Ancient Egyptians in South America

[Leonardo]

Cheers, rezna. An interesting piece of writing. Goes on a bit about the Mormon Church and how he fell out but the science he found was pretty irrefutable.

I'd be interested in finding out more about the mtDNA discoveries and how the possibility of contamination by the (relatively) recent influx of Europeans was eliminated?

[jaylemurph]

The Solutrean Hypothesis I think is the basis for this and possibly what the program was about?

A little bit off the actual topic I suppose, it doesn't really bring anything to the question of whether the ancient Egyptians ever travelled to the New World (I don't think they did) other than indicating that perhaps an Atlantic voyage wasn't out of the question.

I keep mentioning Gavin Mezies' book 1421; it has some interesting (if not compelling) evidence of trans-Pacific amd trans-Atlantic trips to the New World. I know next to nothing about navigation, but he makes what seems to me good arguments for the Chinese visiting North America (East and West Coasts) , South America, Australia and several other ports.

This is, of course, not to mention Egyptian, Phoenician, Roman, Irish, and Viking. For some completely illogical reason, I like the idea of the Irish in the New World.

--Jaylemurph

[Leonardo]

Well, if the South-East Asians could navigate to Australia and the islands of the Far East around 40,000BCE and the Polynesians could navigate across the Pacific to the scattered islands they now inhabit around 1000AD (or slightly before) I don't really see a problem with other cultures being capable of comparable feats.

I'm going to find that book and read it. Thanks, jm.

[rezna]

I keep mentioning Gavin Mezies' book 1421; it has some interesting (if not compelling) evidence of trans-Pacific amd trans-Atlantic trips to the New World. I know next to nothing about navigation, but he makes what seems to me good arguments for the Chinese visiting North America (East and West Coasts) , South America, Australia and several other ports.

This is, of course, not to mention Egyptian, Phoenician, Roman, Irish, and Viking. For some completely illogical reason, I like the idea of the Irish in the New World.

--Jaylemurph

OOh OOOh lookey what I found

"Some examples of theories that are an insult to Polynesian heritage are contained in;

1.Gavin Menzie's '1421 The Year The Chinese Discovered The World', where he asserts that the Taiwanese genes in Maori must be from Chinese voyagers less than 600 years ago - with no mention that these Taiwanese genes show a separation from Taiwan 6,000 years ago! I do not doubt that the Chinese explored the world, but many of his assertions of cultural diffusion from the Chinese sailors is questionable."

Ok so that's from the last page of this guy's website. WOW, I just looked at the first page and I can already tell this is something I was looking for. This guy is trying to find the link from australian voyages 50,000 years ago to now and why people think it's so improbable that in 50,000! years we haven't travelled the seas. Jst doesn't make any sense to me that we would stop at 50,000 years ago and just settle.

http://users.on.net/~mkfenn/page1.htm THat's where it starts, probably better to start there than the link I put above.

Edit: 6 minutes have gone buy as I read this. IT IS AWESOME! All of us who have discussing this need to read this website. This is great! He is talking about everything we are talking about, AND its from 2005!!! WOW!!! YAY I finally found something worthy! Please read this website guys, I even think I might have found where Noah's flood story came from!

Edited February 9, 2007 by rezna

[fantazum]

Well, if the South-East Asians could navigate to Australia and the islands of the Far East around 40,000BCE and the Polynesians could navigate across the Pacific to the scattered islands they now inhabit around 1000AD (or slightly before) I don't really see a problem with other cultures being capable of comparable feats.

I'm going to find that book and read it. Thanks, jm.

If the Phoenecians did reach the americas the first question I ask is; what motivated them to undertake a voyage into the unknown? was their voyage an accident caused by prevailing westerly winds and current blowing and carrying them out into the Atlantic? - rather like the early Polynesians and their dispersion amongst the Islands of the Pacific?

If the Phoenecians really did make landfall in the Americas then they would most likely have been carried to a position somewhere along the coastline of central america. If they had made such an accidental landfall and had made contact with the natives then are the Olmec heads the best evidence we have of their presence in the americas?

Phoenecian ships would have been crewed not just by eastern Mediterranean type people but also by Africans.

Perhaps the following is the best evidence we have of the Phoenecian presence in the americas:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olmec

[Leonardo]

Coincidentally I mentioned the Olmecs in another thread. It is possible these people would have been involved with trade from Old World cultures. The time period is about right.

While the sea currents would assist with oceanic travel between the Iberian peninsular and Central/South America it is possible that ancient peoples noted the migrations of seabirds as well to give them a basis of belief that other lands existed over the western ocean. Sooty and Manx Shearwaters migrate between the Falklands and the Scandinavian coast. This path of migration probably wouldn't have been followed by the ancient mariners (due to the prevailing wind/currents) but they could have set out on the basis of knowing the birds were going somewhere.

Edited February 10, 2007 by Leonardo

[Leonardo]

OOh OOOh lookey what I found

"Some examples of theories that are an insult to Polynesian heritage are contained in;

1.Gavin Menzie's '1421 The Year The Chinese Discovered The World', where he asserts that the Taiwanese genes in Maori must be from Chinese voyagers less than 600 years ago - with no mention that these Taiwanese genes show a separation from Taiwan 6,000 years ago! I do not doubt that the Chinese explored the world, but many of his assertions of cultural diffusion from the Chinese sailors is questionable."

Ok so that's from the last page of this guy's website. WOW, I just looked at the first page and I can already tell this is something I was looking for. This guy is trying to find the link from australian voyages 50,000 years ago to now and why people think it's so improbable that in 50,000! years we haven't travelled the seas. Jst doesn't make any sense to me that we would stop at 50,000 years ago and just settle.

http://users.on.net/~mkfenn/page1.htm THat's where it starts, probably better to start there than the link I put above.

Edit: 6 minutes have gone buy as I read this. IT IS AWESOME! All of us who have discussing this need to read this website. This is great! He is talking about everything we are talking about, AND its from 2005!!! WOW!!! YAY I finally found something worthy! Please read this website guys, I even think I might have found where Noah's flood story came from!

Cool link, rezna.

Haven't read it all but got through the first 4 or so pages. A bit disorganised and he repeats a lot of stuff (some of it is baseless speculation as well) but there's enough good info in there to make a case for early contact among ancient cultures across the globe.

[Harte]

I don't expect anyone to be THAT open minded, wow. I'm just trying to say that it's possible something happened when you don't have exact proof like you are asking for.

And all I'm saying is that, while anything's certainly possible, there's no reason to believe in it in the absence of any evidence that it occurred.

My own opinion is that the egyptians didn't neccesarily go themselves to south america. I think they could have been trading with south america, but not directly.

You could be right, but I don't think so. The idea of the Egyptians indirectly trading with South America opens up an even larger can of worms. Now we would have more than one ancient civilization trading (directly or indirectly) with a South American culture. Do you see that if this were the case there should be even more evidence of this trade than there would had it only been the Egyptians doing the trading directly?

In addition, I think it is definitely possible that Harte can see these possibilities...

Definitely possible? Of course it's definitely possible. I've said exactly this on several occasions here at U-M. I've also said that I see no reason to believe a thing happened if there exists no evidence at all that the thing actually did happen.

and I just need to ignore all of his persuasive attempts at getting me to say something like, "Ok, it didnt happen." Never say never is my motto about this subject.

Good motto. I also like "Don't believe everything you read." This is because there is a whole slew of people out there writing pages and pages of total malarkey about the ancient world, just to part you and I from our hard-earned money. If you want some examples (and there are many - are you aware that VonDaniken actually admitted to forging evidence for his ancient astronaut theory?) I suppose I could start a thread.

It seems to me that there will always be two sides to these arguments.

1. people who see no evidense say it never happened.

2. people who see no evidense who believe there are still possibilities of things that could have happened.

Sorry, but it seems that these are the same two kinds of people. That is, they both see no evidence. Anyone that says that a thing "never happened" based on the lack of evidence for that thing happening is not making a scientific statement. The proper way to say it is that there is no evidence that the thing ever happened.

The "other kind" of person, in my view, is the one that sees evidence where none exists. The type that believes a wildly speculative idea because the author of the idea has led him down a primrose path, cherrypicking (or even fabricating) factoids along the way that support the idea, and simultaneously ignoring, covering up, or even destroying evidence which would tend to counter the speculation.

I guess there's no inbetween. I used to be very skeptical, but seeing certain trends in human society, certain stories brought down by generations, I feel I would be doing a diservice to myself to just give up and say, "when you cant see it it isn't there." I just dont go with that philosophy...

...I guess than the reason I'm here is to hear other people's opinion about a topic that they are interested in being true, instead of people who just want to prove me wrong.

An even greater disservice is to continue in a payed-out vein all the while missing the motherlode you might have hit if you'd let go of some of the more outrageous ideas you held onto for too long due to the fact that you simply wanted them to be true.

I just think they need to be a little more sensitive to the fact that not everyone agrees with them and they wont be convinced no matter how many times you argue the same thing over and over. And I know that I cant convince anybody either. Whats the point in talking about anything if the other person just wants to prove you wrong? To force me to find more evidense that isn't there? Were talking about things that lack evidense in the first place.

The problem is, many arguments put forward here are so old that even the original author of the idea has since disavowed his former statements. This is true, for example, of Graham Hancock and certain claims he made (without researching them) in "Fingerprints of the Gods," among other similar claimants. Yet to this day you still have people citing that work on boards like this one as if it were the only true history of the Human Civilization.

What I try to point out here at U-M is that there is very good evidence for practically everything that mainstream Archaeology theorizes. Not everything, of course, but practically everything. People here (and at other boards) are still quoting Ignatius Donnelly on Atlantis, for God's sake. Michael Cremo's thesis ("Forbidden Archaeology," "The Mysterious Origins of Man" etc.) are primarily based on claims of evidence, since lost, supposedly found in the 19th century! There's been a lot of exploration and a lot of questions answered in the last fifty to a hundred years folks.

In the last few years genetic tests suggest that in certain groups of Northeast coast Native Americans there is around 25% genetic material from European origin. The genetic markers dated the introduction of these European forebearers to thousands upon thousands of years ago...

First of all, while I realize that you're mentioning this off the top of your head and thus true accuraccy cannot be expected, I must say that what you're saying here is certainly not true. "25% genetic material" is approximately the relationship between you and your grandparent.

I assume here that you're talking about the mitochodrial DNA Haplogroup X, which has been found in about 3% of the Native American population. THe X haplogroup is also present in a few European populations:

On the basis of comprehensive RFLP analysis, it has been inferred that 97% of Native American mtDNAs belong to one of four major founding mtDNA lineages, designated haplogroups "A" - "D." It has been proposed that a fifth mtDNA haplogroup (haplogroup X) represents a minor founding lineage in Native Americans. Unlike haplogroups AD, haplogroup X is also found at low frequencies in modern European populations...

...Time estimates for the arrival of X in North America are 12,000 to 36,000 years ago, depending on the number of assumed founders, thus supporting the conclusion that the peoples harboring haplogroup X were among the original founders of Native American populations. [/b]To date, haplogroup X has not been unambiguously identified in Asia, raising the possibility that some Native American founders were of Caucasian ancestry.[/b]

(my emphases)

Source: American Journal of Human Genetics - 1998

Note the date. The haplogroup X has since been discovered to have several variants, and the one possessed by this tiny fraction of Native Americans differs significantly from the European variant. In fact, that is why this population of X haplogroup can be differentiated from some later European mixture, as an earlier poster asked:

A striking example of the presence in American Indians of genotypes not from haplogroups A–D is haplogroup X. This haplogroup represents a minor founding lineage that is restricted in distribution to northern Amerindian groups, including the Ojibwa, the Nuu-Chah-Nulth, the Sioux, and the Yakima, as well as the Na Dene–speaking Navajo (Brown et al. 1998). Unlike haplogroups A–D, haplogroup X is also found at low frequencies of ~4% in western Eurasian populations. Despite a shared consensus RFLP haplotype, substantial genetic differences exist between the American Indian and European haplogroup X mtDNAs. Phylogenetic analysis and coalescence estimates for American Indian and European haplogroup X mtDNAs exclude the possibility that the occurrence of haplogroup X in American Indians is due to recent European admixture. They also clearly indicate that the two branches/subgroups are distantly related to each other and that considerable genetic substructure exists within both groups (Brown et al. 1998).

Source: The Presence of Mitochondrial Haplogroup X in Altaians from South Siberia - 2001

This same article goes on to point out that an X haploid group which is similar to the American Indian one has been found in Siberia (the Altaians from the title of the paper):

To extend the survey of Asian mtDNAs for the presence of haplogroup X, we screened the mtDNAs of a total of 790 individuals for the RFLP markers (−1715 DdeI, −10394 DdeI, +14465 AccI, and +16517 HaeIII) that define this lineage. These individuals comprised 10 aboriginal Siberian populations: Buryats (n=105), Tuvinians (n=111), Koryaks (n=35), Evens (n=65), Yakuts (n=62), Khakassians (n=54), Shors (n=42), Sojots (n=34), Altaians (n=202), and Evenks (n=80). All individuals belonged to the indigenous population of the regions studied, were unrelated, and stated that their maternal grandmother had been born in the area considered for this study.

Haplogroup X mtDNAs were detected only in Altaians, at a frequency of 3.5%. The haplogroup X status of these haplotypes was confirmed through HVSI and HVSII mtDNA sequencing (table 1). All Altaian X mtDNAs harbored the consensus haplogroup X motif: −1715 DdeI, +14465 AccI, +16517 HaeIII, 16189C, 16223T, 16278T, 73G, 153G, 195C, 263G, relative to the Cambridge reference sequence (Anderson et al. 1981) and differed from each other by length-polymorphism mutations at nucleotide positions 16193, 309, and 315. One of these X mtDNAs (ALT16) also harbored a 215G variant (table 1) that has not been observed in either American Indian or European X haplotypes. It should also be noted that none of the Altaian X mtDNAs harbored the 225A variant, which is a marker for a major part of haplogroup X (Brown et al. 1998).

Analysis of published data on European HVSI and HVSII mtDNA sequences (Piercy et al. 1993; Calafell et al. 1996; Torroni et al. 1996; Brown et al. 1998; Lutz et al. 1998; Parson et al. 1998; Rousselet and Mangin 1998; Helgason et al. 2000) demonstrates that the overwhelming majority of X haplotypes (23 of 25 X sequences) harbor the 225A variant. In contrast, the X haplotypes without 225A have been observed mostly in American Indians (11 of 14 Ojibwa; see table 1 in Brown et al. 1998). Nevertheless, the X mtDNAs that we detected in the Altaian sample do not bear the 16213A and 200G variants that are characteristic of most American Indian haplogroup X mtDNAs (Brown et al. 1998).

The bolded portions above are to clarify what the author is saying, that the X haplogroups in Europe overwhelmingly possess the 225A variant, while the X haplogroups in the native Americans, and in the Altai Siberians, both do not possess the 225A variant. This European variant is assumed to have come into existence, then, after the Altai population of Siberia arrived there, and after the Native American X haplogroup first arrive in the New World.

Tends to contradict the idea, put forth in the Soultrean hypothesis, that stone age peoples migrated here from Southern France in boats by moving from iceberg to iceberg.

Anyway, what needs to be said here is again a poster has relied on outdated findings. I mean, genetics research is cutting edge so I know that what's known today is likely to be obsolete tomorrow. On the other hand, the first article I quoted above is almost ten years old now. If you're really interested in who the first Americans really were, I suggest you use Google or Google scholar every four to six months to find new information. These two articles above I got from Google using the search term "mtDNA haplogroup X variant." You could probably get to the same articles using "The First Americans" or some such, or at least get to an article that mentions "haplogroup X," thus giving you a possibly better search term to use.

Also what needs to be said is that these are real anthropologists doing real research, not some former journalist (Hancock) or college dropout creationist (Cremo) twisting facts to make a buck. Note that the scientific field has been all over the board on this subject. This is a good indication that there is no "good ole boys" club that wants us all to believe their theories while they hide the evidence for what "really" happened, thus protecting their tenure, or however that crazy idea goes.

Harte

Edited February 10, 2007 by Harte

[fantazum]

Coincidentally I mentioned the Olmecs in another thread. It is possible these people would have been involved with trade from Old World cultures. The time period is about right.

While the sea currents would assist with oceanic travel between the Iberian peninsular and Central/South America it is possible that ancient peoples noted the migrations of seabirds as well to give them a basis of belief that other lands existed over the western ocean. Sooty and Manx Shearwaters migrate between the Falklands and the Scandinavian coast. This path of migration probably wouldn't have been followed by the ancient mariners (due to the prevailing wind/currents) but they could have set out on the basis of knowing the birds were going somewhere.

didnt know that about the seabird migration.Thats over 8,000 miles!!!!!!!

[bornagainuhmanduh]

I know this is still off topic ....yes, it was a show pertaining to the Solutrean Hypothesis. I haven't been able to find the name of the program yet but I will keep looking. Meanwhile here is another interesting link about this off topic

www.centerfirstamericans.com

Also, the program represented a recent genetic finding to support this theory in isolated groups of native americans on the north east coast of north america. I never claimed otherwise. Also, I didn't pull the figure "25%" off the top of my head..this is what the producers of the show claimed. I might not be a polysyllabically droning, parenthetic "genius", but the figure "25%" is really not that difficult for a simpleton like me to remember. I apologize if my description of a program I watched somehow incited anyone.

Edited February 11, 2007 by uhmanduh

[Harte]

Also, the program represented a recent genetic finding to support this theory in isolated groups of native americans on the north east coast of north america. I never claimed otherwise. Also, I didn't pull the figure "25%" off the top of my head..this is what the producers of the show claimed. I might not be a polysyllabically droning, parenthetic "genius", but the figure "25%" is really not that difficult for a simpleton like me to remember. I apologize if my description of a program I watched somehow incited anyone.

It is fairly stimulating to assert that at least one grandparent of each of the Native Americans tested had to have come from Europe. I was under the impression that the original colonization of North America took place at least 10,000 years ago, if not 50,000 years ago.

Strange that a documentary would claim that in fact the original colonization of the Americas by the Native peoples occurred only two generations ago, which is exactly what "25% genetic material in common with Europeans" would indicate.

Harte

[bornagainuhmanduh]

Here is a link to purchase the program I watched. http://shopping.discovery.com/product-5963...id=40588040-0-0

Here are some other interesting pages dealing with the subject of the program: http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/horizon/2002/columbus.shtml

http://anthropik.com/2006/10/scientific-ra...-the-new-world/

[rezna]

Thank you for that detective work, uhmanduh. (love your name btw, lol)

Sorry for the reposting of sorts. That article I mentioned before actually started in 2002 and has been revised as of 2004 and 2005. The REAL link to it is here: Polynesian Pathways By Peter Marsh

I missed the fact that this has an introduction page. Also, I emailed the author to get more information about him, where he went to school, where he works, etc. I'd like to make sure that he isn't a "...former journalist (Hancock) or college dropout creationist (Cremo) twisting facts to make a buck..." I am awaiting his reply.

I really enjoyed this paper, it's references, it's DNA evidense expertly described, and I'd LOVE, just LOVE to hear what Harte has to say about it. Honestly, because it seems that Harte is the most informed person in this discussion, he might be able to point out some holes in Mr. Marsh's paper. Are you a "He" Harte, I'm not sure.

[louie]

Coincidentally I mentioned the Olmecs in another thread. It is possible these people would have been involved with trade from Old World cultures. The time period is about right.

While the sea currents would assist with oceanic travel between the Iberian peninsular and Central/South America it is possible that ancient peoples noted the migrations of seabirds as well to give them a basis of belief that other lands existed over the western ocean. Sooty and Manx Shearwaters migrate between the Falklands and the Scandinavian coast. This path of migration probably wouldn't have been followed by the ancient mariners (due to the prevailing wind/currents) but they could have set out on the basis of knowing the birds were going somewhere.

The olmec statues and head carving are distinctly negroid, so are you saying all these diffrent types of cultures were trading and sharing the same contitnent.

[Leonardo]

The olmec statues and head carving are distinctly negroid, so are you saying all these diffrent types of cultures were trading and sharing the same contitnent.

Not necessarily. As was pointed out the Phoenicians may have brought Africans with them - if they ever travelled to the Old World - either as partners (as in trading partners) or servants. It is possible that a lot of indirect trading was done between the various cultures.

[Harte]

Here is a link to purchase the program I watched. http://shopping.discovery.com/product-5963...id=40588040-0-0

uhmanduh,

Now that you linked it, I realized I'd seen the same documentary last summer. In fact, it's what caused me to do some of the digging I've done on the subject.

Here are some other interesting pages dealing with the subject of the program: http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/horizon/2002/columbus.shtml

This is the same page I linked on page 4 of this thread. It's labeled "The Soultrean Hypopthesis" in my post.

Sorry for the reposting of sorts. That article I mentioned before actually started in 2002 and has been revised as of 2004 and 2005. The REAL link to it is here: Polynesian Pathways By Peter Marsh

Rezna,

Thanks for the link. Now I see where the 25% figure comes from, I guess. Marsh relies heavily on a paper published by James L. Guthrie. Here's an excerpt from that paper:

Abstract

Studies have shown that the number of human lymphocyte antigen (HLA) alleles characteristic of indigenous American populations is relatively small, and that some isolated South American tribes possess only a few types that are common throughout the Americas. But other groups, especially those near sites of former Mesoamerican and Andean urban societies, exhibit HLA alleles that are rare in America but common in certain Afro-Asiatic, South Asian, and European populations. These unexpected genes account, on the average, for 6-7% of the American HLA total, but range as high as 24%.

The "as high as 24%" part might be what uhmanduh was remembering. However, a careful reading shows that here Guthrie's talking about as "high as 24%" of the Human Lymphocyte Antigen Allelles. IOW, the genes that govern the lymphocyte antigens. Decidedly not 24% of the genetic makeup of the natives in question.

At least, I hope that's where that number came from. Anyway, the genes governing lymphocyte antigens are a tiny fraction of the human genome. So that's more like it.

More from Guthrie's paper:

The atypical genes are postulated to have been acquired by assimilation of foreign populations at various times after initial colonization of the hemisphere but prior to the sixteenth-century influx of Europeans and Africans, because they suggest gene-flow from places some scholars claim to have been in ancient contact with the Americas, such as North Africa and Southeast Asia. The occurrence of parallel anomalies in blood groups such as Rhesus, Kell, and Duffy, as well as in serum proteins such as transferrin and immunoglobin, supports this interpretation to some degree, but the small number and poor distribution of samples in all systems, including HLA, preclude conclusive results. Other explanations are considered possible but less likely.

Source:Guthrie

Reading the above quoted portion of Guthrie's paper, you can see that Guthrie himself is much less convinced than Marsh is regarding exactly what these findings (from, again, 1998) prove.

I missed the fact that this has an introduction page. Also, I emailed the author to get more information about him, where he went to school, where he works, etc. I'd like to make sure that he isn't a "...former journalist (Hancock) or college dropout creationist (Cremo) twisting facts to make a buck..." I am awaiting his reply.

Rezna,

I've never heard of Marsh, but already I don't like him. Here's why.

From the Marsh site you linked:

Genetics is showing that there has been far more cross-cultural interaction between the “Old World” and the “New World” than ever imagined. For example: 10-12,000 year old Caucasian and African genes have been found in America and 3-4,000 year old Mayan genes have been found in Greece (James L. Guthrie, 1998).

My emphasis.

Note the bolded text above. If you read Guthrie's paper, you'll see that in fact he makes no such claim.

Also, "Caucasian" covers a lot. The differences in races has been pretty much removed from the scientific dialogue. So "Caucasian" in 1998 (Guthrie's paper) meant a lot more than it did, say, in 1960. That is, the Altaian Siberians, whose X haplogroup I talked about in an earlier post, are Caucasians. Since they've been linked to Native Americans, the presence of "Caucasian" lymphocyte antigens in Native Americans might not be all that that surprising. Also Caucasian (other than Europeans) are Iranians and natives of India.

Also from the Marsh site (from the Appendix):

For those of you who thought the Rongo Rongo script was never deciphered, the following will come as quite a surprise.

In 1892 the Easter Island scripts were deciphered, but have been ignored because they do not say what the scientists want to hear. They are not about voyaging from Melanesia, they are about life in South America!

First of all, the above is just a flat out lie. Marsh is talking about Carrol's (1892) "translation." Check this out:

In 1892 the Journal of the Polynesian Society published a decipherment by Dr Carroll, a Sydney (Australia) medical doctor, which read very much like H. Rider Haggard's famous novel "She" transported to the Andes: American Indians of the Inca Empire, complete with a priestess, fleeing erupting volcanoes and sundry catastrophes, to end up on Easter Island. The story ran for two issues of the Journal, and, when asked to explain how he had arrived at his translation, and to bring evidence such as lists of hieroglyphs with their meanings, the good doctor seems to have retreated to his Sydney surgery never to be heard of again. Embarrassed silence was then heard from the Journal.

Source: Handy rongo rongo website

So, yes, Dr. Carroll submitted his "translation," but refused to even show what it was that he "translated." The Journal of the Polynesian Society, the publishers of this "translation," didn't stand behind it after Carroll did not comply with requests to provide the rorngo rongo script he was "translating." On this basis, you or I could easily translate rongo rongo into the working script of the Empire Strikes Back movie, and Linear "A" script from Crete, also never translated, might well become the lyrics to Pink Floyd's Comfortably Numb.

Secondly, since Rongo Rongo has never been conclusively translated, what's with Marsh trying to imply here that "scientists" think it describes "voyaging from Melanesia?" Smells like the same old conspiracy theory that places pseudoscientists in a rut of their own making. That is, if "Science" is not to be trusted, how can the pseudoscientists theories ever be proven correct (or incorrect?)

Funny, though, how Marsh concentrates on the 1892 "translation." Could it be because that particular translation says what he wants to hear, in the same way he implies about it not saying what "scientists want to hear?" See, if you go to the following webpage:

Another handy Rongo Rongo webpage

you'll see that there are other, more recent, proposed translations (this info, with links, is near the page bottom.)

Also, a glance at his "Links" page could elicit a fairly good chuckle. Note the many Atlantis links, the link to Barry Fell (if you don't know that guy, you're in for a hard ride, and hold on to your wallet,) the link to Graham Hancock, the link to S8int.com - a creationist site, etc. I could go on.

Anyway, I did like Marsh's chapter on genetics, though it was mostly dependant on the lymphocyte stuff. His mentioning (and Guthrie's) of mtDNA as an aside sort of illustrates what I meant in an earlier post about how cutting edge genetics really is. I mean, the newer (since this Guthrie paper) discoveries concerning the haplogroup X variants pretty much sews the Native American story up, unless new contradictory evidence can be found.

Needs to be said also that Marsh is making an argument about the origins of Polynesians, and not the earliest Americans so I guess I can cut him some slack, I mean he's not concentrating on the same thing that this thread is talking about.

By the way, it should be noted that even if the genetic heritage of Native Americans is someday proven conclusively to not contain any unexpected heritage, that still doesn't prove that Europeans or Africans or Chinese or whoever didn't arrive in the Americas millenia ago, it would only prove that the current population of Natives is in no way genetically realted to the earlier arrivals.

But, like I so often say, there is no reason to believe it. Not based on anything at Marsh's site, and not based on any genetic data that I'm aware of (not that I would necessarily be aware of such info.)

Harte

Edited February 12, 2007 by Harte

[airika]

ok.....After carefully reading through this topic and discussion I have come to a few conclusions. First of all Harte, I'm quite afraid that you have missed the entire point of the thread....because you became hooked on ONE small statemant, that has nothing to do with the topic at hand. So you ask Uhmanduh, where she comes up with her 25% figure....and then from there...you're bent. Here is a link that clearly states (Quoting Douglas Wallace) that about a quarter of the mitochondreal DNA found in the Ojibwas tribe, can only be linked to European Lineage. (about halfway down the article)

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/transcripts/3116_stoneage.html

Uhmanduh, I have found this website that talks about the ancient artifacts that are of Egyptian Origin found in the America's. Although I don't believe this to be proof that the Egyptians were in the America's...I feel that it is a great possibility that they at least traded in the America's (either directly or indirectly)

I hope that this information helps.

http://paranormal.about.com/library/weekly/aa080700a.htm

Edited February 12, 2007 by airika

[Harte]

ok.....After carefully reading through this topic and discussion I have come to a few conclusions. First of all Harte, I'm quite afraid that you have missed the entire point of the thread....because you became hooked on ONE small statemant, that has nothing to do with the topic at hand. So you ask Uhmanduh, where she comes up with her 25% figure....and then from there...you're bent. Here is a link that clearly states (Quoting Douglas Wallace) that about a quarter of the mitochondreal DNA found in the Ojibwas tribe, can only be linked to European Lineage. (about halfway down the article)

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/transcripts/3116_stoneage.html

This is the quote from your link:

DOUGLAS WALLACE: When we studied the mitochondrial DNA of the Ojibwa we found, as we had anticipated, the four primary lineages—A, B, C and D—but there was about a quarter of the mitochondrial DNAs that was not A, B, C and D.

Please note the statements immediately following this quote, again, in your linked webpage:

NARRATOR: There was a fifth source of DNA of mysterious origin. They called it X, and unlike A, B, C and D, they couldn't find it anywhere in Siberia or eastern Asia. But it was similar to an uncommon lineage in European populations today. At first, they thought it must be the result of interracial breeding within the last 500 years, sometime after Columbus.

DOUGLAS WALLACE: We naturally assumed that perhaps there had been European recent mixture with the Ojibwa tribe and that some European women had married into the Ojibwa tribe and contributed their mitochondrial DNAs.

NARRATOR: But that assumption proved wrong. When they looked at the amount of variation in the X lineage, it pointed to an origin long before Columbus, in fact, to at least 15,000 years ago. It appeared to be evidence of Ice Age Europeans in America.

DOUGLAS WALLACE: Well, what it says is that a mitochondrial lineage that is predominantly found in Europe somehow got to the Great Lakes region of the Americas 14,000 to 15,000 years ago.

NARRATOR: Could X be genetic evidence of the Solutreans in America? Further investigation raised another possibility. The ancient X lineage may have existed in Siberia, but died out, though not before coming over to America with Ancient migrations.

DOUGLAS WALLACE: And so the DNA data itself cannot distinguish between those two alternatives. It could be either from Europe or from Siberia, of a population that is now lost.

NARRATOR: So X could have reached the Americas through Asia, or across the Atlantic directly from Europe. The DNA could not provide a storybook ending.

See the bolded statements? I'll copy them out:

...There was a fifth source of DNA of mysterious origin. They called it X, and unlike A, B, C and D, they couldn't find it anywhere in Siberia or eastern Asia...

...The ancient X lineage may have existed in Siberia, but died out, though not before coming over to America with Ancient migrations...

Now, compare this with the information I provided on Page 4 of this thread:

we screened the mtDNAs of a total of 790 individuals for the RFLP markers (−1715 DdeI, −10394 DdeI, +14465 AccI, and +16517 HaeIII) that define this lineage. These individuals comprised 10 aboriginal Siberian populations: Buryats (n=105), Tuvinians (n=111), Koryaks (n=35), Evens (n=65), Yakuts (n=62), Khakassians (n=54), Shors (n=42), Sojots (n=34), Altaians (n=202), and Evenks (n=80).

Snip

Haplogroup X mtDNAs were detected only in Altaians, at a frequency of 3.5%.

Snip

...should also be noted that none of the Altaian X mtDNAs harbored the 225A variant, which is a marker for a major part of haplogroup X

Snip

the overwhelming majority of X haplotypes (23 of 25 X sequences) harbor the 225A variant. In contrast, the X haplotypes without 225A have been observed mostly in American Indians...

From the above it should be painfully obvious that Mr. Wallace either was unaware of these Siberian haplogroup X findings at the time of the interview you linked (date of interview not given), or the program was purposefully ignoring the fact that a variant of haplogroup X has not only been found in Siberia, but that the particular variant in question is much more closely related to the Ojibwa (and other N.A. haplogroup X members) than any European haplogroup X population found to date.

But I do admit that the problem of tracing the original Americans is pretty much off-topic in this particular thread. I'll drop it if you will.

Uhmanduh, I have found this website that talks about the ancient artifacts that are of Egyptian Origin found in the America's. Although I don't believe this to be proof that the Egyptians were in the America's...I feel that it is a great possibility that they at least traded in the America's (either directly or indirectly)

I hope that this information helps.

http://paranormal.about.com/library/weekly/aa080700a.htm

From your linked site:

Statues: In 1914, archaeologist M.A. Gonzales was excavating some Mayan ruins in the city of Acajutla, Mexico when he was surprised by the discovery of two statuettes that were clearly Egyptian. One male and one female, the carvings bore ancient Egyptian dress and cartouches. They are thought to depict Osiis and Isis.

Since shown not to be the case. Note the date mentioned here. Mayan glyphs were first deciphered in the early 1980's

Inscriptions: Ancient Egyptian hieroglyphs have been found in New South Wales, Australia. Located on a rock cliff in the National Park forest of the Hunter Valley, north of Sydney, the enigmatic carvings have been known since the early 1900s. There are more than 250 carvings of familiar Egyptian gods and symbols, including a life-sized engraving of the god Anubis. The hieroglyphs tell the story of explorers who were shipwrecked in a strange and hostile land, and the untimely death of their royal leader, "Lord Djes-eb." From this information, scholars have been able to date the voyage to somewhere between 1779 and 2748 BC.

The Australian-Egyptian connection has been completely blown out of the water by Australian Archaeologists. Most of the writings found were of recent origin, though no one has been fingered for the hoax. Others require extremely creative interpretation if one is to assert they are Egyptian.

Fossils: In 1982, archaeologists digging at Fayum, near the Siwa Oasis in Egypt uncovered fossils of kangaroos and other Australian marsupials.

Riiiight.

Fossils do not form in a couple thousand years. Are we to believe that no marsupials existed in Africa in the last couple of hundred thousand years?

Language: There are striking similarities between the languages of ancient Egypt and those of the Native Americans that inhabited the areas around Louisiana about the time of Christ. B. Fell, of the Epigraphic Society, has stated that the language of the Atakapas, and to a lesser extent those of the Tunica and Chitimacha tribes, have affinities with Nile Valley languages involving just those words one would associate with Egyptian trading communities of 2,000 years ago.

Actual linguistic experts and Etymologists scoff at this ridiculous claim. Barry Fell has been known to translate "ancient script" using only a description spoken to him over the telephone. You may recall I mentioned this scam artist in an earlier post.

Artifacts: Near the Neapean River outside Penrith, New South Wales, a scarab beetle - a familair Egyptian symbol - carved from onyx was unearthed. Another was found in Queensland, Australia.

When? I mean, people have brought Egyptian artifacts to other countries. There are a vast number of artifacts in private ownership, particularly jewelry exactly as described here.

Tombs: The April 5, 1909 edition of The Phoenix Gazette carried a front-page article about the discovery and excavation of an Egyptian tomb in the Grand Canyon by none other that the Smithsonian. The Smithsonian has since denied knowledge of any such discovery.

For good reason. This story, which you can find reprinted at a jillion sites on the internet, was a follow up to a story this paper printed on April 1. Note the significance of that date.

This is all the Egyptian stuff I saw at this site. Not surpisingly (at least not to me,) there are several claims made on that page that have been long known to be spurious, and several more that are proven (some even admitted) hoaxes. But that's for another topic, I suppose.

If you want to know about several of these fakes, I suggest a visit to Doug's Archaeology Site. If I remember correctly, there are links to several discussions concerning Barry Fell, as well as exposes of the Bat Creek Stone and the Kensington Stone (I think,) both of which are claimed to be legitimate on the page you linked. Much more there to be learned, for those that aren't afraid to know the truth.

Harte

Edited February 13, 2007 by Harte

[airika]

OMG LMAO!! Harte........I think I'm in love!

[Harte]

OMG LMAO!! Harte........I think I'm in love!

What a rush.

Please, madam, control yourself.

Quite flattering, though. I must come here more often.

Harte

[rezna]

Since you wont read it, I will post it.

The Pacific Ocean is bounded by America on its eastern side, stretching from 70degrees North to 55 degrees south. As trade winds and equatorial ocean currents travel in a westerly direction, it would be foolish to assume that America did not play a part in the populating of the Pacific. Therefore, to ascertain the complexities of human migration in the Pacific region, we need to understand fully how America was populated.

It appears that there have been some gross inaccuracies and misunderstandings that have led scientists to accept an oversimplified model of human entry into America via the Bering land bridge during the height of the last ice age. No consideration to the possibility that ocean crossings played a significant part in the populating of the Americas, has been given. Recent studies of the tool kits of the first Americans suggest an entry from Spain and not from Siberia. Not only this, but paleolithic Caucasian genes appear to form the basal layer of the genetic makeup of many native Americans, helping to confirm a trans-Atlantic entry into Central America between 18,000 and 12,000 years ago. Recent discoveries of three 13,000 year old Cro magnon man skeletons in an underwater cave in the Bahamas suggests that the above is true and correct.

Almost all archaeology to date has been based on the discovery of sites that are above sea level. Sea levels rose to present day levels about 6,000 years ago, therefore there has to be a great deal hidden underwater prior to this event, distorting the picture of early habitation of our planet. Factors that determined human settlement 20,000 years ago were much the same as they are today, as a result the preferred sites for towns and cities would have been on the coast. The sea provided unhindered passage to other towns for trade (no mountains, canyons, powerful river currents, jungles, deserts or hostile tribes to interfere with ones passage). Not only that, but boats were the trucks of the olden days, transporting large cargoes for trade.

The Polar meltdown between 7,000 and 5,500 years ago talked about later in this chapter would not only have produced a rapid rise in sea level, but also, the iso static rebound would have caused subsidence of weak crustal areas such as the mid Atlantic Ridge, causing earthquakes, volcanic eruptions and tsunamis, resulting in the devastation of coastal towns and the decimation of all seafaring nations around the world. Not only did it destroy the people of this time, but also much of the knowledge which they possessed.

This was not the only catastrophic rise in sea level that early man has had to deal with, there were others - 14,000, 11,600, 8,200 and 6,000 years ago. It was after these events that we find the survivors taking an interest in swamp agriculture around lakes and on highland plateaus without fear of inundation.

Such areas that were chosen were , Lake Chad, Lake Titicaca, New Guinea Highlands, Highlands of Luzon, the Nile, the Tigris, the Indus, the Upper Amazon, the Mississippi, the Mekong, the Yangtze and so on. With these few survivors, they would have retained only the bare essentials and much of the old technology was lost or forgotten. It appears that archaeologists may have mistaken this regrouping of man after the final floods as the beginning of agriculture and civilization. Discoveries of cities around India, Yonaguni and an underwater city in 700m of water off Cuba indicate that archaeologists have grossly misunderstood their findings and have merely scratched the surface of human prehistory.

Dr Muck, an archaeologist, describes archeological sites in Pennsylvania, Virginia, and Southern Carolina, dating back 15,000-18,000 years which demonstrate that the ocean-going Solutreans may have first entered America by sailing across the Atlantic.

The notion that Clovis originated in or spread throughout North America from a point of origin in the Northern Plains (within an ice-free corridor between the continental glaciers) is not supported by the distribution of finds. Clovis may actually have dispersed into North and South America from the Caribbean and Central America, much of which is now submerged, making it difficult to ascertain the exact time of entry into America.

The parallels between Solutrean and Clovis flintknapping techniques seem endless. The core technology, "the way they were knocking off big blades and setting up their core platforms," he explains, "is very similar to the Clovis technique, if not identical." They perfected the outre passé --overshot--flaking technique later seen in Clovis, which removes a flake across the entire face of the tool from margin to margin. It's a complicated procedure, he emphasizes, that has to be set up and steps followed precisely in order to detach regular flakes predictably. The Solutreans set up platforms and followed the technique through to the end, exactly as we see in Clovis. "No one else in the world does that," Stanford insists. "There is very little in Clovis--in fact, nothing--that is not found in Solutrean technology," he declares.

Archaeologist Kenneth Tankersley of Kent State University seconds Stanford and Bradley's opinion: "There are only two places in the world and two times that this technology appears--Solutrean and Clovis."

Proof that Solutreans were also mariners was in the discovery in 1992 of Le Cosquer cave near Marseilles by diver Henri Cosquer. Among the rock art figures are depictions of seals impaled by harpoons as well as flounder and halibut - deep-sea fish! Clearly Solutreans learned how to exploit marine resources, possibly in hide boats made from mammoth ribs. At some stage either by accident or on purpose, they caught the northern Equatorial current and favourable trade winds, to find themselves in the heart of a magnificent Archipelago of uninhabited islands. Here they flourished, discovering new plants, animals in abundance and minerals. These people have been called the Clovis hunters in America.

Dr Stanford and Dr Bradley point out the discoveries in genetics by researchers at Emory University and the Universities of Rome and Hamburg. Mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA), which is inherited exclusively from the mother, normally contains four markers called haplogroups, labeled A, B, C, and D. These four are shared by 95 percent of Native Americans. Recently, however, the genetics team identified a fifth haplogroup, called X, which is present in about 20,000 Native Americans and has also been found in several pre-Columbian populations. A most interesting fact is that haplogroup X is also present in European populations but absent from Asians. The geneticists' research suggests the marker appears to have arrived in the Americas 12,000 to 34,000 years ago, not from Asia, but from Europe.

As well as the Caucasian Marker X in North America, the Araucanians of Chile also have significant Paleolithic Caucasian genes in them, most likely arriving from Spain between 18,000 and 12,000 years ago. It is common for them to have curly reddish brown hair and green eyes.

The red haired Caucasian Paracas mummies of Peru is also proof that Caucasians were part of the indigenous culture of America. I also found that in 1892 the Easter Island scripts were deciphered by A.Carroll, M.A., M.D., but have been ignored. They are a detailed history of tribal conflict in South America, leading up to the exodus to Easter Island! They mention tribes from the ancient land of Tulapin (Turtle Island), the Eagle Clan and the Children of the sun or Ra. They were all Caucasians.

Ok Harte, have a field day with this one.

Source: http://users.on.net/~mkfenn/page9.htm

[jaylemurph]

Thanks for posting that Rezna. Very interesting.

Although "boats made of mammoth bones" sound a bit eerie. And they seem small for a trans-Atlantic trip. Unless it was a bunch of mammoths' bones ship, which is even creepier.

--Jaylemurph

[rezna]

Thanks for posting that Rezna. Very interesting.

Although "boats made of mammoth bones" sound a bit eerie. And they seem small for a trans-Atlantic trip. Unless it was a bunch of mammoths' bones ship, which is even creepier.

--Jaylemurph

Yeah that is creepy. Can you imagine seeing something like that floating toward you?

[Harte]

It appears that there have been some gross inaccuracies and misunderstandings that have led scientists to accept an oversimplified model of human entry into America via the Bering land bridge during the height of the last ice age. No consideration to the possibility that ocean crossings played a significant part in the populating of the Americas, has been given.

Not true in the least. The author (Marsh, I assume) is setting up a straw man here by claiming that "No consideration ...has been given." If no consideration to other theories has been given, where did these theories come from? Who is funding the research and excavations at the numerous Pre Clovis sites on this list:http://www.preclovis.com/?

No model of the populating of the Americas has been "accepted." Science, as usual, just goes along with the best guess until new evidence allows for a better, more well-supported theory.

Recent studies of the tool kits of the first Americans suggest an entry from Spain and not from Siberia.

This is the Soultrean theory. It's interesting, yes, but similarities between point types isn't enough. Such similarities between other types of stone technology can be found between groups that are known for a fact not to have had contact. This, of course, does not mean that the Soultrean link is not real. It just means that these similarities are not enough to establish the Soultrean theory as the front-runner.

Not only this, but paleolithic Caucasian genes appear to form the basal layer of the genetic makeup of many native Americans, helping to confirm a trans-Atlantic entry into Central America between 18,000 and 12,000 years ago.

Don't tell me I have to make the same mtDNA argument again?

I'll give Marsh a break, he may have written the above before 2001. But I'll offer no such break to you, rezna. I just showed you, in two seperate posts in this thread, the reasons that the mtDNA evidence is more indicative of a Siberian origin than a European one. I'm not gonna repeat it. If it comes up again, I'm just gonna link back to my other two posts.

Recent discoveries of three 13,000 year old Cro magnon man skeletons in an underwater cave in the Bahamas suggests that the above is true and correct.

There is no such creature as Cro Magnon Man. This creature is now known as Homo Sapiens. In any case, what was once referred to as "Cro Magnon Man" is far, far older than 13,000 years ago. Also, this time period, 13,000 years ago, fits quite well with the Clovis theory.

The Polar meltdown between 7,000 and 5,500 years ago talked about later in this chapter would not only have produced a rapid rise in sea level,

Not true in the least. There may have been a few instances of water rising at a rate of maybe a foot per day for perhaps a month, when glacial lakes broke through, but overall it was more like inches per year. This claim of rapid rise is completely off the wall and spurious. Now I like Marsh even less, since he is willing to state blatant falsehoods in an apparently rabid effort to convice us he's right about the Polynesians.

but also, the iso static rebound would have caused subsidence of weak crustal areas such as the mid Atlantic Ridge, causing earthquakes, volcanic eruptions and tsunamis, resulting in the devastation of coastal towns and the decimation of all seafaring nations around the world. Not only did it destroy the people of this time, but also much of the knowledge which they possessed.

Funny then that we have reams and reams of artifacts from exactly this era when "everything was lost."

This was not the only catastrophic rise in sea level that early man has had to deal with, there were others - 14,000, 11,600, 8,200 and 6,000 years ago. It was after these events that we find the survivors taking an interest in swamp agriculture around lakes and on highland plateaus without fear of inundation.

Yes, it certainly was "after" these supposed catastrophes. Considerably after. Like seven thousand years after the first supposed "catastrophe."

Discoveries of cities around India, Yonaguni and an underwater city in 700m of water off Cuba indicate that archaeologists have grossly misunderstood their findings and have merely scratched the surface of human prehistory.

Okay, that's it for Marsh. No serious researcher on Earth believes that Yonaguni is an "underwater city." Similarly, no such "cities" have been found in these other two areas. I will no longer address Marsh's ridiculous claims. There can be no rational discussion regarding a person that remains willingly ignorant in the face of the facts. None other than, that is, the previous statement.

I wash my hands of this ignoramus.

Dr Stanford and Dr Bradley point out the discoveries in genetics by researchers at Emory University and the Universities of Rome and Hamburg. Mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA), which is inherited exclusively from the mother, normally contains four markers called haplogroups, labeled A, B, C, and D. These four are shared by 95 percent of Native Americans. Recently, however, the genetics team identified a fifth haplogroup, called X, which is present in about 20,000 Native Americans and has also been found in several pre-Columbian populations. A most interesting fact is that haplogroup X is also present in European populations but absent from Asians. EDIT - Okay, I'll put it here. This part is a flat out lie. The haplogroup X has been found in Asians, specifically Siberians, and in a variant much more closely related to the Native American haplogroup X than the European haplogroup X is. The geneticists' research suggests the marker appears to have arrived in the Americas 12,000 to 34,000 years ago, not from Asia, but from Europe.

See above.

Rezna, you accuse me of not having read all 50 or so pages of Marsh's babbling and nonsense, yet here again you show evidence that you haven't even read my posts. Tell me then, why should I completely read every page at one of your links?

Harte

[rezna]

I'm just going to ignore what you've said. I started a new thread for this discussion. This topic is about Egyptians in the new world, which is an inappropriate place for what I last posted, which I apologize for. Go ahead and take it out if you like.

I just found this on wikipedia, maybe this is where that 25% figure came from: "Haplogroup X is also one of the five haplogroups found in the indigenous peoples of the Americas. Although it occurs only at a frequency of about 3% for the total current indigenous population of the Americas, it is a major haplogroup in northeastern North America, where among the Algonquian peoples it comprises up to 25% of mtDNA types."

Edited February 14, 2007 by rezna