The First Americans

A

Anonymous

Guest
#1
[Emp edit: I've split a thread to make this thread on the earliest occupation of the Americas and another one on the controversy of pre-Columbus contact:

https://forums.forteana.org/index.php?threads/before-columbus-sailed-the-ocean-blue.6731/

hallybods said:
There is a possibility that either the Celts or Vikings may have visited North America. I vaguely remember seeing something about ancient caucasian remains being found that may predate the native Indian's arrival. If I remember correctly the Indians demanded the remains back before they could be studied. I had the feeling that they were worried in case it was found that they were not the first settlers.

The Phoenicians were master sailors and it wouldn't be beyond the realms of belief that with plenty of provisions they could have made it across to South America. There are examples of ancient Aztec or Inca art showing distinctly African faces too. Just a couple of theories to band about. ;)
I think you're referring to "Kennewick Man"; remains that were found under a shallow lake in Washington state. Kennewick's remains were suprisingly old (over 9,000 years) and he was thought to be a Caucasoid.

The term "Caucasoid", is a loaded one and could lead to misinterpretaion. This doesn't mean that the Kennewick man was European, or was even related to modern Europeans. In fact, Kennewick didn't fit into any racial category. Kennewick is thought to be similar to another ancient American find, "Spirit Cave Man".

SCM's remains were found in Nevada and share many traits with Kennewick man. These traits are specific to bone structure and form, which can determine race. Scientists found that both SCM and Kenniwick posessed traits that were shared by numerous races around the world. The skull shared features with the Ainu people of Japan, Europeans, and the Atayal of Taiwan. In fact, these two skeletons are thought to belong to a race far different than any known today.

Some, many with an axe to grind, jumped on these two finds to discredit Native people's claims that they were the first settlers. The fact of the matter is that the Native Americans are the descendants of a suprisingly diverse mix of people who settled the New World over 12,000 years ago (exact dates are not known). The tribe who buried Kennewick was merely protecting their own, or what they perceived to be an ancestor. This wasn't done with the sinister purpose of hiding the truth, but to pay respect to a family member.

Sadly Kennewick and Spirit Cave Man are more recent examples of the disservice uninformed speculation has rendered to Native cultures. Native achievements are almost always attributed to another race or culture, without any credible evidence. The Mound Builders of Ohio were, and sadly by some still are, considered to be Celts, Vikings, or a lost tribe of Israel until archeological evidence disproved these theories.

The cultures of Meso-America were also the victims of rampant speculation. The Olmec heads are said to be those of Africans. While this may, remotely, seem to be the case, that conclusion is drawn without an understanding of the culture and art from which these artifacts arose. After careful study, the only proof of African contact is the slightly "African" look of the heads.

There's little to no evidence proving that modern Europeans, Egyptians, Moors, etc. were in America prior to the Vikings. I find it strange, and insulting, that the cultural achievements of Native Americans must always have their roots elsewhere. While it's remotely possible that some outsiders visited the Americas, their influence would have been minimal. The cultures of North and South America were very advanced and complex long before any outside influence.

If Kennewick and SCM prove anything, it's that modern Native Americans have a far more diverse and ancient past than science had ever suspected, and nothing more.

REF:

Kennewick Information
http://archaeology.miningco.com/blkennewick.htm

Spirit Cave, Kennewick article
http://www.archaeology.org/online/news/kennewick5.html
 
Last edited by a moderator:

FraterLibre

Justified & Ancient
Joined
Feb 27, 2002
Messages
2,221
Likes
37
Points
69
#2
Re: First Westerners to Reach America?

Originally posted by Bilderberger - OK - lets work back. Columbus? Vikings? Celts? Phoenicians? Egyptians? Anyone go back further than that? (apart from the original settlement!!!).

Also, why, when the evidence for Celtic settlement on US soil is so strong (e.g. Barry Fell's classic "forbidden" archaeology book - "America BC") do people get so excited about Columbus? It is like believing that Bill Gates invented the computer.


Firstly, it's likely there were pre Ice Age groups going back and forth, either on ice- or land-bridges, or in boats. Remember that the Egyptian civilization itself started at its peak and gradually decayed. This hints it stemmed from an earlier high civilization we don't know about. Yet.

Secondly, Columbus was important because it was his contact that opened up massive trading between Old and New World. Thus, like Gates, he didn't invent anything, but certainly spelled the doom of much.
 

FraterLibre

Justified & Ancient
Joined
Feb 27, 2002
Messages
2,221
Likes
37
Points
69
#3
Faces

What of the mysterious Olmec heads with distinctive African features?

The hints of a prehistoric global culture and prehistoric world travel seem to be scattered everywhere, and especially in the Americas. It's whether we choose to link them or insist on keeping them separated, which these days seems less and less a choice, as links are suggested, if not found, every day.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
#4
Just throwing another ingredient into the mix!

Saw a TV Programme on British TV last year which examined human remains and artwork found in South America. According to this programme the human remains could only be considered compatible with those of the Australian Aborigines. The remains pre-dated other human remains in the area which were identified as being 'Asian' - that is the ancestors of the people we consider today as Native Americans. In support of the claim that Aboriginals had been in South America they analysed cave paintings in the same region and found that they bore substantial similarities to those found in Australia. Interestingly enough they showed groups of figures being attacked by invaders - and used this to argue that the Aborigines living in South America were wiped out by the southern migration of Native Americans.

The show also focused on a nearly extinct tribe from the islands the Tierra del Fuego region (off the southern tip of South America). They had been the subject of an anthropological study in the early 20th Century, but now only a few indivduals survive (all of which, if I remember correctly had some "outsider" parentage of some sort). It was speculated that they were genetically and culturally unlike the rest of the inhabitants of mainland South America - and were analagous to ...... the Australian Aborigines! Various comparisons were made of which I can't remember the details... however there was one comment made by the Tierra del Fuego tribe - they excluded women from all their tribal decision making...when asked why by anthropologists - they replied that women had once been those in charge of the society - but the men had grapsed control from them long ago - and never wanted them to find out!
 

FraterLibre

Justified & Ancient
Joined
Feb 27, 2002
Messages
2,221
Likes
37
Points
69
#5
Down Under's Up Over

Marius - Fascinating stuff. I hope they show this program stateside soon, or on BBC Amerika.

Sea-faring seems to have been global long before our textbook writers are willing to concede.

That men wrested control from women almost seems obvious, doesn't it? Almost seems the biggest mistake ever made, too, at times like these.
 

many_angled_one

Ephemeral Spectre
Joined
Jan 18, 2002
Messages
413
Likes
8
Points
49
#6
I beg to differ. Look at chimp, ape, and other simian societies. It is usually the biggest, strongest, baddest male that ruled the groups.

Why would it be any different for humans?
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
#7
Many_Angled_One said:
I beg to differ. Look at chimp, ape, and other simian societies. It is usually the biggest, strongest, baddest male that ruled the groups.

Why would it be any different for humans?
But that is not completely true either. Neither is the conclusion.

Most creatures are dominated by the females. Right across the animal kingdom. There is evidence for matrilinear royalty in the human race. As well as nomenclature being dictated by the female line. Then there is goddesses and an insistance of calling so many things "she" including mother nature.

Woman have been able to supply men with the things they needed to be men and not the other way round. Its all very well taking credit for hunting and fishing (and later on, Invention) but woman were supplying the clothes and kept them clean, they looked after the kids and cooked the food that we caught, made camp and slapped us when we suggested outherwise. Many prehistoric female skeletons have proved to be strong and robust as ourselves and sometimes more so.

There is also evidence and some fairly recent, that they helped us in battle and were reputed to have a child in one arm and a weapon in the other.
 

FraterLibre

Justified & Ancient
Joined
Feb 27, 2002
Messages
2,221
Likes
37
Points
69
#8
Female Dominance

Many of the Celtic tribes were matriarchal, and in fact some archaeologists think the myth of the Amazon may have come from encounters with proto-Celtic groups.

It is also fairly obvious that Paulist xtianity and the desert religions in general forced a switch from matriarchy to patriarchy throughout Western culture around the time of Rome.

As for dominance by brute strength, the reason it is more complicated for the humanoid primate is that there is more intelligence, and thus more subterfuge and much more layering when it comes to defining strongest, etc.

Certainly the recent electoral coup and supreme court appointment of a President demonstrated that the candidate with the strongest democratic mandate to lead may not always become the actual leader. In humanoid primates, there is always perfidy, deceit, and outright cheating to consider.

And in nature's rule book, there is no such thing as cheating, so what ever works at the moment counts, for the moment.

Chimps and non-humanoid primates of other kinds are just not quite as sophisticated at tweaking the systems of hierarchy, that's all.
 

many_angled_one

Ephemeral Spectre
Joined
Jan 18, 2002
Messages
413
Likes
8
Points
49
#9
I dont dispute that in some civilisations such as the Celtic civilisation the women could be equal to men, in NO civilisation I know of were women in control the way men were in most civilisations (as my post was referring to the statement that men wrested control from women). The myth that way back in time people all worshipped "the goddess" is just that...a myth. People did worship goddesses and female spirits, just as much as male.

Matriarchical yes, because you always know who your mother is but again that does not imply female dominance by any stretch of the imagination. All it means is that you trace your family line via the female rather than the male.

No, most animals are NOT dominated by the females....Lions for example are male-dominant. Yes a lot of animals are female dominant, a lot are not. The simian branch of evolution, including us is as far as I'm aware is all male-dominant and if you think that did not have an impact upon human social systems you are fooling yourself.

In ancient times men were always going to be the dominant driving force due to drive, strength and aggression. Raw intelligence means nothing when in context with the social developments of the times in question. With the struggle for survival the providers of food have the power of decision making. It does however get more complicated s civilisations became more advanced.

>It is also fairly obvious that Paulist xtianity and the desert >religions in general forced a switch from matriarchy to patriarchy >throughout Western culture around the time of Rome.

No I'm afraid that is completely wrong, ancient Rome and Greece were panthonists whose head god was male and were not a matriarchy, quite the reverse, women had very limitied rights compared to men.
 

FraterLibre

Justified & Ancient
Joined
Feb 27, 2002
Messages
2,221
Likes
37
Points
69
#10
Questions, not Answers

Many - Yes, both Greece and later Rome were male dominated, and look what happened to THEM. LOL

However, as a doctrine, as an actual policy, the Paulist xtian heresy is what spread this sad state of affairs throughout Europe.

Further, I would dispute your assertions that big macho penis-burdened males always "dominated" but I don't know enough about it, being fair of skin and fey of eye.

Even deeper, does it not make you stop and think to realize that all your research is, uh, male-centric? Written by men? Revanchist to match our current view?

Seems to me as much a matter of interpretation as anything else, who "dominates" and perhaps we've reduced this to a call for a definition of "dominate", hm?

Or perhaps not.
 

tattooted

Devoted Cultist
Joined
Aug 10, 2002
Messages
167
Likes
5
Points
49
#11
Even deeper, does it not make you stop and think to realize that all your research is, uh, male-centric? Written by men? Revanchist to match our current view?
When I was growing up (in the 70's), most of the zoological research and documentaries were conducted by men. So we ended up with information about lions, for example, that spoke of the lion and his "pride" of lionesses. The focus was on the male lion and the picture painted was one of a "harem" of female lions feeding and being sexually accessible to the male.

When women zoologists began to explore the topic they noted that the lion prides were matrilinear--the only constant members were the female lions and their female offspring. They saw the male lion as being kept for stud, but otherwise unnecessary as the lionesses organized and conducted the hunting themselves. Male cubs were either killed by the stud lion as possible competitors, or driven off by his own female relations when old enough to fend on his own. Stud lions could also be driven off when no longer able to perform their required function.

Both the male and female zoologists were viewing the same thing: lions in prides, but how they interpreted what they viewed made all the difference in how we understand lions today.

I would suspect that the same is true of women in historical and anthropological studies. For example, in many Native American societies women who are menstruating leave society and their family during the times of their menses and join other women in isolation huts or tents. Male anthropologists described the women as "taboo" and that they were "forbidden" to interact with male society during these days. Women anthropologists looked at the same situation and noted that menstruating women got a three-day pass from all the back-breaking labor that normally made up their lives, plus someone else had to take care of the kids. In the meantime the menstruating women sat around eating, relaxing and socializing.

The facts of history don't change--this event happened this year--but our interpetations of them change according to current philosophical beliefs. History, and anthropology, supposed by many to be dead and unchanging, are actually fields subject to much variance depending on who is telling the story.
 

rynner2

Great Old One
Joined
Aug 7, 2001
Messages
55,252
Likes
8,933
Points
284
Location
Under the moon
#13
Yes! The very essence of Forteana! There are no facts, only opinions.

Read "What do we mean by Fortean?" in any FT mag.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
#15
rynner said:
Yes! The very essence of Forteana! There are no facts, only opinions.

Read "What do we mean by Fortean?" in any FT mag.
But how true is that? If an opinion is based on an interpretation of a 'fact', does the existence of divergent interpretations, and thus differing opinions, alter the nature of the 'fact' itself? Discuss.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
#16
Much in the way that sound does not exist until it is recieved, percieved and logged, facts do not exist on their own until they are catagorised as such.

Perhaps!

Anyway, America and its first visitors was an attractive thread and it is changing into something else but I dont know what.:)
 

FraterLibre

Justified & Ancient
Joined
Feb 27, 2002
Messages
2,221
Likes
37
Points
69
#17
Epistomology?

I think we've strayed into epistimology or somesuch. Anyone remember a signpost?
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
#18
Re: Epistomology?

FraterLibre said:
I think we've strayed into epistimology or somesuch. Anyone remember a signpost?
Yeah, but I think it said Lay Down All Hope, Ye That Go In By Me -DL Sayers trans.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
#19
Tinkering with Tangents

St.Clair said:
Much in the way that sound does not exist until it is recieved, percieved and logged, facts do not exist on their own until they are catagorised as such.

Perhaps!

Anyway, America and its first visitors was an attractive thread and it is changing into something else but I dont know what.:)
I put my hand up to sending the thread off on a tangent!

I guess to some extent it is inevitable with a topic such as this - as Fraterlibre, Tattoo Ted and St Clair have all pointed out it's all a matter of interpretation.

I kind of see history and our understanding of the past like a piece of knitting, once one stitch comes undone you've only got too choices - (a) mend it quickly and hope to hell it doesn't break again or (b) just watch as slowly in all unravels..... As soon as you suggest an idea like the Phoenicians, Africans, Celts, Aborigines went to the Americas it is like pulling out a stitch of the knitting of our understanding - and in many cases people choose the (a) solution.

I'm not a great fan of Graham Hancock, but find him interesting as he refuses to be limited by the "can'ts" of history. It's great to explore the possibilities - the problem is when we are just limited by our own preconceptions as to who or who does not have the ability to do things. I think Sobriquet commented that some of the who came to America comments detract from the achievements of American Cultures. This kind of links in.... why can we not entertain ideas that women could be dominant in a culture or the Welsh get to America or the Aborigines to South America - usually because they are deemed incompetant to do so. I think assumptions like that are unfair.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
#20
Zygon said:
But how true is that? If an opinion is based on an interpretation of a 'fact', does the existence of divergent interpretations, and thus differing opinions, alter the nature of the 'fact' itself? Discuss.
Zygon, I think differing opinions do alter the nature of the fact. It's a bit like the legal process - on the face of it, it a search for the truth, but really is opposing sides twisting the facts and the law to suit a desired outcome. As evidence is presented the interpretations can change it's nature immeasurably. I've seen instances of indecent assualt characterised as the victim accidently brushing against the perpetrator (and this when the perpetrator stuck their hand up a woman's skirt and was stroking the inside of her inner upper thigh - go figure how that happens by accident). If the jury buys such a characterisation - it pretty much changes the victim from victim to hysterical paranoid woman....
 

FraterLibre

Justified & Ancient
Joined
Feb 27, 2002
Messages
2,221
Likes
37
Points
69
#21
Very Much Like Law

Facts are very "legal" in that they mark the spot where someone stopped thinking. Arguments over them are inevitable, as some can't see quite that far and others see quite a good deal further.
 

rynner2

Great Old One
Joined
Aug 7, 2001
Messages
55,252
Likes
8,933
Points
284
Location
Under the moon
#22
Anyway...!

Stephen Oppenheimer (op.cit.) would not be surprised at finding aboriginal types in America, since his idea is that displaced peoples from the flooded land of Sundaland in SE Asia did migrate in all directions, including into Australia and out into the Pacific.

It would not be surprising if some had reached the Americas, and would therefore share their ancestry with native Australians.
 

many_angled_one

Ephemeral Spectre
Joined
Jan 18, 2002
Messages
413
Likes
8
Points
49
#23
hehe what would our histories be like now if people had never questioned the "accepted" view of things. I mean just look how much history has been revised due to new findings, research and information goign against the grain.

FraterLibre - of hell yes, women got the blame for everything under Paulist xtian theory. I wonder how europe would have turned out have Celtic equality not been replaced by the patriarchical society.

The way I see it back when we were hunter-gatherers the men went out and got the food (although who is to say it was always the men hunting and the women staying at home?) so if a woman annoys them they will be like "get your own damn food, I got it, I get to say who eats it" giving them control of who lives and dies and thus ultimately the role of main decision maker. But then thats only my view of things, taking into account the male-led civilisations I know of. It's highly likely women had much bigger roles that the "accepted view" gives them credit for though.


As for first westerners to reach America (to get back on topic) I think it's very likely the Vikings got there since they were already in Greenland just next door. And they would have explored the area from their base in Greenland no dout.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
#24
Many_Angled_One said:
The way I see it back when we were hunter-gatherers the men went out and got the food (although who is to say it was always the men hunting and the women staying at home?) so if a woman annoys them they will be like "get your own damn food, I got it, I get to say who eats it" giving them control of who lives and dies and thus ultimately the role of main decision maker. But then thats only my view of things, taking into account the male-led civilisations I know of. It's highly likely women had much bigger roles that the "accepted view" gives them credit for though.
Who do you think did the gathering while the menfolk were off on the hunt?

(Off at yet another tangent: I've always had a fondness for the following explanation of the differences in the way men and women communicate. For untold millenia, guys would squat silently in the long grass as they hunted game, communicating with any companions -if there were companions: hunting can be a solitary activity- by means of gestures and body-language alone. The need for verbal, face-to-face, eye-to-eye communication limited, and indeed possibly dangerous to the successful outcome of the hunt. Meanwhile, back at the camp, the women-folk were cooking and cleaning, weaving, basket making, throwing pots, gathering roots and berries and watching the kids: all activities that do not require either quiet or stillness to conclude successfully. Thus there was no impediment to the development of verbal and face-to-face communication. Furthermore, there was never any reason to perform any of these tasks alone, and so not only did women develop communication skills that were heavily-dependent on verbalization and eye contact, but they also developed an inclination to view solitary activities as something to be avoided. I see it every day at work: after a few hours of being required to talk to people as part of my job, I like to sit in the canteen by myself with my nose in a book for 15 minutes-half an hour, however long the break is. The girls in the office describe this as 'having nae mates': a somewhat bizarre observation IMO. Even had a (female) manager recently describe myself and 2 male colleagues as 'a disgrace to the department' because when we all took our break at the same time, we all sat by ourselves in different parts of the canteen, reading.:eek!!!!: Meanwhile none of the girls will leave the office on their own seemingly under any circumstances, even if this means going for their breaks with people they actively despise ...And none of them will shut up either.:))
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
#25
Marius said:
Zygon, I think differing opinions do alter the nature of the fact. It's a bit like the legal process - on the face of it, it a search for the truth, but really is opposing sides twisting the facts and the law to suit a desired outcome. As evidence is presented the interpretations can change it's nature immeasurably. I've seen instances of indecent assualt characterised as the victim accidently brushing against the perpetrator (and this when the perpetrator stuck their hand up a woman's skirt and was stroking the inside of her inner upper thigh - go figure how that happens by accident). If the jury buys such a characterisation - it pretty much changes the victim from victim to hysterical paranoid woman....
This is not an example of the nature of a fact being changed. This is an example of a fact being interpreted differently by different people in response to differing experiences of the fact: ie. the victim and the accused experienced the fact directly, the court and the jury indirectly and through the filters of both the victim and the accused's verbalizations of their recollection of what actually transpired. The nature of the fact at the heart of the matter, however, remains unaltered by any of these interpretations.
 

FraterLibre

Justified & Ancient
Joined
Feb 27, 2002
Messages
2,221
Likes
37
Points
69
#26
Less xtianity = Better All Around

Many_Angled_One said:
hell yes, women got the blame for everything under Paulist xtian theory. I wonder how europe would have turned out have Celtic equality not been replaced by the patriarchical society.
It would have turned out better.
 

intaglio

Justified & Ancient
Joined
Oct 14, 2001
Messages
1,592
Likes
19
Points
69
#27
I was listening to Radio 4 today when an article about the forst americans came up. Then this evening I check FT and find a related news story.

The FT story
PORTLAND, Ore. Nov. 25 — Researchers have found traces of a human presence on the Oregon coast dating to more than 10,000 years ago, raising the area's importance for those who study the peopling of the Americas.
The BBC have not included the text of their program on the web site but here are two links to the same info
Link 1
Link 2

So what price the Amerinds claims to the Americas?
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
#28
Recieved this on the AZTLAN mailing list:

Oregon State Daily Barometer.
http://barometer.orst.edu.

Archaeolgists date oldest coastal site
Deposits are thought to be about 10,400 years old
By Erik Sorensen
Barometer Staff Writer
November 20, 2002

An archaeological site identified by OSU researchers as the
oldest on the Oregon Coast dates back about 10,400 years. Roberta
Hall, Loren Davis, and Michele Punke were all on the team to
investigate this known archeological site in Samuel Boardman
State Park near Brookings, where the deposits are almost 2000
years older than those previously dated.

"What we tried to do was find some sediments that were in place
and would be of the proper antiquity," said Punke, a PhD student
in geography.

This site, known as an archeological site due to the lithic
flakes in the region, was earlier dated by some University of
Oregon scholars to be about 8,300 years old.

"Geologically, the sediment aligns below where [U of O] had taken
their dates from, so we hoped that the date would be bracketed in
between the 8,000 year and the 15,000 year," Punke said.

This site has been dated older than anything on the Washington
Coast, and is comparable to sites along the California, British
Colombia, and Alaska Coasts.

Punke did Geographical Information Systems modeling for this
project, which allowed the team to investigate the landscape.

"My role is to try and understand the landscape better, including
what it would have looked like in the past compared to what it
looks like now, and also the offshore landscape," Punke said.

According to Punke, the next steps in the project are to apply
for more funding with plans to investigate the surrounding area
to see how far these 10,400-year-old deposits reach or if this
aged area is inconsistent with the surrounding sediment.

Depending on what is found, botanical or microscopic work may be
incorporated in the area.

This information is useful anthropologically in that it aids in
understanding what routes may have been used for travel into the
Americas.

According to Punke, the Coquille tribe in the region was very
helpful in the investigation, giving advice, offering contacts
and even sending a Global Positioning Systems person to help out.
The tribe also gains from this, learning more about their
ancestry.

"Everything that we find out can be shared with them, and it's a
really great relationship that we are maintaining with the tribe,"
Punke said.

Erik Sorensen covers science for The Daily Barometer. He can be
reached at [email protected].

Mike Ruggeri's Ancient America and Mesoamerica News and Links
http://community.webtv.net/Topiltzin-2091/AncientAmericaand
So what price the Amerinds claims to the Americas?
That's a dubious comment? what do you mean?
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
#29
Originally posted by intaglio
So what price the Amerinds claims to the Americas?
I think it belongs to the descendants of that nun who used to fly there in the 6th century
 

Breakfastologist

Abominable Snowman
Joined
Jul 31, 2001
Messages
921
Likes
17
Points
49
#30
Did anyone else see Horizon last week when they looked at this and suggested that the first americans made it there from France around 30000 years ago- well pre-Clovis.

Full story here - interesting and convincing.

(edit: I thought it was only 16500 years ago)
 
Top