Conference hydra::dejavu

    I have heard something like this from "respectable" sources.  I
    don't remember the number of years (I could look it up if you would
    like), but do remember the "doubling".  The evidence is legit but
    controversial.
    
    There seems to be a long-term controversy in the paleoanthropology
    of the New World, with a small minority of "respected kooks" argueing
    for more ancient habitation than the mainstream.  Sometimes they
    have proven right (or part right) and the controversy renews with
    new boundaries.
    
    			Topher
    

I think that this is what you want.  I'm extracting it from _Science_News_,
June 28, 1986, vol 129, #26; pp405-406.
___________________________________________________________________________

	PEOPLE IN AMERICAS BEFORE LAST ICE AGE?

A rock shelter on a sandstone cliff in northeastern Brazil has yielded
evidence of the earliest known human occupation in the Americas,
approximately 32,000 years ago, according to a report by two French
scientists.

Although the discovery, reported in the June 19 NATURE, does not resolve
long-standing archaeological disputes over when and how people first
arrived in the New World, the site is much older than others where human
occupation has been firmly established.  Several such finds in the
southwestern United States date to 11,500 years ago, and a rock shelter
near Pittsburgh is thought to contain evidence of use by humans, 19,000
years ago; previously, the earliest known site occupied by humans in South
America was 14,200 years old.

The case for a much earlier occupation at the Brazilian site, known as
Pedra Furada, is based on radiocarbon dating of charcoal from hearths found
in different layers of sediment beneath the floor of the shelter.  Stone
tools have also been found in the same layers of earth, say anthropologist
Ni(e`)de Guidon of the Institute of Advanced Social Science Studies in
Paris and Georgette Delibrias of the French National Center for Scientific
Research in Gif-sur-Yvette.

Carbon dates from the sedimentary layers indicate, according to the
researchers, that the shelter was occupied repeatedly by different groups
of tool-making people from at least 32,000 years ago until as recently as
6,000 years ago.

In addition, the investigators note that a hearth in the shelter dated at
17,000 years old contains a rock with two red painted lines, suggesting
that cave art began in the Americas about the same time it appeared in
Europe and Africa.  The walls and ceiling of Pedra Furada are still covered
with prehistoric paintings.

[Some paragraphs indicating that other researchers feel that the find is
what it appears to be; mention of 33,000 site which *may* contain human
artifacts.]

Most archaeologists have held that people first reached the Americas from
Asia sometime between 11,500 and 20,000 years ago by crossing a land bridge
that connected Siberia and Alaska, across the Bering Straits.  At that
time, the last ice age created massive continental glaciers and
considerably lowered worldwide sea levels.

Recent South American discoveries that predate North American sites have
caused some researchers to speculate that people first arrived in South
America after voyaging across the Pacific Ocean and the spread Northward.

[Rest of the article discusses disagreements with this thesis.  The Bering
Straits is still considered the far more likely means of entrance.]
___________________________________________________________________________

There is no discussion as to whether these people are the root stock of the
"American Indian" or not (I can't use "Native Americans" here, since even
if these early inhabitants are unrelated to the present day NA they deserve
that name at least as much).  It would seem unlikely, in my opinion, since
the AmerInd seems less than 32,000 years genetically removed from Asian
stock -- but I'm not an expert.  A later wave could have occurred, and either
found the New World empty for some reason, could have wiped out the earlier
inhabitants, or could have interbred with them.

			Topher

    In response to your last paragraph, Topher:
    There were at least two "waves" of immigrants, one group characterized
    by having only Type O blood, and the other by having both Types
    A and O.  (I've entirely forgotten where I read this, or how it
    was determined.)
    							Ann B.

    re .3:
    
    Sounds like a "bloodbath" to me! :-)
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.
    

    Found a good book called "America, B.C." which shows that there
    were early settlements of Celts, Libyans, Phonecians, and Egyptians
    in the North Americas before Christ.  It seems that more evidence
    for North American settlement is found every year. If there is any
    interest I will briefly enter some of the pertinent text here.
                            
      Mikie?

    	This is certainly no reflection on the poster of the last reply,
    but I have talked to several archaeologists from the University
    of Massachusetts at Amherst who say that AMERICA, B.C. is an absolute
    crock along the lines of Charles Berlitz's THE BERMUDA TRIANGLE
    or Von Daniken's CHARIOTS OF THE GODS.
    
    	The author of the AMERICA, B.C. has either purposely or
    unintentionally misinterpreted numerous Amerind artifacts, and made
    highly unsubstatiated connections to other cultures.
    
    	All the good, proven evidence shows that peoples from Asia migrated
    across the now non-existant land bridge of the Bering Strait into
    North America about 40,000 years ago.  These people were of Mongoloid
    descent.  Any other cultures which came to the Americas did so many
    thousands of years later.
                             
    	Larry
    

    Re: .6

    >	All the good, proven evidence shows that peoples from Asia migrated
    > across the now non-existant land bridge of the Bering Strait into
    > North America about 40,000 years ago.  These people were of Mongoloid
    > descent.  Any other cultures which came to the Americas did so many
    > thousands of years later.

    What "good, proven evidence" are you talking about?

    I have seen the Mystery Hill in Salem, New Hampshire, and I thought the
    evidence pointed just the other way.

    I can't quote the source off hand, but there seems to be some fossil
    evidence around that seems to suggest remote antiquity for the time this
    continent was first inhabited.

    -- Rav Karwan

    Re .7:
    
    Intererstingly, Channel 4 (WBZ-TV) in Boston did an _Evening Magazine_
    segment on Mystery Hill of Salem, NH, where they came up with a
    more mundane solution.  It's worth checking with them to see whether
    they'll re-air it. 
    
    The Vikings almost certainly nosed around Nova Scotia and environs
    before Columbus discovered his islands, but that's another story.
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.
    

    	I think you are misinterpreting what I am saying - the Amerinds
    40,000 years ago had just gotten into Alaska and no further at the
    time; they certainly were nowhere near what would be New Hampshire
    back then!
                                               
    	There is definite ARCHAEOLOGICAL evidence - corroborated by
    the archaeological/anthropological community - for the visitation
    of America by Vikings about 1000 A.D. (not B.C.), and, other than
    the Asians of 40,000 years ago (remember, the land bridge in the
    Bering Strait disappeared long BEFORE any civilizations arose),
    no other visitors until several hundred years after the Vikings.
    There are written records as well of the Vikings' voyages to what
    they called "Vinland" (America).

        A few years ago an ancient Roman cargo vessel was found off 
    the coast of Brazil - there were no human remains found, and the 
    only items aboard were some amphoras (jars).  This at first caused 
    quite a stir in the scientific community, and of course the pop 
    scientists immediately said this was proof that the Romans and 
    others had visited the Americas thousands of years earlier than  
    thought.
        But there were details which were left out and not emphasized 
    on - the ship was not deliberately sailed to the Americas; it was 
    apparently abandoned and drifted to the Brazilian coast.  This has 
    happened to ships even in modern times.  Let us also not forget 
    how difficult such a journey would be back then, even for experienced 
    sailors; and at the time, most people thought that the distant 
    Atlantic held horrendous sea monsters and led only to the edge of 
    the world, where one would certainly fall off (yes, there were 
    some edjucated men who thought otherwise, but the general public 
    did not, and seamen were very superstitious).  Also, there are NO
    Roman records (or of any other culture) before the time of the 
    Vikings (and perhaps the Irish monks of 800 A.D. who *may* have 
    sailed to North America) tellings of any such journeys to "new 
    lands".

        I am well aware that I can not prove this to you, and I have 
    *only* the archaeological community's work to go on, but it is 
    strong evidence that no one came to America other than the 
    Amerinds until about 1000 A.D. (no B.C.), and shoddy work and poor 
    evidence continually produced itself in AMERICA, B.C.  All I am 
    asking is that you examine the facts carefully, and please go with 
    documented and double-checked sources before believing what is in 
    a new and radical theory.
        I'm sure you can quote to me a thousand examples of new ideas 
    being rejected by old standards and later being proved right, but 
    the "old standards" are holding thier own in acccuracy much more 
    these days, so I would go with them first.

        I would have to see MUCH better evidence for America's early 
    habitation than what is in AMERICA, B.C.  To me, it smacks of a 
    minority who is trying to take away claim of America's "ownership" 
    by the Amerinds, who were certainly here first.

      	Larry
    		

    What it boils down to is this:
    
    1) There is no strong evidence that there was any "civilized" visits
    or settlement of the New World much in advance of Columbus.
    
    2) There is fairly strong evidence of some European visiting of
    the New World before Columbus.  Strongest of these (a virtual
    certainty) is a visit by Vikings, as already mentioned.
    
    3) There is now evidence approaching certainty that there was a
    short term Viking settlement in Nova Scocia.
    
    4) "Lack of evidence is not equal to evidence of lack".  Specifically,
    visits by others is possible, since it is unlikely to leave unambiguous
    traces.  However, there is little evidence to support the claim
    either, "might of is not equal to is."  The technological difficulties
    are formidable enough to make it unlikely until the present time.
    The only group I know of with the right type of sea-going technology
    to be plausible to me (and I am very ignorant here) are the
    Polynesians.  The Kon Tiki expedition proved that the reverse trip
    was technologically plausibe (but this depended on prevailing winds
    and currents, so it does *not* imply the reverse direction).  In
    other words, "Might of is not equal to did".
    
    5) Signifcant settlement by other groups would have been likely
    to leave unambiguous evidence.  It is, therefore, extremely unlikely
    (though, of course, possible).  Unsuccessful colonization falls
    between simple visits and signficant settlement in liklihood, i.e.,
    between "very unlikely" and "almost certainly not".
    
    6) In any field as complex as archeological interpretation of
    artifacts, there will be anomalies -- cases where the "noise" makes
    the "message" impossible to interpret.  It is easy to project almost
    any message you want onto such noise -- particularly if you base
    your understanding on incomplete or even incorrect "popular"
    descriptions.  There is apparently (I am not an archeologist, of
    course) no unambiguous (or even plausible) archeological evidence
    for pre-Viking visits.  What evidence exists is just pre-Viking
    and is simply one way of interpreting historical records in Europe.
    
    				Topher

    I meant to include in the previous note the following:
    
    While there would probably be very hard, entrenched, emotional
    resistence to evidence of New World contact with unknown, highly
    advanced civilizations (e.g., Lemuria or Atlantis); resistence to
    the idea of limited contact with known Old World civilizations would
    probably not be overly strong.  The lack of contact is certainly
    a strong part of current thinking about the New World, but its
    contradiction would not be viewed by archeologists as heresy.  Given
    the technological barriers, they would probably require fairly clear
    evidence before giving it much credence, and there would probably
    be lively debate within the community, but outright rejection does
    not seem likely.  What they *have* rejected is poor evidence for
    an unlikely hypothosis.
    
    By the way, my understanding is that no Mediteranian sailor in their
    right mind voluntarily sailed through the Straits of Gibralter until
    relativly modern times.  This had nothing to do (or little to do)
    with imagined sea monsters, but with a strong outflowing current.
    Boats of the period could not travel fast enough to overcome it.
    Once out, you abandoned your boat and walked home.  Navigational
    technology was not designed to get you away from sight of land for
    more than a day or so (there is little need in the Mediteranian
    to develop such technology or expertise).  If you *did* get out
    into the Atlantic and didn't start walking home immediately, you
    would "hug" the coast.  Even as late as the Vikings, travel west
    to Iceland and Greenland and (probably) Nova Scocia was considered
    a daring voyage.
    
    					Topher

    I think the evidence for temporary visitations is at least reasonable.
    Perhaps someone could help straighten me out concerning times though.
    Specificly if the Celts had a maritime force before 56 BCE.
          
    The author states that the visits were for the most part accidental
    and that the colonies were temporary.
    
    He does suggest that there _could_ have been some trading between the
    two continents on a limited basis.
    
    I don't think that anyone can support the claim of mass colonization,
    but it would be possible to support accidental intrusion.

    	When the Vikings encountered the Amerinds, there was a little
    trade, but it was highly one-sided, and the two sides became
    mistrustful to the point of war.  This is why the Vikings left.
    
    	I know there is that possibility of temporary contact, but it
    would be VERY temporary, and that is NOT what AMERICA, B.C. was
    implying - they had practically every civilization on Earth going
    to America, and becoming much more established than temporary trading.
    
    	Larry
    

    "The vikings called the indians `Skraelings.'  They used the same
    name for elves and trolls."
    
        -- Will Cuppy [ca 1935]
    

RE: .12
    
    I am far from expert in these matters, but my understanding is that
    *no one* is Europe except for a few crazy Vikings would attempt
    to sail out of sight of shore for more than a day or so much before
    the time of Columbus.  Generally, even the Vikings avoided this
    most of the time.  I just finished reading a story by Pohl and Karen
    Anderson a few months ago, entitled (I think) The King of Ys.  This
    story took place late in the Roman occupation of Britain.  One of
    the characters is a Celtic King and part of the story revolves around
    the risks involved in sailing out of sight of land.  Pohl Anderson
    at least, is an outstanding researcher, and I would tend to trust
    his word on this.  This is well after 55 BCE.
    
    There was an Irish saint (Brandon?) who is claimed to perhaps have
    visited the New World.  This is based on his account after having
    been blown off course.  Their are some clearly fanciful elements
    and one must wonder how much of the whole thing was hallucinations
    induced by hunger, thirst and exposure.  A case has been made, however,
    to the effect that Columbus may have read the account and based
    his trip on it.  By this hypothosis, his claims of wanting to reach
    Asia and his ludicrous geographical "fudging" to make it appear
    possible was a sham -- he really wanted financing to reach the unknown
    lands.
    
    				Topher

    Since replies 152.16 thru .18 have been moved to a new topic in
    note 675, they have been deleted from this note by the Moderator.