp for X amount of years before moving on. This is hard to prove for certain because almost all the sites would be under water now. There seems to be a semi even split nowadays between walking or boating (Its most likely both and different groups did it at different times with different techniques) Boating across the pacific is an idea that gets some traction but the distances involved are really loving far and the evidence for it is sketchy. Its possible that the early sites located in south america are the result of people boating down from the north. Telsa Cola fucked around with this message at 03:40 on Apr 27, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2017 03:37
|
|
|
There's no evidence for early boating across the whole Pacific and it seems like an insane idea. There is some for Polynesians visiting South America prior to European contact (or maybe around the same time as the Vikings--pre-Columbus anyway) which isn't proven, but given how far the Polynesians got around isn't ridiculous either. Also those contacts would just be visits, there's no real suggestion of colonization.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2017 03:42
|
|
|
cheetah7071 posted:I think for a while, evidence of pre-Clovis stuff really was sketchy, including several high profile sites that ended up being definitively proven post-Clovis. That kind of thing will really make people set in their thinking even as additional evidence comes out that's more definitive. Actually, if it really was over 130 000 years ago, it would not be an ice bridge. According to one of the two articles linked, it seems oceans levels were lower which would have allowed for a land bridge.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2017 03:41
|
|
|
Dalael posted:Actually, if it really was over 130 000 years ago, it would not be an ice bridge. According to one of the two articles linked, it seems oceans levels were lower which would have allowed for a land bridge. I was talking about the case for conventional pre-clovis arguments, where the time frame was more like 20 or 30k years ago. And yeah Beringia did exist during the ice age but for most of the time that Beringia existed western Canada was a solid mass of glacier, with the main exception being right around when Clovis societies appear. Telsa Cola posted:Small correction, the common theory (or at least the one I was taught recently) for boating is that they essentially shore hoped along siberia and then along Beringia, using boats to move faster and past the glaciery bits and landing for shelter or to camp for X amount of years before moving on. This is hard to prove for certain because almost all the sites would be under water now. There seems to be a semi even split nowadays between walking or boating (Its most likely both and different groups did it at different times with different techniques) This makes sense
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2017 03:50
|
|
|
The DNA is pretty hard to argue against, American natives came from northeastern Asia. There's no need for a hypothesis other than Beringia, which is my other big problem with the weird cross-Pacific stuff. Whether the migration south was on land or boats along the coast is its own thing and "both" seems the most likely answer for it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2017 03:56
|
|
|
Let me tell you about the trans-atlantic boating theory I heard once...
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2017 04:00
|
|
|
Grand Fromage posted:The DNA is pretty hard to argue against, American natives came from northeastern Asia. There's no need for a hypothesis other than Beringia, which is my other big problem with the weird cross-Pacific stuff. Whether the migration south was on land or boats along the coast is its own thing and "both" seems the most likely answer for it. The most interesting DNA age discovery is of the unknown prehistoric Asian people who went as far West as they possibly could, but also as far East as they possibly could. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_X_(mtDNA)
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2017 04:02
|
|
|
Teriyaki Hairpiece posted:The most interesting DNA age discovery is of the unknown prehistoric Asian people who went as far West as they possibly could, but also as far East as they possibly could. Wait so does this mean that a group of people once stretched from Spain to New England, but got entirely replaced (genetically, not just culturally, meaning they were wiped out rather than conquered and subjected) in the entirety of central and eastern Asia? That's wild cheetah7071 fucked around with this message at 06:10 on Apr 27, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2017 04:06
|
|
|
Grand Fromage posted:There's no evidence for early boating across the whole Pacific and it seems like an insane idea. There is some for Polynesians visiting South America prior to European contact (or maybe around the same time as the Vikings--pre-Columbus anyway) which isn't proven, but given how far the Polynesians got around isn't ridiculous either. Also those contacts would just be visits, there's no real suggestion of colonization. I wonder, what sort of starting population do you need to ensure a colonization that persists without outside reinforcement (or natives you can interbreed with)? Like if 4 people with their families for a total of like 30 decided to go colonize South America from Polynesia, how likely would they even be to last multiple generations dealing with any disease and disaster that cropped up?
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2017 04:11
|
|
|
That, or different groups of one people left one homeland and migrated around and intermingled, spending thousands of years exploring and intrepidly boning the people they found from Orkney to the Great Lakes.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2017 04:13
|
|
|
skasion posted:Magnanimity didn't get Caesar especially far Yes it did. It just didn't keep him there.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2017 04:14
|
|
|
Grand Fromage posted:That's really old. I think they need some more evidence before making that claim. This is probably the latest in a long line of discoveries that say humans were in North America more than 50,000 years BP that eventually turn out to be misdated because of contamination or bad calibration of equipment or just inaccurate dating techniques. Personally I've always thought humans arrived in North American long before the old "Clovis barrier", and sites like Monte Verde and Meadowcroft Rockshelter prove it. But I'm very hesitant to believe any date like 130,000 years ago without a skeleton or an obviously manmade artifact. Vincent Van Goatse fucked around with this message at 04:43 on Apr 27, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2017 04:37
|
|
|
cheetah7071 posted:Wait so does this mean that a group of people once stretched from the Spain to the New England, but got entirely replaced (genetically, not just culturally, meaning they were wiped out rather than conquered and subjected) in the entirety of central and eastern Asia? poo poo that's got nothing on the clear evidence that the earliest sapiens loving loved women with big round asses. Like the population with the oldest known extant haplogroup have throughout recorded history been complimented by outside observers like Darwin for their booty. FAUXTON fucked around with this message at 06:12 on Apr 27, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2017 06:07
|
|
|
FAUXTON posted:poo poo that's got nothing on the clear evidence that the earliest sapiens loving loved women with big round asses. If you're talking about Venus statues as more evidence for that, I thought the theory these days is actually that they were carved by women as self portraits; if you look at them from the top down (the view the women would have had to reference from) they don't look so distorted.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2017 06:41
|
|
|
Koramei posted:If you're talking about Venus statues as more evidence for that, I thought the theory these days is actually that they were carved by women as self portraits; if you look at them from the top down (the view the women would have had to reference from) they don't look so distorted. No I mean like actual documented prominence of genetic steatopygia among the Khoisan people whose Y-chromosomal DNA and mitochondrial DNA carry insanely unique polymorphisms while also retaining wildly divergent haplogroup markers indicative of being the earliest "branch" off the most recent paternal ancestor of all known humans. Basically they're the oldest branch of the family, first born of the clan patriarch and all that. And for countless generations, sexual selection in their population specifically favored the genes which put junk in the trunk.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2017 07:03
|
|
|
whelp now "Khosian haplogroup butts" is in my search history
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2017 12:53
|
|
|
Really, you should feel bad it wasn't there already.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2017 13:11
|
|
|
The Something Awful Forums > Ask/Tell > Ask us about Roman/Greek/other ancient history, and get "Khosian haplogroup butts" in your search history
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2017 14:28
|
|
|
Victorians were creepily fascinated with Khoisan butts. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarah_Baartman
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2017 14:32
|
|
|
Some more skeptical follow up to the 130,000 year old mastadon bones. https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2017/04/new-study-puts-humans-in-america-100000-years-earlier-than-expected/524301/
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2017 03:11
|
|
|
In our time has an excellent episode on the Egyptian book of the dead out now. I recommend it . They spend a lot of of time talking about the symbology.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2017 20:00
|
|
|
euphronius posted:In our time has an excellent episode on the Egyptian book of the dead out now. I recommend it . They spend a lot of of time talking about the symbology. i'm so glad i start listening to In Our Time, it's a great show
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2017 20:34
|
|
|
I like the episodes where the panelists clearly want to talk about something other than what Melvyn Bragg thinks is important and he starts getting testy with them.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2017 20:49
|
|
|
fantastic in plastic posted:I like the episodes where the panelists clearly want to talk about something other than what Melvyn Bragg thinks is important and he starts getting testy with them. i can respect wanting to stay on topic rather then chasing every string into the weeds when you've only got like, less then an hour of show
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2017 20:55
|
|
|
AriadneThread posted:i can respect wanting to stay on topic rather then chasing every string into the weeds when you've only got like, less then an hour of show Sure, I know why it's done that way. I just enjoy listening to an old British dude get angry with professors.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2017 20:57
|
|
|
Forbes posted:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/drsara...d/#6d47dff75ad5 Short read but interesting. I admit despite my education the imagery of white, rather than coloured statuary usually comes to mind when I think about the ancient world. But because of that same education I know there was an enormous diversity of colour in the ancient world and I've never seen the Romans as being just 'white'.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2017 21:58
|
|
|
Alvarez IV posted:How come every nerd on the internet, when asked what they would invent if transported back in time to Ancient Rome, goes with some military or scientific technology that would either require New World items, or get them looked at as fools for trying to satisfy needs that weren't there? Everyone always says gunpowder or trans-Atlantic seafaring or boring obvious poo poo like that. I'd invent chess, I feel like the Romans would like chess. Even if I'd probably fail to get any money out of it. I still really like the bicycle answer, even though rubber tires are a problem.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2017 02:47
|
|
|
Disinterested posted:Though it's Scipio that Machiavelli always says was a loving idiot for being too magnanimous, to the point of encouraging ill discipline. Isn't that mostly based on Cato whining about Scipio awarding bonuses to his soldiers, rather than turning over the loot to the Senate like a GOOD ROMAN would?
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2017 04:02
|
|
sullat posted:Isn't that mostly based on Cato whining about Scipio awarding bonuses to his soldiers, rather than turning over the loot to the Senate like a GOOD ROMAN would? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutiny_at_Sucro et al. The relevant quotation: quote:That it is true his other virtues would not have been sufficient for him may be proved by the case of Scipio, that most excellent man, not of his own times but within the memory of man, against whom, nevertheless, his army rebelled in Spain; this arose from nothing but his too great forbearance, which gave his soldiers more licence than is consistent with military discipline. For this he was upbraided in the Senate by Fabius Maximus, and called the corrupter of the Roman soldiery. The Locrians were laid waste by a legate of Scipio, yet they were not avenged by him, nor was the insolence of the legate punished, owing entirely to his easy nature. Insomuch that someone in the Senate, wishing to excuse him, said there were many men who knew much better how not to err than to correct the errors of others. This disposition, if he had been continued in the command, would have destroyed in time the fame and glory of Scipio; but, he being under the control of the Senate, this injurious characteristic not only concealed itself, but contributed to his glory.
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2017 03:48
|
|
|
Telsa Cola posted:Let me tell you about the trans-atlantic boating theory I heard once... Man, a real interesting discussion on another forum was interrupted by a slap-fight between Solutrean Hypothesis proponents and critics. I thought Solutrean migration to the Americas was disproved?
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2017 12:24
|
|
|
Yadoppsi posted:Man, a real interesting discussion on another forum was interrupted by a slap-fight between Solutrean Hypothesis proponents and critics. I thought Solutrean migration to the Americas was disproved? There was never much in the Solutrean migration hypothesis to disprove, but DNA testing shows no sign of any ancient migration from Europe into the Americas, and all the stuff about similar arrowhead designs is pretty much just coincidence of shapes. The biggest group of Solutrean supporters are crazy white power types.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2017 13:05
|
|
|
Yep. DNA ended all the arguments for anyone who was arguing in good faith. It does so in a lot of places but unfortunately when nationalism gets involved people are happy to ignore evidence. God help you if you start trying to make DNA based arguments about the interrelationships and migrations in East Asia.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2017 13:45
|
|
|
cheetah7071 posted:Basically every animal we eat is old world, and the majority of good-tasting vegetables are new world. Fruit and fish seem to be about evenly split from what I can tell. Actually, new world vegetables are bad and old world vegetables are good.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2017 16:43
|
|
|
im going to club you to death with a potato in a sock
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2017 16:49
|
|
|
Phobophilia posted:im going to club you to death with a potato in a sock And then you will eat it because using the superior potato as a blunt weapon just turns it into delicious mashed potatoes.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2017 17:04
|
|
|
Phobophilia posted:im going to club you to death with a potato in a sock At least I won't have to eat it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2017 17:15
|
|
|
The Belgian posted:At least I won't have to eat it. Awesome username/post combo. The Belgian is insulting the potato? They'll deepfry your citizenship papers and make you publicly gobble them down. Without beer.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2017 17:19
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 07:36 |
|
|
I want someone to eat only plants available to a pre-Columbian exchange European for a week and report back on their levels of suicidal ideation.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2017 21:43
|
|