I've heard lots of theories that Europeans were the TRUE

>>1985393
WE

WUZ

EXPLORERS

N

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/new-evidence-suggests-stone-age-hunters-from-europe-discovered-america-7447152.html

No. There's a reason it's a fringe explanation. Stanford and the very few others who think Solutreans came to North America don't make convincing arguments if you think about their claims critically. It's all extremely circumstantial and relies on some superficial similarities that exist between tools that were used thousands of years apart (it also relies somewhat on the Clovis first model which has been disproven).

And of course the genetic, and pretty much all archaeological, evidence regarding the peopling of the Americas points to happening from Asia.

>>1985393
I think it was some theory to explain some oddities about the native americans lineage. As in before eastern asians and siberians came to american 20000 years ago there already was some eurasians there that came from somewhere else. As far as im aware its only a theory though so there isnt much to back it up. It was mostly an attempt to explain the oddities.

>>1985393

WE

WUZ

SOLUTREANS

MUH

FLUTED

HEADS


yes early caucasoid Iberians could have just followed seals along the Atlantic ice wall and eventually settled the other side. This is plausible af desu.

The ice age really isn't even over yet.

File: 12721925_1022750277785051_2048510087_n.jpg (18KB, 238x320px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 238x320px

I just strongly dislike the Indian argument when people argue against those wanting to lower immigration.

File: 1479360766130.jpg (15KB, 246x206px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 246x206px

>>1985393

The Norse showed up, didn't go get much further south than Labrador and Newfoundland and then fucked off back to Europe after about a decade due to the hostility of the locals. (reminder that these mighty viking warriors tended to loose against actual levy forces instead of unarmed peasants, much like Somali pirates)

The colonization of Greenland eventually collapsed after the Medieval Warm Period ended, as the Norse repeatedly got fucked over by the environment and abandoned their settlements and went back to Iceland, while the Thule inuit, originally from Alaska, continued to expand through Canada's north and into Greenland.

>>1985393
No, it's not supported by genetics. Native Americans are descended from several waves of siberians who crossed the bering straits (and perhaps of a wave of australian aboriginals). But they were all mongoloids.

>>1985687
This. Fuck Indians.

>>1985743
So flint from France dating back to a couple thousand years before the siberians made its way to the east coast from what?
>inb4 Muh Aliens

>>1985761
All I know is that no ancient native american genome which has been deciphered bears any resemblance to ancient european genomes.

And anyways, modern europeans are barely related to ancient europeans...

>>1985393
My understanding is that if it did happen they were wiped out.

File: image.jpg (61KB, 480x437px) Image search: [Google]

61KB, 480x437px

>>1985775
>>1985420
You should read the article, they would of split off from around Spain and Southern France around 19,000 years ago.
Why does it matter if the the people who first discovered the Americas are the same descendant as modern Europeans or not? If they could came from Europe instead of Siberia, wouldn't the academic in you want to reexamine the proof and not dismiss it as We Wuzism

Real talk, there's no sound historical grounds for delegitimizing territory gain by conquest. That's how humans have operated since the dawn of time. Whether violent or nonviolent, the creeping conquering of one culture by another is how humans operate.

This is why, actually, I don't really object to Putin taking the Crimea. They should have stopped him with force if they disapproved.

>>1985805
I've already read the article, it talks about stones, not genetics.

I don't think it matters, in fact I couldn't care less if the first stone age niggers who migrated to America were """europeans""" or siberians. I'm just saying that I've yet to see genetic proof.

>Scandinavians continue claiming they wuz everything in the world because they're an irrelevant cuck shed now thread

baka desu

>>1985820
Well if the population got absorbed or genocides by the siberians migrating into North America, who eventually became a distinct group, and you've said yourself they wouldn't have the DNA as modern Europeans(Cause why would they? That's retarded to think) how do you expect to run DNA test and figure out what population group they originally belong too?
While your at it could you explain the rocks for me too?

>>1985827
They always were irrelevant

>>1985830
Well you'd find skeletons of them and you'd be able to compare them to the skeletons of the ancient europeans.

>what about the rocks
Frankly, no idea.

>>1985393
The Book of Mormon.

>>1985848
Okay, but how could we possibly know where they came from if their DNA is only slightly different from Siberian natives, since they most likely interbred and got absorbed into a much larger population. Do we have 19,000 year old Iberian hunter gather DNA ? What if the entire population mass migrated to the Americas before being absorbed?
You see the rock the biggest indicator for me, I find it much easier to believe that the rock was brought over by Neolithic hunters, who built canoes and crossed the Alantic, in much the same way the Polynesians did, and then got absorbed into a larger population later on.

>>1985877
>Do we have 19,000 year old Iberian hunter gather DNA ?
Yep

> I find it much easier to believe that the rock was brought over by Neolithic hunters, who built canoes and crossed the Alantic, in much the same way the Polynesians did,

That would be very very very very surprising. Humans 19000 years ago were still incredibly primitive. The Polynesians spread around 2000 B.C. and were already a neolithic people.

Furthermore, they spread by doing "island hopping" which is much easier than crossing the Atlantic. It took a lot of technological developments to create boats which could cross the Atlantic. The idea that a bunch of stone age cave dwellers did that 20 000 years ago seems a bit far fetched.

>>1985835
Fuck you pseud. Stop trying to divide whites.

>>1985393
Why don't people realize that even if Europeans wuz the first people here, they wouldn't even be the same race as modern Europeans? The first Sapiens Europeans had dark skin, dark hair, and around 10,000 years ago only recently had dark and light eyes.

>>1985888
https://www.montereyboats.com/The-Very-First-Boat-1-655.html

Perhaps a small group invents boats 10,000 years earlier, and barely make it to the Americas, I mean how rough can ancient seas be? Anything better than a raft could do it.

>>1985775
>And anyways, modern europeans are barely related to ancient europeans...

This. They were about as European as the Khoisan are African.

>>1985907
Very rough. Good luck navigating the Atlantic in a dugout canoe.

Honestly, why do you think it so long for europeans to discover America (or rediscover, according to your theory).

Even when the Vikings discovered North America, they essentially did that by "hopping" through iceland and greenland.

>>1985915
>"Very rough. Good luck navigating the Atlantic in a dugout canoe"

You wouldn't have to, just paddle as long as you can and let the currents do their thing.

>"Honestly, why do you think it so long for Europeans to discover America"

Honestly a lack of interest and superstition for most of their history, I mean remember they knew the earth was round since Ancient Greece, they just thought it would be suicide to sail across into nothingness. Without a strong motivator sailors and captains aren't going to risk throwing their lives away trying to reach new lands.
However when Islam took control off the flow of goods from the Far East their was strong financial incentive to discover technology that might help then go around the cape of Africa, with that new technology they then tried the Atlantic

>>1985902
And just how dark was their skin?

Of course there was a migration of the ancients into the New World, they didn't just appear out of nowhere.
Also, the claim that they were peaceful and owned the land is false, they fought and conquered tribes within their land, they're just butthurt whites could conquer better than anybody else.

http://rbth.com/science_and_tech/2016/02/23/its-official-native-americans-and-siberians-are-cousins_569517
>dude white people are such bigots, go back to your own nations like ugh we are all immigrants except natives lol they own this land and didn't sell it/lose to the Europeans.
>also even though disease through contact between populations is an unfortunate product of early civilizations, whites are solely guilty for this encounter producing the effects because they are just that special and bigoted.
Leftism: not even once.

>>1985805
If you need Vitamin D supplements to survive, you were never designed to live on this planet.

>inb4 I get banned because the mods on /his/ are incredibly hypocritical

>>1986500
Except Colombus and his party sold native children into sex slavery and knowingly gave the natives smallpox blankets...

I'm not saying "muh evil whites", but any attempt to reduce history to good/bad or right/wrong is a mistake. You're not showing yourself to be any more intellectual than your ideological opponents with rhetoric like this.

>>1986517
That which can be asserted without evidence can be denied without evidence. Show me your proof, I will refute it with mine. Until then, your allegations are bullshit.

>>1986517
>his party sold native children into sex slavery
No, he didn't, Columbus was a slaver, a quite brutal one actually but not a fucking child traffiking ringleader
>and knowingly gave the natives smallpox blankets
Yeah, except that happen almost 250 years after Columbus

>>1986517
>>1986530
Specifically, show me this malicious intent carried out (the knowledge of which Columbus knew of) and that the disease was spread with intent, instead of settler contact.

>>1985830
>While your at it could you explain the rocks for me too?
It's a big red flag for me that any information on tools clearly dated to the Solutrean era, and sourced from Europe, are only found on small, sensationalist articles supporting the Solutrean hypothesis. I'm not saying it's complete bullshit, but if the identifications were as concrete as Stanford and Bradley claim, this shit should be all over the place. But it's not, and the vague descriptions of how they were identified is a big clue. I'm an archaeologist and I know how easy it can be to fudge data, or even to overlook certain things because of confirmation bias..

I mean, how were they identified in the first place? Dating stone artifacts is actually really hard to do, especially if you're trying to create a new type or fit something into a time period that has no commonly accepted dates associated with it. After all, you can't date the rock itself in any meaningful way, or its modifications, except through context (which is also how typing is done most of the time). The only details I can find are vague things about a tool found in Virginia, and some things found underwater, with descriptions from people who think Clovis and Solutrean tools look the same. Sourcing actually isn't much of a big deal, because rocks can travel in a few different ways (including the shipping of flint for firearms during the historical period, for one example). So, unless I see otherwise, I'm assuming those identifications are the result of confirmation bias. They probably found things they associated with the Solutrean time period because of their hypothesis.

I'm turning this into two posts. Continued below.

>>1987439
It's really important to approach things like this critically, and examine the arguments based on what is presented, and the way it is. I mean, this is would represent a huge change in paradigm, and if there was something behind it, it would be huge archaeological news. But no one else talks about it, and that's usually a good sign other people who have seen the methodology don't buy it (maybe that's why their findings were published in a book for popular audiences and not put up for peer review). If the only sources for an extraordinary claim I can find are from the person claiming it, and he's not even being specific about why I should believe him, I'm not very inclined to.

And again, that isn't their main argument. It's just a few vague claims they haven't really substantiated in any notable way. The main crux of the argument is the supposed similarity between Clovis and Solutrean tools. In reality, the similarities between the two are pretty much superficial, and the tools were used thousands of years apart. If Solutreans came to the Americas 19,000 years ago, why do the earliest tools supposedly made by the same people date from several thousands of years later? Why is there such a huge gap? Why wouldn't the tools have changed more in that time (tools in North America actually evolved usually faster than that? Why have other, pre-Clovis tools been found that don't look connected to Solutreans? Why do Stanford and Bradley never even attempt to explain any of this?

>>1986538
>No, he didn't, Columbus was a slaver, a quite brutal one actually but not a fucking child traffiking ringleader
Columbus himself bragged about it in his diaries.