First Americans may have been Neanderthals 130,000 years ago

wtf I hate neanderthals now

Doesn't help that the friars went berserk burning most of their books and records.

True but who knows maybe their are some hidden manuscripts like the dead sea scrolls. But meh a guy could dream

well we are talking about a pre historic time table. also considering that they were completely isolated from the rest of the world they did pretty well.

No most likely they were the natives pre historic ancestors. or some distant related cousin to modern day humans

...

Soultreans on the west coast when most cited evidence is found on the east

This actually kills the solutrean hypothesis if anything.

Yup

>be "native" american
>genocide the people who probably were the only reason your society reached any advancement
>10,000 years later
>get nearly wiped out because anglos gave you mild bacteria but your immune system is shit-tier, while spaniards rape almost all of you and create a hybrid mongrel race

Top kek

how can you genocide people who were never there to begin with user

>Soultreans on the west coast when most cited evidence is found on the east

Huh?

>This actually kills the solutrean hypothesis if anything.

How do you figure?

The Neanderthal migration happened long before the Solutrean migration.

Most evidence for the solutrean theroy is usually found in the north east of the USA. So trying to use these findings which were found in san diego to support that theory doesn't make any sense.

What the soultreans and neanderthals have nothing to do with each other

>WE
>WUZ
>KANGZ

Most likely they were already dead by the time Native Americans arrived.

> Most evidence for the solutrean theroy is usually found in the north east of the USA.

(South east of the USA) So far, and you can’t deny mainstream academia doesn’t like research into the Solutrean Theory, which only makes it harder to do the needed archeology.

> So trying to use these findings which were found in san diego to support that theory doesn't make any sense.

Are you suggesting Neanderthals and Solutreans were somehow incapable of getting past the East Coast?

> What the soultreans and neanderthals have nothing to do with each other

Exactly, that the Neanderthals may have migrated to N.America (as unlikely as that is, since there is no evidence they used boats) doesn’t change the fact that the Solutreans could have and did migrate later.

how? lol.

>Most likely they were already dead by the time Native Americans arrived.

I’d say the evidence shows Solutreans were assimilated and/or wiped out (by the same later arrivals from Asia, who wiped out the Megafauna).

reminder that australasian-like DNA is found in south american populations, and that there is historical anecdotal evidence of peoples in remote parts of south america that were perceived as very different from other populations.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuegians

if neanderthals came to north america, they probably walked.

>100,000 more additional years to tech up

Video games ruin Veeky Forums.

Put yourself in their position. Why would you tech up without a need? Everything in your life is balanced and you know how to get food.

> schlepping across Asia, Alaska and Canada
> in the midst of a global ice age

Which is even more unlikely.

I’m not buying the Neanderthals in N.America theory, as the consensus nowadays is that Homo Sapien colonization of the Americas happened by boat along the coast and ice pack, which makes sense as it is actually doable (from both east and west).

This makes me very unhappy

Til spice are Neanderthals

Short, brown, can't speak properly.

It took me this long to realize

Neanderthals are thought to have had fair skin.

I don't know therefore aliens

Neandarthals had white skin buddy

>Whites are shown to have Neanderthal DNA
>"Neanderthals are actually superior!"

>Amerindians may have considerable Neanderthal ancestry
>"Haha, Neanderthals!"

I'm sure they could evolve in a hundred thousand years.

Nigga this board will unironically argue that Ethiopians were actually basically white when discussing Egypt and then immediately start calling Turks subhuman blacks. There no logic anymore.

The soultrean theroy is also not very likely either. There is no way they had the sailing technology to brave the atlantic ocean. Also they had no motivation to go that way either. As modern men i think we forget that alot of the motivation for migration for ancient people was tied to survival rather than exploration.ie: chasing after hunt and game. In fact the only reason the asia to america theory works is that the distance is short enough for wild game to migrate over to the america's which in turn would of motivated the native americans ancestors to follow them thus settling in the americas. With the soultreans you have to ask the question what would have motivated them to migrate over a seemingly endless sea with no sign of land or resources ? Answer absoluley nothing

>arrivals from Asia
>wiped out the Megafauna

>the ending of an ice age had no impact on the north american Megafauna

Check out this article that isn't full based on clickbait and has responses by other archaeologists:

news.nationalgeographic.com/2017/04/mastodons-americas-peopling-migrations-archaeology-science/

The study is basing its analysis on rocks that can't necessarily clearly be identified as tools. And in general, it's very speculative. It's a cool idea, but it doesn't really seem like they've proven anything so far. I'll wait until other people follow up before making a decision.

Neanderthals showed signs of actual civilization earlier than humans going from current evidence.

> Turks subhuman blacks

Funny enough, Anatolia Turks aren't that different from Greeks. And it's yet to be shown the modern Greeks are way different than the ancient ones.

> There is no way they had the sailing technology to brave the atlantic ocean.

Pic related, which is also how Asians got here.

> Also they had no motivation to go that way either.

This also applies Asians attempting to reach N.America.

We'll never know because the fucking useless natives have been and are destroying so many artefacts and sites because it interferes with their >much victimhood advertising.

> the ending of an ice age had no impact on the north american Megafauna

Rapid climate change played a part but it was the Asian migration into N.America and subsequent explosion in population numbers, that wiped them out.

Because there is nothing about N.America’s climate today, that would prevent mastodons, saber-tooth tigers, etc. from surviving and thriving, (albeit, further north) if not for humans.

The Redskins wuz a gud bois. They Dindu Nuffin.

This doesnt make sense, you cannot start a civilitation in an advanced stage.

Ok first of all those vessels only had to traverse a small distance relatively close to a shoreline in comparsion to to a large open ocean and if they did try to cross the atlantic they wouldn't make it. And for the second response didn't you read my post they followed the migrating herds across the landbridge into the america's.

how could primitive asian hunters with subpar weapons clear the entirety of the americas of the mega fauna. It was mostly drastic climate change.

...

Back to /pol/ with you user

...

Yes you can, most Europeans, Africans and Southeast Asians had iron before civilization. There are no 'stages'. Though I assume that guy means the Olmecs emerged during the Eurasian bronze age, since the Americas had no Bronze Age.

you wuz natives and sheit

>HE

> those vessels only had to traverse a small distance relatively close to a shoreline

Which is exactly how both the Asian and Solutrean migrations happened; small family groups paddling/sailing right along the shorelines (where the food was) and camping each night on the shore and ice pack, which is why so few site remain above water today.

Nobody was sailing straight across the Pacific and Atlantic, though judging by cave paintings in Europe, the Solutreans had the sailing tech to go longer distances much quicker.

> they followed the migrating herds across the landbridge

Some may have, but the consensus nowadays is that the Asian migration was an “amphibious” migration, which means the Solutrean migration is even more likely.

>the Solutrean migration is even more likely.
Except for the complete lack of evidence.

>but two look at these two bifacial tools made thousands of years apart!
No. Outside of some very superficial similarities, Solutrean and Clovis tools don't have very much in common. There's a good reason the archaeological community doesn't take it seriously; Stanford's arguments are very stupid.

>how could primitive asian hunters with subpar weapons

They were the same weapons the American Indians were using when Columbus arrived and which were plenty effective for killing animals.

the solutrean shit has been debunked, give it up.

> > the Solutrean migration is even more likely.
> Except for the complete lack of evidence.

Nonsense, there’s all kinda evidence to support the theory but that line of research isn’t politically correct in today’s academia, where Whites are to blame for all the world’s ills and if you’re an academic, you’re not going to get the teaching positions and research grant monies by going against the party line.

>if you’re an academic, you’re not going to get the teaching positions and research grant monies by going against the party line.
Do you know how academia works? You make a name for yourself by coming up with new hypotheses or by debunking old ones. No one gives a shit about you if you don't do anything interesting. You can't make it in archaeology without contributing new and interesting research.

I know it's more fun to think that no one takes that bullshit hypothesis seriously because of politics, but that's not the case. The minute anyone could find real proof of it, they would get a giant boost to their career and be swimming in grant money.

>Killing deer=/= killing mammoths
They had the capacity to kill the animals, but they sure as hell didn't have the numbers to do so. If the natives were responsible for killing off the megafauna, why was it that so many large animals survived?

>find tools on the east coast that bear striking similarities to the tools used by seal hunters in Northern Europe dating to 20,000(ish)0 years ago
>These tools are also dated 20,000 years old
>Anthropologists dont try to refute the existence of the tools, just say why they shouldnt bea able to exist or say that its "not enough evidence"

>bear striking similarities to the tools used by seal hunters in Northern Europe dating to 20,000(ish)0 years ago
Except they don't. Again, the similarities are very superficial. I'm pretty sure I've gone over this with you in another thread.

>These tools are also dated 20,000 years old
No one, not even Stanford, argues that Clovis tools are that old.

>Anthropologists dont try to refute the existence of the tools,
Absolutely not true. Plenty of refutations of Stanford's materials have been published (Straus's 2000 article probably being the best known). Stop getting your information from psuedoarchaeology sources. Like someone else said, the Solutrean hypothesis has been thoroughly debunked. If you bothered doing the research (and probably weren't hypocritically motivated by politics), you would have found that out already. There's no evidence for it, and you say there is, blaming politics, and making inaccurate arguments isn't going the change that.

You know the soultrean migration path supposely went straight through the atlantic right, also their is no way they could have landed on ice packs in that manner. The only way these soultreans could have came to the americas would have been through the western passage of asian and north america

I like how they are killing this giant mammoth like 10 feet from their camp. And the people by the fire don't give a fuck.

this so much

>finding ancient tools that look similar
So by your logic the pyramaids of meso america look similar to the egyptians ergo the egyptians must have made the pyramaids in meso america

Also seal hunter of northen europe. First i've ever heard of this

I'm not going to argue because I really don't know that much about the topic. However, I do read and listen to lectures from time to time and hear Solutreans brought up. The articles and speakers tend to assume that the hypothesis has at least some validity, so I don't think its so
>myth busted
as you want to think.

So debunking your imaginary theroy that has no evidence is political correctness. lol

I reckon you best not call my mammy and pappy no neanderdals!!

The """Native""" Americans aren't native at all. The Scandinavians beat them and now we know the Neanderthal beat them too. By Amerindian logic "he who finds it, keeps it" -Shitting Bull. Yet they continue to lay claim to two entire continents.

Ok so i have one question for you were exactly do you go to hear these lectures because the only places i hear the soultreans mentioned are in white supremist circles. If you want to get more accurate information i would recommend going to a more substanial sources like a university or history professor. Because most of the time these ethnobased group are pushing an agenda and will be dishonest with facts

Evidence plz.

This board is full of retards, the neanderthal DNA in Native Americans goes all the way back to the human that would split into the Caucasoid and Mongoloid races interbreeding with Neanderthals in the middle east.
Euros HAVE NEVER set foot in the Americas before the Natives, use your brain idiot the Mongoloids filled Siberia since the 20,000 B.C while Caucasoids were all the way in far west Eurasia MEANING NO CAUCASOID WOULD BE ABLE TO REACH THE AMERICAS.

More likely Homo Erectus is bigfoot, and yes, natives have brought them to the brink.

Persistence hunting an elephant sized animal provides a great payoff. It might take a large number of hunters to bring down a mammoth but think of the net gain in food.

I didn't say that they never took them down, I'm saying that taking down an elephant is a huge fucking deal and the tribe definitely wouldn't have done that often. Meanwhile the question still stands, how come bison and water buffalo and Aurochs and moose and rhinos and elephants survived while the others went extinct if the natives just went in killing gung ho.

>This along with the aztec and mayan records of feather serpents
Um what?

I was watching a human oddsey documentary on netflix and the scientists in it debunked it

He talking about one of their many gods who can take on the form of a "feathered serpent."

> the soultrean migration path supposely went straight through the atlantic right,

Not it did not; > also their is no way they could have landed on ice packs in that manner.

You mean like Eskimos did and continue to do all the time?...

>implying academics haven't debunked SJW garbage

>going full We Wuz

Another We Wuzzer.

>Also seal hunter of northen europe. First i've ever heard of this

Britain was tundra and arctic coastline, what do you think they ate?

But the soultreans weren't in britian though they were deep in southern france

The manner im refering to is for multiple days at a time which would have been nessecary for a transoceanic voyage. Comparing that with the eskimos is preposterous because the they only remained on icebergs for a couple of hours at best

> Do you know how academia works?

Do you? Today’s universities are all about maintaining the politically correct narrative and the Solutrean Hypothesis is directly opposed to that.

I remember read an article about some anthropologist doing “research” on Easter Island to support her hypothesis that the natives had lived idilic lives in harmony with nature, until evil Europeans and Christian priests came and fucked it all up.

And despite all kinda opposition pointing out that she was simply full of shit, she continued to get funding because it fit the narrative.

It’s the same reason there’s so much main stream academic opposition to the Multi-Regional Hypothesis of human evolution; the concept of “we’re ALL Africans!” must be maintained regardless of the data.

Yeah im pretty sure you don't know how academia works

>eskimos is preposterous because the they only remained on icebergs for a couple of hours at best

The fuck? Eskimo spent the entire winter season out on the pack ice, as thats where the food is.

> we already know everything that is possible to know!

t. academic

iirc both OoA and MRH have been trying to meet in the middle for thirty years. We wouldn't all be africans regardless, because the first humans weren't "africans" as we know today and whatever ethnic group they were are long gone.

Southern France was like northern Norway.

Do you think they were growing apples and shit?

Trump loves the undereducated.