Text 24209, 101 rader
Skriven 2009-05-19 21:09:16 av Carol Shenkenberger (30791.cooks)
     Kommentar till en text av Glen Jamieson (30786.cooks)
Ärende: WILD SHEEP  90519
=========================
    
 > You are catching up.  This was only about 5 weeks old.  (g)

Well I caught up just before starting the new job then fell back.

 >  CS> Lots of oddities.  Horses developed here, spread to Asia and Europe,
 >  CS> then died out here only returning with the European settlers.  They run
 >  CS> wild here now and are not endangered at all.
 > 
 > According to the movies the indigenous Americans readily took to using
 > horses for warfare and general transport.

Thats exactly what did happen.  "like ducks to water' as we might say here.
It seemed a natural but missing element.

 >  >  DD> "native Americans" who displaced the proto-humans who had the run of
 >  >  DD> the place up until then.
 >  > What happened to these "proto-humans"?  Are there any remains which
 > 
 >  CS> Actually the American continents (north and south) never had
 >  CS> 'proto-humans'. There is some debate on just when men came here but
 >  CS> most top out at earliest of 15,000 years even on the most radical side.
 >  CS> 13,000 seems generally accepted.  Well into the 'homo sapiens sapiens'
 > 
 > That sounds logical.

Proto-humand are generally defined as before Neanderthals.  One radical site
claims USA inhabitance when they still seem to have existed but they do it by
carbon dating some clovis era tools to some charchol.  It is in a washed out
river bed.  There's no real telling if the tools were of the same era of if
someone just found a bed of old 'coal' and used it later.

The rest date from 10,000 to a possible 14,000 (with one reputable but slim
evidence of 15,000).  Neaderthals apparently left this life at 30,000 ago.

For something like (they arent sure really) 20,000 years we appear to have
been in tandem with neaderthals.  50,000 to 30,000 ago.

 >  CS> Yes, we have 'new world monkeys' here native.  Mostly seen in lower
 >  CS> mexico through south america.  Ours have prehensile tails (old world
 >  CS> ones dont).
 > 
 > Something I didn't know!  Whenever I see a monkey I will have to see
 > how he uses his tail, so I know where he comes from.  :)

Hehehe I got that off wikipedia.  It isnt that old world ones dont have them
(tails) or use them but it seems a differnce level?  

 >  CS> Geologically, OZ separated well before the Americas from 'Pangea' but
 >  CS> we seem to be pretty much next after it when you get to larger land
 >  CS> masses.  Unlike OZ, we've had a sporadic land channel for a very long
 >  CS> time though so it's not as obvious.  Mammals won here for example.
 >  CS> South American before it joined wi
 >  CS> th North America was noted for marsupials, most of which subsumed to
 >  CS> mammals over time but we have some of the remaining ones that arent of
 >  CS> OZ origin.  (Possum pie anyone?).
 > 
 > The later mammals were more intelligent and more aggressive than most
 > marsupials, and so took over from them, except in Australia and New
 > Guinea.  The possums are much better survivors than the other
 > marsupials, and so have remained in America.  Their introduction to
 > New Zealand has resulted in them taking over from the native wildlife
 > in the same way as introduced foxes and other European animals have
 > multiplied here, to the detriment of the locals.  (One could include
 > humans in that statement...)

True all of it.  South American 'history' geologically is a case in point of
what may have occured to OZ areas if it conjoined with a land mass.  Thats
pretty much what happened.  SA was separate for a long time then the
connection came back and it's species were decimated by mammals.

 >  CS> How did Man get here?  It's still under debate but logistically it may
 >  CS> well have come from 3 places with a possible 4th.  Bering Straits and
 >  CS> the snow-line arctic Inuit, sea going polynesians (same group as OZ),
 >  CS> and Europe across Greenland-Iceland route to Canada.  During some times
 >  CS> that route from Europe would have been fairly small hops.
 >  CS> Some evidence leads well to Bering straights and man moving down from
 >  CS> there and other evidence seems to indicate dual settlement of
 >  CS> polynesian in south america, and Asian/European in North which met and
 >  CS> blended in middle america roughly.
 > 
 > Perhaps one of these days we will know all the whens and wheres of
 > migrations around the world.  In the meantime, there is plenty to keep
 > anthropologists busy speculating and investigating.

An interest of mine it to read on such.

 >  CS> The only thing certain here in the Americas, is they came in waves.
 > 
 > That seems to have been the pattern in other countries as well, with
 > the migrations driven by wars, famines, climate changes or government
 > policy (such as the Spanish Catholic Kings - Ferdinand and Isabela -
 > and Hitler driving out the Jews).  And as you know, that Isabela was
 > the one who backed young Colon in his mad idea of finding a short cut
 > to the East Indies, and look what that led to - you!

True! It's a facinating place to check out.  2 legged mammal migration at the
core.
              xxcarol
--- SBBSecho 2.12-Win32
 * Origin: Shenks Express (1:275/100)