Keep in mind that the "theories" of the populating of the Americas is
not over.
Many feel that the influx of peoples may have started in South America,
with
older cultures and peoples in that area far earlier than the Bering
Strait
passage/movement or in the North America. The Kennewick case is also
not shut, and if the bones are buried, we are doing a huge disservice
to science
and understanding when and who populated America. It seems all sides
would
want to know the truth.
In addition, many human finds have been returned for reburial (Buhl
women, etc.),
closing those cases for further scientific study to find out exactly
who they
were (e.g., what race) and when/where they came from.
There is also much evidence to Pre-Clovis peoples, and various earlier
migrations
(Del Mar, El Jobo, Monte Verde, etc.), suggesting coastal movement and
that
many sites are buried on the coast by the raising water (See:
"Underwater
archaeology, Paleoindian origins, and histories of settlement," by
Dr. Michael K. Faught,
http://www.flmnh.ufl.edu/natsci/vertpaleo/aucilla11_1/uw.htm)
when the ice cap melted, and yet to be discovered. Also, evidence that
peoples movement
to America came by the sea, again earlier than the Bering theory.
". . . the precise date of the peopling of the New World has been
debated for several decades and new South American dates, especially
those from Monte Verde in Chile, may imply an older period of peopling
via various routes. Several sites, including Cactus Hill in Virginia,
suggest a pre-Clovis horizon. Thus an increasing number of
archaeologists believe that the arrival of people in the New World
predates 11 500 cal BC. " Source:
http://www.comp-archaeology.org/USPaleo-Indian.htm
"a new study examining the largest collection of South American skulls
ever assembled suggests that a different population may have crossed the
bridge to the New World 3,000 years before those Siberians. . . .
Drastically different from American Indians, these skulls appear more
similar to modern Australians, Melanesians and Sub-Saharan Africans."
Source: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,178715,00.html.
See also: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10441210/from/RL.1/ ,
http://www.indiana.edu/~arch/saa/matrix/saa/saa_mod02.html and
http://www.morgenwelt.de/futureframe/010604-native-americans.htm .
In relationship, in Idaho it is speculated that the tribes and early
peoples were hunter /
gatherers, however, evidence is surfacing that the Fremont Culture went
as high as Idaho
(with pottery and corn found in site just upriver from Boise). Also,
at Cascade Reservoir (ID),
fragments of a Shoshone pot were found. I am just accessioning these
rare pieces into our
collection. This shows tribes were more settled in some areas where
food sources were more
plentiful in the Great Basin. Earthen oven and firecracked rock are
also found on site, adding
additional evidence to more stationary life ways.
It is true, what Indigonights, (and staying in focus with the original
question of this
posting) states about Asians in America EVEN prior to the Revolutionary
war, but the
earliest people could have easily have been Polynesian or even
"Caucasoid". Alas, I
have to keep the mind opened, and closed from speculation when dealing
with "theory".
New things are found that change previous theories.
John
Boise, ID
>>> [log in to unmask] 3/14/2006 7:42:26 AM >>>
One of the things that seems remarkably absent in this
discussion of Asians in America during the
Revolutionary War is the scientific foundings that
<SNIP>
=========================================================
Important Subscriber Information:
The Museum-L FAQ file is located at http://www.finalchapter.com/museum-l-faq/ . You may obtain detailed information about the listserv commands by sending a one line e-mail message to [log in to unmask] . The body of the message should read "help" (without the quotes).
If you decide to leave Museum-L, please send a one line e-mail message to [log in to unmask] . The body of the message should read "Signoff Museum-L" (without the quotes).
|
