Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Kosovo -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Brumar89 who wrote (9661)	5/24/1999 7:36:00 PM
From: D. Long	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 17770

I disagree with you about the ancestry. If we accept that the Americas were populated in waves dispersing from the Northwest, then there was a massive and fluid migration going on between 15000-9000 years ago. The remains of a paleoindian found on Creek territory dating to 10000 BP may very well belong to a migrant group that did not even remain in North America, or did not survive to procreate an extant modern tribal group at all. Based on the forensics, we can tell that the Athabaskans and the Inuit group migrations went, because they are markedly different than the Amerinds. But when the forensics of a group that ended up in Argentina are not markedly different than those who remained in say Wyoming, and without any real means of tracing the migrations of these earliest groups, I dont think it is possible to say that "this set of remains is my ancestor." It would be far more credible for a South American indian to make that claim, because it far more probable that any remains found in North America could (and its a very iffy could even then) have been his ancestor. IMHO. It really comes down to an issue of who left a legacy where. That is incredibly hard to do with prehistoric groups who left little more to mark their path than lithics. On the subject of Cahokia, it is a mystery, which is still very much in the process of being solved. So you are right, we can not at this time make any definitive claim. But I think you underestimate the fragility of prehistoric social orders, which wax and wane like the tides. The evidence that presents itself points in the direction of an inability to cope with a general climate change in the 13th century to due, amongst other things, resource depletion. The evidence points in similiar directions for a number of different cultures in ancient north america, the Anazasi one of them for example. But its an ongoing puzzle to be unraveled, and if the evidence shows a different direction, then that will no doubt be examined. I can only repeat the findings of the evidence uncovered so far by the researchers doing work there.