Why were First Americans,20,000 yrs ago so lacking inskills of their forebears?
142376
The 'first' Native Americans migrated from the North,and it is speculated they 'rebounded to the North,encountering later tribes and groups,causing conflict in their midsts.Some may still be of record-Apache vs.native Mex-Indio tribes into the 1700-1800's. Many of the 'new' natives worked soft metals-gold,silver and possibly copper-and developed mines where mineral traces led into the earth.I would tend to believe these peoples did not develop 'hard' metallurgy,as the techniques were beyond access for mining,and thanks to Bessemer,We (us conquering Americans) only recently were able to produce steel,and tensile steel in any quantity.
123824
Adam and Eve weren't the first people on Earth, this is a mis-conception that churches teach in Sunday School. There were people here before them but what was special about Adam and Eve is that they were the first people with souls. Look at Gen 1:28 it says replenish the Earth. It did not say fill but replenish. To replenish something it already had to be there. Also consider Cain getting thrown out, Cain was afraid of the other people slaying him so there obviously were other people out there just no one wants to talk about them.
859855
Gee I dunno.  Maybe because we're the genetic leftover dregs from every civilization on this planet from 1492 to 1950?  Think about it- every decent nation threw its DNA genetic drift to either the United States or Austraila\n\nThe Chinese culture goes back thousands of years.  The culture of the US goes back maybe 140 years, considering the population density?\n\nYou are stastically correct from the perspective that the United States is the most bloodthirsty nation in history with an average of some 180 conflicts in its 240 year history
159232
because they can't adapt to their environment. ones who can't adapt, can't get food or settlement. that's why they became extinct..
1175089
I think the author is trying to get across the idea that there was no big leap from our non-human ancestors to modern humans.  You can look at modern humans, and recognize them as modern humans, but if you look at our ancestors, say, 2 million years ago, you would not call them modern humans.  In between are a bunch of different hominid species, which, as you move closer and closer to us, look more and more human.  But there is no bright line, no point at which you can say "Ah, that population is defiantely the first population of humans".
192989
I presume you mean Native Americans.  As someone with both Native American and European blood in them, I can answer with a little less bias.  Humans have been spreading around the globe since we left Africa About 74,000 years ago.  We took the land from the Neanderthals.  If they still existed today, they'd be complaining as much as the Native Americans do.  And, to some extent, they have the right to.  The Europeans thought they were the civilized ones, and instead of learning what the Indians had to teach about living with the land, they just took it away.  The Europeans went about things in the wrong way.  Like bullies taking over the school playground.  I think the Indians took it far better then I would have. I have more European blood than Indian, but I have to side with the Indians on this one.  Some Indians take things to far, but the vast majority do not.  As to Kenwick man ... irregardless of how old he is, he was here before the Europeans, therefore, must be Indian.  I think, however, they are foolish to obstruct scientific investigation.  Don't they want to know about their ancestors and where they came from.  I hope this helps ... the question is rather vague.
579089
Read a book called Guns, Germs, and Steel or get it on video if you're lazy.  Basically the author of this book explains how geographic and climactic factors favored agriculture in Europe as their society evolved, this gave them a head start towards modern society.  Africa's climate continues to be less favorable for agriculture and industry.  And in many places their social structure remains focused on survival rather than "progress".  Thats not the whole story, but its a big piece of the puzzle.
687846
A difficult question to ask.  Generally, the American Indian, or Native American, would be the most likely candidate.  However, their ancestors arrived here via the land bridge between Siberia and Alaska not once, but three times.\nNow scientists speculate, and with some evidence, that early Europeans arrived here across the icefields of the Atlantic Ocean during the last major ice age, about 10,000 years ago.\nSo who is truly American?  Whoever is born here, I guess.
958340
Maybe Adam and eve were not the only people. Outside of garden eden there were other people. Dont forget alot of the ancient information was taken out of bible, so maybe we are missing information.
868975
The first humans were black, if that's what you mean. Adam and Eve were Jewish, naturally.\n\n=p
344745
The first form of alphabet that was used by the natives was the Alibata.\n\nAnd then it was followed by an alphabet containing the following letters: A B K D E G H I N L M Ñ NG N O P R S T U W Y\n\nThen the Americans added these letters to the previous alphabet: C F J Q V X Z\n\nThat's all I can remember. Pardon me if my previous answer wasn't clear enough.
1053511
From archaeological evidence it would appear that the first groups of people to stop being hunter-gatherers and set up permanent settlements with agriculture and domestic animals and a structured community was in Sumer. They also started us on the road to mathematics, geometry, poetry, fancy religious rituals, reading, writing and astrology. They seemed to have been pretty fair at homeopathic medicine and they were positively wizard at law. Politicking seems to have been another of their inventions, discoveries, whatever. They're the first we've ever found to record elections of local officials. Imagine that. And you thought the USA invented democracy. Or maybe the Athenian Greeks. Sorry, Sumer beat 'em both by about 3,000 years!\n\nLocation: Modern-day Basra area, in southern Iraq.
287996
Neither were the first to be born.  Humans came from a large group of primates that evovled into humans, so there was never just one human to begin with.  Religion gives an oversimplified explanation of where humans came from with no evidence other than stories that were written thousands of years ago to prove their point.
492763
Basically, they moved where it was colder. That's the simple answer.\n\nThe complex answer is to look at it from a medical standpoint and a separate social one.\n\nMedically, humans are a tropical species. All the earliest human findings are in the Middle East and Africa - this is where the first people were probably from. A person can get away with wearing nothing (or next to it) in (parts of) Africa year round, and not suffer for it medically.\n\nWhen those regions got too competitive because of people naturally overpopulating, certain tribes looked for more land. Humanity spread out all over the world. To live there, people obviously needed a bit more heat retention than their bodies would provide unclothed.\n\nThe social component is a bit more delicate. First off, total nudity in tribal societies (of which there are really only in the rain forests of Africa and the Amazon) is rare. Breasts aren't considered nudity to many people. As far as sexual organs... most societies prefer to keep that covered up for many reasons (unwanted erections, menstrual activity, the elderly, etc, etc). True, Christian values have taken this to a higher, sometimes fanatic level. But the base concerns are universal.
992254
It has been PROVEN through DNA that Native Americans came to America during the last ice age, by walking across the land bridge between Alaska and Russia.  With a lot of moisture locked up in the ice sheet, ocean levels were much lower then than now.
382722
What would be a reason to colonize any land?  Why did the Indians come over here way back when the land was connected to Europe?   Hunger for food, wealth, saftey and life.   It is rather silly to equate our feelings and our present laws with the actions and rules that were prevalent in those days.   It was nothing at all to kill for survival and greed in those days.    The Native American also killed, pillaged and raped his neighbor for numerous reasons and it was an accepted fact.   I don't think you can find any other nation in the world that has coddled and repaid their indigenous people as well as has the USA.  Check it out!  Go to an old plantation in the south and look at the slaves quarters, then look at what they came from. Early death in the disease ridden jungles, right? They had it better here as slaves, except with bad slave owners, of course.  Think about it!
453523
Most of the world is inhabited by people whose ancestors at some point came from someplace else... and in many cases their current location and who is still there was decided by warfare, up to and including total extermination of the peoples who were there before.\n\nFor some reason, very few of the conquering peoples emphasize the brutality, bloodiness, etc. of their victories. You can find some blatant honesty in the Bible (look closely at Genesis and Joshua). Most histories skim over it ... "There were some other people living where we are now, but our ancestors fought with them and now here we are," just about covers most histories anywhere you go on the planet.\n\nI'm not saying that this is just or morally right. It isn't. What I am saying is that what happened in the Americas wasn't exactly a novel or unique experience. It's what happens most anytime populations undergo major geographic shifts. And it totally sucks for those who lose the war, whether defender or invader.