posted
They are building large monuments of words without any foundation, in my opinion.
The stone tools weren't tools, just natural fractured rock. The cave paintings are much more recent.
Capuchin monkeys of South America use stones to break nuts, and pry oysters open with shells.
The cave sloths were likely killed by saber-toothed cats, jaguars or by fighting other male sloths, all lived in Uruguay and Brazil then.
Humans may have been in the Americas before 20ka, but I haven't seen good evidence of it. I recall a speartip in a bison rib found at Virginia coast dating from very early times, but it was probably deposited there as ballast from 19thc European ships, just as paleolithic stone tools found at Hawaiian shores were.
quote:Originally posted by DD'eDeN: They are building large monuments of words without any foundation, in my opinion.
The stone tools weren't tools, just natural fractured rock. The cave paintings are much more recent.
Capuchin monkeys of South America use stones to break nuts, and pry oysters open with shells.
The cave sloths were likely killed by saber-toothed cats, jaguars or by fighting other male sloths, all lived in Uruguay and Brazil then.
Humans may have been in the Americas before 20ka, but I haven't seen good evidence of it. I recall a speartip in a bison rib found at Virginia coast dating from very early times, but it was probably deposited there as ballast from 19thc European ships, just as paleolithic stone tools found at Hawaiian shores were.
__________________________________________________ Portrait of Atahualpa , 1533, 13th and last King of the Incas Huascar, 1533, Emperor of the Incas who shared the throne with his younger half brother, Atahualpa, who later ordered him murdered
Posts: 42939 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
Code: QB05417 Artist: ******** Title: Portrait de Yupanqui, Inca X, 17e siecle Location: musee du quai Branly City: Paris Country: France Period/Style: Not available Genre: Not available
Note: Peinture a l'huile sur coton. 43,5 x 34 x 1,5 cm, 470 g. Inv.: 71.1891.64.3. Donateur : Ernest-Theodore Hamy. Precedente collection: Musee de l'Homme (Amerique). Expose : Amerique (plateau), AM 038N - L3
Albino Boys create this sort of (lets draw them to look like us) or fake old stuff, on a daily basis.Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
Medium: Oil on canvas Place Made: Peru Dates: "Probably" mid-18th century Period: Colonial Period Dimensions: 23 5/8 x 21 3/4in. (60 x 55.2cm) frame: 29 1/8 x 27 5/16 x 2 13/16 in. (74 x 69.4 x 7.1 cm) (show scale) Inscriptions: Inscribed on roundel: "el tirano Bastardo, Atahualpa,"
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
If you want to find out more about the expansion of Axumites in the Pacific Please order my latest book on Blacks in Ancient America. The book is called :African Empires in Ancient America.
African Empires in Ancient America tells the story of the numerous African groups who colonized Mexico, North and South America. Today most people believe that African people never voyaged outside Africa except as slaves. This is false, the Dafuna boat discovered in Nigeria dates back to 12,000 BC. And hundreds of ancient African boats have been engraved on rocks in the Sahara desert.
Boats from Magan (Egypt) and Meluhha (Kush-East Africa) are mentioned in Sumerian cuneiform text. In this book you will discover that Africans have a long tradition of sea exploration and founded many of the major American civilizations.
Although many people have heard about the possible discovery of America by Mansa Abubakari of the Mali Empire, and the giant Olmec heads of Mexico, Dr. Clyde Winters gives a detailed account of the Malian colonies established by these West Africans in North America and Brazil.
You will discover the role of the Xi, or Olmec people as the Mother Culture of Mexico. Dr. Winters outlines the Axumite discovery of America, and the role of the Ethiopians in the rise of Mochica civilization and religion. In addition, this book discusses the ancient Sumerian influence in South America, and the African role as Mound Builders in the United States. African Empires in Ancient America is the only book that finally explores the history of Black colonization of the Americas before Columbus. It is a must read for anyone interested in a true history of America. You can order the book from
CreateSpace Store: Find out more about Blacks in the Americas by purchasing the book African Empires in Ancient America, by Dr. Clyde Winters Createspace e-Store https://www.createspace.com/4231048
quote: Dr. Winters: "These issues were discussed in the video and found to have little if any support. You need to view the video."
Thanks Dr. Winters, I viewed the video and found it to be fine storytelling, but I didn't find any reference to what I wrote:
quote: "They are building large monuments of words without any foundation, in my opinion.
The stone tools weren't tools, just natural fractured rock. The cave paintings are much more recent.
Capuchin monkeys of South America use stones to break nuts, and pry oysters open with shells.
The cave sloths were likely killed by saber-toothed cats, jaguars or by fighting other male sloths, all lived in Uruguay and Brazil then.
Humans may have been in the Americas before 20ka, but I haven't seen good evidence of it. I recall a speartip in a bison rib found at Virginia coast dating from very early times, but it was probably deposited there as ballast from 19thc European ships, just as paleolithic stone tools found at Hawaiian shores were."
posted
Researchers Speculate Africans May Have Been First to Arrive to the Americas The Atlanta Black Star's title is somewhat misleading,yes the first comers were certainly Blacks but did they came from Africa?? the evidence points to Asia,if we are going to use African as a phenotype then only then it make some sorta sense but then one would have massive problems dealing with Dna and other factors like the variations of phenotype within Africa itself, I do think however that we are on firmer ground when dealing with finds like the below as specifically African and not just Black. Analysis Of The Hull's Bay Skeletons St Thomas
Oh btw the two burials are not isolates more exist according to the article
The Virgin Islands Daily News - Oct 21, 1974 This find indicate the need for reinterpretation of Negroid burials previously reported from aboriginal sites in the Virgin Islands. in the case of burial ground discovered on Water Island 38 years ago,with the same kind of pottery as at Hull's Bay was associated with Negroid remains.Other less well documented finds of a similar nature are known from St Johns and St Croix as well
web page klik link goto pg 12 of 12 scroll all the way to the left,the article gave more than just the study.
Posts: 6546 | From: japan | Registered: Feb 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by DD'eDeN: They are building large monuments of words without any foundation, in my opinion.
The stone tools weren't tools, just natural fractured rock. The cave paintings are much more recent.
Capuchin monkeys of South America use stones to break nuts, and pry oysters open with shells.
The cave sloths were likely killed by saber-toothed cats, jaguars or by fighting other male sloths, all lived in Uruguay and Brazil then.
Humans may have been in the Americas before 20ka, but I haven't seen good evidence of it. I recall a speartip in a bison rib found at Virginia coast dating from very early times, but it was probably deposited there as ballast from 19thc European ships, just as paleolithic stone tools found at Hawaiian shores were.
The people in the discussion group failed to provide any evidence that people were not in Brazil earlier than Clovis. If you would have seen the video you would have noted that Dr.Nieda Guidon supported her dating of human population in Brazil to ancient fire and tool making.
If you view the video you will see that human occupation of Brazill 100,000 years ago is supported by man made fire, e.g., the charcoal, and tools.
Dr. Guidon who conducted excavation at the site notes at 2:09 the site is 100,000 years old. At 3:17 in the video scientists proved that the tools are the result of human craftsmanship . You reject this evidence because it proves that Blacks were here before the mongoloids. If you prefer to remain in denial of the evidence that is your right. .
Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: [QUOTE]Originally posted by DD'eDeN: [qb] They are building large monuments of words without any foundation, in my opinion.
The stone tools weren't tools, just natural fractured rock. The cave paintings are much more recent.
Capuchin monkeys of South America use stones to break nuts, and pry oysters open with shells.
The cave sloths were likely killed by saber-toothed cats, jaguars or by fighting other male sloths, all lived in Uruguay and Brazil then.
Humans may have been in the Americas before 20ka, but I haven't seen good evidence of it. I recall a speartip in a bison rib found at Virginia coast dating from very early times, but it was probably deposited there as ballast from 19thc European ships, just as paleolithic stone tools found at Hawaiian shores were.
Dr. Guidon who conducted excavation at the site notes at 2:09 the site is 100,000 years old. At 3:17 in the video scientists proved that the tools are the result of human craftsmanship . You reject this evidence because it proves that Blacks were here before the mongoloids. If you prefer to remain in denial of the evidence that is your right. .
How is that possible when humanity is not supposed to have left Africa and reached India at 90kyrs ago and further east at 60kyrs ago,unless you are suggesting that they arrived by sea which seemed extremely unlikely at that era.
Posts: 6546 | From: japan | Registered: Feb 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: [QUOTE]Originally posted by DD'eDeN: [qb] They are building large monuments of words without any foundation, in my opinion.
The stone tools weren't tools, just natural fractured rock. The cave paintings are much more recent.
Capuchin monkeys of South America use stones to break nuts, and pry oysters open with shells.
The cave sloths were likely killed by saber-toothed cats, jaguars or by fighting other male sloths, all lived in Uruguay and Brazil then.
Humans may have been in the Americas before 20ka, but I haven't seen good evidence of it. I recall a speartip in a bison rib found at Virginia coast dating from very early times, but it was probably deposited there as ballast from 19thc European ships, just as paleolithic stone tools found at Hawaiian shores were.
Dr. Guidon who conducted excavation at the site notes at 2:09 the site is 100,000 years old. At 3:17 in the video scientists proved that the tools are the result of human craftsmanship . You reject this evidence because it proves that Blacks were here before the mongoloids. If you prefer to remain in denial of the evidence that is your right. .
How is that possible when humanity is not supposed to have left Africa and reached India at 90kyrs ago and further east at 60kyrs ago,unless you are suggesting that they arrived by sea which seemed extremely unlikely at that era.
. This is not unlikely because it appears that Africans made there way to Crete 100,000 years ago. The only way for hominins to get there would have been by sea via seacraft.
quote:
.
February 16, 2010
On Crete, New Evidence of Very Ancient Mariners
By JOHN NOBLE WILFORD
Early humans, possibly even prehuman ancestors, appear to have been going to sea much longer than anyone had ever suspected.
That is the startling implication of discoveries made the last two summers on the Greek island of Crete. Stone tools found there, archaeologists say, are at least 130,000 years old, which is considered strong evidence for the earliest known seafaring in the Mediterranean and cause for rethinking the maritime capabilities of prehuman cultures.
Crete has been an island for more than five million years, meaning that the toolmakers must have arrived by boat. So this seems to push the history of Mediterranean voyaging back more than 100,000 years, specialists in Stone Age archaeology say. Previous artifact discoveries had shown people reaching Cyprus, a few other Greek islands and possibly Sardinia no earlier than 10,000 to 12,000 years ago.
The oldest established early marine travel anywhere was the sea-crossing migration of anatomically modern Homo sapiens to Australia, beginning about 60,000 years ago. There is also a suggestive trickle of evidence, notably the skeletons and artifacts on the Indonesian island of Flores, of more ancient hominids making their way by water to new habitats.
Even more intriguing, the archaeologists who found the tools on Crete noted that the style of the hand axes suggested that they could be up to 700,000 years old. That may be a stretch, they conceded, but the tools resemble artifacts from the stone technology known as Acheulean, which originated with prehuman populations in Africa.
More than 2,000 stone artifacts, including the hand axes, were collected on the southwestern shore of Crete, near the town of Plakias, by a team led by Thomas F. Strasser and Eleni Panagopoulou. She is with the Greek Ministry of Culture and he is an associate professor of art history at Providence College in Rhode Island. They were assisted by Greek and American geologists and archaeologists, including Curtis Runnels of Boston University.
Dr. Strasser described the discovery last month at a meeting of the Archaeological Institute of America. A formal report has been accepted for publication in Hesparia, the journal of the American School of Classical Studies at Athens, a supporter of the fieldwork.
The Plakias survey team went in looking for material remains of more recent artisans, nothing older than 11,000 years. Such artifacts would have been blades, spear points and arrowheads typical of Mesolithic and Neolithic periods.
“We found those, then we found the hand axes,” Dr. Strasser said last week in an interview, and that sent the team into deeper time.
“We were flummoxed,” Dr. Runnels said in an interview. “These things were just not supposed to be there.”
Word of the find is circulating among the ranks of Stone Age scholars. The few who have seen the data and some pictures — most of the tools reside in Athens — said they were excited and cautiously impressed. The research, if confirmed by further study, scrambles timetables of technological development and textbook accounts of human and prehuman mobility.
Ofer Bar-Yosef, an authority on Stone Age archaeology at Harvard, said the significance of the find would depend on the dating of the site. “Once the investigators provide the dates,” he said in an e-mail message, “we will have a better understanding of the importance of the discovery.”
Dr. Bar-Yosef said he had seen only a few photographs of the Cretan tools. The forms can only indicate a possible age, he said, but “handling the artifacts may provide a different impression.” And dating, he said, would tell the tale.
Dr. Runnels, who has 30 years’ experience in Stone Age research, said that an analysis by him and three geologists “left not much doubt of the age of the site, and the tools must be even older.”
The cliffs and caves above the shore, the researchers said, have been uplifted by tectonic forces where the African plate goes under and pushes up the European plate. The exposed uplifted layers represent the sequence of geologic periods that have been well studied and dated, in some cases correlated to established dates of glacial and interglacial periods of the most recent ice age. In addition, the team analyzed the layer bearing the tools and determined that the soil had been on the surface 130,000 to 190,000 years ago.
Dr. Runnels said he considered this a minimum age for the tools themselves. They include not only quartz hand axes, but also cleavers and scrapers, all of which are in the Acheulean style. The tools could have been made millenniums before they became, as it were, frozen in time in the Cretan cliffs, the archaeologists said.
Dr. Runnels suggested that the tools could be at least twice as old as the geologic layers. Dr. Strasser said they could be as much as 700,000 years old. Further explorations are planned this summer.
The 130,000-year date would put the discovery in a time when Homo sapiens had already evolved in Africa, sometime after 200,000 years ago. Their presence in Europe did not become apparent until about 50,000 years ago.
Archaeologists can only speculate about who the toolmakers were. One hundred and thirty thousand years ago, modern humans shared the world with other hominids, like Neanderthals and Homo heidelbergensis. The Acheulean culture is thought to have started with Homo erectus.
The standard hypothesis had been that Acheulean toolmakers reached Europe and Asia via the Middle East, passing mainly through what is now Turkey into the Balkans. The new finds suggest that their dispersals were not confined to land routes. They may lend credibility to proposals of migrations from Africa across the Strait of Gibraltar to Spain. Crete’s southern shore where the tools were found is 200 miles from North Africa.
“We can’t say the toolmakers came 200 miles from Libya,” Dr. Strasser said. “If you’re on a raft, that’s a long voyage, but they might have come from the European mainland by way of shorter crossings through Greek islands.”
But archaeologists and experts on early nautical history said the discovery appeared to show that these surprisingly ancient mariners had craft sturdier and more reliable than rafts. They also must have had the cognitive ability to conceive and carry out repeated water crossing over great distances in order to establish sustainable populations producing an abundance of stone artifacts.
posted
In relation to homo sapiens in ancient Crete, note the following:
quote: In the meantime, here are a few take-away observations from the Strasser et al. (2010) report. First, on the basis of the drawing of the handaxes, these implements do appear to be human-made. Second, they are not isolated occurrences: the authors identified nine localities where these quartz tools were found, only three of which also yielded Mesolithic tools. This leaves open the possibility that the 'Paleolithic' sites represent task-specific components of the Mesolithic toolkit on Crete, but this is unlikely based on the association of handaxes with some of the terrace deposits described in the quote above. Third, as the authors indicate, this was not a case of a H. heidelbergensis (or a couple of them) washing onto Crete: the fact that nine sites (defined by the presence of a minimum of 20 stone tools) were found in a relatively small area indicates a somewhat sustained human presence on the southern coast of Crete. This does suggest that people got there purposefully (i.e., using some kind of watercraft), which leaves open the question of why Middle and Upper Paleolithic assemblages haven't (yet?) been found in the region or elsewhere on Crete (or any other large Mediterranean island, for that matter).
As a parting observation: one aspect of the discovery that definitely wasn't stressed in the media reports about these finds is how they were made. They were breathlessly reported as 'discovered' without much context. The authors actually set out to look for Mesolithic sites in southern Crete using a model developed for the Greek mainland that identified certain areas as having been most appealing for Mesolithic foragers. In other words, this wasn't a blind search for early stuff or simply a fortuitous discovery. Rather, it came about as the result of an explicit research design targeting some very specific questions. Good to see more of that in Paleolithic archaeology.
References:
Strasser, T., Panagopoulou, E., Runnels, C., Murray, P., Thompson, N., Karkanas, P., McCoy, F., & Wegmann, K. (2010). Stone Age Seafaring in the Mediterranean: Evidence from the Plakias Region for Lower Palaeolithic and Mesolithic Habitation of Crete Hesperia, 79 (2), 145-190 DOI: 10.2972/hesp.79.2.145 See @:
quote: In the meantime, here are a few take-away observations from the Strasser et al. (2010) report. First, on the basis of the drawing of the handaxes, these implements do appear to be human-made. Second, they are not isolated occurrences: the authors identified nine localities where these quartz tools were found, only three of which also yielded Mesolithic tools. This leaves open the possibility that the 'Paleolithic' sites represent task-specific components of the Mesolithic toolkit on Crete, but this is unlikely based on the association of handaxes with some of the terrace deposits described in the quote above. Third, as the authors indicate, this was not a case of a H. heidelbergensis (or a couple of them) washing onto Crete: the fact that nine sites (defined by the presence of a minimum of 20 stone tools) were found in a relatively small area indicates a somewhat sustained human presence on the southern coast of Crete. This does suggest that people got there purposefully (i.e., using some kind of watercraft), which leaves open the question of why Middle and Upper Paleolithic assemblages haven't (yet?) been found in the region or elsewhere on Crete (or any other large Mediterranean island, for that matter).
As a parting observation: one aspect of the discovery that definitely wasn't stressed in the media reports about these finds is how they were made. They were breathlessly reported as 'discovered' without much context. The authors actually set out to look for Mesolithic sites in southern Crete using a model developed for the Greek mainland that identified certain areas as having been most appealing for Mesolithic foragers. In other words, this wasn't a blind search for early stuff or simply a fortuitous discovery. Rather, it came about as the result of an explicit research design targeting some very specific questions. Good to see more of that in Paleolithic archaeology.
References:
Strasser, T., Panagopoulou, E., Runnels, C., Murray, P., Thompson, N., Karkanas, P., McCoy, F., & Wegmann, K. (2010). Stone Age Seafaring in the Mediterranean: Evidence from the Plakias Region for Lower Palaeolithic and Mesolithic Habitation of Crete Hesperia, 79 (2), 145-190 DOI: 10.2972/hesp.79.2.145 See @:
posted
The idea of homo sapien sapiens in the Americas 100,000 years ago is not new. Dr. David Imhotep made a similar claim 3 years ago on my radio show: African History Notebook. See the video @:
quote: Dr. Winters: "The people in the discussion group failed to provide any evidence that people were not in Brazil earlier than Clovis. If you would have seen the video you would have noted that Dr. Nieda Guidon supported her dating of human population in Brazil to ancient fire and tool making.
If you view the video you will see that human occupation of Brazill 100,000 years ago is supported by man made fire, e.g., the charcoal, and tools.
my response follows (copy at other thread): re.
quote: Dr. Winters: "...65,000 years ago, since researchers found charcoal, which is the result of fire making. "
Actually ash is the result of firemaking, charcoal is the result of woodbaking.
Charcoal is made naturally in/around forest bogs when layered vegetation debris partly under the ground surface catches fire (from forest fires due to lightning strikes during the dry season) and then keeps smoldering with part of it baked into charcoal due to low oxygen and protected during the rainy season. I have speculated that the Mbuti people discovered this, and realized that the smoke kept insects away, and so always kept smudgepots in camp. In India, charcoal is made by baking wood in pits underneath fires, just like Hawaiians bake pigs at luaus.
Bottle gourds, monkeys and cavioid rodents all drifted from Africa on vegetative rafts. Humans may have done the same, perhaps fisherman associated with the African coastal islands, being storm-blown westwards along the west-following equatorial current.
I welcome evidence of transmigration. But stones heated 100,000 years ago is not enough. She did not call them tools, just stones. Very different from the fire-hardened "silcrete" conchoidal stone tools of Southern Africa of about ~ 80-60ka.
I don't see conchoidal fractures in the stone "tools" at South American sites until around the Clovis period.
quote: Dr. Winters: "Dr. Guidon who conducted excavation at the site notes at 2:09 the site is 100,000 years old. At 3:17 in the video scientists proved that the tools are the result of human craftsmanship . You reject this evidence because it proves that Blacks were here before the mongoloids."
I accept that the site's stones were heated 100,000 years ago, I reject that humans were there. Humans controlled fire at least 300,000 years ago around Canaan/Levant, and probably long before then in other areas.
100,000 years ago humans were in my opinion probably 'apricot' colored (eg. KhoeSan or OK Egyptian), with variable tones dependent on local climate/background. So today's Mongoloid, Black, White did not yet exist as distinct phenotypes, which evolved due to both isolation from other groups and near-consanguinous reproductive relationships, over long periods.
Posts: 2021 | From: Miami | Registered: Aug 2014
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by DD'eDeN: I accept that the site's stones were heated 100,000 years ago, I reject that humans were there. Humans controlled fire at least 300,000 years ago around Canaan/Levant, and probably long before then in other areas.
100,000 years ago humans were in my opinion probably 'apricot' colored (eg. KhoeSan or OK Egyptian), with variable tones dependent on local climate/background. So today's Mongoloid, Black, White did not yet exist as distinct phenotypes, which evolved due to both isolation from other groups and near-consanguinous reproductive relationships, over long periods.
I am glad you have expressed your opinion. But again it is only your opinion and lack any scientific foundation.
I believe the first Africans to exit Africa were the Aborigines of Australia. As a result I think they were darker.
quote:Originally posted by DD'eDeN: Dr. Winters, please define "scientific foundation"
Scientific foundations relate to the methods of science. Science is based on hypotheses testing. In other words, a scientist makes a hypothesis and then performs an experiment to test the hypothesis.
Dr.Nieda Guidon hypothesized that man appeared in Brazil 100,000 years ago from Africa. She illustrated that her hypothesis was confirmed by 1) structures to make fire, i.e. hearths,2) stone tools and charcoal was found in the hearths that date back 100kya,3) the Ice Age prevented people from reaching Brazil from Asia, while the winds and currents would have carried people directly from Africa to Brazil.
Since the hypothesis was confirmed by scientific evidence, we can accept her hypothesis as valid and reliable.
You dispute her hypothesis. You claim that the stones were heated by a forest fire that also made the charcoal. This hypothesis is ludicrous and fails to be supported by the archaeological evidence. It fails because the charcoal and tools were found in hearths, not generally on the site of proposed human habitation. If the charcoal and tools were made naturally the entire site would have been burned, instead of just artifacts found in the hearths.
Archaeologist can accept Dr.Nieda Guidon hypothesis because it is normal science to use charcoal recovered from hearths to date a human habitation site. Your ideas on the other hand, are pure speculation. If you were abreast of the archaeological literature on dating ancient sites recovered from hearths, you would never have made your claims about “heated stones” and naturally made charcoal.
quote:Originally posted by DD'eDeN: [qb] Dr. Winters, please define "scientific foundation"
Scientific foundations relate to the methods of science. Science is based on hypotheses testing. In other words, a scientist makes a hypothesis and then performs an experiment to test the hypothesis.
Dr.Nieda Guidon hypothesized that man appeared in Brazil 100,000 years ago from Africa. She illustrated that her hypothesis was confirmed by 1) structures to make fire, i.e. hearths,2) stone tools and charcoal was found in the hearths that date back 100kya,3) the Ice Age prevented people from reaching Brazil from Asia, while the winds and currents would have carried people directly from Africa to Brazil.
the descendants of Africans who left Africa into new environments, would, after a certain mumber of years, have evolved into non-Africans
Posts: 42939 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
Dr.Nieda Guidon hypothesized that man appeared in Brazil 100,000 years ago from Africa. She illustrated that her hypothesis was confirmed by 1) structures to make fire, i.e. hearths,2) stone tools and charcoal was found in the hearths that date back 100kya,3) the Ice Age prevented people from reaching Brazil from Asia, while the winds and currents would have carried people directly from Africa to Brazil.
The distance from Africa to Brazil at closest points is around 3,000 miles
For Africans to have traveled there 100 kya they would not know there was land there. They would be on the beach of the African coast and seeing water. In order to make the voyage a person would need at least three months of water and food.
1) why would ancient Africans take a boat out to sea not knowing South America or any other land beyond the sea existed?
2) If they were boating along the coast and accidently were carried by currents far from the coast they would die of lack of water or starvation long before crossing the Atlantic
3) If ancient Africans were to go to South America by boat they would not know South America or any land existed across the ocean They would have to get on a boat, know to load it with at least 3 months of water and food, (6 months worth if they wanted to turn back and survive) They would go out to sea in a boat and it would soley be based on just imagining there might be some land out there.
Posts: 42939 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
1) why would ancient Africans take a boat out to sea not knowing South America or any other land beyond the sea existed?
quote:
The spirit of adventure and discovery
2) If they were boating along the coast and accidently were carried by currents far from the coast they would die of lack of water or starvation long before crossing the Atlantic
quote: Wrong. At this time Africa was more wetter and the frequentcy of boat engravings in the Sahara indicate Africans had a high boat technology and navigation ability.
.
. 100kya there were numerous lakes, rivers and streams in Africa that exited in the Atlantic Ocean. The distance from Lake Chad to Lake Congo was greater than the distance from Africa to Brazil. Any captains and sailors who had traded with cities and towns situated on these Lakes would have been familiar with storing enough foods to last the voyages.
3) If ancient Africans were to go to South America by boat they would not know South America or any land existed across the ocean
quote: True. These ancient navigators were probably like Columbus. They may have not known about South America, but they were willing to take a chance to see what lands lay at the edge of the Sea.
You forget that the evidence of boats depicted throughout ancient Africa make it clear people were not afraid of traveling by sea.
Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
what is the evidence of ancient boats in West Africa that were rugged enough and large enough to transport colonists to the Americas?
Posts: 42939 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: what is the evidence of ancient boats in West Africa that were rugged enough and large enough to transport colonists to the Americas?
Boats need not be large or rugged to transport people across the sea with planning a knowledge of the current and the ability to read the stars add a little bit of luck and they could make it,however the boats of medieval west Africa were used to transport armies and horses,with a few modification would make them better seaworthy now if you are talking about 100kyrs back then I would argue against that I am not even sure there were Africans living along the coast of West Africa at that date.
Posts: 6546 | From: japan | Registered: Feb 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: what is the evidence of ancient boats in West Africa that were rugged enough and large enough to transport colonists to the Americas?
Sea going vessels usually have vertical prows and sterns. We see many rock art vessels like this from the Sahara.
This is spported by the fact that South Seas as sea-going vessels, have vertical prows and sterns.
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: what is the evidence of ancient boats in West Africa that were rugged enough and large enough to transport colonists to the Americas?
Boats need not be large or rugged to transport people across the sea with planning a knowledge of the current and the ability to read the stars add a little bit of luck and they could make it,however the boats of medieval west Africa were used to transport armies and horses,with a few modification would make them better seaworthy now if you are talking about 100kyrs back then I would argue against that I am not even sure there were Africans living along the coast of West Africa at that date.
They did not have to live along the coast. They could have traveled down interior rivers that emptied in the Atlantic Ocean.
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: what is the evidence of ancient boats in West Africa that were rugged enough and large enough to transport colonists to the Americas?
Boats need not be large or rugged to transport people across the sea with planning a knowledge of the current and the ability to read the stars add a little bit of luck and they could make it,however the boats of medieval west Africa were used to transport armies and horses,with a few modification would make them better seaworthy now if you are talking about 100kyrs back then I would argue against that I am not even sure there were Africans living along the coast of West Africa at that date.
If the boat is not rugged it can easily be destroyed in the open ocean. To cross the Atlantic you have to know to have at least 3 months water and food. You need to have enough people to start a colony including women
the technical capabilities of people 100kyrs back is pure speculation and cannot be assumed that same as 3-4000 years ago
Posts: 42939 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
^You are all assuming that conditions 50-100,000 years ago were identical to today - that is not a safe assumption.
As you can see from this map, both the Pacific and Atlantic Oceans contain Mountain Ranges whose peaks may well have been Islands 50-100,000 years ago. Likewise, the Weather may have been quite different.
Please remember that Antarctica, the coldest place on Earth, was once lush Jungle.
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dating human occupation at Toca do Serrote das Moendas, São Raimundo Nonato, Piauí-Brasil by electron spin resonance and optically stimulated luminescence
Angela Kinoshita cs 2014 JHE online 6.11.14 doi 10.1016/j.jhevol.2014.09.006
Excavation of Toca do Serrote das Moendas revealed a great quantity of fossil wild fauna, associated with human remains, e.g. fossils of a cervid (Blastocerus dichotomus) were found, an animal frequently pictured in ancient rock wall paintings.
In a well-defined stratum, 2 loose teeth of this species were found in close proximity to human bones: - They were independently ESR-dated in 2 laboratories to 29 ± 3 and 24 ± 1 ka . - The concretion layer capping this stratum was OSL-dated to 21 ± 3 ka .
These results are compelling evidence of early habitation in this area.
h/t marc verhaegen @ AAT sourcePosts: 2021 | From: Miami | Registered: Aug 2014
| IP: Logged |
"Some people see fires without testing and run to the press with imaginary fire pits and broken rock that are claimed to be 50 kya old based visual opinion. And there are actually people who believe the press reports over peer-reviewed site reports."
Posts: 2021 | From: Miami | Registered: Aug 2014
| IP: Logged |
quote: "The people in the discussion group failed to provide any evidence that people were not in Brazil earlier than Clovis. If you would have seen the video you would have noted that Dr.Nieda Guidon supported her dating of human population in Brazil to ancient fire and tool making. You did not look at the New York Times video: Human’s First Appearance in the Americas @: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/28/world/americas/discoveries-challenge-beliefs-on-humans-arrival-in-the-americas.html?hp&_r=4 If you view the video you will see that human occupation of Brazill 100,000 years ago is supported by man made fire, e.g., the charcoal, and tools. Dr. Guidon who conducted excavation at the site notes at 2:09 the site is 100,000 years old. At 3:17 in the video scientists proved that the tools are the result of human craftsmanship . You reject this evidence because it proves that Blacks were here before the mongoloids. If you prefer to remain in denial of the evidence that is your right.
I've seen the video, I see no evidence that humans were in South America before about 15ka, I do see evidence of natural stone fractures and forest fire heating of the rockface.
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic