I saw the show on the Kensington stone. All that told me was the stone was older than modern America. (1492 – present) What it didn't prove is when it came here. It proved it was old but it could have been placed in that field as early as the tree that grew there. I mean, the age of the stone isn't an indicator of when it was placed there.

I also get a kick out of the term Native Americans. They weren't native to North America either. They came here from somewhere else too. They were just first to come here. There isn't any proof so far of indigenous humans in the Americas.

The Europeans were just the ones who settled here. I guess the other explorers just didn't like it enough here. LOL

These are good points Ghostbreakers. In archaeology, the question has never been was there indigenous peoples in the Americas, but when did they migrate here, and from where. As I mentioned in my earlier post, till now we have been taught that it was from Asia around 14,000 years ago. However, with the recent finds, it seems that they may have traveled from Europe as early as 20,000 years ago, and they BIG question is: If this is the case, how did they get here? There is no evidence of a land bridge like the one at the Bering straight. Some have postulated that it may have been by boat. Others that they followed the ice sheets that covered the North Atlantic. The debate rages on. As far as the Kensington stone goes, without datable artifacts in context with any find, procurring a date is impossible, for you are correct in saying that the age of the stone does not give the date it was placed there, and that is the mystery; Who placed it, and when?

I really like the idea that we have a person here with knowledge that doesn't have the accompanying "holier than thou" attitude….Kudos!

Regarding what you wrote, are archaeologists beginning to believe that if one culture got here earlier than the others, perhaps much of what we know of history must be re-examined? What I mean to say is, is this new knowledge going to perhaps open the possibility that some of the fringe elements of your science will be taken more seriously?

Gryphononfire, it truly is my pleasure to be here. Now for your question. Currently, archaeologists are coming around to the fact that there is a strong (very strong) possibility that the early peoples who migrated to the Americas came in several waves. Until now, it was thought that only one migration, the one across the land bridge from Asia that occurred approximately 14,000 ybp was the first. With these new findings in the East, the evidence shows that the land bridge migration occurred later, and that initial migration came from Europe around 20,000 ybp. This is how science works. Remember the addage "We stand on the shoulders of giants". We take what others have done before us and build on it, and that's the way it’s supposed to be. As we obtain new knowledge, postulations are passed away and new ones are formed, but always because of the work done by those "giants" who came before us. As far as the "fringe" findings go, there are many that have caused much controversy over the years. This is due mainly to those who do not understand the process of science interpreting archaeologist’s reaction to these finds as "disinterest" or all out disbelief. This could not be farther from the truth. We are a cautious lot. One small slip in reporting evidence of any kind can extinguish a career no matter how brilliant. I had mentioned in an earlier post about the importance of an artifact's provenance and context in making any determinations about that artifact. Usually these "fringe" finds have questionable provenance and context making any archaeologist leery of commenting on them. It does not in any case mean we are disinterested, it just means that we need to find another way of finding empirical evidence on the artifact before we can state an opinion. Unfortunately this takes a lot of time and work, which many of us cannot afford due to constraints of our jobs. I hope this explanation helps.

Native Americans for me tooo.

don't forget st brendan the navigator, born circa 488, ordained in 512, and died circa 577. whilst most of the monks tended to stay in their isolated beehive stone huts, brendan was a regular gadabout and many believe he could have reached our shores. the trip was done in the '70 in a small curragh that used tanned hides etc that was supposed to be authentic.

best,

annie

Kensington Info Just a quick bit of info—the Kensington Rune Stone is certainly interesting to say the least…

Actually if the reports are true all life came out of Africa…so we are all native to Africa and are just visitors to the rest of the world…

that's always been my belief /smile.png' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':)' />

I have noticed that during this discussion, several posts keep popping up stating that Native Americans were here first, and I would like to take this opportunity to clarify this. The statement that Native Americans were first is both a true and false statement. The reason for this is that originally, the Americas had no indigenous peoples, which means that people did not evolve here they came here. The Native Americans are the ancestors of those first Peoples. The heart of this discussion is where did those first peoples come from?

We can trace Native American DNA to both Asian and European origins, depending on the area of North America they come from. Until now, it was assumed by scientists that the European DNA was a result of early European contact, but with the recent discoveries of the Alutrian finds discussed earlier, this is being scrutinized further.

Remember, these early peoples were hunters and gatherers, followers of the seasonal round. They travelled is small, sustainable bands from area to area, season to season according to the resource that was provided at the time. One of their main staples was animal products, meat, hide, and bone. It is very easy to see how these bands could have followed migrating herds into the Americas. The question is: “From which direction did they come, East or West and how long ago?” Let’s discuss.

This is from National geographic

The question of who colonized the Americas, and when, has long been hotly debated. Traditionally, Native Americans are believed to have descended from northeast Asia, arriving over a land bridge between Siberia and Alaska some 12,000 years ago and then migrating across North and South America. But recent research, including the Baja California study, indicates that the initial settlement of the continent was instead driven by Southeast Asians who occupied Australia 60,000 years ago and then expanded into the Americas about 13,500 years ago, prior to Mongoloid people arriving from northeast Asia.

I think european origin folks came later

This has always been the stance of many archaeologists, but recent developments are shedding a new light on many of these notions. For instance, one question under heavy research at the moment is why is the concentration of Clovis type points higher and the sites they are found on older East of the Mississippi River rather than West of it? It would stand to reason that if initial occupation occured from the west, sites with Clovis type points would be older and have a greater concentration to the west of the river. Instead, the opposite occurs. Also, the Mississippi 12,000 years ago was much wider than today and posed as a very formidable geographic obstacle. How did they cross it? To date, there is no evidence that the early peoples of America used boats. These are the types of things that exsist in the archaeological record that keep this debate so hotly contested.