It was time I took a few days off from fighting poverty pimps and other things and looked some more into another interesting topic of mine; human evolution and prehistory. This time, I am looking into the settlement of the Americas.
I do not have much regard anymore for academic archeologists. Clovis first? Come off it! All these people just suddenly appeared about 12 000 years ago with their Clovis points and there was nothing in these two continents before that? So they had everything explained and there was no need to look any more!
Then people started finding all these Fell and Fishtail points in South America which were much older than that. So somebody started looking again at these old sites in North America and started finding all these Meadowcroft points and crescents. These idiots had been actually suppressing evidence that did not fit their theory.
It amazes me that they not just ignored but destroyed the Pelican Rapids woman, who had to have been about 20 000 years old and looked nothing like modern indians. They would not even do radiocarbon tests. Is this laziness or fanaticism, or both?
Here is what I have figured out. The first people in America arrived about 50 000 years ago. A second group arrived about 10 000 years later. The ancestors of the present indians arrived before 25 000 years ago by boat and coming down the pacific coast.
A group with caucasian features arrived at the end of the last ice age and also went down the pacific coast. The Patagonians, and the Algonquins, Iroquois and Sioux are partly descended from them. Maybe the Mayas and the Arawaks are too. The Eskimos and Athapascans came along only in the last few thousand years.
It was this second group that started agriculture in Central America about 8 000 years ago, and eventually the Olmec civilization. Later indians came at them from North and South, conquered and subsumed them to make the Aztec and Maya civilizations.
The Andean civilization was also founded by pre indian types, who came up from the amazon. Then the pre-Incas conquered them too. But there are still lots of people running around central and south America with these flat faces, speaking languages that are very different from the Indian's languages. They also have different gene markers.
Somehow nobody noticed this until they were forced to. Why? That is the big archeological mystery.
Some people say it is for fear of pissing of the present day "indians". These folks have a big emotional investment in victimhood. They were the original inhabitants of all the American continents. Then Europeans came and conquered, killed, subsumed them. But what if once long ago their own ancestors were guilty of the same thing?
Several aboriginal peoples of north America, especially in the west, have legends of tall, red haired people who "were here when we came". What happened to these red giants? They aren't saying.
Out in the desert in Nevada some of the more observant archeologists found mummified remains of an "indian" who died in a cave about 2000 years ago. He had red hair.
And there is the Kennewick man, probably about 10 000 years old, who is thought to look like captain Picard from Star Trek. The local ab-originals refused to allow any dating or DNA tests, got control of the bones and disappeared them. Another case of suppressing inconvenient history.
Is the species evolving forwards or backwards? I do not think cro-magnon man or Kennewick man would have survived long if he or she had not the habit of observing every piece of evidence around and interpreting it correctly.
More on reading evidence correctly; I do not think these red haired people got to North America by crossing the Ice on the Atlantic during the ice age. That is because this "solutrean hypothesis" is the most complicated and far fetched possible interpretation of available information. It can't be called a hypothesis; it is a fairy tale.
Why does anyone think that Solutrean points from Europe look anything like Clovis points from North America? The Solutreans disappeared from Europe about 20000 years ago. The Clovis people appeared in North America about 12000 years ago. They all just floated around on the sea ice for 8000 years?
As for how these red haired "caucasian" people got to America, leaving their "R1" gene haplogroups in certain present aboriginal populations, I have a much simpler explanation. There is already great evidence that the R1 and R2 people who look just like us white people originated in northeast Asia and spread from there at the start of the last ice age. If they could get all the way to Europe, to west Africa, and Australia I am sure they could have got to North America too. Or even Patagonia.
I did a little looking into whether there is a true "first people" anywhere on the globe. That is, a people who now exist and have existed in a place from time immemorial with no evidence of any previous inhabitants.
The Maoris? Nope. The tall, blonde people were there first, too. The earlier Maoris talked about them, calling them "Turehu".
The Icelanders? No, we have written records of where they came from. Ditto the Madierans.
It is mind boggling how complicated human history and evolution has been. We are just at the start of really understanding it, through the use of genetic markers as well as improved archeological methods.
Getting racial ideas out of it would help too. What is really pathetic about the idea of "races" is that it all goes on superficial appearances. Different racial groupings that look superficially similar are these days being regularly proved to have very different origins. Or, that people thought to be different "races" are actually very similar.
So, next time I feel prehistoric I think I will look into the origins of European people. Are we really descended from Neandertals?