Watched a documentary claiming that prior to the American Indians there was a group of Europeans from France that settled the america's in the Ice Age - 20,000 years ago.

The Asian American Indian settled only 12,000 years ago.

So it was saying that The american Indians ancestors were not only asian but also European!

Bet that doesnt go down too well with them!

Well, that would explain the stories of White-Skinned Indian Tribes, but so would interbreeding with Scandanavians or other visiting cultures..
I would have liked to see the show myself..You have to be careful, as revisionist history is still as popular as it always was..

Falco - it was interesting it was based around archeologist telling the story.

I wish I had a better memory! Anyway it was based around the fact that no American archeologist ever digs below 12,000 years because they are laughed at. The american indian theory being first was the only acceptable history. Then this one dood thought - bugger it - I am going to dig down anyway.

Lo and behold he found spear heads - made the same way as the french natives did in the ice age....... then the story goes from there.

But the eskimos in Alaska have very similar tools and sewing needles as did these very inventive ice ager's.

So it was a plausible theory.

Interesting story, Rachael. Do you remember what the documentary was called? Was it an Australian production? I'm totally aware of the politics of the "Native" Americans being titled as the "first" peoples here, and any evidence to the contrary is censored or detracted without even looking into it.

there was no France 20 000 years ago!!!!

lolol
the proof is in the retelling huh.
i think you guys who are unsure of their information at this point need to google "clovis culture" before you start off a new myth right here about prehistoric americans called "pierre" and "Phillipe"

http://www.der.org/films/seeking-first-americans.html
this documentary ?

or even Jacque and Jilles, Didier and stuff
who won the Tour De France 20 000 years ago ?

http://www.utexas.edu/features/2005/archeology/

I think this is the guy on the above link - sorry if it was not France??? But France came into the story and I was watching this as 1am so I might not be completely accurate.

Anyway still, think this is the guy that was on the show - enjoy.

Cheers

there have been reports for years about stories of blond haired,blue eyed,indians
forever.just ask anybody that knows indian history.

From your link
"It didn’t hurt that he usually wears a blue work shirt, sturdy khakis, suspenders and strong work boots, and a broad-brimmed hat to cover his white hair makes him look like an archeologist from central casting"
suspenders ????
sounds like a lumber jack to me
and thats ok

Whoa. There may be some truth to this. Some of the Native Americans had conical shaped skulls. Mainly Incan I think though. Then you have Bascinet Helms from france which are conical.

Conical French Helm

But I think the most compelling evidence comes from:

I come from France

mems! mmemmss!

It's a political hot potato - but without doubt cultures existed in north america before the "natives" that europeans assumed were first EVER to be here!

There was a show on the discovery channel last night about it called The First Canadians.

The First Canadians

The Clovis point was not specifically mentioned by name, but they gave reference to a single point found in Virginia.

The second part of the theory deals with recent DNA testing done that shows a distinct marker found in about 1/4 of the native american population that is identical to a marker found in western europe.

The third part examines recent climate models that suggest that there was an ice bridge between europe and eastern Canada at the height of the last Ice Age about 17,000 years ago.


It was an interesting show.

Latest research shows that the french were the first in the americas

little fella called Asterix accompanied by his boy friend "Obelix" and their german colleague "Dogmatix"
iirc

Hehehe, nice sense of humour Marduk. Still slapping around at everyone I see

But to remain on-topic. 20.000 years ago? How's it with that female archeologist that claimed to have found human remains from about 120.000 years old and was excommunicated from the archeological society? I think there was a passage about her in Forbidden Archeology. (perhaps I got the age of her find wrong)
Anyone know her name?

Wouldn't this mean that those first people, from France, weren't the first?

I doubt if we've heard the last of new discoveries on this topic.

To me it seems ludicrous to belive that we had this big chunk of the world sitting here, and nobody was able to find it until the last few thousand years.

if you're interested in pre common era contact with the americas this was posted as a guest article at the Robert Schoch forum last week.

http://www.robertschoch.net/sumerian_similarites/

Ya I actually read that last week, I think you had referenced it in a different thread, interesting read.

I think there is certainly room to accommodate most of the theories brought up in this topic.

There is no good reason that I can think of why we couldn't have had people find their way to the new world (even from France ) at different times in history even post/pre Ice Age.

If there was enough time between the events it could even account for some of the DNA evidence.

I don't think we should be looking for an exact date as to when people came to the new world, instead I think we should be looking at how many
different people were able to get here.

Of course that's just my opinion

It might just be your opinion but its one we share.
Persoanally the evidence for continuous contact throughout the ages is well founded and overwhelming

We'll NEVER KNOW who was first!! Sad but true - but on the bright side, we'll keep turning up even older and older cultures!!

They better keep re-editing all those Archaeology textbooks every year!! And History, and Geology, and Paleontology, and...........

>Watched a documentary claiming that prior to the American Indians there was a group of Europeans from France that settled the america's in the Ice Age - 20,000 years ago. <

I suppose they wandered over the frozen bearing straight while they were hunting truffles?

hmmm - The Atlantic Ocean was full of glaciers. But the documentary actually covered this theory. They had dressed in skins that were water proof (forgot the elk thingys name) which kept them adequately warm. They had spears and have plenty of fish and seal to eat. Fresh water - well I guess they melted Ice.

So it is not that weird a concept. The skins were sewn together with a needle and twine (they were that advanced). Ask an eskimo how they live in Alaska - I am sure it is a similar environment to what these primative men faced.

Cheers

Putting this link around hey Marduk?

I don't blame you though, it is pretty damn interesting.

If they arrived from what is today France, then the shortest route to the Americas was across the Altantic, but where did they sail, and by what route? St. Brendan did it from Ireland in the 1100's, island hopping via Greenland & Newfoundland.

I would have liked to see the documentary. Ancient navigation is a fascinating subject, as are ancient maps.

Yeah I guess I was hoping someone else had seen the same documentary - when i started this thread.

Remembering things is not my best trait - sorry.

But I will do a google search and see what I can find!

Cheers.

Well this outta start some fires around here. Touchy subject, especially when dealing with Native Americans and their ideals. I am half Native American myself, and this brings those feelings up in ME. I can imagine how full blooded Native Americans would feel.

I'm not quite so sure I understand your post.

The fact is that there really is no such thing as a "native american" as far as we know, everyone who has ever lived on this continent is an immigrant.

I don't think that Rachael really meant to say that the first people in North America were French.

The area that we know today as France was one of the few areas in europe that was not covered by a thick layer of ice during the time that we are talking about, so it is logical to think that any migration from europe to north america would originate from there, it really has nothing to do with their ethnic background.

I do believe your joking right? Whether the "Native Americans" evolved here or not is irrelavent. They were the FIRST here. Thousands of years before anyone else, as I'm sure you know. THAT makes them Native Americans. If your family was born in Germany, but you were born in the U.S., that makes you American, yes? Same goes for new lands. Their ancestors settled, LONG ago, and there they were/are, Native Americans.

maybe changing that last sentence to "The fact is that there really is no such thing as a "indigenous american" as far as we know, everyone who has ever lived on this continent is an immigrant"
would make people happier

Actually I wasn't really joking, but I think that Marduk found my error.


If you are saying native as by birth or original inhabitants then, yes of course there are native americans.

If you are saying native as in originating, then my statement was correct in that if you go back far enough in time there were no "native" americans.

As to who was first, well thats what this thread is about, and there is some evidence to show that there were several migrations over a period of tens of thousands of years, not just the one everyone is familiar with.

LordBailey I am by no means trying to offend the American Indian community. Just as I would not deliberately try to offend the Australian aboriginal in my own country.

But I also think no disclosing a true history due to hurting their feelings is acceptable either.

I am not saying that I believe it to be true either - I am saying it is possible.

After all - you must admit that there may have been other people in the Americas and when the Indian arrived - they may have killed them off. - Who knows!

People are people - whether white black brown yellow or Green - back in primitive time - we killed each other to survive.

So just because a white person stands up and says - hey I am digging an extra 10 metres today to see whats there and discovers some interesting spear heads - does not mean that they are trying to insult the american indian.

Sorry but I get sick of the paranoia that goes with aboriginal cultures and the archeologists being ignored when they disprove current history. Yes aboriginals of all lands were treated poorly - but current governments in a lot of countries are trying to make up for it.

Once again - never meant to offend.

Any claims that Europeans colonized the Americas first without clear evidence is pretty inflammatory for Native Americans because of the many injustices of the past. A statement (or thread title) claiming that "French Natives settled the Amercias first" is even more inflammatory because it is clearly not true. And, definitely not too intelligent because as someone already pointed out, there was no "france" at that time.

First to set foot in the Americas?

A small group or groups of ancient Europeans landing on the East Coast via some miraculous voyage in primitive skin boats across the Atlantic Ocean, or mass migrations of Asiatic people using the Bering land bridge and coast? So far, the earliest human remains found in the Americas have more in common with modern "south" Asians, rather then modern Native Americans and even modern Northeast Asians actually. I assume this is because the original Asian stock is still present in Southern Asians.

Why are modern Native Americans different then the earliest remains found?

Well it is not from mass migrations from france, or Europe for that matter. There is a European link though. Through DNA, archaeologists have found that a Euro/Siberian people (which are technically no longer around) came in after the South Asians did. They settled around and with the earlier Asian migration. This happened in not only America but also all over Northeast Asia. They did this in America through Alaska though, just as the earlier South Asians did. Not from Europe itself. The strongest correlation's between Europe and ancient Native Americans happened there, from a mitochondria DNA stand point anyway. I am not saying that ancient Europeans did not come to the Americas though. But if they did it was on a minuscule scale compared to the Asians. And almost definitely later. Perhaps a small boat load here or a small boat load there. Small family groups landing in the Americas from Europe would have been absorbed completely by the stock of peoples with strong Asian ties. In fact, I would not doubt that many other peoples have come here before Columbus too. Besides evidence of Nordic people, small groups from the Mediterranean like the Phoenicians and or Egyptians probably made it. Even Pacific Islanders (with strong Asian ties) and Chinese also probably made it. Either way the Native Americans are just that, Native Americans and not ANY other group. Not Asian, not European, nor any other group. And regardless of origin it is "they" that were here first.

It is just plain idiotic the notion that Europeans arrived in the Americas before the native Indians.

The history goes like this: Twenty-seven thousand years ago, ancient Eskimos crossed the Bering Strait following migrating herds of Caribou and Wooly Mammoth.

They populated the entire Americas thousands of years before any European stepped foot on the soil.

Why does everyone want to rewrite known history?

And as Dan'O mentions, the ethnographic record shows no evidence of the ancestors of Frankish peoples in Europe 20,000 years ago. There were Neanderthal and Cro-Magnon peoples dating back hundreds of thousnds of years on the European subcontinent, and in the region we now call France. Their descendents perhaps led a nomadic existence until the Ice Age. As far as I know, the ancestors of modern Indo-Europeans migrated from asia only within the past 10,000 years.

You mean people confuse the paleo-indian culture named after Clovis, NM (where their arrowheads were found), with "Clovis," the medieval "Louis"?

Firstly - I believe the American Indian arrived from Asia to the Americas only up to 12,000 years ago (?)

Secondly, No one is trying to rewrite history - but new discoveries are always being found. Remember the Earth was flat once and it was heresy to state otherwise!

History is only Fact - until it is disproven - Surely by now Humanity has become more open minded than in the dark ages!

Here in Australia there are Caves with Egyptian Heiroglphs in them - telling a story about how this Egyptian prince came here in a boat with some others exploring and died by snake bite.

Yet there is no official history of this! I have no idea why - they are here - plain and simple.

Politics has a lot to do with our known history - Communistic Korea for instance - has a completely different historic teaching of their part in the Korean war. So don't be too naive to believe 'history' in its entirety being 'fact'.

Cheers.
(Ref: http://www.science-frontiers.com/sf125/sf125p11.htm)

The Power Of A Paradigm
Powerful paradigms can stifle scientific research. The truth of this has become apparent at the Topper archeological site near Allendale, South Carolina. The dig was discovered back in 1981 when a local man, named Topper, led A. Goodyear (from the University of South Carolina) to a deposit of side-notched chert points. These artifacts are similar to 10,000-year-old points found elsewhere. Nothing anomalous so far! At depths of 80-100 centimeters, Goodyear came across fluted blanks from which the classic and distinctive Clovis points could be manufactured. This was the culmination of the dig; the archeologists picked up their trowels and headed for other sites. Why? Simply because everyone knew that there were no North American artifacts older than Clovis points. Dated at

10,800-11,200 radiocarbon years, Clovis points supposedly marked the earliest arrival of humans in the Americas. Digging deeper at the Topper site would have been a waste of time.

In 1998, however, Goodyear had second thoughts. This was the time when the nothing-older-than-Clovis paradigm was being challenged by finds at Monte Verde, Chile. (SF#120) Goodyear decided to take his trowels back to the Topper site.

"After some 40 cm of essentially barren deposits, the excavators began finding small flakes and microtools. The lower level, exposed over 28 square meters, has yielded some 1,000 waste flakes, 15 microtools (mostly microblades), and a pile of 20 chert pebbles plus four possible quartz hammerstones."
Goodyear thinks that chert pebbles were being processed at Topper 12,000-20,000 years ago. Apparently, North America has its own Monte Verdes!

(Anonymous; "Pre-Clovis Surprise," Archaeology, 52:18, July/August 1999.)

Comment. Shouldn't Goodyear keep on digging at Topper? Should we be satisfied with Relativity, the Big Bang, Plate Tectonics, Neo-Darwinism, etc.?


A Clovis fluted point. The digging stops here!


From Science Frontiers #125, SEP-OCT 1999. © 1999-2000 William R. Corliss

Remember the Earth was flat once and it was heresy to state otherwise!

No it wasn't.
hehe
http://www.id.ucsb.edu/fscf/library/RUSSELL/FlatEarth.html
thats the worst kind of revisionist history
the kind you quote as a point to others to prove something which in itself is erroneous
well done

oooh so the world was always round.....ooooohhhh .......ahhhhhhhh

yes but don't tell anyone, they may tar and feather you!

youd like that wouldnt you isis...watch me running around like a giant chicken

what really annoys me is this PUSHING from French and British "historians" always impose they're presence somewher in the planet ..they are always the ones who got somewhere first ... always the special ones... always the "real desecendents of Jesus", always the superior ones... good grief ...what an annoying bunch of people... Unbelievable... how can proove that ?? someone found a 20,000 skeleton with the tag "Made in France"... im sorry ... but the Indians were here first PERIOD !....

French AND british,
next time you get a middle east crisis
don't call us ok

try the french instead

Marduk... i didnt have a middle east crises... at the most in a few years ill have middle age crises...lol.. but YOU are the BESTEST BRIT EVER ! LOL

There were no "French" people 20,000 years ago. There were certainly some humans inhabiting what is now France in 18,000 B.C., however, anthropological maps show that mainly Swanscombe (early homo sapiens) and Neanderthals (homo sapiens neanderthalensis) occupied the region at the time along with groups of "Les Eyzies" and "Mauer." So, did these peoples begin to Migrate Eastward during the advancement of the Wurm glaciation? Maybe so, but they were anything but "French."

Kevdogster

Yes Dictators rewrite history the way they want it to be. America has never been a Communist country nor a dictatorship and so the writing of history is as accurate as it could possibly hope to be...

....my information comes from a book:

THE WORLD OF THE AMERICAN INDIANS published by the National Geographic Society in 1974. I have seen no evidence of any change in the time tables and theories presented here in the last 30 years. Where did you get your information?

No-one yet knows when humans first reached the Americas, nor from where they came. But IMO the most likely scenario is that various groups arrived over tens of thousands of years via Beringia, Atlantic and Pacific.

Native Americans are descended from all of these diverse groups.

Just as Britons are descended from dozens of different groups of peoples who settled in Britain over the past few thousand years.

To say the first Americans were 'Asian' or 'European' is like saying the first Englishmen were 'French' or 'Russian'

watch it with the frenchie slander buddy

You see, no one has said Native Americans are the Original inhabitants. There were just here first. That's all. If that was the case I would have called them Original Americans, not Native Americans.

I think you want to re read your last post with your logic filters switched on L B