Severed Ways: The Norse Discovery of America

[Holocaust]

Downloading it now. Hopefully its cooler than Pathfinder.

[Mesarthim]

link?

[methodrone]

sounds like a good movie already, since it was icelanders that discovered america hehe making the title wrong in like 1 sec.

[Holocaust]

<!-- m -->http://dl.torrentzap.com/download/4/176898<!-- m -->



That's the one I'm using.

[Redd]

[quote name="hafsteinn"]sounds like a good movie already, since it was icelanders that discovered america hehe making the title wrong in like 1 sec.[/quote]



Well seeing how lots of Norse folk went over to Iceland, it's not entirely wrong. Erik the Red, who discovered Greenland (and his son, Leif Ericson, who discovered Newfoundland) was Norwegian.



Edit: Also I am downloading this.

[Methuselah Honeysuckle]

was it any good?

[Mesarthim]

link doesn't work

[Holocaust]

Goddammit...

[Redd]

I got the link to work.

[Methuselah Honeysuckle]

[quote name="Nick"]was it any good?[/quote]

[Teignub]

Nobody "discovered" America. People have been here for tens of thousands of years.

[Holocaust]

I think that link downloads a password-protected .avi file.



Geigh Someone post a link worth a shit if you can find one.

[Abzu]

[quote name="Teignub"]Nobody "discovered" America. People have been here for tens of thousands of years. [/quote]

Europeans came here first in the ice age. They eventually met with migrating SiberianAsianfuckers who came in when the iceshelfthingie opened up a bit as the earth warmed back up and interbred making our Native Americans.

[TamPron]

the egyptians traveled to central america as well, if the similarities in architecture and art aren't enough, there has also been cocaine residue found in egyptian mummies

[Teignub]

[quote name="abzu"]
[quote name="Teignub"]Nobody "discovered" America. People have been here for tens of thousands of years. [/quote]

Europeans came here first in the ice age. They eventually met with migrating SiberianAsianfuckers who came in when the iceshelfthingie opened up a bit as the earth warmed back up and interbred making our Native Americans.[/quote]



sorry but thats a bunch of bullshit. saying that europeans were here before native americans is ignorant and misinformed. The Bering Strait theory is just that: A Theory. There are many other theories with just as much evidence to support it. the truth is we dont know for sure who came here when or "first" and all that matters is that Native Americans have been here longer than anyone else and know more about this land than anyone else possibly could.

[Mesarthim]

the so called native Americans were here thousands of years before any of European decent arrived on the American continent.

the Norse discovery only predates Columbus by a couple hundred years. there is evidence that various natives had been here for thousands of years prior to that.

[Teignub]

going with the migration theory, it is said that perhaps the Asiatic peoples sailed to the Americas some 40-60 thousand years ago. They support this with various grave sites as well as similarities to Aboriginal Australians who have been found to have settled in Australia from Asia about 60 thousand years ago. So it makes sense that they would have sailed north as well as south, along the coast of Asia and what is now Alaska/Canada down to Central America. Again, this is 40-60 thousand years ago.

[Abzu]

I'm not talking about Leif Eirikson's post-Native American discovery. I am referring to the Solutrean hypothesis, which has solid anthropological evidence (mainly rooted in flint tool discoveries) and DNA to back it up. Yes, for the moment they are all still theories; however, the probability is high. This hypothesis seems the most logical. In this hypothesis, the Native Americans we know now are descendants, by the way. There are challenges to it, as there are to any, but the evidence in support holds above the theories against, by my summation.



Here's the relatively simplified wikipedia entry on it:

[quote name="wikipedia"]Solutrean hypothesis



The Solutrean hypothesis proposes that stone tool technology of the Solutrean culture in prehistoric Europe may have later influenced the development of the Clovis tool-making culture in the Americas, and that peoples from Europe may have been among the earliest settlers in the Americas.[1][2] First proposed in 1998, its key proponents include Dennis Stanford of the Smithsonian Institution and Bruce Bradley of the University of Exeter.



In this hypothesis, peoples associated with the Solutrean culture migrated from Ice Age Europe to North America, bringing their methods of making stone tools with them and providing the basis for later Clovis technology found throughout North America. The hypothesis rests upon particular similarities in Solutrean and Clovis technology that have no known counterparts in Eastern Asia, Siberia or Beringia, areas from which or through which early Americans are known to have migrated.





Characteristics



Solutrean culture was dominant in present-day France and Spain from roughly 21,000 to 17,000 years ago. It was known for its distinctive toolmaking characterized by bifacial, pressure-flaked points. Traces of the Solutrean tool-making industry disappear completely from Europe around 15,000 years ago, when it was replaced by the less complex stone tools of the Magdalenian culture.



Clovis tools are typified by a distinctive rock spear point, known as the Clovis point. Solutrean and Clovis points share common characteristics: points are thin and bifacial, and they share the intentional use of the overshot flaking technique, which quickly reduces the thickness of a biface.



The Clovis blade differs from its predecessor in that it has bi-facial fluting (a long depression that occurs on a point, which is caused by knapping at the basal end of the point; the purpose was to fit the point onto a spear foreshaft). Clovis tool-making technology seems to appear in the archaeological record in North America roughly 13,500 years ago, and similar predecessors in Asia or Alaska, if they exist, have not been discovered.



Atlantic crossing

Water temperatures during the last glacial maximum, according to CLIMAP.



The hypothesis proposes that Ice Age Europeans could have crossed the North Atlantic along the edge of the pack ice that extended from the Atlantic coast of France to North America during the last glacial maximum. The model envisions these people making the crossing in small watercraft, using skills similar to those of the modern Inuit people, hauling out on ice floes at night, getting fresh water by melting iceberg ice or the first-frozen parts of sea ice, getting food by catching seals and fish, and using seal blubber as heating fuel. Among other evidence backing up this hypothesis is the discovery among the Solutrean toolkit of bone needles, very similar to those traditionally used by the modern-day Inuit.[3] As well as enabling the manufacture of waterproof clothing from animal skins, the technology could, in theory, have been used to construct kayaks from the same animal skins. However, a 2008 study (see below) argues that the conditions were not favorable for such a crossing.



Transitional styles



Supporters of the hypothesis suggest that stone tools found at Cactus Hill (an early American site in Virginia) indicate a transitional style between the Clovis and Solutrean cultures. Artifacts from this site are estimated to date from 17,000 to 15,000 years ago, although some researchers dispute their definitive age. Other sites that may indicate transitional, pre-Clovis occupation include the Page-Ladson site in Florida and the Meadowcroft rockshelter in Pennsylvania.



MtDNA Haplogroup X



Mitochondrial DNA analysis lends conditional support[4] to the idea insofar as the fact that some members of some native North American tribes share a common yet distant maternal ancestry with some present-day individuals in Europe identified by mtDNA Haplogroup X. It is possible that Haplogroup X came to the Americas via Northeastern Asia or Siberia, but unlike other Native American mtDNA Haplogroups A, B, C and D, Haplogroup X is presently absent from the region, although occurrence of Haplogroup X2 of more recent origin (i.e. more recently than 5000 BC) has been identified in the Altai Republic.



The New World haplogroup X DNA (now called subgroup X2a) is as different from any of the Old World X2 lineages as they are from each other, indicating a very ancient origin. Although haplogroup X occurs only at a frequency of about 3% for the total current indigenous population of the Americas, it is a major haplogroup in northeastern North America, where among the Algonquian peoples of the Great Lakes Region it allegedly comprises up to 25% of mtDNA types. It has been suggested that its relative concentration in northeastern North America indicates an early North Atlantic route for bearers of this haplotype, although it is found in smaller percentages in other regions, among the Sioux, Nuu-Chah-Nulth, and Yakama in western North America as well as the Yanomamö in Brazil.



Recent Genetic Research



An article in the American Journal of Human Genetics by researchers in Brazil argued against the Solutrean hypothesis. "Our results strongly support the hypothesis that haplogroup X, together with the other four main mtDNA haplogroups, was part of the gene pool of a single Native American founding population; therefore they do not support models that propose haplogroup-independent migrations, such as the migration from Europe posed by the Solutrean hypothesis."[5]



Challenges to the Solutrean hypothesis



Arthur J. Jelinek, an anthropologist who noted similarities between Solutrean and Clovis styles in a 1971 study, noted that the great geographical and temporal separation of the two cultures made a direct connection unlikely. He also noted that crossing the Atlantic with the technology of the time would have been difficult if not impossible, an observation repeated by Lawrence G. Straus. Others have pointed to a lack of evidence of Solutrean seafaring. Proponents point out that evidence of Solutrean-era seafaring may have been obliterated or buried underwater, as much of the coastlines of western Europe and eastern North America that existed during the Last Glacial Maximum are now submerged. However, Straus excavated Solutrean artifacts along what is now a coastline in Cantabria, which was not coastal at the time of Solutreans, finding seashells and estuarine fish at the sites, but no evidence of exploiting deep sea resources. In addition, the dates of the proposed transitional sites and the Solutrean period in Europe only overlap at the extremes.



Other challenges to the hypothesis include a lack of Solutrean-style artwork (like that found at Altamira in Spain and Lascaux in France) among the Clovis people. In response, proponents point out that this style of art disappears in Europe by the time of Clovis, and that the Solutreans introduced a tool-making innovation and not necessarily cultural or artistic practices.



In a 2008 study of the relevant paleoceanographic data, Kieran Westley and Justin Dix concluded that "it is clear from the paleoceanographic and paleo-environmental data that the LGM North Atlantic does not fit the descriptions provided by the proponents of the Solutrean Atlantic Hypothesis. Although ice use and sea mammal hunting may have been important in other contexts, in this instance, the conditions militate against an ice-edge-following, maritime-adapted European population reaching the Americas."[6]



See also



* Kennewick Man

* Models of migration to the New World

* Haplogroup X (mtDNA)

* Pre-Siberian American Aborigines



Notes



1. ^ The North Atlantic ice-edge corridor: a possible Palaeolithic route to the New World. Bruce Bradley and Dennis Stanford. World Archaeology 2004 Vol. 36(4): 459 – 478. <!-- m -->http://planet.uwc.ac.za/nisl/Conservati ... 202004.pdf<!-- m -->

2. ^ Carey, Bjorn (19 February 2006).First Americans may have been European.Life Science. Retrieved on August 10, 2007.

3. ^ <!-- m -->http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/horizon/20 ... rans.shtml<!-- m -->

4. ^ The First Americans: The Pleistocene Colonization of the New World, Nina G. Jablonski, University of California Press, 2002, pp. 260-271

5. ^ <!-- m -->http://www.ajhg.org/AJHG/fulltext/S0002-9297(08<!-- m -->)00139-0# "Mitochondrial Population Genomics Supports a Single Pre-Clovis Origin with a Coastal Route for the Peopling of the Americas." (2008) Fagundes, Nelson J.R.; Kanitz, Ricardo; Eckert, Roberta; Valls, Ana C.S.; Bogo, Mauricio R.; Salzano, Francisco M.; Smith, David Glenn; Silva, Wilson A.; Zago, Marco A.; Ribeiro-dos-Santos, Andrea K.; Santos, Sidney E.B.; Petzl-Erler, Maria Luiza; Bonatto, Sandro L. American journal of human genetics(volume 82 issue 3 pp.583 - 592)

6. '^ Westley, Kieran; Justin Dix "The Solutrean Atlantic Hypothesis: A View from the Ocean" Journal of the North Atlantic 2008 1:85–98 [1]



References



* Brown M.D., Hosseini S.H., Torroni A., Bandelt H.J., Allen J.C., Schurr T.G., Scozzari R., Cruciani F., Wallace D.C.. "mtDNA haplogroup X: An ancient link between Europe/Western Asia and North America?" American Journal of Human Genetics, 1998 Dec;63(6): 1852-61.



* Greenman, E.F. 1963. "The Upper Palaeolithic and the New World", Current Anthropology, 4: 41–66.



* Hibben, Frank C., "Prehistoric Man in Europe," University of Oklahoma Press, Norman, 1958.



* Jablonski, Nina G., "The First Americans: The Pleistocene Colonization of the New World," University of California Press, 2002



* Reidla, Maere et al., "Origin and Diffusion of mtDNA Haplogroup X", Am J Hum Genet. 2003 November; 73(5): 1178–1190. Published online 2003 October 20.



* Stanford, Dennis, and Bruce Bradley. 2002. "Ocean Trails and Prairie Paths? Thoughts About Clovis Origins." In The First Americans: The Pleistocene Colonization of the New World, Nina G. Jablonski (ed.), pp. 255–271. San Francisco: Memoirs of the California Academy of Sciences, No. 27.



* Stanford, Dennis, and Bruce Bradley. 2004. "The North Atlantic ice-edge corridor: a possible Palaeolithic route to the New World." World Archaeology, 36(4): 459-478.



* Stanford, Dennis, and Bruce Bradley. 2006. "The Solutrean-Clovis connection: reply to Straus, Meltzer and Goebel." World Archaeology, 38(4): 704-714.



* Straus, Lawrence G. 2000. "Solutrean Settlement of North America? A Review of Reality". American Antiquity 63: 7-20.



* Strauss, Larence G et all 1990, 'The LGM in Cantabrian : Spain: the Solutrean', in Soffer and Gamble (eds.) _The world at



18,000 bp: high latitudes_, pp. 89-108. Unwin Hyman. [/quote]

[Teignub]

ok, again, there is archeological evidence that pre-dates the Clovis tool-making finds and Kennewick Man, by tens of thousands of years. and using technology as a means of trying to prove this theory is silly in my book. one person, or culture, rarely, if ever, discovers or utilizes a technology exclusively. these pieces of rock (which they essentially are) are thousands of years old. who knows what could have happened to them by now and to use it as evidence to support such a claim is unfounded.



and, surprise surprise, who puts forth this theory? some anglo-americans. of course they want to prove that europeans were "here first." this justifies in their head all the fucked up nonsense and destruction that europeans and americans have inflicted and continue to inflict on native communities. because, after all, the land is not really theirs as europeans were here first, so they have the right to the land.

[Abzu]

You're ignoring the DNA aspect to the evidence. Additionally, any anglo-racists trying to give their European ancestors a step up in America with this discovery would fail because, once more, teggy, the hypothesis posits that Native Americans are their descendants. They would have to recognize the Native Americans as NATIVE Americans, the American-born descendants of BOTH European and Asian migrants.



This isn't a conspiracy theory "look out for the zionists ohh noez heid in teh bunkerz" generated hypothesis.

[Abzu]

I'm going to reiterate that this hypothesis would not lessen the Native American claim on this land. In fact, it would strengthen it. In it, they did not discover America, they were born here of two separate cultures.

[Methuselah Honeysuckle]

lets all go have corn dogs and beer

[Abzu]

[quote name="Nick"]lets all go have corn dogs and beer[/quote]

[Charles Bronson]

I think I believe the European/Asian multicultural fuck theory.



Although it might be possible that native Americans evolved into humans on the American continent.



Since we're on the topic, and I am too lazy to start a new thread:

Has only thought about everyone at one point being African in race/culture? Everyone says humanity either started in Africa, or Babylonia. Would it be possible if what today we associate with as Europeans, were actually Africans longer ago than the Africans today? And that this "batch" of Africans evolved from the great Apes earlier than today's Europeans?

[Abzu]

[quote name="Uber Grim Kvlt"]I think I believe the European/Asian multicultural fuck theory.



Although it might be possible that native Americans evolved into humans on the American continent.



Since we're on the topic, and I am too lazy to start a new thread:

Has only thought about everyone at one point being African in race/culture? Everyone says humanity either started in Africa, or Babylonia. Would it be possible if what today we associate with as Europeans, were actually Africans longer ago than the Africans today? And that this "batch" of Africans evolved from the great Apes earlier than today's Europeans?[/quote]

I'm not sure if any anthropological evidence to this exists but it is a distinct possibility.



Wouldn't it be neat to find a so-called missing link remains on American soil?

[Teignub]

I dont know if i believe all this but whatever.



Cheers

[Abzu]

Oh I just want to add that Ive never heard anyone say humanity began in Babylonia (or even earlier Sumer), but rather civilization made great leaps and bounds in advancements there.

[Charles Bronson]

[quote name="abzu"]Oh I just want to add that Ive never heard anyone say humanity began in Babylonia (or even earlier Sumer), but rather civilization made great leaps and bounds in advancements there.[/quote]

Well not Babylonia the great city, but that area in Iran. I meant to say Mesopotamia, but I forgot the term.

[Abzu]

[quote name="Uber Grim Kvlt"]
[quote name="abzu"]Oh I just want to add that Ive never heard anyone say humanity began in Babylonia (or even earlier Sumer), but rather civilization made great leaps and bounds in advancements there.[/quote]

Well not Babylonia the great city, but that area in Iran. I meant to say Mesopotamia, but I forgot the term.[/quote]

Gotcha.



I love me some Mesopotamian language, culture, history and mythology.



Iri Ishkur-gal!