Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 3
Roj47

First American Settlers Not Who We Thought

31 posts in this topic

The Clovis People, a prehistoric group of mastodon hunters distinguished by their unique spear points and once thought to be the first Americans, likely populated North America after other humans had already arrived, a new study concludes.

The Clovis and their hunting technologies were not the first inhabitants of the New World, researchers write in the Feb. 23 issue of the journal Science, addressing a longstanding debate on the first New World humans.

The people were named for artifacts found at Clovis, New Mexico, but evidence for this culture has since been found elsewhere.

http://www.livescience.com/history/070222_...ead_makers.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

I nor any other researcher or educator in my tribe ever believed the "Clovis first" theory. The flood account in our legends ( Walum Olum or "Red Score") described the Glacier Lake Missoula 'flood event' perfectly and that happened long before the Clovis culture.

Lapiche

Edit: spelling error

Edited by Piney

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My Grampa always said,"Its annoying when scientists come and say eleven thousand years ago your ancestors came across the Bering Straight"...........I don't think they did ether, and some tribes have been in the same spot for far more than eleven thousand years.............

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
My Grampa always said,"Its annoying when scientists come and say eleven thousand years ago your ancestors came across the Bering Straight"...........I don't think they did ether, and some tribes have been in the same spot for far more than eleven thousand years.............

So basically it is a matter of gross presumption by scientists. The earliest evidence they find of humans reaching the Americas is 11,000 or so years ago so they presume that 11,000 years is when humans first came over not realizing that they should not make such a broad conclusion unless everything they find consistantly and clearly points to humans first comng over 11,000 years ago. If not, then they should keep their mouths shut (since it is so hard, they should just say that the earliest evidence found thus far of humans being in America is from 11,000 years ago).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

from ask a geneticist - stanford university

As I said, for a long time archeologists believed that all Native Americans were descended from people from Siberia who crossed over to Alaska about 11,500 years ago. They traveled on a land bridge under what is now the Bering Strait. These people were called the Clovis People after an archeological site near Clovis, NM. They first colonized the uninhabited lands of North America. Later they migrated to Central and South America.

Scientists were able to figure this out from looking at human and other remains found at archeological sites. Also the language spoken by some Native American people closely resembles ancient Asian languages. This was more convincing evidence for the theory that Native Americans came from Siberia.

Now there is evidence that people other than the Clovis People arrived to the Americas at different times and from different places. This evidence comes from looking at lots more archeological sites, and studying the DNA of Native Americans.

Some years ago archeologists found the remains of an ancient settlement in Chile. They were surprised to find that it was 12,500 years old. This is much more ancient than the Clovis People! Also, the skeletons found in this site resemble more the people of Polynesia than the inhabitants of Siberia. The theory is that these people may have arrived by boat to America from Polynesia. Now we believe that there were separate groups of people who came to America from Asia.

Some years ago archeologists found the remains of an ancient settlement in Chile. They were surprised to find that it was 12,500 years old. This is much more ancient than the Clovis People! Also, the skeletons found in this site resemble more the people of Polynesia than the inhabitants of Siberia. The theory is that these people may have arrived by boat to America from Polynesia. Now we believe that there were separate groups of people who came to America from Asia.

Scientists looked at mtDNA from many Native Americans and many Asians. They were surprised again. Based on their DNA, Native Americans belong to five different groups. Groups 1-4 are closely related to Asian people. The fifth group is most closely related European or Western Asian people! So it seems most Native Americans are originally from Asia – and as you said fundamentally Asian. However, it seems there are some whose origins are from Europe!

http://www.thetech.org/genetics/ask.php?id=41

Edited by Lt_Ripley

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Scientists looked at mtDNA from many Native Americans and many Asians. They were surprised again. Based on their DNA, Native Americans belong to five different groups. Groups 1-4 are closely related to Asian people. The fifth group is most closely related European or Western Asian people! So it seems most Native Americans are originally from Asia – and as you said fundamentally Asian. However, it seems there are some whose origins are from Europe!

This last part is outdated. They have since found several different groups of people with the mtDNA haplogroup X (which is the one supposedly from Europe) right there in Eastern Asia, where the proposed land bridge was.

Doesn't mean that some Native American peoples weren't from Europe though. But it does mean that they could have just as easily been from Asia, where we know the rest came from.

Harte

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This last part is outdated. They have since found several different groups of people with the mtDNA haplogroup X (which is the one supposedly from Europe) right there in Eastern Asia, where the proposed land bridge was.

Doesn't mean that some Native American peoples weren't from Europe though. But it does mean that they could have just as easily been from Asia, where we know the rest came from.

Harte

isn't that what is stated - that most came from Asia ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
isn't that what is stated - that most came from Asia ?

Yes, all except this part:

However, it seems there are some whose origins are from Europe!

I'm saying that this information has become outdated with the discovery of the X mtDNA haplogroup in a handful of populations in Central and Eastern Asia.

Harte

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I recently read on the Discover website that bones, pottery and tools have been found in colorodo that date back over 50,000 years. Well before the clovis people.

I always wondered though ... what was going on on the east coast when people were supposedly crossing the Bering land Bridge?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

I'm with you piney.

Every time i here of 'science(paleontology/archaeology)making new 'discoveries of the 'original inhabitants' of Nth/Sth America, we only ever get a one sided story...we rarely ever hear from the NA Indians themselves and what they have to say on the matter at hand...or don't their opinions matter?

I'l go with the Native Elders version(whatever it is)before i ever believe what science has to say.

The knew more about the lands that they (lived on/with) for possibly tens of thousands of years(?)... then along comes some white dude in a wooden boat who took the 'wrong turn' in the first place anyway and ended up on their shores and claimed it as his own.

Passing history and cultural knowledge down from generation to generation by word of mouth and through art etc, seems more plausible to me.

Far too many lies have been told to us since the ''discovery'' of the new world over the centuries through politics, education, media in general etc, about the indigenous people and the land they belonged to for so long.

Sounds to me like science(white man)with a forked tongue all over again.

NA

JMO

Edited by REBEL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rebel (and whoever else is interested) someone suggested that I read this book and boy it blew me AWAY.

It's called Bury My Heart At Wounded Knee by Dee Brown.

This book has to be the most well-written I've read in quite some time. It explains that since (for the most part) the American Indian "history" was interpreted however the white man decided it because of the huge language barriers. Basically it was like one huge game of charades.

Anyway, just thougt someone may be interested in how we brutally killed, stole land, broke promises and just about desroyed an entire race of human's.

PS: Warning, even the toughest guy out there will cry.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
we brutally killed, stole land, broke promises and just about desroyed an entire race of human's.

No, we did not do any of those things. People in the past did those things because of their culture at that time.

There are few pure natives and descendants of early Euro colonials that are not mixed today, if any.

The Great Migration brought in a wave of fresh Euro DNA into the northeastern USA, but for most of the rest of the country the people remained mostly a mixture of African, Euro, and Native American.

I felt compelled to jot this down because of the post of a young one on the forum the other day that wished that we would try to work on ending racism. We need to start taking those wobbly first steps away from identifying cultures by race and leave then to be defined as they should by their actions, their character as Martin King put it.

Race after all can change for a genetic family over time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rebel (and whoever else is interested) someone suggested that I read this book and boy it blew me AWAY.

It's called Bury My Heart At Wounded Knee by Dee Brown.

This book has to be the most well-written I've read in quite some time. It explains that since (for the most part) the American Indian "history" was interpreted however the white man decided it because of the huge language barriers. Basically it was like one huge game of charades.

Anyway, just thougt someone may be interested in how we brutally killed, stole land, broke promises and just about desroyed an entire race of human's.

PS: Warning, even the toughest guy out there will cry.

Thanks for that She-ra i may just check it out.

And yea your absolutely right, they were hard done by, from almost day one...practically wiped off the face of the earth by church and government. All the info you need to find on it is on line or if you like snoop around my thread mostly the second half of it.

Later :tu:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No, we did not do any of those things. People in the past did those things because of their culture at that time.

There are few pure natives and descendants of early Euro colonials that are not mixed today, if any.

The Great Migration brought in a wave of fresh Euro DNA into the northeastern USA, but for most of the rest of the country the people remained mostly a mixture of African, Euro, and Native American.

I felt compelled to jot this down because of the post of a young one on the forum the other day that wished that we would try to work on ending racism. We need to start taking those wobbly first steps away from identifying cultures by race and leave then to be defined as they should by their actions, their character as Martin King put it.

Race after all can change for a genetic family over time.

:wacko:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I really would not expect people with racist tendencies to comprehend.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Thats p*** weak.

=======================================

After a good night sleep...(all work and no play)

EDIT:

On Bella-Angelique's shallow blind and callous remark on labeling me with racist tendencies:

Firstly how does it give me racist tendencies to defend the NAs not attack them, and if your referring to the 'white man' remarks, thats the terminology thats has been used throughout history by whites, reds, blacks, yellow, and all the colors under the rainbow alike?...+ i'm a whitey. It's just terminology, i love all races and cultures, and the people who 'know me' know that :tu:

Secondly, maybe you should stop trying so hard to cover up 'your hatred' not rascism (i won't stoop to your level)for these people(NAs) so much, you totally messed up your original post making absolutely a total mess of it then adding a Martin Luther quote on the end(?) i've never heard of it before anyway.

Thirdly and most importantly, you think i forgot about that conversation we had in chat a few mths back not long after i started the NA thread and i asked you and others out of conversation only, what the take is over there on the NAs. and your answers blew me away not to mention how suddenly there was a chat kill in the room after your remarks then i said ''OK conversation over'' and we never talked again.

Incidentally, i maybe wrong here but it was only a few weeks after that convo that you were suddenly not around anymore....pfft, maybe it's just me.

Also maybe i should ask Saruman if it's possible to retrieve conversations in chat, so everyone can see exactly what was said? ;)

Thats about all i have to say.

Saruman or any of the mods can remove this post, but then i think that would be a little unfair considering i was blindly labeled a potential racist.

Thanks you.

Later.

Rebel.

Edited by REBEL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

I recently read on the Discover website that bones, pottery and tools have been found in colorodo that date back over 50,000 years. Well before the clovis people.

I always wondered though ... what was going on on the east coast when people were supposedly crossing the Bering land Bridge?

The catastrophic floods from glacier melting and the meteor that created the Carolina Bays completely reformed the Eastern United States.

As for Rebel. I have had many PM conversations with him and as a enrolled member of the Nanticoke Lenni- Lenape tribe I do not believe he is racist at all but has a high respect for First Nations cultures.

I have been dealing with racism all my life and remember when the Jim Crow laws were enforced in South Jersey in the 70s. (My parents had to hide their marriage and certain stores in the city of Bridgeton were off limits to "creek n*****"). As a tribal security for powwows and gatherings I have to deal with racist state police officers who don't hide it and racist rednecks who come to cause trouble. Rebel is not racist............

Lapiche

Edited by Piney

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

The catastrophic floods from glacier melting and the meteor that created the Carolina Bays completely reformed the Eastern United States.

As for Rebel. I have had many PM conversations with him and as a enrolled member of the Nanticoke Lenni- Lenape tribe I do not believe he is racist at all but has a high respect for First Nations cultures.

I have been dealing with racism all my life and remember when the Jim Crow laws were enforced in South Jersey in the 70s. (My parents had to hide their marriage and certain stores in the city of Bridgeton were off limits to "creek n*****"). As a tribal security for powwows and gatherings I have to deal with racist state police officers who don't hide it and racist rednecks who come to cause trouble. Rebel is not racist............

Lapiche

To 'whom' it may concern:

It's always been said that if your going to be a lying two faced trouble making hypocrite and label someone a racist or a potential racist with no grounds, either be prepared to back it up or keep your memory in check. :yes:

========================================

Thanks for that Piney. :tu:

I won't say i know exactly what you and your family went though in those days Piney, but that i can only imagine the frustration and anguish you and so many others i'm sure for that matter, went through.

I don't want to seem like i'm always taking a swipe at science because i'm sure there have been a few great paleontologists/archaeologists past and present who have worked with the Native Americans to resolve this issue of 'who the original settlers' were.

Me personally i think when your talking tens of thousands of years...what does it really matter anyway, the Indians were there 'well and truly' before the 'old world' was invaded by the Europeans end story i guess. If thats not really an issue then all i can say is, what people can really lay claim to be the original settlers of any country for that matter?

As for official science(paleontologists/archaeologists)i'm sure they've had help in the past by the NAs to blueprint/trace back and map out the history of the lands over the years and then tossed aside like empty beer cans at a BBQ once they 'think' they have it figured out. As She-ra stated earlier there was a huge communication gap there early on with the NAs and the white man but there shouldn't really be any excuse today unless official science feels the NAs don't know any better.

Just my opinion and two cents worth on it anyway. :D

===========================================

Call it biased one sided or whatever you like, heres a couple extracts from a site, one of many i've got bookmarked but never felt it appropriate at the time to place in the NA thread which explains it better than i EVER could lol!

I didn't go through it all myself, but feel free to knock yourself out.

Make of it what you will...

^I hope i didn't make too many spelling errors^

Later :tu:

BERING STRAIT THEORY:

Why do American Indians get so mad when you say their ancestors migrated across the Bering land bridge from Asia?

Well, there are several reasons. First of all, that contradicts the religious tradition of many native peoples, which claim we have always been here. Surely you know some white people who claim that the earth can't be thousands of years old because it conflicts with the Bible. It is the same principle--except that the Christian fundamentalists get a lot of attention and even nice mentions in textbooks, whereas the Indians are ignored. That gives them an extra reason to be mad.

However, though there is a wide spectrum of native religions in the Americas, most of them tend to be less hierarchical and more flexible than Christianity. If you asked most Indians in some respectful manner, I think you'd find most of them wouldn't have a problem reconciling a philosophical belief that we have lived here since time immemorial with natural evidence that we arrived here at least 20,000 years ago.

So, if some native people disagree with my conclusion that the Bering Strait theory is probably true, that's fine with me. I respect the religious beliefs of people who believe their ancestors were here since the beginning of time, and I respect the scientific knowledge of the world that suggests we inhabited our homeland more than 20,000 years ago. What I do NOT respect are:

1) people who insist that we are a lost tribe of Israel who immigrated here, no matter what science says, because their religion says so. If we are using religion as our measuring stick, then our religious traditions about where we came from matter much more than someone else's. Use your religion to tell your own story and leave us out of it.

2) people who insist that we have been here only 700, 1000, or 2000 years. If we are using science as our measuring stick, then all the scientific evidence is that the Americas have been inhabited for at least 20,000 years. There are even ruins which are known to be 12,000 years old. To use science to prove we are immigrants here and then ignore how long science says we have been here is hypocritical.

If you don't fall in either of those categories, then your respectful decision to believe in the Bering Strait migration theory or not is of no consequence to me. As long as we are all agreed that Indians have lived on these lands for at least 20,000 years, about twice as long as anyone has lived in England, then I don't think we have anything to quarrel about.

Orrin.

The Beringia land bridge is widely accepted as the most probable migratory route of humans into the Americas. Geologists estimate that this land bridge formed during the Wisconsin glaciation period, which began 75,000 years ago and ended about 14,000 years ago. Deep-sea soil cores taken from beneath the waters of the Bering Strait provide evidence that the landscape during the time of exposure would have consisted of a dry tundra plain environment. The climate might have been similar to the climate of present-day tundra or grassland Plains environments, with short summers, extremely long cold winters and perpetual winds. Remains of large mammals such as mammoth, mastodon, giant bison, and saiga antelope have been found, suggesting that the first North Americans were big game hunters. These Stone Age hunters followed the herd migrations across the Beringia plain to North America. But evidence also suggests they were foragers of sea mammals, fish, and vegetation. It is estimated that Beringia was capable of supporting fifteen to twenty-five people per 386 square miles, which is the equivalent to modern day Inuit. The archaeological record indicates the migration routes flowed west to east across the Beringia land bridge. Peoples then moved south into North America by following possible unglaciated routes along the pacific coastline or an Alberta corridor. The theory of an ice-free corridor running north and south through Alberta during the Late Wisconsin period was introduced by geologists in the 1950s. The glaciers that covered the Rocky Mountains from Alaska through British Columbia are called the Western Cordilleran glaciers, and Laurentide glaciers covered the area from the Atlantic to southeastern Alberta. Geological evidence suggests that the Western Cordilleran did not meet the Laurentide ice sheets, thereby creating an ice-free corridor through Alberta. Although the corridor was capable of supporting animal and human life, it was a harsh environment. It would have been a valley located between ice mountains, a barren landscape of severe climatic conditions.

First Nations Migration Theories:

Ancient Bones May Rewrite Theory:

Bering Strait Land Bridge Theory

Edited by REBEL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anthropologists and ethno-historians among the Lenape Confederacy have been throwing around the theory that we ( Algonquians) came over on boats and landed in central California about 35,000 years ago do to genetic ties with Aboriginal Australians.

Comparisons.

The Algonquian wisosa'uk (yellow dogs) closest genetic relation is the dingo and Polynesian "boat dogs".

Western Coastal Algonquians (Wiyot, Yurok) and Eastern Algonquians are flat faced, round skulled.

The Yurok and Wiyot speak the purest (lack of loan words) and simplist Algonquian Language. They also sit right below the path of the catastrophic Lake Missoula flood.

There is no Algonquian word for "bear" and every particular Algonquian tribe uses a loan word borrowed from a neighboring tribe.

The gourds grown by the Adena, Rappahanock, Unami, Munsee and Nanticoke have Polynesian origins.

There was also two catastrophic glacier lake floods about 25,000 years ago. Glacier Lake Missoula and Glacier Lake Iroquois which would bury any early habitation evidence hundreds of feet under debris.

Glacier Lake Missoula blocked the "Ice free corridor"

Known Algonquian sites on the East Coast have been dated 10,000 years. Three sites that I had advised on dated continuously until the Historical period.

The Lenape (Delaware) Walum Olum and the Anishanabe (Ojibway) Midi tablets speak of crossing a "mussel bearing sea" (The Pacific).

Lapiche

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is no way of knowing where the first Americans came from, or when. There is little doubt that people came across the Bearing Straits at the end of the late pleistocene. Were these the first Americans? Probably not. It is likely that there have been many migrations before 12,000 B.P. It is likely that the Americas were populated with people from Europe and Asia as early as 40,000 years ago, or even earlier. Sometime around 13,000 years ago, a spear point now called Clovis was developed in North America and rapidly spread. It's the earliest readily identifiable diagnostic indicator. It is likely, as earlier sites are found and documented, that other diagnostic indicators will be identified, giving us a better clue to the identity of some of the first Americans.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I always wondered though ... what was going on on the east coast when people were supposedly crossing the Bering land Bridge?

You might consider looking up the Topper site in South Carolina. Controversial, but interesting. The artifacts are difficult make out, (I lost my bookmark) but look like you might expect after sitting underground for 50,000 years - like rocks. :huh:

(CNN) -- Archaeologists say a site in South Carolina may rewrite the history of how the Americas were settled by pushing back the date of human settlement thousands of years.

But their interpretation is already igniting controversy among scientists.

An archaeologist from the University of South Carolina on Wednesday announced radiocarbon tests that dated the first human settlement in North America to 50,000 years ago -- at least 25,000 years before other known human sites on the continent.

"Topper is the oldest radiocarbon dated site in North America," said Albert Goodyear of the University of South Carolina Institute of Archaeology and Anthropology.

source

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Algonquian wisosa'uk (yellow dogs) closest genetic relation is the dingo and Polynesian "boat dogs".

Sorry, but that stretches the boundary of belief. See, the dingo isn't even a dog. It's not a canine, it's a marsupial. It is in no way whatsoever any closer relation to a dog than it is to a monkey.

Harte

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Yea maybe Harte, but then why do they call them Carloina Dogs.

In Australia the Dingo isn't even classed a 'registered breed'...as a dog yes, yet it has been professionally bred into one of Australia's most loved and sought after dogs the Blue Healer/Australian Cattle Dog. I've seen them fetch up to $700 a pup for a top bloodline yet the 'Australian Canine Association' recognizes them as one of the top breeds but not the Aussie dingo go figure.

Personally the dingo looks more 'dog' than some of these weird & freaky looking breeds getting around :lol:

Edited by REBEL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My 'Indian' book says 27.000 years ago Ancient Eskimos crossed the Bearing Strait. Now your telling me my book is wrong? I already wrote a song about it...what am I supposed to do, update the friggin' song everytime a new artifact is found? <_<

And Pluto isn't a planet anymore....

...my world, my world....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 3

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.