Since we've been talking about this in another thread, which has 5 pages now, and it has sort of veered off topic, I thought I would start a thread that is more specific to where the other thread started to go. Also, since it has 5 pages already it is discouraging new readers. I'd like to send you all to this specific page of a 12 page article by Peter Marsh. It has been updated as recently as 2006. This specific page though deals with Ancient America, how it was populated, who was there, etc. For me, it is extremely convincing. The evidence is in our cultures today and cannot be ignored. Humans traded and worked together much sooner than we think, they were much more intelligent than we think. We have no reason to believe that our ancient ancestors werent smart enough to do the things they did 2000 years ago 15000 years ago. Please read this exciting page, especially for those of you, like me, who have been looking for someone tackling the idea of the AMericas being populated even further back than 6000 years ago, or even 12000 years ago. It is not a far fetched idea, and after reading this, hopefully you will be convinced that your ancestors werent a bunch of hunters struggling to survive, but were culture makers, and travelers of the world!

This is the page, this is the link: http://users.on.net/~mkfenn/page9.htm

Dudette,
Even the Clovis theory, which has been called into question in the last decade or so by real archaeological findings, dates the original population of the Americas further back than "6000 years ago, or even 12000 years ago."

Harte

Im a woman.

I was just making a generalized statement.

Interesting. The article is a bit long. So I'll read it later. <3 Thanks.

A thousand pardons. I've edited my previous post to reflect this new information.

Harte

Hehe, that was super cute to see that edit. I like how you bolded and italicized.
Thank you, also.

Rezna,
No prob. You really should check out that preClovis link I put in the other thread though (http://www.preclovis.com/).

There's a guy named Goodyear that appears to have evidence of human activity at a site called Topper that dates back to 50,000 years ago. The site is in Allendale County, South Carolina. Here's a link to his press releases:
http://allendale-expedition.net/pressreleases/1117pr.html

Goodyear is a legitimate archaeologist. He's actually there doing the digging.

This sort of stuff is much more indicative of early migration of humans to North America than any mtDNA evidence you'll ever find.

Harte

Oooh sounds interesting. I tried to go to that link and it didn't work. I will google arond and see if I can't find it some place else.

I found this: http://www.centerfirstamericans.org/mt.php?a=13

I'm gonna go to http://www.allendale-expedition.net/ and read everything. Thanks for the links!

Edit: Lol I just needed to add www to your link up there, now it works.

Well this is great, I'm going to research this as much as possible. I'm the kind of person that gets on the phone and ask people questions about their progress with this kind of thing. Lol, wouldn't that be great if I could talk to Goodyear by email or something, get weekly updates.. I would love that. Anyways, thanks for these cool sites. If anyone else has any sites similar to this about Ancient America, PLEASE post them here!!!

Could we get a MOD in here to fix that duplicate post or something? It's kind of harsh, too. Your 19? DId you drop out of school? I can barely understand you. Are you just trying to translate english or something like that? Man, that was difficult to read.

oh so yeah i write to fast cuz i get excited and such, oh yeah cussing yeah ill leave that out cuz , its just part of my lingo. but yeah, no im on college, and i want to major in anthropology cuz im good. but yeah

luve always
muddpuppy

I have a book that says the Minoans might have been in America.

....and the alledged Smithsonian coverup....


" Historian and linguist Carl Hart, editor of Word Explorer, then obtained a hiker's map of the Grand Canyon from a bookstore in Chicago.

Poring over the map, we were amazed to see that much of the area on the north side of the canyon has Egyptian names. The area around Ninety-four Mile Creek and Trinity Creek had areas (rock formations, apparently) with names like Tower of Set, Tower of Ra, Horus Temple, Osiris Temple, and Isis Temple.

In the Haunted Canyon area were such names as the Cheops Pyramid, the Buddha Cloister, Buddha Temple, Manu Temple and Shiva Temple. Was there any relationship between these places and the alleged Egyptian discoveries in the Grand Canyon?

We called a state archaeologist at the Grand Canyon, and were told that the early explorers had just liked Egyptian and Hindu names, but that it was true that this area was off limits to hikers or other visitors, "because of dangerous caves."

Indeed, this entire area with the Egyptian and Hindu place names in the Grand Canyon is a forbidden zone - no one is allowed into this large area. We could only conclude that this was the area where the vaults were located. Yet today, this area is curiously off-limits to all hikers and even, in large part, park personnel.

I believe that the discerning reader will see that if only a small part of the "Smithsoniangate" evidence is true, then our most hallowed archaeological institution has been actively involved in suppressing evidence for advanced American cultures, evidence for ancient voyages of various cultures to North America, evidence for anomalistic giants and other oddball artefacts, and evidence that tends to disprove the official dogma that is now the history of North America.

The Smithsonian's Board of Regents still refuses to open its meetings to the news media or the public. If Americans were ever allowed inside the 'nation's attic', as the Smithsonian has been called, what skeletons might they find? "

http://www.crystalinks.com/gc_egyptconnection.html

Thor's Hammer
Fairyland Loop
Queen's Garden

All these are the names of places in Bryce Canyon. However the Norse god of thunder hasn't been anywhere near Utah last I'd heard, neither had Queen Victoria and I truly doubt the Fairy Kingdom is located on the Paunsaugunt Plateau.

These are descriptive names for wind-sculpted features and not any indication of past visitation by the entities they are named after. Now, if you could confirm these places in the Grand Canyon had been given Egyptian/Hindu names some 2000 years ago I would be interested.

I wonder what the true history of these many mound building civilizations are... there are also the Mima mounds......




http://research.ua.edu/archive2006/mysterious.html

The mounds – the largest of which rises some 58.5 feet high and covers some 1.75 acres – began as small elevations that would have been a stretch to call a hill, Knight said.

It’s been approximately 800 years since the first of the mounds were constructed by the Mississippian Indians, and 100 years since Clarence Moore, the first researcher to conduct extensive excavations at the site, began his investigations. Although more than 1 million artifacts and some 3,000 sets of human remains have been recovered from the site, many of Moundville’s secrets remain hidden, concealed by the passage of time and obscured by layers of soil.


The total number of mounds in Ohio has been estimated at ten thousand. This is probably under rather than over the total figure; for while they are almost unknown in the northwest counties and are comparatively scarce in some parts in the rugged hill lands of the south and southeast and along the main watersheds, there is scarcely a township in any other part where they are not found.


http://www.delaware.org/history/moundbuilders.htm

"several peculiarly shaped pieces of slate which were found on the farm of Solomon Hill, Concord Township, Delaware County, Ohio. The mound is situated on the banks of a rocky stream. The nearest place where the queen conch shell is found is on the coast of Florida; the isingglass in New York State, and the slate in Vermont and Pennsylvania. Two human skeletons were also found in the mound, one about seven feet long, the other a child. The shell was found at the left cheek of the large skeleton. A piece of slate about one by six inches was under the chin. The slate was provided with two smooth holes, apparently for the purpose of tying it to its position. Another peculiarly shaped piece, with one hole, was on the chest, and another with some isingglass was on the left hand."

"ONE of the prehistoric races that have inhabited North America have caused more interest and speculation than the Mound Builders. Among their remains, in their mounds and burial grounds, have been found pottery of a high order, bone needles with eyes, stone pipes with elbows, strings of fine beads made from shells, fragments of cloth, ornaments of catlinite, silver, copper and tortoise shell, and some strings of extraordinarily large pearls, etc. 1

On their ornaments and pottery are found various religious symbols, connecting them with a prehistoric race in Mexico and with Mu, the Motherland of Man. By these symbols it is shown that they possessed a highly scientific knowledge, for they perfectly understood the great Cosmic Sciences which today are just dawning on our scientific world. The Cosmic Sciences include the origin and workings of the Four Great Primary Forces, the parents of all forces. My object is not to attempt to give a history of the Mound Builders but simply to give some of the high lights about them which

p. 219

apparently have been overlooked by the archaeological authorities who have been keeping the public informed regarding the mysteries of the Mound Builders. My object is to show their great civilization, which I think has been underestimated, and that they came from Mu via Mexico.

Regarding the time when they were living in America I have found nothing whereby even an approximate date could be suggested except that it was after Atlantis went down about 11,500 years ago. My opinion is that they were among the last of the prehistoric races that can be called prehistoric."


http://www.sacred-texts.com/atl/ssm/ssm11.htm


"On the farm of A. J. ANDERSON, in Diamond Island Bend, are many mounds, four of which stood above the high water of 1883, the highest ever known. The ground upon which his house stands is a mound, and in 1854, when digging for clay for the purpose of making brick, thousands of bones were found and many remarkable relics, including glass trinkets handsomely carved. In addition to this, a lump of lead three inches square was found. Mr. ANDERSON is satisfied in his own mind that his place was never and Indian burial ground, but that the bones and relics belonged to a race of people living here long before the Indians."

http://hendersonkyhistory.com/MoundBuilders.htm


http://info.detnews.com/history/story/inde...p;category=life
This skull found in a Michigan burial mound reportedly suggests that the early inhabitants of the state were performing brain surgery well before the birth of Christ.

“I was surprised to find many Amerindian place names had somehow survived the onslaught of colonists, rivers and geographical features, it would seem, tend to keep their old names despite the invasions of foreign conquerors.

Modern Gaelic preserves many spelled letters that are no longer pronounced, but when pronounced in the ancient Gaulish or ancestral tongue of the Celts and Basques, one finds a striking similarity to the Algonquian language.

For example; the Algonquian word for ‘one who takes small fish' is Amoskeag. In Gaelic Ammo-iasgag means ‘small fish stream'.

In Algonquian Ammonoosuc means ‘small fishing river' and in Gaelic, Am-min-a-sugh means; ‘small river for taking out fish'.

In Algonquian Coos and cohas mean ‘pine tree' and in Gaelic, ghiuthas means ‘pine tree'.

Merrimack River in Algonquian means ‘deep fishing'. In Gaelic Mor-riomach means ‘of great depth'.

Kaskaashadi another Algonquian name for the Merrimack River sounds similar to Guisgesiadi, which in Gaelic means ‘slow flowing waters'

Nashaway River in Algonquian means ‘land between' and in Gaelic naisguir means ‘land connecting'.

Piscataqua River means ‘white stone' and in Gaelic, Pioscatacua means ‘pieces of snow white stone'.

Seminenal River means ‘grains of rock', which in Gaelic is; semenaill

Quechee matches the Gaelic work Quithe meaning pit or chasm.

Ottauquechee River flows through a 162 feet deep gorge is similar to the Gaelic word Otha-Cuithe which means; ‘waters of the gorge'.

Cabassauk River in Algonquian means place of Sturgeon. The Sturgeon fish have unfortunately fallen victim to environmental degradation. Similar to Gaelic Cabach-sugh.

Attilah means blueberries and in Gaelic Aiteal means juniper berries.

Munt means people and in Gaelic muintear means people.

Monad means mountain and in Gaelic monadh means mountain.

The suffix - nock is used in New England to denote hills and mountains. Cnoc in Gaelic means hill or rocky outcrop.

Wadjak means on top, in Gaelic the word is uachdar.

Monomonock Lake means 'island lookout place' and in Gaelic Moine-managh-ach 'means boggy lookout place'.

Pontanipo Pond means cold water and in Gaelic Punntaine-pol means ‘numbingly cold pool'

Natukko means cleared place (land) and in Gaelic Neo-tugha means not covered (by vegetation).

Asquam Lake means ‘pleasant watering place' and in Gaelic Uisge-amail means ‘seasonable waters'.

These names which have stuck, through many changes over the past 300 years, are not names left by Bronze Age European traders who have sporadicly visitored America. These are names given to these places by the indigenous Amerindians. As the Gaelic language is unrelated to any Indo-European languages, this can mean only one thing - that the Gaelic language was the original mother tongue of many Amerindians. It stands to reason that anyone speaking Gaelic related languages in Europe were originally from America. The native name of Brittany in France is Armorica, another big hint as to their origins.

and link all this with the Basque info....

http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum...aded&start=

Dispite some preconceived notions, people, we are not psychic. Use the 'report this post' function to alert us to problem posts, we're not always going to know about them unless you help out. Thank you for your co-operation.

thank you ,and the search is a foot.

with the highlands plataue that cape breton island has and the make up of the land only makes it more likly that this island was that island fortress of past.

the bra'dor lakes as our inland sea could more than hold a fleet of ships and then some,that was well protected from the elements of nature but also aggenst invadorse.

you can see the importants this harbor has is during the last world war there was over a thousand ships comming and going to battel and supplise.

and when the queen mary the ship sails comming from over there ,cape breton island is the first port of call because of the location.

plain and simpel

and now for something completely different....


http://www.abc.net.au/rn/scienceshow/stories/2000/167009.htm
Something no one denied is that Heyerdahl is an expert on primitive navigation. After all, he sailed thousands of kilometres in a balsa raft, and most recently in a small vessel of papyrus after a design made by the ancient Egyptians.

Thor Heyerdahl: I would say that when you speak of primitive craft you are safer in a small one than in a big one, because whether it be an open canoe or a raft, if it is small enough to find room between two big swells in the rough sea, you're better off than if you have a long one that will bridge two waves and run the risk of breaking at the mid-point or running the bow or stern into the water and thus being killed.

Robyn Williams: What is it like being in a wash-through type vessel when the seas are rough?

Thor Heyerdahl: Well you feel much more confident and happier than you do in a hulled vessel. I've been in both and I've been sitting in the Polynesian dugout canoes when you get rough weather and the canoe is filled with water and you have sharks around you and you bail for your life each time it fills, trying to avoid sinking. On the other hand, I've been sitting on both the log rafts of the balsa raft type used by the Inca in ancient Peru and in the reed boats used by the ancient Easter Islanders in Polynesia, also reed boats built by the South American Indians or by the African people of the type the papyrus boat used by the ancient Egyptians. In this kind of vessel you feel perfectly safe in any kind of storm because, if the wave will break on board you don't have to worry at all; it will just run through the bottom and out again, and you will always be on top.
"Robyn Williams: Well, of course all three expeditions, the two Ra ones and the Kon-Tiki were I think to demonstrate that it's possible for the Polynesian islands to have been populated from the east, from the Americas. But surely it would have been simpler for the peoples to come down from south-east Asia, or are there other reasons why that wouldn't have been quite so straightforward.

Thor Heyerdahl: That would not be quite straightforward. If you look at the map it seems as if you could sort of walk dry feet from Indonesia to Polynesia, but once you are in the primitive type of vessel you will find that the situation is quite different. As a matter of fact we know that even the ancient Spaniards in the sailing days were absolutely unable to sail from Indonesia even into Micronesia. They sailed with no problem at all from Peru through Polynesia and all the way to the Philippines, or from Acapulco in Mexico all the way to the Philippines. But to get back again they were unable for many decades until they discovered that by sailing north with the Japan current, then they were able to come back to Mexico and South America.

Robyn Williams: Yes, even Captain Cook was coming east wasn't he?

Thor Heyerdahl: Yes he was, but he was the first one really to discover that by going way south of Australia you can find a contrary wind, but once he sailed eastwards in that area, once he came up into the latitude of Polynesia he was also swept back in the opposite direction, although he had of course much more modern sailing gear than the ancient Spaniards and primitive man.

In addition I would like to point out the fact that since I drifted from South America with Kon-Tiki to Polynesia, eleven other rafts have duplicated the feat although reaching not only Polynesia but also Melanesia and even Australia, from South America. But everyone who tried to go the other way, that is from south east Asia, they failed completely. The last expedition was the expedition with a Chinese junk that tried it and ended up in the high altitudes way above Hawaii and the vessel was last spotted off Alaska when the crew had already abandoned it.

Robyn Williams: Why really do you think it is important to establish this question one way or the other?

Thor Heyerdahl: So many branches of science have built on the belief that the Polynesians came straight out of Oceania and had no contact with America, and even the zoology and botany have come to erroneous conclusions on the assumption that there could have been no contact with new world before Columbus. And I think that once it is established that the earliest stratum of culture in Polynesia came out of America, this has an impact on the pre-history of America again, because some of the elements that many writers have assumed to have come out of Asia minor and the ancient civilizations of the world, could all have come across the Atlantic."
http://www.greatdreams.com/thor.htm

"New evidence -- Clovis people not first to populate North America (22-February-2007 from http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/200...-nec022007.php)
COLLEGE STATION -- The belief that the Clovis People were the first to populate North America some 11,500 years ago has been widely challenged in recent years, and a Texas A&M University anthropologist has found evidence he says could be the final nail in the coffin for the Clovis first model.

Michael Waters, director of the Center for the Study of the First Americans at Texas A&M, is the lead author of the paper "Redefining the Age of Clovis: Implications for the Peopling of the Americas," that appears in the Feb. 23 (Friday) issue of Science.

Waters’ paper revises the original dates for the Clovis time period, suggesting that humans likely inhabited the Americas before Clovis, who have long been considered to be the first inhabitants of the New World.

"It was always argued that Clovis represented the first people who came to the Americas," Waters says. "The new dating that we did indicates that the Clovis Complex ranges from 11,050 to 10,900 radiocarbon years before the present."

"Slowly but surely, archaeologists have been questioning whether Clovis represents the earliest people to enter the Americas."

To properly understand the age of Clovis, Waters and co-author Thomas Stafford of Stafford Research Laboratories in Colorado, tested samples from various Clovis sites in an effort to re-date some of what Waters says were poorly dated sites.

Because of technological advances, Waters says that he and Stafford were able to more precisely pinpoint the dates for some of the more than 25 dated Clovis sites that were excavated in North America.

"Many of these radiocarbon dates were run back in the 1960s and 1970s when radiocarbon technology wasn’t what it is today," says Waters. "Many of the dates obtained from these sites had ranges on them of plus or minus 250 years. We can now get to plus or minus 30 years."

What Waters and Stafford found when they did their testing were radiocarbon dates that showed the Clovis time range wasn’t as long as had been previously thought. Their tests placed the Clovis time frame between 11,050 radiocarbon years before present to approximately 10,800 radiocarbon years before present.

"It was a surprise," Waters says of the results. "And I think people are going to be surprised by the dates."

Waters says those dates show that Clovis was no more than 200 to 400 calendar years long, making it almost impossible for the Clovis people to spread as far as previously thought in such a short time span. They would, at most, have had to be prehistoric jet-setters to cover the ground in this amount of time.

"Once you realize that the Clovis Complex dates much younger than previously thought and that Clovis has a much shorter duration than we thought, you have to ask how could people, in such a short period of time, reach the tip of South America." Waters says. "It doesn’t make any kind of anthropological sense that these people could have been moving that fast, nor would they have wanted to move that fast. And it seems highly unlikely, given 20 generations, they could have made it that far that quickly."

To re-date the sites, Waters requested samples for dating from different researchers who had excavated Clovis sites. He then sent the radiocarbon samples to Stafford who put them through a process where the bone is dissolved and bone collagen is extracted.

The collagen was put in a molecular sieve where it worked its way down through the sieve. Once this was complete, Stafford was left with purified amino acids from the bone. The highly chemically-pure sample was processed into a target and dated using an atomic accelerator.

The revised ages that Waters and Stafford obtained overlap dates from a number of North American sites that are technologically and culturally not Clovis sites, further bringing into question whether the Clovis People were the first humans in the Americas.

"The long-range implications of our study is that it will get scientists looking for pre-Clovis evidence with a lot more vigor and thinking differently about Clovis," Waters says. "This will force us to develop a new model to explain the peopling of the Americas."

Im on a roll today...

On another note, I read in another article about this same topic:

"Slowly, we are realizing that the ancestry of the Americas is as complex and as difficult to trace as that of other human lineages around the world."

GAH! I read that and it infuriated me that anthropologists would even think that somehow the populating of the new world was so easy. Oh they just came over on a land bridge. We don't really want to be studying this stuff. Were just gonna pass it off like the native americans were lucky to even get to america. god. how retarded. They sound so stupid when they have to say something like the above quote. Isnt the point of their field to be treating people the same way across cultures? We are all human beings and if were equal now we were equal then. God!!

Im actually more surprised that people considered mainstream are still clinging to the Clovis theory as THE theory for the population of the Americas.

This article was very informative, but for the most part, all this information and artifacts, save for the newer discoveries of the past few years, has been around for awhile now, just merely ignored as "out of time" artifacts and crackpot theories by mainstream academia.

The most convincing evidence to me is also the simplest evidence. There is no possible way, using the clovis timeline, that people crossing the Bering Strait could have migrated all the way to the tip of South America in the time frame provided AND set up sophisticated cultures in these spots dating back thousands of years. Society progresses slowly and combining that wth the amount of time it would take a sizable population to traverse, breed, survive, reproduce and flourish from Alaska to Brazil and beyond just isn't feasible.

Granted people did come over the land bridge but to say that there were no other visitors who came to the Americas thru different means doesnt seem to hold water.

Exactly.

The main reason I posted this is since it's so recent, and he actually says right out in the open that the Clovis theory no longer holds water. Actual new DNA testing that proves it. Before, it was just people finding artifacts and saying, "This seems really old, do you believe me yet?" lol.

I'm so glad that someone finally found extremely convincing evidense, along with the DNA evidence that proves Clovis 1 is not the answer. I recently watched a very good NOVA about this. It was on this weekend, I still have it taped, gonna watch it again this weekend. They talked about the soultrean hypothesis as being a very good contender, at least being a possibility of some people coming over. THey totally had the ability, now it's up to the History books to start rewriting all that horribly wrong Columbus stuff. Have they put clovis in the young history books? I haven't been in grade school for a long time so.....

Rezna,

Okay, let's not go overboard.
Did you look at the link I gave you (Preclovis) on the first page of this thread? Contrary to what you seem to think here, anthropologists have been "studying this stuff" all along.

Rather than characterizing them as thinking the problem was "solved" at Clovis, you should perhaps think of them as reporting in from time to time on what it is that we do actually know. The idea that the Clovis culture was the first was built up over time as decades went by without any new archaeological findings that predated that culture. Scientists report what they have, not what they "feel."


Yet it is one of those "retarded" Anthropologists that is telling us this. Should we believe him?


Are you back on this? There is no DNA evidence that proves anything. Are you talking about new radiocarbon dating techniques? I mean, that's what your article is talking about.


No, it was radiocarbon dating, then as now. But the technology, as well as knowledge about necessary calibrations to the time scale, have come quite a ways since the original testing was done. Your article also says this, BTW, in so many words.


No DNA evidence at all. And "proof" that Clovis was not the answer has been around for some time now, as the link I gave you indicates.


There is a very good possibility that the Soultrean theory could be correct. But, given the (now evident) extremely short duration of the Clovis culture, I would expect that at least a few Soultrean points should have been found by now, especially at some of the older sites (like those in the link I, again, gave you) if this hypothesis is to pan out. Of course, the fact that none have been found doesn't mean that they are not out there.


These ideas have nothing whatsoever to do with Columbus. Even Columbus reported that there were people here when he got here, right?

Harte

Ok, a lot of the time I use generalizations. What I was trying to say was that the radio carbon testing was re-done and that is new evidence that the Clovis time period was too small to get all the way to the tip of South America. Your basically taking the symantics of what I said and taking them too literally. Yes, I messed up and referred to DNA instead. Sorry, I was excited. Harte, you are smarter than this. You know what I was trying to say. I know that people have been studying this a long time. But it disheartens me when I see an anthropologist saying things like European migration was more complicated than anything else, and we are just now starting to accept that human migration all over the world is complicated, not just in Europe. I don't think it's ok to assume that human migration is complicated in Europe because we have evidence for it, and it's not in North America because we don't have any evidence for it yet. Wouldn't that be the same thing as saying, "we don't have evidence that a black person is smart, therefore they can't be as smart as a white person." That seems like the same exact line of thinking. Shouldn't an anthropologist be all about saying that all human kind is equally complicated? I would think that that assumption is better than the the automatic simplicity assumption.

you said, "Contrary to what you seem to think here, anthropologists have been "studying this stuff" all along."

That's not what I was saying. I was making a generalization of the mainstream anthropologists who wont ever entertain new ideas. They want all the proof first, then they will give it a second thought. THat's not what science is supposed to be about. It's supposed to be about thinking of a hypothesis, then testing it/discovering it/looking for it. A scientist should not be sitting around in an office waiting for other people to do the work for them, and then say, "Yeah that idea is ok now." I don't like any of that.

But that doesn't mean that there arent anthropologists out there trying to discover the things were talking about. Of course there are! Those anthropologists make a good example. They werent the ones I was talking about. I thought that was obvious.

In the future, would you pleae just humor me and let me go off about whatever, instead of taking apart my grammar and symantics in a conversation? Doesn't this just take away from what we are trying to talk about?

Sorry, Rezna, but all I know of you is what you write

See, lots of people are gonna read your post, potentially. I'm used to dealing with wigged-out ideas that people have about this or that that started out with them getting some bad information.

It's not about you, IOW, it's about making sure that the correction (no DNA evidence) appears nearby in the thread. At least, for me that's what it's about.


Yet you yourself are making an two assumptions here. You have assumed that there is some assumption being made by Anthropologists about the complexity of human migration when really all it is is that these people are scientists and, like I said, they only report what they have. If the evidence they have points to a simple explanation, would you have them state that the explanation just has to be more complicated, if they have no evidence to indicate this?

Secondly, you assume that there is some difference between black people and other people. Might as well say "blue eyed person." Genetics shows that the genetic variation between a raccoon from Oregon and a raccoon from Florida is greater by an order of magnitude than the genetic variation between a Norseman and an Australian Aborigine.

I'd also like to point out that your analogy is really quite unfair in that you shift from the idea that human migrational patterns are complicated to an argument about how humans are complicated. Not the same thing at all. And not semantics, either.


I agree that it is not what science is supposed to be about. But I would argue that these "mainstream anthropologists" you've described don't actually exist.

Just like a general practitioner M.D. might assume something about some surgical technique that is incorrect, an anthropologist that's not working in the Americas might make an assumption about the Clovis people that's not correct. It's really just a matter of specialities.


Actually, you have it a little backwards, and I don't think this is just semantics either. Science is first and foremost the collection of data. Once the data have been collected and studied, an hypothesis (or theory) can be formed to try to explain the data. Once a theory is formulated, ways of testing the theory must be established. If the theory can be tested, and if the theory withstands these tests, it becomes accepted. Eventually, and this happens with all theories, the theory will face a test that it cannot surpass and it will be relegated to the junkpile. Then a new theory is needed.

This may seem inefficient, but that's the way it works.


I have (obviously) a problem with this idea of scientists being so set in their ways that they won't accept a new theory. I mean, sure, there's probably a few Anthropologists out there that might have a somewhat higher standard for evidence which is supposed to overturn established theory. But there are also some with lesser standards. Overall, just like the rest of us, scientists make mistakes. Also, like the rest of us, they wouldn't mind getting some recognition. What could possibly bring more recognition that standing established theory on it's ear?

The idea, anyway, that "Big Science" is trying to hide the truth about the past (or the stargate, or the aliens, or Cydonia, or Jesus, or evolution....etc.) stems from ideas like this false dichotomy you lay out here with your "good Anthropologists - bad Anthropologists" statements. Now, I'm not blaming you for the raving linacy of the Cydonia/contrails crowd. I'm just saying that I think you've bought into this "bad scientists" idea to a greater extent than would correlate with reality.


Rezna,
I'm more than glad to humor you. But remaining silent results in posts like the one (I forget the poster) in the Egyptians in South America thread that went something like:
"They've proven that the native Americans have 1/4 of their genetic makeup coming from Europeans."

I think we got down to what it was that that poster had read, or heard, about eventually. But those sorts of statements are a direct result of misinformation that was allowed to stand, some of it on the basis of "just humoring" the person with the misinformation.

It's not in me to let something like that pass, when I know darn well it's not true. So, could you just humor me?


I wasn't aware of any statements about your grammar or semantics in my post. Like I said, the only thing I "know" of you is what you write here.
As far as taking away from what we are talking about, no, I believe my post was pretty much on topic. If we're gonna talk about Anthropology in America, I believe we should avoid oversimplifying the subject which, IMO, is what you do when you say

or


It's just a point I needed to make, that there's not some "club" of old scientists actively trying to at best ignore and at worst supress any new evidence that tends to contradict their own theories, ala Graham Hancock. I know that this isn't what you said, but what you did say leads to this kind of argument.

Harte

Ok, again I understand what you mean. I guess I meant humor me when I generalize about people in disciplines. It's not really going to change what we are talking about. But say the example you made about the 1/4 of Native Americans thing being inaccurate. That's definitely a numbers issue that is more sensitive in an argument such as this.

So in the future I will say something to the effect of:

I don't like it when some professionals in a field such an anthropology will act as if Europeans had complicated migration whereas Americans didn't. (when obviously it should be that all humans have complicated migrations not just some of them, it seems obvious to me)

When I made the analogy of black people I thought it was obvious that I was referring to what a white racist person would have thought, say in the 40s or 50s. Does it make more sense now? It was a bad analogy but sometimes they are hard to come up with!

"If the evidence they have points to a simple explanation, would you have them state that the explanation just has to be more complicated, if they have no evidence to indicate this?"

Isn't the fact that European migration was complicated, evidence for human migration being complicated everywhere? why isn't it? why would we just assume that american migration had to be simple first, and then let it be complicated when we had a perfectly good model of human migration being complicated already!?!? please help me understand why they can do that.

just if your wondering there is a gaelic colleage up here in cape breton at st ann's, the scenerarie is quiet breath taking.

and they brought over a gaelic teacher to teach the language.

of all the sites throughout north america that have been searched cape breton is uniqu.

with the highlands that cast its shadow over the lowland when the sun does set,

cape breton will rise again in all her glory.

Your quote of the anthropologist in that earlier post did not indicate that the previous thinking was that the migration to the Americas was a simple thing. What the man said was that it looks like it may have been more complicated that previously thought. He didn't say it was previously thought to be a simple thing.

Anyway, I'm sure you must realize that some migrations can and have been extremely simple. Like "Let's all move to the other side of the mountain range where Og said he saw all those bison." or whatever.


Yes, I knew precisely what you were getting at. I just threw that in as one of two examples of you yourself making assumptions, IOW doing exactly what you accuse these "bad anthropologists" of doing. Didn't mean to imply anything about your personal views on race or anything.


How complicated certain human endeavors are (or were) varies, as I already pointed out. The model of European migration wouldn't necessarily apply to that of the Americas. Everything does not always happen the same way.

Like I said before, scientists report what they have. Pointing to the European model, which was inhabited by hominids other than Homo Sapiens, BTW, as an example of what happened in the Americas would not be logical. Hence, anthropologists must rely on the evidence they have. Don't forget, there's a thousand (or more) of them out there still looking in the Americas for this evidence. They'll probably find some more. We'll find out eventually, or our grandchildren will.

Harte

well at least we have a way better idea now of what might have gone on than we did say 30 years ago. I'm really excited to see what we find out from more DNA research.

...I found this interesting....



CAUCASIANS AND FLYING CANOES??
Proto-Guanche Explorations to the New World

The asiatic Indians of Central and South America, traditionally referred to as the indigenous peoples of the New World, although increasing evidence is pointing to a multi-cultural pre-Columbian New World of varying ethnic Asiatic groups as well as Caucasians and proto-humanoid beings of more archaic age, referred to the Columbians as quetzalcoatl, referring to the plumed serpent-god of the heavens which would return in the form of a white, bearded man in the year 1519 CE (by the calendar of the Europeans of the time); this date was venerated by the Aztecs in Tenochtitlan as an eschatological date and preparations were made by the court astrologers of the palace of Montezuma for their return. Other tribes of the New World in both Central and South America also venerated these wise, bearded white men for their previous incarnations and flying canoes which had brought culture, peace and prosperity to these regions in the remote past.

Yet it is possible that the voyage of Columbus was pre-dated by other Europeans explorers; scholars have made the speculation and evidence for Leif Ericcson and the Nose colonies of Vinland circa 1200 CE; the Welsh King Madoc circa 1200 or 500 CE depending on the archaeological data interpretation; the Irish Monk Brendan circa 500 CE; and perhaps earlier Irish, Basque, Roman, Cartaginian, Celtic and Phonecian-Israelite voyages to the New World, thereby establishing a permanent and continuous East to West cultural drive and expanding many historical horizons of the abilities of the ancient ancestors of modern Western civilization.

The author Kemp explains his research indicates the sea-faring ability of the Guanches and their interactions with the voyage of Columbus:

In fact Columbus' starting off point was the Canary Islands, where he obtained supplies and water on Gomera, the island next to Tenerife. The Guanches on Tenerife in 1492 did not permit Columbus to land on their island - they were not impressed by the physical appearance of the bearded Europeans, who looked like the Guanches themselves.

When Columbus and the Europeans who followed in his wake landed in the Americas, they were welcomed and initially worshiped as gods, since the beardless Indians they encountered believed that the Spanish belonged to the same people as the legendary founders of their civilization, bearded men from across the Atlantic Ocean.


QUETZALCOATL...NORDIC FEATURES AND A BEARD

According to the Aztec and Olmec (Central American Amerind) legends, their god, Quetzalcoatl, had Nordic features (eyes and hair color) and a beard. This god came from over the sea and taught the Amerinds how to raise corn and build structures. [Kemp, Guanche Type Pyramids Found In Mexico, http://www.white- history.com/hwr6a.htm]

There is further archaeological evidence that the ancient cultures of the Mesoamerican New World, predating the Aztecs, Mayas and perhaps the Olmecs (who themselves had rather Semitic-appearing features including beards, long noses and black hair).

As the proto-Guanche were noted seafarers in classical and ancient times; it is possible that the tall, golden-haired and fair-skinned peoples called the quetzalcoatl, or the culture-bringers of the asiatic Indians of Meso- and South America, were indeed proto-Guanches or Egyptians working with Guanches, or Egyptians who were related the the post-Cro-Magnon Proto-Guanches that traveled from the Canaries Islands as a stopover point to the New World and the sailing currents of the Gulf Stream from the southwest coast of Spain and modern-day Cadíz (ancient Ibero-Phonecian name Gades, or That Way) along the Atlantics Canaries Stream, to the Caribbean and what is now modern-day Northern Brazil."


http://forums.atlantisrising.com/cgi-bin/u...c;f=15;t=000387

This is a bit off topic but I think it is really funny how a lot of asians claim that native americans are descendants of asians and that they have the right to be here or something because native americans "evolved from azns and azns were here first so you get off my land!" sorry :<

http://www.flavinscorner.com/fe2.htm


http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/display.ph...view&id=568



...an excellent site worth exploring... Peter Marsh has some good observations on how genetics... can help piece our history together... finally they may update the history books!!!!



http://users.on.net/~mkfenn/

Rising sea levels have all but obliterated any solid evidence of civilizations between 6,000 and 25,000 years ago, making it very difficult to piece together this intriguing part of human history. Genetics is now helping to identify the common origins of cultures in our distant past. It is showing quite clearly that both the Pacific and Atlantic Oceans were crossed many times in the past, contributing significantly to the gene pool found in America. Cryptic pieces of the jigsaw puzzle of human prehistory are finally making sense and the dubious theory of parallel evolution need not be used to explain and belittle cultural connections on opposite sides of the planet anymore. Divine ntervention by spacemen can also be ruled out.

The history of man also appears to have been punctuated by many major catastrophic events involving meteorite impacts, which have in turn precipitated volcanic eruptions and ice ages, not to mention drought, earthquakes and tsunamis. These events have been identified in Antarctic and Greenland ice cores as well as in tree ring analysis and appear to coincide with major upheavals in human prehistory, seen as genetic bottlenecks and the 'End of Ages' in native folklore.

I trust with the broad coverage of this article, you will see the importance of bringing together such a diverse range of very specialized disciplines which has enabled us to see the big picture of human prehistory. The Polynesians are a product of this ancient and complicated past.

Genetics describes a very different story to what we have been taught in school about the prehistory of man. We need to listen to this new story and stop trying to make it fit into all the old hypotheses by ignoring these new crucial pieces of genetic evidence that connects cultures on opposite sides of ocean. Many of these cultural similarities were put down to 'parallel evolution', but with common ancestry visible in the genes, this whole field needs to be reexamined.

It seems that many scientists and authors of articles that disagree with mainstream ideas on prehistory have been repeatedly ridiculed and condemned for their work. Archaeological sites and genetic studies that have had the potential to upend mainstream views have been refused funding repeatedly. Conversely, graduates are given copious amounts of funding for doing research on subjects that stroke the ego of the professor in control of the program, creating an end result that is far from the truth. The longer these professors sit in their ivory towers ignoring the truth the more foolish they will become.
This website has been created to try and address the above problem - unfortunately, without any funding.

The peter marsh article is what started this thread. In fact, I found that and posted it. But there is no way in hell that what Peter Marsh thinks is true will somehow rewrite the History books. He doesn't have any archaeological evidence for what he claims. Although I really like what he has to say and find some of the connections he makes to be quite fascinating, I cant say that any of it is substantiated in any way.

Just saw this on the internet... it may be interesting... unless it's been rehashed here before!!!!


http://www.anthonares.net/2006/06/prehisto...-with-1491.html

Some highlights from the dustjacket suggest that the Americas were more heavily populated than Europe in 1491. Cities such as Tenochtitlan were more populous than any European city. Irrigated agriculture and large-scale landscape modification was well underway. And just about every entrenched idea we have about the people on this continent (and the superiority of Western culture) before Columbus is misguided or incorrect.

http://www.powells.com/biblio/140004006x?&PID=30079

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/200...t-pc1030607.php

http://cogweb.ucla.edu/Chumash/Population.html

http://www.atlantisrising.com/issue14/ar14amerwriters.html