New to site and my ideas

[rvdave]

[QUOTE]tclark wrote:

Animal husbandry.  If there was ever a indigenous population in the America's animal husbandry would have been well established before the end of the last ice age as it was in most other parts of the world

  Not necessarily... because as you can see there were indingenous populations living here only 150 years ago, quite successfully actually, still as hunter gatherers. One of my thoughts regarding the Clovis culture and the Paleo period in general is that Nomadic people, which they were, can cover a lot of territory in a very short time. And I don't see that period as being a very harsh one at all. Maybe by todays standards of living for western civilized people, but back then I imagine it as a paradise. Not a lot of conflict going on in general because there couldn't have been much of a competition for resources.
If I'm not mistaken there are sites in Chile that predate 20,000 b.p.  .
Thanks for your response.
Dogs.
Every single dog in the world can trace their linage to around 35k ybp to wolves in Europe (the dogs themselves can not, the whole opposable thumb thing still gets them). If humans where present in the Americas at around the same time it would stand to reason they too would have domesticated wolves and or coyotes.
I agree on life being pretty good for the clovis people at the time, but I feel the culture they are from would almost need to be aggressive  by nature.
Monte Verde is a very stance place indeed. I think it asks far more questions then it will ever answer.

[hudson]

Dave Im in the Rusk area

[tclark]

Thanks for your response.
Dogs.
Every single dog in the world can trace their linage to around 35k ybp to wolves in Europe (the dogs themselves can not, the whole opposable thumb thing still gets them). If humans where present in the Americas at around the same time it would stand to reason they too would have domesticated wolves and or coyotes.
I agree on life being pretty good for the clovis people at the time, but I feel the culture they are from would almost need to be aggressive  by nature.
Monte Verde is a very stance place indeed. I think it asks far more questions then it will ever answer.
Thanks for bringing this topic up it's something I enjoy thinking about.
I don't think I can agree with the logic of if there is a group of people on one continent and another on a continent elsewhere that the technology that exists should be similar.
Dogs could have very well been domesticated in some way shape or form by the earliest peoples who populated the Americas but we just don't know it yet. I'd be very surprised if they hadn't been actually. The proof of that in N. America anyway dates back to only 5,000 years ago or so if I'm not mistaken. But that is a little bit different then animal husbandry because you could have half tamed canines hanging around camp and still be hunter gatherers. Real animal husbandry would have occurred in my mind when people became more sedentary.
I'm not trying to make the argument that there was an indigenous population here that significantly predates the basic understanding we have now, I don't rule it out though either, just that I don't think you can say if some technological advancement is happening in one place it has to be happening in another. Technological or cultural change can happen rapidly either advancing or being lost. In as little as one generation of people actually.
I think the Clovis people were so successful at populating N. America because the conditions were perfect. Lots of resources to exploit and no competition for them. Can you imagine... hunter gatherers with an entire continent to exploit? And carrying technologies and traditions which were perfectly suited to the task? That's why I think they were able to cover the continent in such a relatively short time. I also think climatic changes are what brought them here and what ultimately led to the end of that period. The same as with many other cultures.

[rvdave]

tclark wrote:

  Thanks for bringing this topic up it's something I enjoy thinking about.
I don't think I can agree with the logic of if there is a group of people on one continent and another on a continent elsewhere that the technology that exists should be similar.
Dogs could have very well been domesticated in some way shape or form by the earliest peoples who populated the Americas but we just don't know it yet. I'd be very surprised if they hadn't been actually. The proof of that in N. America anyway dates back to only 5,000 years ago or so if I'm not mistaken. But that is a little bit different then animal husbandry because you could have half tamed canines hanging around camp and still be hunter gatherers. Real animal husbandry would have occurred in my mind when people became more sedentary.
I'm not trying to make the argument that there was an indigenous population here that significantly predates the basic understanding we have now, I don't rule it out though either, just that I don't think you can say if some technological advancement is happening in one place it has to be happening in another. Technological or cultural change can happen rapidly either advancing or being lost. In as little as one generation of people actually.
I think the Clovis people were so successful at populating N. America because the conditions were perfect. Lots of resources to exploit and no competition for them. Can you imagine... hunter gatherers with an entire continent to exploit? And carrying technologies and traditions which were perfectly suited to the task? That's why I think they were able to cover the continent in such a relatively short time. I also think climatic changes are what brought them here and what ultimately led to the end of that period. The same as with many other cultures.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2011/01/110118-oldest-domestic-dogs-north-america-eaten-texas-cave-science-animals/

I could not get this to link for some reason but it shows dogs where here at least 9400YBP.
In many ways I agree about cultures not having to develop the same things, but in the Americas grey wolves and coyotes where far from the top of the food chain. They would have been predominantly scavengers and been very familiar with humans and looked to us as providers. It would have likely happened on its own if humans didn't already have had dogs with them. Again just my opinion.

[tclark]

(QUOTE)news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2011/01...ave-science-animals/
I could not get this to link for some reason but it shows dogs where here at least 9400YBP.
In many ways I agree about cultures not having to develop the same things, but in the Americas grey wolves and coyotes where far from the top of the food chain. They would have been predominantly scavengers and been very familiar with humans and looked to us as providers. It would have likely happened on its own if humans didn't already have had dogs with them. Again just my opinion. (QUOTE)
I remember reading that article. DNA showed that the animals weren't the same as coyotes or domestic wolves so they assumed they must have been domesticated? And only one tiny bone fragment in some human feces? I'm not sure about that logic.
I was thinking of the Indian Knoll Site in Kentucky excavated by William Webb. There dogs were actually buried in the human cemeteries and even along with people. I think that would certainly be proof of domestication.
I totally agree with you last statement.

[rvdave]

I think it was pretty common for the mound builders to burry their dogs with them. I remember reading one in Louisiana also.
Im of the opinion I would sure want a dog with me if I were a hunter gatherer

[painshill]

Lots of dog-related articles in our Information Centre here :

http://forums.arrowheads.com/forum/information-center-gc33/native-american-culture-lifestyle-gc108/cultural-beliefs-mythology-gc109/110919-native-american-attitudes-to-the-dog