CPTBILs mention of Aztec pictographs in SE Arizona

[Oroblanco]

Re: CPTBIL's mention of Aztec pictographs in SE Arizona

Greetings Joe (and HOLA amigos to everyone),

Cactusjumper wrote

<Oroblanco wrote>One then has to wonder why these Clovis people with the new, improved tools, cooking techniques etc didn't spread back across the land bridge? What could have prevented them?"

There could be many reasons but the strongest, IMHO, would be the length of time they had been gone from Siberia.
We are talking generations here, and they didn't even realize they had left their original homeland. The land changed little until they reached the interior of Alaska, which was infinitely better than anything they had seen during their migration.

Isn't that making an assumption that they didn't realize their geographic location? Based on (admittedly much more modern) Amerindians surprising knowledge of the geography of America, for example look at Sacajawea's guiding of Lewis and Clark, whom could have predicted her knowledge of such a vast area? There is evidence that Pimas of southern Arizona were aware of Susquehannocks in PA, and many other instances come to mind. So I respectfully disagree on this point.

Cactusjumper also wrote

The oldest people found in Alaska belonged to the Nenana Culture. They built their fires on the open ground with no preparation. Does that sound like your Siberian mammoth hunters?

Yes, but only on that single practice. The Nenana made and used bifaced stone tools quite unlike the microblade technology found in Asia. Then too the Nenana culture also did not apparently spread southward into America, as if something were blocking their path. Like a gigantic continental glacier, for instance...

The oldest Nenana sites date to 11,000 years ago too - when the oldest known Clovis sites date back 13,500 years, so Nenana cannot be the ancestors of Clovis.

Cactusjumper also wrote

I believe just as many qualified opinions can be found for the ice free corridor as against the theory. It would take weeks to list them all. While there is no physical evidence, it's a popular theory.....with legs, so to speak

Ah yes - qualified OPINIONS we could list ad nauseum - however the geologists have fairly proven that no such ice-free corridor existed in the time frame it has to be there for the Bering Strait land bridge migration theory to work, in fact from 21,000 years back it was closed, covered with glaciers clear across the continent. (Geology) Of course it is possible (though unlikely) those proto-Americans simply hiked across the tops of a thousand miles of glacier, so left no clues to their passing that way - without any available fuel, game etc it would have been quite a journey. So the other choices are the coastal route (using the sea) or to have crossed earlier than 21,000 years ago - also possible.

Cactusjumper also wrote

There is ample evidence that the mammoth hunters of Siberia did construct tents. Once they arrived on this continent, and the mammoth became scarce, they naturally changed their methods of construction. If you could build a tent using slender wooden poles, would you continue to use mammoth bones

Is it so "natural" to expect a culture to suddenly change their practices, when the terrain of America they first entered was virtually identical with that of Asia? I would much sooner use light weight wooden poles than heavy bones, however we are back to a similar question, if this habit evolved here, why didn't it spread back into Asia? When it comes to the habit of building a shelter, ancient peoples seem to have been quite resistant to change. For that matter, modern folks are also somewhat resistant to change when it comes to housing... (We can buy lightweight and inexpensive tents that we could live in rather than build huge masonry and wooden structures, yet we don't. )
Roy ~ Oroblanco

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Minelab PRO-FIND 35 Waterproof Pinpointer Metal Detector for Experts with Tone ID & Adjustable Sensitivity - Grab it through Amazon!

[cactusjumper]

Re: CPTBIL's mention of Aztec pictographs in SE Arizona

Roy,

You have been working way too many hours. Our discussions here are much more important than any job.

The land bridge did not remain open all the time. Water could have been a problem for those who were not boat people.

The land first settled by the Nenana was in the interior of Alaska and into the Yukon. That area was ice free during the Ice Ages. It was not the same as the land they left in Siberia or the land they travelled on to get here, nor was it anything like the land that was the West coast of Alaska.

I doubt they knew their "geographic location". Your examples are not even remotely equal to the situation of the first Amerindians. Most of the later Indian tribes were traders. They traveled extensively in a land that provided sustenance everywhere they turned. They knew this land very well, but they had lived here for many generations.

Assuming they wanted to return to Siberia, which I don't, it would not have been easy. Assuming they found the land bridge open, it was not and had never been a hospitable place. Those who decided to try the open ocean, likely died in the effort. Even today, the Bering Sea is a very dangerous place......for modern boats. They had plenty of open water to cross, and it's rough up there. Having been involved in SAR out of Kodiak, I can vouch for that. Nothing quite compares to riding the bow of a 28' boat, in a storm, while practicing touch and go with a chopper.

I don't discount that the Nenana were blocked by the ice. It's likely they were land lubbers.....so to speak. Blade technology was different and evolving everywhere. What ties them to Asians is their heads, teeth, language and DNA. I probably left something out, but it's late. Some of that is where a famous figure from LDM history comes in. True he played a very small part in that history, but it was a very big story.

"Yes, but only on that single practice. The Nenana made and used bifaced stone tools quite unlike the microblade technology found in Asia."

The answer to your statement was provided by Hans Jurgen Muller-Beck in the 1960s. To make a long and interesting story short, "he advanced a conceptual framework suggesting that a bifacial technology preceded subsequent microblade technology in eastern Beringia based on similar sequences documented in the Old World." That "conceptual framework" was later proven by fieldwork in the 1970s & '80s.

"The oldest Nenana sites date to 11,000 years ago too - when the oldest known Clovis sites date back 13,500 years, so Nenana cannot be the ancestors of Clovis."

I don't disagree with you here either. My guess is that the boat people arrived much earlier than the Nenana Culture. They came along in groups of boats, and slowely populate the coast line moving south. These were the probable direct ancestors of Clovis, IMHO. (Very unqualified) I also agree that crossings earlier than 21,000 years ago is possible.

Take care,

Joe

 

[Oroblanco]

Re: CPTBIL's mention of Aztec pictographs in SE Arizona

Joe - I forgot to thank you for posting those links, and for your highly interesting replies, I will give you a better reply soon but have to hit the hay for tonight. (I agree with you too - no job could be as important as our history-questioning discussion! ) Oh well, that old saying about employment is all-too-true -

"Work, the curse of the drinking class"

<SHADDUP Real de Tayopa - which reminds me, you have been strangely quiet lately, hope everything is OK>

I learn a bit more interesting tibits about you Joe, every now and then, like your working Search and Rescue out of Kodiak, will have to ask you about a particular pair of islands you may have visited while you were there some time. Take it easy Joe I will get back with you as soon as possible.
Roy

 

[cactusjumper]

Re: CPTBIL's mention of Aztec pictographs in SE Arizona

Roy,

Actually, as I remember it, SAR stood for Sea Air Rescue. I will never forget being out on the bow of that small boat, one hand for the Government, and the other for me. There were times when I could see nothing but water. Chopper would fly above us and drop the basket down to the boat. I would have to touch the basket and they would haul it back up.

When I think of those first explorers in their tiny hide covered boats, making that trip..........makes me shudder. Now add your families, the family goat, chicken and weapons, and it was quite the feat. I know there were a few solid stops along the route, but for a man to attempt that, he would need a separate boat just to haul his balls.

The latest find in Oregon and the results down in Monte Verde, and a clearer picture is slowly emerging. Given time, if you and I don't solve it first, the archaeologists will know just what happened.

Take care,

Joe

 

[Oroblanco]

Re: CPTBIL's mention of Aztec pictographs in SE Arizona

HOLA amigo Joe (and everyone reading this),
I had thought if I had more time I could give you a more intelligent reply, but that was wishful thinking on my part! I will give it a try anyway...

Cactusjumper wrote

as I remember it, SAR stood for Sea Air Rescue

I am sure you remember it correctly, I was guessing the S-A-R must logically stand for 'search - and - rescue' but Sea Air makes perfect sense.

Cactusjumper also wrote

When I think of those first explorers in their tiny hide covered boats, making that trip..........makes me shudder.

Well even modern Inuit (not sure about any Eskimos) still travel the open seas in the traditional and ancient design tiny skin-covered kayaks. Polynesians crossed the Pacific in open boats several thousand years ago, carrying pigs, families etc successfully. A key difference is our being tied to the modern clock and calendar, ancient folks could afford to wait for the very best time of year, the best weather etc. Surely some must have run into foul weather and likely drowned or died of exposure, just as modern people occasionally become trapped out on ice floes etc but they had no SAR to come to their aid.

I want to return to a point we covered - the assumption that ancient mammoth hunters would not be aware of their geography as a reason why they would not return to Asia. Remember that those people had brains the same size as ours, with the same powers of reasoning we have. To compare them with similar cultures of later periods then is not such a stretch - the Plains Indians had very much the same technology as the mammoth hunting Clovis people up until they received the horses and modern weaponry, yet they traveled over huge areas of the plains following the herds. Mammoths would likely have migrated in much the same way as bison did, so the hunters very likely had a fairly good knowledge of the geography at least over the ranges where their main quarry traveled and adjacent regions, even if just from following the herds as they hunted them. Then too, there is evidence of long-distance trade going on quite far back in history (Obsidian and flint). While some historians do not consider a trade in stone tools to be "trade" by most measures it would be described as such.

So I respectfully disagree with you on this point, that the mammoth hunters would not have a good knowledge of their geography and that they had trekked into new lands, and also respectfully disagree that my example of modern Indians with similar good geographical knowledge is not a fair simile, based on physical traits of humans not being remarkably different and that the technologies of such modern Indians was not remarkably different from that of peoples like Clovis.

I have one more question that you may have already answered, how do you account for the negroid peoples found in extreme southern South America (most closely related to Australian Aborigines) with quite ancient human remains of this same ethnicity? Do you also have these people walk across the Bering land bridge? Thank you in advance,

''We can no longer say that the first colonizers of the Americas came from the north of Asia, as previous models have proposed,'' said Dr. Walter Neves, an anthropologist at the University of Sao Paulo, who made the initial discovery along with an Argentine colleague, Hector Pucciarelli. ''This skeleton is nearly 2,000 years older than any skeleton ever found in the Americas, and it does not look like those of Amerindians or North Asians.''
http://www.nytimes.com/1999/10/26/s...-held-theories.html?sec=&spon=&pagewanted=all
Roy ~ Oroblanco

 

[cactusjumper]

Re: CPTBIL's mention of Aztec pictographs in SE Arizona

Roy,

Kind of difficult for us to fathom the thought process of Stone Age man. While their brains may have been equal in size, their ability to process the kind of ideas you suggest seems remote, at best. I should think their thinking was pretty basic......food, shelter and sex. If all of those items were available, I doubt they spent much time worrying about their childrens future.....beyond keeping them out of the reach of a bear.....etc.

The Bearing Land Bridge was open for thousands of years at a stretch. Even when there was land only part of the way, the water was shallow enough to freeze, allowing people and animals to cross over the ice in winter.

The mammoth hunters did not live in one place for any length of time. Their home was moved from mammoth kill to mammoth kill. They stayed in that spot until the animal was consumed. Cold weather was their friend. The bands were very small by necessity. Sharing the food supply with large numbers of people required multiple kills, and lots of veggies.....

Siberia was a mixed bag of cultures. To say they all shared the same kind of blade technology or even language would be far from the reality. I am not at home, but I know for a fact that there were blade technologies in Siberia and Alaska, that were close enough to be called sisters. I will give you the details later.

I am of the opinion that Clovis evolved here, and in a place that made returning the technology back across the Land Bridge.......impossible, or a return trip by watercraft unlikely. That return trip had to be done with a purpose, and I can't see the connection to Siberia thousands of years after the ancestors of Clovis made the journey.

Take care,

Joe

 

[Oroblanco]

Re: CPTBIL's mention of Aztec pictographs in SE Arizona

HOLA mi amigo Joe,
In my opinion you are greatly underestimating the mental capabilities of our ancestors, not sure what evidence would change your view. As we have no written record from that time we can at best surmise much of what we think about them. I presume you have seen some of the complex carvings of the late Paleolithic for instance, believed to be calendars; wouldn't that suggest to you at least some level of more complex thought than "eat, breed, sleep" near-animal mentality? What about the burials? Even Neanderthal burials show signs of a belief in some kind of diety and an afterlife - what ape acts in this way?

Do you attribute the negroid peoples also to the land-bridge route? No one has proven the route taken by that group (of course) and the only proposed route I have seen involves much more open water crossing than anyone going over the Atlantic. (I have a map here but can't scan it to post it, the theory goes that Australo-aboriginal peoples colonized Australia-NZ and then direct across the south Pacific to land in southern South America - over 5000+ miles of open sea.) Thank you in advance,
Roy ~ Oroblanco

 

[cactusjumper]

Re: CPTBIL's mention of Aztec pictographs in SE Arizona

Good morning Roy,

I should have known better than to make such a simplistic statement when you are on the other side of the discussion.

The Paleolithic anthropomorphic art, especially from Siberia, (our major concern) as well as the theories about possible calendars, seem to bolster my comments, rather than detract from them. While it all shows a thought process well above the animal, as it should, it all revolves around food, sex and shelter. That seems basic to me, and yet I recognize the seminal abstract thought process that was involved. They certainly did not make a quick leap from carving a woman's figure, with large buttocks, to the theory of relativity.

Another element of their artistic abilities, deals with the construction of shelters........Architecture. On the other hand, birds build elaborate nests, burrowers extensive tunnel systems that will keep out the water, beavers dams that double as homes, bee's hives, ant's mounds......etc.

I will cede the point that my comments were overly simplistic. You must give me a little slack when I am separated from my intelligence, (books) when I am at the store. In that setting, I am barely above Paleolithic Man. Some would argue that it makes no difference where I am.

One of the burial sites I am familiar with, is on the Kamchatka peninsula. Dikov discovered it, I believe, in the late 70s. The Ushki cultures had burial sites, but in addition to that, they built shelters that included "wigwam-like types of construction". "Some of the dwellings contained the remains of circular hearths curbed with large stones". In addition to that, there was a burial site for a "domesticated dog."

"The Frames of the Ushki dwellings were not constructed of large animal bones, but evidently of wooden poles."

To return to the Lithics' connection between Siberia and Alaska: "Materials found in the Upper Paleolithic sites in Yakutia have much in common with those from the Selemdzha. We suggest that the main D'uktai tradition technocomplex is finally connected to the Selemdzha one. This hypothesis finds support in geography, as the Aldan and Zeya river systems are separated from each other only by the Stanovoi range. The appearance of the D'uktai tradition in Alaska is probably associated with a population movement from the Selemdzha and Zeya regions that possibly took place at the end of the Kargin warming and the beginning of the Sartan cooling."

One of the major stumbling blocks for making the connections between the technologies of Siberia and Alaska, is the lack of much attention to the archaeological sites in northeastern Siberia. Most of the published data comes from the south. In recent years, that has started to change.

Other than my personal opinions, much of factual information above comes from the book, "The Paleolithic of Siberia". My......impressions, forget memories, have required me to go back and reread a number of books. It's amazing how many times I find that my memory ain't so good no more, although I think I may have mentioned "D'uktai".

Take care,

Joe

 

[cactusjumper]

Re: CPTBIL's mention of Aztec pictographs in SE Arizona

Roy,

I believe the earliest archaeological evidence for Africans in the Americas, is no earlier than 1300 AD. I haven't looked into that history, so don't know how it fits into our discussion. When the African mariners landed, they joined the people and religions they found here.

I don't know if this is germane to our conversation, but I believe the first Asians came from Africa.

I am not sure I would call paleolithic man's "calendars" complex. They were pretty simple scratches or dots denoting the phases of the moon, and women's menstrual cycles. From what I have read, anything else requires a very discerning eye and a vivid imagination.

Haven't read about those "calendar sticks" in some time, so new stuff may have passed me by.

Take care,

Joe

 

[Oroblanco]

Re: CPTBIL's mention of Aztec pictographs in SE Arizona

HOLA amigo Joe (and everyone),

Cactusjumper wrote

I believe the earliest archaeological evidence for Africans in the Americas, is no earlier than 1300 AD. I haven't looked into that history, so don't know how it fits into our discussion. When the African mariners landed, they joined the people and religions they found here.

I don't know if this is germane to our conversation, but I believe the first Asians came from Africa.

I am not sure I would call paleolithic man's "calendars" complex. They were pretty simple scratches or dots denoting the phases of the moon, and women's menstrual cycles. From what I have read, anything else requires a very discerning eye and a vivid imagination.

Haven't read about those "calendar sticks" in some time, so new stuff may have passed me by.

It seems my use of the term "Negroid" has led to confusion - Negroid refers to peoples such as the Australian Aborigines, not specifically Africans, just as Caucasoid refers to peoples like the Ainu. The human remains found in South America such as Luzia (linked to NYT article in previous post) are Negroid, and DNA studies have shown certain Amerindians of extreme southern South America also to be Negroid. <Specifically referring to Aurocanians (South Chile)> Some scientists separate the Aussie Aboriginese from Negroids and refer to them as Australoids, so I will use that term to avoid any further confusion.

By the "out of Africa" theory, all humans come from Africa (the less widely accepted "out of Asia" theory has them originate in east Asia of course) so we are on the same page there. As for evidence of Africans coming to America, that would depend on just how strictly you define that term "Africans". (A whole 'nother discussion)

Anyway let me re-phrase my earlier question - now referring to the peoples found in South America whom are most closely related to Australian Aborigines, like Luzia in Brazil (11,500 years ago, stone tools hint at humans arriving in South America around 50,000 years ago) how do you say that those Australoid people got there? By the same land bridge over the Bering strait? The locations where related peoples are found are not in east Asia but far south. (Funny where you find Australoids - southern India for example.) Thank you in advance,
Roy

 

[Real de Tayopa Tropical Tramp]

Re: CPTBIL's mention of Aztec pictographs in SE Arizona

sheess gentlemen DUH !

Don Jose de La Mancha

 

[pippinwhitepaws]

Re: CPTBIL's mention of Aztec pictographs in SE Arizona

cutting edge...not even academia knows this stuff. i should be taking notes.

 

[cactusjumper]

Re: CPTBIL's mention of Aztec pictographs in SE Arizona

pip,

No need to take notes, as we don't delete our posts and rewrite them, as you just did here. Instead of disrupting the conversation, go ahead and question some of the comments that are being made. That's what forums are for.

"i especially enjoy the part where the americas did not exist until someone like you showed up by accident and 'discovered' america."

As you chose to make this comment on another site, I would appreciate your explaining where I wrote anything like that.

Unless I state that something is my personal opinion, I have excellent sources for my comments. I am not a scholar, and have never claimed to be one. Let me repeat, for the umpteenth time, I am a fan of history........not a professional student. I will make mistakes, and when they are pointed out, will correct them.

If you have something constructive to add to this conversation, please don't hesitate. If not, there is little point in your being here.

I am here to learn, which does not always include nodding my head in agreement.

And you are here for..........??

Joe Ribaudo

 

[cactusjumper]

Re: CPTBIL's mention of Aztec pictographs in SE Arizona

Roy,


Thank you for your reply.

I don't have an answer for how they got to South America. I have no problem with the theory that they made the trip in boats. That does not, IMHO, negate the possibility that they walked across the land bridge, and found a way to South America. By the same token, I believe they could have made the entire trip by boat......out of Siberia. It may be out there, but I have not read a definitive answer.

If there were answers, I suppose this conversation would be over. Maybe pip and Jose can add something.

Take care,

Joe

 

[Furness]

Re: CPTBIL's mention of Aztec pictographs in SE Arizona

Hi All,

I've followed this with interest so can i put my 2 cents worth in as a interested reader of history and not a researcher in any way, i wont get into the land bridge discussion how man spread from his beginnings which most academics believe was the rift valley, but on the difference between the Australian and New Zealand natives,

with regards the Australian Aborigines, like most native peoples they have an oral history going back at least 40,000 years with segments going back even further, their own history indicates they came from the north and arrived in Australia before the continents drifted apart coming from the super continent called in their history gonwanda land,

the Maori's in New Zealand arrived there many many thousands of years later and their oral history says from the east, so presumably island hopping from south America,

over time genetic differences occurred as it does in all species, and there are differences between the genetic makeup of both groups of people, the two groups are not identical,

another point to ponder is that the Australian Aborigines are the only tribe never to have invented or used the bow and arrow, which is unique for any species of man on this planet, indicating there arrival in Australia at a very early time in the history of mankind and being isolated from all other native tribes ,

and ( i think ) the only tribe to have invented the woomera which is a throwing stick used with spears and is not found anywhere else,

cheers all, furness

 

[Cubfan64]

Re: CPTBIL's mention of Aztec pictographs in SE Arizona

another point to ponder is that the Australian Aborigines are the only tribe never to have invented or used the bow and arrow, which is unique for any species of man on this planet, indicating there arrival in Australia at a very early time in the history of mankind and being isolated from all other native tribes ,

and ( i think ) the only tribe to have invented the woomera which is a throwing stick used with spears and is not found anywhere else,

cheers all, furness

I'm not familiar with the Woomera, but when I read your description, I immediately thought of this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlatl

Interesting that it may once again be another indication of shared cultures.

 

[Furness]

Re: CPTBIL's mention of Aztec pictographs in SE Arizona

Hi Cubfan,

yes your correct it is almost identical, (glad i put i think in my original post)
as you say two diffrent tribes at diffrent periods in history, both with the same idea,

furness

 

[Oroblanco]

Re: CPTBIL's mention of Aztec pictographs in SE Arizona

Don Jose', Dueno de Minas y Real de Tayopa wrote

sheess gentlemen DUH !

My sincere apologies Don Jose if our discussion has not reached the ultra-cerebral levels of someone like BB, we are not academics and do make the occasional error, as in this case a simple misunderstanding due to the use of a rather hazy term. Mea culpa for the sloppy post that could so easily be taken several ways.

Pippinwhitepaws wrote

cutting edge...not even academia knows this stuff. i should be taking notes.

On the assumption that your statements are not tongue-in-cheek humor, thank you for the kind words. As this subject is right up your alley, we would all benefit from your views and opinions, if you would share them with us? What do you think? Is the Bering land bridge the whole answer, or is it more complex? Thank you in advance,

Cactusjumper wrote

I don't have an answer for how they got to South America. I have no problem with the theory that they made the trip in boats. That does not, IMHO, negate the possibility that they walked across the land bridge, and found a way to South America. By the same token, I believe they could have made the entire trip by boat......out of Siberia. It may be out there, but I have not read a definitive answer.

If there were answers, I suppose this conversation would be over. Maybe pip and Jose can add something.

Well one proposed theory is a southern, cross-Pacific colonizing which included Australia. As much as I can readily accept the idea of Ice-age people crossing the sea while following a coastline or ice-pack edge, as this would require no great navigation just following a coast - there is no such coastline or ice-pack to follow from Australia to South America, the distance is very great with few places to stop for water etc. I agree with your suggestion - what do you fellows <Jose, Pip, Furness, Cubfan and everyone else reading this> think?
Furness wrote

another point to ponder is that the Australian Aborigines are the only tribe never to have invented or used the bow and arrow, which is unique for any species of man on this planet, indicating there arrival in Australia at a very early time in the history of mankind and being isolated from all other native tribes

Your points are very interesting amigo, and the fact that they had not yet invented the bow and arrow was one reason why at least one researcher suggested the Aborigines were not even homo sapiens sapiens but descendants of an earlier type of human <homo habilis if memory serves> however DNA tests have shown Aborigines are wholly modern humans. So based on their technology, we can conclude an early arrival in Australia and at least relative isolation from other cultures. This is in agreement with the archaeology, but as for some of the current theories I have some problems with them. For instance, one theory has it that the Aborigines are directly responsible for the destruction/extinction of the so-called "mega-fauna" of Australia (the huge critters and dangerous predators like Marsupial Lions) by burning off the whole continent. While the use of fires may have had some effect and human predation did "add" to the pressures on the large animals, it seems a tad ridiculous to me to suggest that a relative handful of humans, arriving in a continent of some 3 million square miles, could burn the whole of the continent off rapidly enough to cause mass extinctions. Their hunting weapons were primitive, even compared with some others in use in the Ice Age (like the Clovis we have been discussing) as they did not have the right types of stone for making effective stone spear points, arrow points etc. I believe (personal opinion) that worldwide climate change or some type of catastrophe is more responsible for the mass extinctions, unless we want to say that a couple of hundred humans armed with fire could utterly devastate over 3 million square miles and directly cause drastic rainfall changes.
Examples of this "Firestick Farming Theory"
http://uninews.unimelb.edu.au/news/170/
<pay to read article>
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/309/5732/287
Thank you amigos for your replies, I look forward to reading your responses.
your friend,
Roy ~ Oroblanco

 

[cactusjumper]

Re: CPTBIL's mention of Aztec pictographs in SE Arizona

Furness and Roy,

"another point to ponder is that the Australian Aborigines are the only tribe never to have invented or used the bow and arrow, which is unique for any species of man on this planet, indicating there arrival in Australia at a very early time in the history of mankind and being isolated from all other native tribes"

A few years ago I was researching Mormonism and the history of the Mormons, as described in the Book Of Mormon. In doing that, I did some research into the history of the bow and arrow. I talked to some archaeologists here, and in Mexico.

As I recall, the bow was probably invented around the end of the Paleolithic and beginning of the Mesolithic era. As far as I remember, the first evidence/artifact for a bow dates to around 11,000 years ago. If the first humans arrived in Australia around 50,000 years ago, that predates the bow considerably.

As Furness indicated, I seem to remember that there is a theory that Australia was connected to the mainland at one time. Once the waters rose, the people were, likely, cut off from all contact with the outside world. They were stuck with the spear throwers.

I have not heard that different cultures invented the bow independently from each other. In every case I have read of, the concept of the bow was passed along from region to region. If there is evidence contrary to that, I would appreciate someone bringing it up.

My papers on this subject are buried, but I will dig them up if there is enough interest in the subject. It is pretty well accepted how the bow arrived in the Americas, and there is some evidence of how it advance south. That chronology has always been difficult to establish, because of the composition of bows and arrows. Much of the timeline, as I understand it, comes from lithics and art. Lithics can be ambiguous, because of the atlatl.

That is not to say the evidence does not exist, as artifacts that have been in caves can last for thousands of years. Other methods of natural preservation, of course, also exist.

Take care,

Joe

 

[pippinwhitepaws]

Re: CPTBIL's mention of Aztec pictographs in SE Arizona

since no one knows the age of creation, and we do know Pangaea existed, why is it necessary to identify an imaginary migration, as the physical reality could be people were here at the time the continent of Pangaea split into what we now live upon.

http://kids.earth.nasa.gov/archive/pangaea/Pangaea_game.html

http://faculty.gg.uwyo.edu/heller/Historical Geology/Historical Lect 9/pangea_map.htm

i realize my input is not desired...alternative opinions based on fact is not often accepted.

take care...