I applaud GH's efforts to remind us of acievements in our very distant past, and history that we have lost. What I find interesting is the potential correlation to the implied sea connections, over great distances, by ancient peoples, and the demonstrated ability of primitive craft to make the journeys, shown by Thor Heyerdhal. Kon-Tiki, Ra 2, and Tigris were impressive displays of seaworthiness for the craft, and seamanship on the part of the crews; yes, they were modern sailors, with radios for emergency, but sailed craft they were not greatly familiar with, in an environment they were TESTING the craft in.
And now a question: (provocation?)....given these displays of ancient potential, how much credence should we give the standard 'Bering Land Bridge' scenario? And what are the members' opinions on the assumption that the entire western landmass was UNPOPULATED before the 'siberian express' of human entry?
My own view is that to give exclusive weight to a Bering land migration makes very little sense; if oceanic distances were crossable on rafts of balsa logs or reeds, it is at least cavalier to dismiss a sea component in human arrival in the west; and, to assume that arrivals only occurred during 'land-bridge' times, and not again until the small Viking landings in Canada, and the 1492 Spanish arrival, seems equally questionable.
|A sea topic||253||scimitar||11-Jan-04 18:27|
|Re: A sea topic||169||ATague||11-Jan-04 20:37|
|Re: A sea topic||202||ArmchairObserver||12-Jan-04 18:29|
|Re: Jade||183||Thunderbird||12-Jan-04 21:56|