Why is their no Ancient Civilization in North America?

I too have been puzzled by this. Every continent has its own "claim to fame", its own advanced society... granted, Australia is an exception (unless you take into account early Egyptian visits)... so why not North America?

Hopi and Navajo are good choices, but lack a fundamental achievement... their OWN society. Both cultures take into account and give credit to other earlier peoples. The same can be also said about the Mayans and Aztechs... never once, in any of their tales or legends, do they claim self knowledge; I guess the same arguement can be used with the Sumerians / Chaldeans, but do get back onto topic...

Roughly 10,000 years ago, North America was home to one of the largest ice formations. You cannot have an expanding society, a developing society, when the climate and environment fight you. There would be no opportunity to grow.

Even earlier still, say about 30,000 years ago (give or take 4,000 years), you have the North Pole located within the Hudson Bay area... making the entire North American region either as an "arctic" or a "frozen tundra" type ecology. Again, not an amble breeding ground for development. Please go to www.flem-ath.com... for more details concerning the Hudson Bay Pole.

Now, Flem-Ath and I have discussed these matters concerning the polar shift. He believes in a gradual alteration... so, even though I gave the date of 30,000 years, in essence, the ice and cold climate probably existed much earlier then that; he believes in the teachings of Charles Hapgood, that the entire earth surface, floating on top a molten ocean, is able to shift. I much rather prefer a magnetic alteration, that the magnetic poles are fluid and able to adjust.

But no matter what, for many thousands upon thousands of years, North America was what we find within the Actic Circle.

That, I believe, is why there are no ancient civilizations within North America.

Thanks for the image I was wondering how it looks like, by the way I should have say by the Mississippi not in Mississippi.

I wonder if any digs has done in the base of the mound to see if it anything inside the mound.

Also I wonder also if one of the reason civilizations did not flourish that much it was due the Climate in the area compare to southern and central America.

From what I remember there has been a few different digs at the site. I believe they actually found bodies inside the mound. I am not totally certain on that but I do think that is correct. It is quite an interesting place. There is also what they think is a calender with many very tall posts. The posts go as high as 10 feet and 5 feet into the ground.

I thought it took millions of years for contients to drift apart? or polar shifts have nothing to do with that?

arent all the NAtive American Indian tribes ancient civilizations ??? i mean who knows for how long were they here ???

Continental drift and global shift displacement are two different things.

Yes, continental drift, the moving of continents away from each other, does take millions of years. I believe our land masses move about 1/2 to 1 inch a year.

Global shift displacement, however, can be attained anywhere from (the most) 2000 years to as little as instant.

The way Rand Flem-Ath explains it, take an orange... loosen the peel (but leave it intact) from the orange itself. The peel represents our world's surface, and the orange its interior/molten mass. You can now rotate the peel about while keeping the center free from movement. The description I liked better was that of gravy... you have that hardened top layer (earth surface) which can slide across the liguid (molten) layer.

The reason you can have both drift and displacement is simple: Our continents, oceans, and everything else we can "see" is of one geological layer... the crust. All the earthquakes and volcanoes and drifting occur within and on top of the same layer... the crust.

Everything on or part of the crust rests (or floats) on top of the molten interior; so, while you have continents moving apart, you can also have the entire surface slide about.

Magnetic polar shifts have nothing to do with the crust, land masses, or anything else. The earth's core acts like a giant rotating magnet, a gyroscope. Sometimes, like a spinning top or a gyroscope, a little shift or wobble happens before it rights itself back up again. Since the earth already has a wobble due to its rotation (precession), this could, in essence, throw off the natural wobble of the magnetic core; there is geological evidence to support the claim that our North Pole (magnetic) was located elsewhere (several elsewheres).

A true axis polar shift (the point in which the earth rotates) could be thrown off for many reasons: impact with a celstrial object (large enough to alter our spin), proximity to another celestrial object (gravity effects), or the weight distribution of land masses, to mention a few.

It is this last one which is key to this discussion.

Right now, our rotation is pretty stable... our land mass is equally distributed, with a solid icy core at the South Pole. Even if all the ice in Antarctica were to melt, the water would be evenly distributed, and the Antarctic land would still be there. However, if the ice were to be relocated, with say an Ice Age in North America, because there is now more mass located in one area instead of being throughout, that extra mass would be enough to throw our rotation erratically as the earth tries to "right" itself.

*Also, too, it should be noted, that this could also trigger a global shift displacement*

Hope this makes some sense... I know I can go off on tangents some times!

The Americas have many ancient peoples of their own. In North America there are many Mound sites around the Midwest US. Many of the native Indians were nomadic and had no need for a premanent buildings except for some scared sites. Cahokia is one of the largest and best preserved. These sites were made of earth mounds sometimes in the shapes of animals, like the Great Serpent Mound in OH. When settlers came into these areas they just saw them as being in the way of farming and many were destroyed.
Sites like Cahokia were large cities for their time, at its greatest point it had more people then London.
Mississippian, Adena, Hopewell and Caddoan were the largest of the mound builder groups.

Thet all visited the americas, North America. It is that our archaeology society today that is involved with the goverments of the world have been covering up many finds of the past and today.

It is as simple as saying area 51 exists but the country is covering it up.

there are several websites that talk about this and all have a similiar explanation why there are no artifacts around today. Any archaelogy dig in North America has to coordinate with the smithsonian, and with this the gov allows what it wants to go public.

Check out these sitesForbidden KnowledgeEgyptian artifacts in ArizonaGiants of the Royal Incassacred amuletsSaga of Burrows cave

here's some other info

www.ancientamerican.com...

There is no such thing as a race.We all belong to the same specie : Homo sapiens...

[edit on 30-5-2005 by DarkSide]

Caral, Peru thought to be the oldest city in America. Nearly 5,000yrs old, thats about as ancient as Modern Civilization gets.
www.smithsonianmag.si.edu...

Another link to Caral.
archaeology.about.com...

[edit on 30-5-2005 by lost_shaman]

Regarding "oldest cities" in the Americas, I cannot help but laugh. Not because they are the oldest, but because of something entirely else...

According to the experts, the Americas were first inhabited along the Siberian Straitt, moving downward.

So, they mean to tell us that although the Indian ancestors came from up north, they walked all the way down to South America, and then built cities.

Let's not forget that after the cities were built, they then decided to travel back north, into central America (not to be confused with Central America), to teach and help other nations develope.

Sounds backwards to me. You would think that, since they were in the North first, THAT's where you would expect to find the oldest cities, or at least, the oldest settlements.

I know, I know... they were nomadic, following the great Mammoth herds across the tundra and Great Plains, and decided, like all aging cultures, to move south and settle down in the warmer climates.

Still sounds rather backwards. The only thing that would make sense is for them to have first arrived in the south... but that's on different threads, isn't it?

OK I have no idea what you're talking about because it makes no sense. We aren't one nation. Mexicans and Germans are not the same people. LOL Far from it mate. We aren't all 'One People' as you call it. Blacks are different than whites, just as whites are different than mexicans, etc. etc. Please don't rant about everyone being 'One People' again.