Re: Lakota question -- Talking Circle Alternative

[ Show ]

Support VoyForums

[ Shrink ]

VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, [10] ]

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: Sun, 11/24/02 12:14pm
Author: Bella
Subject: Re: Lakota question
In reply to: john mohdom 's message, "Re: Lakota question" on Fri, 11/22/02 5:37pm

John

I am now in a position to explain the entire theory:) Due to a severe rainstorm this weekend which curtailed outdoor activities somewhat, I was able to catch up with the documentary.

>Oy! you'd think that if you saw all the French family
>names among the Anishinaabe in Minnesota and North
>Dakota (and neighbors). ...silly me, I thought that
>was because of the much much later fur traders here.
>
Well, yes it turns out this would be silly of you:) Because the French (actually "Solutreans" from the area now commonly known as France) set sail 15,000 years ago (according to this theory) in the middle of the ice age, and settled in America. Those other people, generally regarded as having strolled across the Bering Strait (as detailed in this film) arrived in America 11,500 years ago. But, this is the really interesting part that explains the presence of European DNA in the Objibwa people. The write up accompanying the programme, that describes this Solutrean arrival states that it is possible to trace the DNA of one of those women who arrived 15,000 yrs ago right up to the present day; in other words she has Ojibwa descendants living now. But this is the really impressive bit - "DNA shows that among their ancestors was a woman from Europe who married into the tribe at least 15,000 years ago". This is the same write up that states that there were no Indian people in America until 11,500 years ago - so how did she marry into the tribe? It gets more confusing, when it was stated that this European woman "arrived long before the Bering Strait was walkable. She joined the tribe when America was still an island". The slight flaw in this theory seems to be that she is supposed to have joined a tribe which according to the same theory, did not exist at the time because the people comprising tribal members had not yet "crossed the Bering Strait".

No explanation for that is provided in the documentary itself, but the discovery of European DNA in Ojibwa people was discussed (in a way that made it sound as if all tribal members' DNA had been tested, and as if they were the only tribe who showed any European DNA at all, which given intermarriage over the years would seem unlikely). When the European DNA was discovered, it was tested for age - now I'm highly suspicious of that because how do you take DNA from a person living now, and put it through tests to show how many generations it has descended through. Anyway the archaeologists did this and proclaimed it was descended from 15,000 years ago, therefore, the Solutreans arrived first.

The other arguments raked up were the findings of flints and arrowheads which looked European in origin, according to these archaeologists. Another strange example given was that Solutrean needles (these had been dug up in France) made from bone with a hole in the top of one end, were very similar to Inuit needles, also made from bone with a hole. This didn't seem particularly amazing given that in the Solutrean era, if needles were needed, bone would have seemed the most likely material to use and no doubt if you went round the world looking for needles made in that era, you might find many made from bone, with a hole at one end. In fact when the archaeologist held up the Solutrean needle, next to an Inuit needle, they were markedly difference in length, so didn't bear much resemblance to each other at all.

>I've heard europeans first theory but NOT
>French...also, was there a France at the time this
>supposedly happened.
>but this might explain why those Shinobs lived in a
>ouigiwa. 80)

Oh, not a pun, John!:) This was no laughing matter. I've heard the Europeans first theory, and always assumed that it was a kind of removal of guilt - "Europeans got to America first anyway, so there is no reason to feel guilty that Europeans took the land later!". I don't think it works.

I'm also highly suspicious of the way archaeologists date their findings - flints etc, and the rather sweeping declarations they make about some of the items they find. The programme ended on the note of the assumption that these claims were accurate and that Solutreans did arrive first. Apparently this a theory that has been held for some years by various American archaeologists.
>
The programme irritated me somewhat:(>

Bella

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Replies:

Re: Lakota question -- tash"ana, Fri, 11/29/02 10:30pm

Re: Lakota question -- Steve Russell, Fri, 11/29/02 10:51pm

Re: Lakota question -- john mohdom, Sat, 11/30/02 9:08pm
- Re: Lakota question -- Steve Russell, Sat, 11/30/02 9:22pm
  - Re: Lakota question -- john mohdom, Sat, 11/30/02 10:43pm