The Apache of the Southwest of the States and northern Mexico...

[cactusjumper]

Thanks Joe, however it will take some time before I can get to all of those four; that said, I rather doubt that any argument is going to work to convince me that the Bering land bridge idea is "The" correct answer. None (so far as I am aware) have an answer for that missing ice-free-corridor, that is missing at the time it is supposed to be there anyway, nor for the OLDEST human remains being found not in Alaska, where logically they should be found according to the land bridge theory, but in Chile in South America! Worse, those ancient humans were not hunting anything larger than deer!

Some evidence is being found that colonization did arrive by sea too, although the rising sea levels have submerged the best sites to find such evidence. The simple skin-boat kayaks are a very old design but capable of sailing along a coast line for considerable distances. In fact it would be highly illogical for these 'first' Americans NOT to choose to travel along the coasts, where they did not have to cross any giant glaciers nor raging rivers full of melted ice water. Not to mention the fact that many Ice Age cultures were very much linked to maritime life, obtaining a fair portion of their sustenance from easy sea food sources like clams, fish, seals, etc. Such people would naturally explore along those coasts.

https://www.theguardian.com/science...-not-have-arrived-by-dry-land-study-indicates

If you or anyone can show me how the OLDEST Americans turn up in Chile, SO far from any land bridge whatsoever, I will be happy to entertain the idea.

I think our local library has at least one of these titles, "the settlement of the Americas,.." so perhaps it won't be so difficult to find them.

In case I do not get on here before then, wishing you and everyone here a very Happy New Year and lets hope it is a better one than 2016 was.

Roy,

IMHO, the evidence you seek is no longer above the surface of the Bering Sea. There were many periods when the Continental Shelf was dry land and its surface extended far beyond the shore line of todays Alaska. Once again, I would suggest that you find a copy of "The Bering Land Bridge" by Hopkins. The arguments and evidence are laid out with sources that may convince you that the Bering Land Bridge was a major source for human/animal migration into the Americas.

Inexpensive copies can be found here:

https://www.abebooks.com/servlet/SearchResults?sts=t&an=&tn=Bering+Land+Bridge&kn=&isbn=

Good luck,

Joe

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

A History of Mining on the Kenai Peninsula, Alaska - Grab it through Amazon!

[Oroblanco]

Roy,

IMHO, the evidence you seek is no longer above the surface of the Bering Sea. There were many periods when the Continental Shelf was dry land and its surface extended far beyond the shore line of todays Alaska. Once again, I would suggest that you find a copy of "The Bering Land Bridge" by Hopkins. The arguments and evidence are laid out with sources that may convince you that the Bering Land Bridge was a major source for human/animal migration into the Americas.

Inexpensive copies can be found here:

https://www.abebooks.com/servlet/SearchResults?sts=t&an=&tn=Bering+Land+Bridge&kn=&isbn=

Good luck,

Joe

Thanks Joe, but perhaps there is some misunderstanding here. I am not saying that NO cross migration occurred across the Bering land bridge. I have no doubt that many animals did indeed cross, otherwise we would not have horses today for they originated in the Americas and migrated to Asia, but then died out in the Americas, for just one example. However these crossings occurred hundreds of thousands to millions of years ago, not 14,000 years ago. The evidence of the most ancient peoples in the lower continent, like the Clovis, Cactus Hill people etc are nothing like the peoples of extreme NE Asia of the same time periods. Their technology involved micro-flakes of obsidian set into bone, wood etc, not at all like the large and rather pretty Clovis tools. The ice free corridor (which I am still not convinced ever existed) was simply not open at the right time, and even for centuries after it supposedly did open, there were no large animals living in it for humans to hunt and live on. The oldest human remains are not found in NW Alaska, but in Chile. Clearly this theory has some major issues. I will try to get round to read up those recommended books, but until someone can explain these issues the theory does not stand IMHO. If anyone walked across that land bridge, there were already people living in South America and the lower 48.

 

[cactusjumper]

Thanks Joe, but perhaps there is some misunderstanding here. I am not saying that NO cross migration occurred across the Bering land bridge. I have no doubt that many animals did indeed cross, otherwise we would not have horses today for they originated in the Americas and migrated to Asia, but then died out in the Americas, for just one example. However these crossings occurred hundreds of thousands to millions of years ago, not 14,000 years ago. The evidence of the most ancient peoples in the lower continent, like the Clovis, Cactus Hill people etc are nothing like the peoples of extreme NE Asia of the same time periods. Their technology involved micro-flakes of obsidian set into bone, wood etc, not at all like the large and rather pretty Clovis tools. The ice free corridor (which I am still not convinced ever existed) was simply not open at the right time, and even for centuries after it supposedly did open, there were no large animals living in it for humans to hunt and live on. The oldest human remains are not found in NW Alaska, but in Chile. Clearly this theory has some major issues. I will try to get round to read up those recommended books, but until someone can explain these issues the theory does not stand IMHO. If anyone walked across that land bridge, there were already people living in South America and the lower 48.

Roy,

From what I have read, it's believed the "Land Bridge" was open many times over long periods of time. As the ice ebbed and flowed over the centuries, the land bridge was exposed and covered many times. The migrations of animals and peoples took place in both directions and at diverse times. Not all of the people were from NE Asia. There were no boundaries and people followed game and settled near water. Once they discovered the entire world was not snow and ice they moved to warmer climes......unlike the Decker's of today. The first clue to start looking for higher temperatures is when three large dogs are required to keep you warm at night.


Once again, the largest part of the evidence of when and exactly where, have been covered over by water over the centuries.

Take care,

Joe

 

[Oroblanco]

Roy,

From what I have read, it's believed the "Land Bridge" was open many times over long periods of time. As the ice ebbed and flowed over the centuries, the land bridge was exposed and covered many times. The migrations of animals and peoples took place in both directions and at diverse times. Not all of the people were from NE Asia. There were no boundaries and people followed game and settled near water. Once they discovered the entire world was not snow and ice they moved to warmer climes......unlike the Decker's of today. The first clue to start looking for higher temperatures is when three large dogs are required to keep you warm at night.


Once again, the largest part of the evidence of when and exactly where, have been covered over by water over the centuries.

Take care,

Joe

I would propose to you, that the evidence for the alternative theory, over the sea (following the coasts and edges of the ice pack, thus being able to exploit the abundant aquatic mammals like seals, walrus etc) is also almost certainly below sea level today which helps explain why so little proof has turned up. Even this theory falls apart when trying to explain how the earliest Americans seem to be most closely related to Australoid race (aka Aborigines for anyone wondering) for the distances between Australia and South America are very great, no land bridge of any kind nor semi-friendly coastline to follow unless far south to Antarctica.

As to those warmer lands that allegedly are located just a thousand miles or so south of where we now reside, we have heared tell of such fanciful myths around our campfires in the caverns while munching mastodon meat. The general consensus is that while it makes a wonderful story, to imagine it, a place where you have no need of cave bear skins to keep you from death by freezing, nor to need several Huskies or Malamutes to keep from frostbite while sleeping, it seems most improbable. After all, even here in the cave, we have seen photos of the Superstition mountains covered in snow, which pretty well proves that it is just as cold and loaded with snow as we are here, but with even fewer mammoths to hunt.

<borrowed from; https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/49/d1/ba/49d1ba65021b273b480fc96baa90af2b.jpg under Fair Use provisions and not for profit>

Last bit here and directed at our amigo Cactusjumper, but Joe you are willing to accept that the Bering land bridge must have existed, yet is now covered by sea water due to the rise

from melting glaciers, correct? Why then should Atlantis seem SO much a fiction? You do not have to answer here, as I do not wish to derail the topic entirely, so far we are indirectly still connected to the topic by trying to explain how the Apaches came to be where they were encountered.

Please do continue, sorry for the Atlantis bit there.

 

[cactusjumper]

I would propose to you, that the evidence for the alternative theory, over the sea (following the coasts and edges of the ice pack, thus being able to exploit the abundant aquatic mammals like seals, walrus etc) is also almost certainly below sea level today which helps explain why so little proof has turned up. Even this theory falls apart when trying to explain how the earliest Americans seem to be most closely related to Australoid race (aka Aborigines for anyone wondering) for the distances between Australia and South America are very great, no land bridge of any kind nor semi-friendly coastline to follow unless far south to Antarctica.

As to those warmer lands that allegedly are located just a thousand miles or so south of where we now reside, we have heared tell of such fanciful myths around our campfires in the caverns while munching mastodon meat. The general consensus is that while it makes a wonderful story, to imagine it, a place where you have no need of cave bear skins to keep you from death by freezing, nor to need several Huskies or Malamutes to keep from frostbite while sleeping, it seems most improbable. After all, even here in the cave, we have seen photos of the Superstition mountains covered in snow, which pretty well proves that it is just as cold and loaded with snow as we are here, but with even fewer mammoths to hunt.
View attachment 1400467
<borrowed from; https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/49/d1/ba/49d1ba65021b273b480fc96baa90af2b.jpg under Fair Use provisions and not for profit>

Last bit here and directed at our amigo Cactusjumper, but Joe you are willing to accept that the Bering land bridge must have existed, yet is now covered by sea water due to the rise

from melting glaciers, correct? Why then should Atlantis seem SO much a fiction? You do not have to answer here, as I do not wish to derail the topic entirely, so far we are indirectly still connected to the topic by trying to explain how the Apaches came to be where they were encountered.

Please do continue, sorry for the Atlantis bit there.

Hi Roy,

Actually, I believe there were many sources for the first Americans. I don't discount the possibility of Europeans, Africans, Asians nor island peoples. I think some of the archaeological evidence points to some of those sources.

As for Atlantis, I believe it was considered fiction from the start. Over the centuries, like all such myths, it's become truth by repetition. As told, I don't think it's possible.

It's been much colder and wetter this winter. Probably has something to do with Global Warming. I have little doubt the polar bears are looking for a little shade to cool off.

Take care,

Joe

 

[wrmickel1]

Hi Roy,

Actually, I believe there were many sources for the first Americans. I don't discount the possibility of Europeans, Africans, Asians nor island peoples. I think some of the archaeological evidence points to some of those sources.

As for Atlantis, I believe it was considered fiction from the start. Over the centuries, like all such myths, it's become truth by repetition. As told, I don't think it's possible.

It's been much colder and wetter this winter. Probably has something to do with Global Warming. I have little doubt the polar bears are looking for a little shade to cool off.

Take care,

Joe

Joe

I would'nt write Atlantis off so fast, there finding cities 100's a ft below the current sea level. And the model shows if they drain the sea to the level the cities are at it exposes a big island in the middle of the Alantic between the two land masses we know today.

Wrmickel1

 

[cactusjumper]

Joe

I would'nt write Atlantis off so fast, there finding cities 100's a ft below the current sea level. And the model shows if they drain the sea to the level the cities are at it exposes a big island in the middle of the Alantic between the two land masses we know today.

Wrmickel1

Wrm.,

Like I stated, "As told, I don't think it's possible." Many others have a different opinion, and their theories are no more provable than mine.

Good luck,

Joe Ribaudo

 

[Real of Tayopa]

joe, perhaps this should be in the Atlantis forum but Atlantis was sunk in a night and day,, not slowly by glacer melting.
,However Atlantis consisteded of the series of islands That surounded the rim of a gigantic Caldera off of the coast of spain, more or less as reported. It also happened to be on the junctin of three plates, .The North American, The uraison, and the Africam, An area of violent seismec activities . The Canary Islands are the southern eztension of Atlantis. it was an Island nation.

It's demise was at the end of the ice age.

 

[Oroblanco]

joe, perhaps this should be in the Atlantis forum but Atlantis was sunk in a night and day,, not slowly by glacer melting.
,However Atlantis consisteded of the series of islands That surounded the rim of a gigantic Caldera off of the coast of spain, more or less as reported. It also happened to be on the junctin of three plates, .The North American, The uraison, and the Africam, An area of violent seismec activities . The Canary Islands are the southern eztension of Atlantis. it was an Island nation.

It's demise was at the end of the ice age.

To address this first, it would be a mistake to think of the end of the last Ice Age as gradual melting of the ice pack. It did melt slowly much of the time but also at times rather quickly, and this meltwater formed gigantic lakes larger than any existing today. These lakes were held by ice dams which occasionally burst, causing massive flooding. The scablands of the NW USA are believed to be from one of these ice dams bursting, and other events raised global sea levels suddenly. Here is one example of a number of such events, also called "superfloods" and other terms:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meltwater_pulse_1B

I would also point out that there is nothing in Plato or other ancient sources that specifies Atlantis is a volcanic caldera.

To Cactusjumper Joe; we are actually in agreement on the sources of the 'first' Americans to a large extent, and also on the story of Atlantis AS WRITTEN. The tale as given by Plato has details which are anachronistic, and appear to be 'borrowed' from other sources that he almost certainly had knowledge of (Crete/Minoan empire, Helike etc).

Sorry for getting off topic there, please do continue.

 

[cactusjumper]

Roy,

You wrote: "those ancient humans were not hunting anything larger than deer!"

I believe you are mistaken here, as there are many sites where mammoth, bear and horse, together with projectile points have been found together that are possibly older than 11,500 B.P. Those sites include, but are not limited to, Trail Creek Caves, Fairbanks Muck Deposits, Blue Fish Caves, Varsity Estates/Bowmont Park, which are all found before you get into the lower states.

There is a possible relation between Beringia and North American lithics. "A third site, Uptar, is undated but contains a fluted projectile point considered by some researchers to be a possible precursor to Clovis technology in North America."

The above information is from "Bones Boats & Bison" by James Dixon.

I have spent most of the previous week in bed, so that may have clouded my reasoning here. I used to have a good idea which of my books to open for semi-forgotten information, but that has become much more difficult these days.

Take care,

Joe

 

[Oroblanco]

Roy,

You wrote: "those ancient humans were not hunting anything larger than deer!"

I believe you are mistaken here, as there are many sites where mammoth, bear and horse, together with projectile points have been found together that are possibly older than 11,500 B.P. Those sites include, but are not limited to, Trail Creek Caves, Fairbanks Muck Deposits, Blue Fish Caves, Varsity Estates/Bowmont Park, which are all found before you get into the lower states.

There is a possible relation between Beringia and North American lithics. "A third site, Uptar, is undated but contains a fluted projectile point considered by some researchers to be a possible precursor to Clovis technology in North America."

The above information is from "Bones Boats & Bison" by James Dixon.

I have spent most of the previous week in bed, so that may have clouded my reasoning here. I used to have a good idea which of my books to open for semi-forgotten information, but that has become much more difficult these days.

Take care,

Joe

Well I see that we have to disagree on several points here, and there MAY be some misunderstanding as well.

Do you agree that the OLDEST human remains, would precede any humans that followed later, into America?

If so, then we are left with that set of human remains, found with evidence of what was the food in use at the time, and the largest game animals found were only deer. LATER humans certainly could have hunted mammoths, mastodons, camels and horses. That would not make them the 'first Americans' however, as they arrived later.

Examples of what I am referring to:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monte_Verde
https://anthropology.net/2008/05/08...ence-of-americans-found-in-monte-verde-chile/

Extract from the second article:

Finding seaweed from site like Monte Verde indicates that 14,000 years ago people relied on some sea life, and kept relatively close to the shore even though they established a rather permanent settlement inland.
From my personal experience with hiking the Santa Cruz mountains as well as working at an archaeological site in the Monterey Bay, I too have seen evidence that prehistoric peoples were relying heavily on sea life for food. Often, I’ve found mussel shells deep within the forest. I have also seen how people were regularly hunting fur seals from a rookery.

No evidence that these MOST ANCIENT Americas were hunting any of the mega fauna (large game like mammoths, for those unfamiliar with the term) but WERE heavily reliant on the sea for food including fur seals. This would dovetail very well with the SEA route to colonize the Americas, and the fact that no trace of any hunting of the mega fauna does not support that these FIRST Americans were simply "following the herds" for they did not utilize them. No doubt that later peoples did hunt the big animals, most of the known Clovis sites are mammoth kills. I did not intend to mean that NONE of the ancient peoples ever hunted the mega fauna, obviously some did, yet the earliest people did not. And worse, in so far as the Bering land bridge theory goes, these people at Monte Verde, were found very far from that land bridge.

If you know of any of the sites you mentioned that date to earlier than the Monte Verde site in SOUTHERN CHILE, over 8000 miles from the Bering land bridge and yet the site of the oldest known human remains, I would appreciate if you could point me to them. I am aware of an even more controversial site which may be as old as 50,000 years
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2004/11/041118104010.htm

Side point but I do not expect you to recall every detail nor where you found some info, and hope for the same consideration in return.

Please do continue;
Oroblanco

 

[Real of Tayopa]

Life Joe, just be glad that you're still here to badger that Oro guy, not so spry myself,,insomnia more or less for the last week, any ideas ? A day and a night pretty darn fast for ice
melting,, hmpth

 

[Real of Tayopa]

Life Joe, just be glad that you're still here to badger that Oro guy, not so spry myself,,insomnia more or less for the last week, any ideas ? A day and a night pretty darn fast for ice
melting,, hmph

 

[dog the treasure hunter]

Well I see that we have to disagree on several points here, and there MAY be some misunderstanding as well.

Do you agree that the OLDEST human remains, would precede any humans that followed later, into America?

If so, then we are left with that set of human remains, found with evidence of what was the food in use at the time, and the largest game animals found were only deer. LATER humans certainly could have hunted mammoths, mastodons, camels and horses. That would not make them the 'first Americans' however, as they arrived later.

Examples of what I am referring to:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monte_Verde
https://anthropology.net/2008/05/08...ence-of-americans-found-in-monte-verde-chile/

Extract from the second article:


No evidence that these MOST ANCIENT Americas were hunting any of the mega fauna (large game like mammoths, for those unfamiliar with the term) but WERE heavily reliant on the sea for food including fur seals. This would dovetail very well with the SEA route to colonize the Americas, and the fact that no trace of any hunting of the mega fauna does not support that these FIRST Americans were simply "following the herds" for they did not utilize them. No doubt that later peoples did hunt the big animals, most of the known Clovis sites are mammoth kills. I did not intend to mean that NONE of the ancient peoples ever hunted the mega fauna, obviously some did, yet the earliest people did not. And worse, in so far as the Bering land bridge theory goes, these people at Monte Verde, were found very far from that land bridge.

If you know of any of the sites you mentioned that date to earlier than the Monte Verde site in SOUTHERN CHILE, over 8000 miles from the Bering land bridge and yet the site of the oldest known human remains, I would appreciate if you could point me to them. I am aware of an even more controversial site which may be as old as 50,000 years
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2004/11/041118104010.htm

Side point but I do not expect you to recall every detail nor where you found some info, and hope for the same consideration in return.

Please do continue;
Oroblanco

Here's a old site https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meadowcroft_Rockshelter

 

[Oroblanco]

Here's a old site https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meadowcroft_Rockshelter

Do you know what these people were eating? Thanks in advance,

 

[cactusjumper]

Roy,

According to the article, "Meadowcroft Rockshelter has yielded the largest collection of flora and fauna materials ever recovered from a location in eastern North America.[SUP][16][/SUP] The arid environment provided the necessary and rare conditions that permitted excellent botanical preservation. In total, animal remains representing 149 species were excavated. Evidence shows that people gathered smaller game animals as well as plants, such as corn, squash, fruits, nuts and seeds."

Just prior to this statement, we have this:

"Radiocarbon dating of the site indicated occupancy beginning 16,000 years ago and possibly as early as 19,000 years ago. The dates are still controversial. A recent survey carried out by the Society for American Archaeology reported support from 38% of archaeologists, with 20% rejecting the early dates.[SUP][11][/SUP] Criticism of these early radiocarbon dates has focused on the potential for contamination by ancient carbon from coal-bearing strata in the watershed.[SUP][12][/SUP] The samples, tested by an independent third party geomorphologist, concluded that the samples showed no evidence of groundwater activity. Tests performed via accelerator mass spectrometry also support the earlier dates.[SUP][13][/SUP] If authentic, these dates would indicate that Meadowcroft was used in the pre-Clovis era and, as such, provides evidence for very early human habitation of the Americas.[SUP][14][/SUP][SUP][15][/SUP] Meadowcroft Rockshelter may be the oldest known site of human habitation in North America, providing a unique glimpse into the lives of prehistoric hunters and gatherers. Paleoindian, Archaic, and Woodland remains have all been found at the site."

Because no mammoth remains have been found, do you assume there were no mammoth at the earliest possible dates for the Meadowcroft people?

Take care,

Joe

 

[Oroblanco]

Roy,

According to the article, "Meadowcroft Rockshelter has yielded the largest collection of flora and fauna materials ever recovered from a location in eastern North America.[SUP][16][/SUP] The arid environment provided the necessary and rare conditions that permitted excellent botanical preservation. In total, animal remains representing 149 species were excavated. Evidence shows that people gathered smaller game animals as well as plants, such as corn, squash, fruits, nuts and seeds."

Just prior to this statement, we have this:

"Radiocarbon dating of the site indicated occupancy beginning 16,000 years ago and possibly as early as 19,000 years ago. The dates are still controversial. A recent survey carried out by the Society for American Archaeology reported support from 38% of archaeologists, with 20% rejecting the early dates.[SUP][11][/SUP] Criticism of these early radiocarbon dates has focused on the potential for contamination by ancient carbon from coal-bearing strata in the watershed.[SUP][12][/SUP] The samples, tested by an independent third party geomorphologist, concluded that the samples showed no evidence of groundwater activity. Tests performed via accelerator mass spectrometry also support the earlier dates.[SUP][13][/SUP] If authentic, these dates would indicate that Meadowcroft was used in the pre-Clovis era and, as such, provides evidence for very early human habitation of the Americas.[SUP][14][/SUP][SUP][15][/SUP] Meadowcroft Rockshelter may be the oldest known site of human habitation in North America, providing a unique glimpse into the lives of prehistoric hunters and gatherers. Paleoindian, Archaic, and Woodland remains have all been found at the site."

Because no mammoth remains have been found, do you assume there were no mammoth at the earliest possible dates for the Meadowcroft people?

Take care,

Joe

No, however there is no evidence suggesting that they WERE hunting and consuming mammoths, since nothing was found.

Most mammoth hunters butchered the kill at the site where it was killed, only smaller joints, teeth etc ended up at home shelters. Due to the controversy over the date(s) of Meadowcroft, I did not point to it as the earliest known site of human occupation in the Americas. That no evidence of mega fauna being utilized, certainly would not then support that the first Americans were simply following migrating herds of mega fauna. The evidence we have points to hunter-gatherers, whom were largely dependent on the sea for a good portion of their food supply, which would support the sea route for colonization.

 

[Azquester]

Life Joe, just be glad that you're still here to badger that Oro guy, not so spry myself,,insomnia more or less for the last week, any ideas ? A day and a night pretty darn fast for ice
melting,, hmph

Take two Viagra before bedtime and wake your wife in the morning....that'll cure it!

If your not married then take two estrogen tabs.

You'll sleep like a girly Man you old Orish SOB!

 

[Real of Tayopa]

Err Bill. what's' the viagra for ? My wife gets up in the morning anyway , why wake her up earlier Estrogen ?? I don need no boobs just sleep. SOB son of Bill Balley? nah of the Oirish Curry's singing the Blues

I have already promised Oro to stop watching the kiddie porn by 8 pm

Good one BILL

 

[Gambrinus]

Err Bill. what's' the viagra for ? My wife gets up in the morning anyway , why wake her up earlier Estrogen ?? I don need no boobs just sleep. SOB son of Bill Balley? nah of the Oirish Curry's singing the Blues

I have already promised Oro to stop watching the kiddie porn by 8 pm

Good one BILL

NVG