It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Why are we ashamed of American Megaliths?

page: 2
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 10 2005 @ 08:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by AWingAndASigh


Yes there are similarities that can be found. That does not mean that they are the same nor that there was trade / communications between the 2 continents.


OK, then explain this:

planetvermont.com...

this:

www.kotv.com...


The proof is there. Scientists just don't want to see it. They have their theories to protect.


Hey, thanks for mentioning the Oklahoma Rune Stones! There are actually at least 4 large rune stones in Oklahoma. It is speculated that the Vikings came up the Arkansas River. I have been to the Heavener Rune Stone, but have not seen the other three. Lots of people don't know about these.

Also, we have vast burial mounds in the northeastern part of Oklahoma.

This is a nice thread.
I will post again with links to the various Rune Stones and the burial mounds.

P.S. I will try to locate my pics of the Heavener stone and scan them in.

[edit on 6-10-2005 by Valhall]




posted on Jun, 11 2005 @ 08:24 PM
link   


This is a nice thread.


Thanks. I remember how surprised I was when I first found out about the American megaliths. I think that's part of my frustration with this whole topic. We have some really cool ancient historical artifacts in America, but no one ever talks about them. Even fewer actually research them. How can we ever find out who built them and why if no one cares about them in the first place?

I'm looking forward to seeing your posting on the Oklahoma rune stones.



posted on Jun, 11 2005 @ 11:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by AWingAndASigh
The interesting things about megaliths is that they appear pretty much all over the world. There's quite a bit of varience between them, but a lot of similarity as well. I would suspect that megalith building was a cultural thing that spread with human contact much like the switch from hunter-gatherer to farming. However, the contact had to exist for the behavior to spread.


Couple of points, here:
Megalith building appears in different cultures and arises at different times. However, proof of a pre-contact with another megalithic building society isn't a necessary precursor to building these things. A number of cultural artifacts appear to have been invented independantly, and there's no reason to think that megaliths are different.

If they had been spread by a culture (we'll call this imaginary culture the "Megacult") then what we'd see would be an improvement in the technology every time a new culture or group adopted the concept.

In the case of the megaliths, you don't see this progression unless you're talking about a sequence within one culture (like the Mound Builders.)




4,000 B.P. (Before Present): Unknown megalithic builders arrived to construct a 12-acre astronomical stone calendar. At the center of this stone calendar lies a 4.5 ton granite sacrificial table. Inscribed tablets of the ancient Canaanite god Baal/Celtic god Bel have been found on this site. Worshippers of Baal were associated with fertility rites, sun worship, and human sacrifice.

That, alone makes me think it's a more modern construction. Native Americans didn't do sacrifical tables (the Central American cultures did, yes, but the tribes of that area didn't do sacrificial tables.)

There was no single god named Baal (though there is something in the Bible with that name. However, it means "Lord" and is the title of a number of gods, mainly a sun god:
encyclopedia.laborlawtalk.com...
phoenicia.org...

And it really doesn't make sense. You have to either think that a group of explorers made their way across the ocean and into the interior of the US where they stop and labor for quite awhile to make a sacrifical stone table and a megalith in an area that they're visiting and not coming back to...

...or there was a whole big group of them who came across and promptly forgot how to do stonework and build houses (but remembered how to set up a sacrificial stone much cruder than any altar they had in the old world and a stone calendar unlike any calendar they had at home (they got their info on astronomy and astrology from the Babylonians, among others)) and then all died off along with any food they brought along...

...or it's misinterpreted...

...or it's a hoax.

I'd find it a bit easier to believe in Olmecs on a trading expedition, frankly.


Stone monoliths mark astronomical events that were important to people of that time period.

It's really not that unusual -- in fact, all ancient cultures had some form of astronomical calendar. Some of the medicine wheels appear to be astronomical and may be as old as 10,000 years or older.


It is believed that Phoenicians, Celts, and possibly others came from across the seas and settled here long before the discoveries of Christopher Columbus.


Again, something else I find hard to believe. Yes, there's enough evidence of Vikings showing up occasionally and settling down, particularly in the 1200-1400s. But there's no evidence of the very technically sophisticated Phoenecians here and no evidence that Celts could make the long journey in their boats, much as their fans like to think.
www.scientificexploration.org...

Speaking as someone with some Native American ancestors, I find it more than a bit frustrating that others think these ancestors were too stupid or too childlike or too technologically inept to figure out lunar cycles, solar cycles, or even how to build mounds and megaliths. That all they were capable of was sitting around in wigwams, smoking and saying "ugh! how!" and killing deer.


I'm not sure I agree with you that all the American megaliths are fake. Building that kind of structure would be a major undertaking that most people wouldn't do just to have a laugh on the neighbors.

Never underestimate the power of the romance of an idea.


Do you know how much effort it would take to position that many large stones with pre-modern technologies (Mayflower 1620 +)?


They were building castles a thousand years before that in England, and some of those are made up of huge blocks of stone. They used jibs and pulleys to lift the heavy stones up to where they were needed, and the time and manpower was fewer than 300 men and less than 2 years:
www.smr.herefordshire.gov.uk...

Given that Americans in the 1800's had better of pulleys and cranes and wheelbarrows and wagons and horses and oxen and mules and were building trains and railroad tracks and the White House and the Congressional Building and the Smithsonian Institute -- how long do you think it might take Jonathan Pattee and his five sons to make something like that during the time that they owned it (1826-1846)?
www.unmuseum.org...

How long do you think that people, using the tools and technology that built the Old State Hall in Boston (1713) www.bostonhistory.org... to build a crude construction like that?


To calculate the exact astronomic events and construct the megalith accordingly?

Uhm, about 5 minutes to look it up in the latest Farmers' Almanack?

Seriously.
www.answers.com...


It would be unfair to say that because American megaliths don't resemble Stonehenge that they have no relation. Stonehenge is unique among megaliths even in the UK.

Ehh, yes and no. They're all unique, every one of them, but the ones in Britain share some cultural features:
www.stonepages.com...

Anyway, that's why I'm sekptical. The construction techniques, pottery, and inscriptions just don't match up at all.

[edit on 11-6-2005 by Byrd]



posted on Jun, 12 2005 @ 12:34 AM
link   


Megalith building appears in different cultures and arises at different times. However, proof of a pre-contact with another megalithic building society isn't a necessary precursor to building these things. A number of cultural artifacts appear to have been invented independantly, and there's no reason to think that megaliths are different.


This could go both ways. The transition from hunter-gatherer to stationary farming was a 'technology' that spread without improvement at each new contact. If you read the article I provided a link to, the clovis point itself spread throughout America without major improvements in it's design at each step. And contact between peoples was required for the technology to spread.



That, alone makes me think it's a more modern construction. Native Americans didn't do sacrifical tables (the Central American cultures did, yes, but the tribes of that area didn't do sacrificial tables.)


You're making the assumption it was built by Native Americans without facts in evidence to support it. Kennewick man, as an example, is not Native American. And there is DNA evidence of a link with Europe:

www.jsonline.com...



There was no single god named Baal (though there is something in the Bible with that name. However, it means "Lord" and is the title of a number of gods, mainly a sun god:


In general, the worship of a specific god was regionalized. For example, the primary goddess of the ancient mideast was called Isis, Ashara, Astarte, etc. but addressed with a specific name in a specific place. In either case, the name 'Baal' is actually a word that means 'lord' and could have been used in that context. See this explanatory link:

www.touregypt.net...



And it really doesn't make sense. You have to either think that a group of explorers made their way across the ocean and into the interior of the US where they stop and labor for quite awhile to make a sacrifical stone table and a megalith in an area that they're visiting and not coming back to...


Modern scholars continually underestimate historic peoples. Celtic peoples were much more interrelated than they are given credit for, they travelled more extensively than given credit for - and they DID practice human sacrifice! See this link:

www.megalithic.co.uk...




Given that Americans in the 1800's had better of pulleys and cranes and wheelbarrows and wagons and horses and oxen and mules and were building trains and railroad tracks and the White House and the Congressional Building and the Smithsonian Institute -- how long do you think it might take Jonathan Pattee and his five sons to make something like that during the time that they owned it (1826-1846)?


The flaw to your reasoning is that it wasn't commonly accepted that the European megaliths were astronomically aligned until later. The first proposal of the theory was in the mid 1700s, but as is typical for scientific theories, it wasn't accepted as fact until the mid to late 1800s. You also didn't read the portion that stated a tree had grown around some of the stone structure that was dated to have begun growth PRIOR to Jonathan Pattee and his sons arrival.



Anyway, that's why I'm sekptical. The construction techniques, pottery, and inscriptions just don't match up at all.


Please specify the differences in construction that you feel are too dissimilar.

Compare the construction of Mystery Hill with the contruction of the Anistasi astronomical alignments at Hovenweep National Monument.

paganastronomy.net...

and:

www.nps.gov...

My whole point in this thread is that we're never going to find out anything about these sites unless we study them.



posted on Jun, 12 2005 @ 01:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by AWingAndASigh
If you read the article I provided a link to, the clovis point itself spread throughout America without major improvements in it's design at each step. And contact between peoples was required for the technology to spread.

Granted... however, you were talking about global megalithic culture before, and that was what I was responding to.




That, alone makes me think it's a more modern construction. Native Americans didn't do sacrifical tables (the Central American cultures did, yes, but the tribes of that area didn't do sacrificial tables.)


You're making the assumption it was built by Native Americans without facts in evidence to support it.

Actually, I assume it was built by early European settlers in the 1700's and modified by Pattee and/or his sons.


Kennewick man, as an example, is not Native American. And there is DNA evidence of a link with Europe:

No dispute, and you'll find (if you ever get horribly bored and read my other posts) that I'm aware of this and other genetic research on Native Americans.




In general, the worship of a specific god was regionalized. For example, the primary goddess of the ancient mideast was called Isis, Ashara, Astarte, etc. but addressed with a specific name in a specific place. In either case, the name 'Baal' is actually a word that means 'lord' and could have been used in that context.

Yes, I was aware of that. I axed a longer explaination, mainly that if it really WAS old Phoenecians/Canaanites, they would have inscribed another name and written or carved other symbols around that related to their worship. And they would have done a better job on the altar.

They DID have the technology to make the stone nice and square and to carve idols and do terracotta figures of the deity in order to worship properly. Why would they come all the way to the US and then set up an altar and NOT put up the things (so simple to make) to properly worship their deity? Why carve a blood groove if your altar isn't properly finished to worship your deity on (that's a bit of an insult to the deity)?



Modern scholars continually underestimate historic peoples. Celtic peoples were much more interrelated than they are given credit for, they travelled more extensively than given credit for - and they DID practice human sacrifice! See this link:

Nobody disputes the Celts and human sacrifice, but the stone was set up to Baal (according to what you'd written and the site wrote)... and that's not a Celtic deity.

And the link you gave shows that the Scots had chariots in England. This is interesting because of the technology, but not unusual. The proto-Celts were Central European, and the Celtic language groups are found in Scotland, Ireland, Wales, England, Anatolia, Iberia, Denmark.

BUT... the language groups don't say that they had the capability to sail boats across the sea or specalized ocean-going technology like the Vikings. They used coracles and rowed. Wind-travel tech didn't come to them early.


The flaw to your reasoning is that it wasn't commonly accepted that the European megaliths were astronomically aligned until later. The first proposal of the theory was in the mid 1700s, but as is typical for scientific theories, it wasn't accepted as fact until the mid to late 1800s.

True for Stonehenge, but people had been making stone solstice/equinox calendars forever.


You also didn't read the portion that stated a tree had grown around some of the stone structure that was dated to have begun growth PRIOR to Jonathan Pattee and his sons arrival.

Actually, I did. That's why I put in the bit about the Boston Hall -- it was built prior to the time that the tree started growing and was an example of how people could lift heavy stones and move and dress and cut stones with a considerable amount of ease during the 1600's.

You'd challenged me as to how well they could have constructed the site, remember? I pointed to some far more sophisticated construction that was done easily. The dwellings at America's Stonehenge aren't that sophisticated and could be put up by a single man (or woman) fairly quickly using the tech of the 1600's.

Take this nice section of wall:
www.theskyscrapers.org...
Fairly standard stone stacking technique from Europe, really. No sophisticated tools needed to make it and it takes only a day or so to build something like that with a few people working. It makes a very nice front for someone's underground/sod house.

Or this:
www.theskyscrapers.org...


So my answer (and I was trying to not sound snooty) really is "oh, very easily and with a few months' work."


Please specify the differences in construction that you feel are too dissimilar.

Everything. The stone-stacking technique is mostly European and was not practiced by the Native Americans. The stone dressing/carving on the "altar" is far more primitive than the Mediterranean cultures were doing in 2,000 BC to 400 AD. Baal wasn't worshipped much after 500 BC.


Compare the construction of Mystery Hill with the contruction of the Anistasi astronomical alignments at Hovenweep National Monument.
paganastronomy.net...


Erm, the Anastazi were several thousand miles away, nobody suspects them of involvement with Mystery Hill (and vice-versa) and the only thing measured at that location is the Summer Solstice. Not all the other points shown at Mystery Hill.

The construction is quite different... the Anasazi took advantage of natural rock and didn't build a medicine wheel or anything else (the stacked adobe tower is of, well, adobe, and not made in the same way as the stacked stones. Completely different tech and construction style.)

Here's what the calendar at Mystery Hill is:
www.theskyscrapers.org...

So I don't quite see what you're getting at. One site shows a solstice (only) the other has something that seems to mark dates (could even be someone's birthday or wedding date) along with the summer and winter solstice and the Equinox. This isn't terribly sophisticated and at most would take you (or me) one year to do.


My whole point in this thread is that we're never going to find out anything about these sites unless we study them.

They *have* been. It's just that the site owners didn't like the results.



posted on Jun, 12 2005 @ 02:07 AM
link   
I hate huge replies (which I seem to be doing), so I'll add a separate reply here for folks:

The history of the site (proposed) is really inconsistant.

First, there's a claim of Phoenecians/Canaanites (circa 1,000 BC)?

Then there's a claim of Celts (400 AD - 900 AD, perhaps?)

Then Vikings are brought in (1000-1400 AD)

And it's all kind of mish-mashed together as though they all showed up within a fairly short time of each other and somehow used the implements and built the rooms... and shared?

I don't think that makes sense.

I could see it as an old Medicine Wheel (10,000 BC - 1500 AD) on someone's property with someone adding a set of stone rooms/cellars and other structures to (1500-1900 AD) and possibly adding to the "calendar" stones and making funky carvings based on some of the books of the time. It certainly makes a good area for a tribe to live in temporary camps (so I expect to find Native American artifacts all over the place.)

ANd I'm not sure the history jives with the Algonquin tribal history and legends:
www.u-s-history.com...
They were around, and they would surely have noticed some Canaanites and Celts wanderin in the area.



posted on Jun, 12 2005 @ 08:16 PM
link   


Granted... however, you were talking about global megalithic culture before, and that was what I was responding to.


You have proof that global megalith building was not spread by human contact? Please provide your sources.



Actually, I assume it was built by early European settlers in the 1700's and modified by Pattee and/or his sons.


So you assume it was built in the 1700s? What about this:



But a local Puritan clergyman, Cotton Mather, was not convinced. In 1712 he discovered some strange incisions on an exposed seaside rockface in Dighton, Massachusetts—far from where any plow could have marked it. Winter ice and constant submergence at high tide under the Taunton River began obliterating some of the older markings and Mather was concerned the inscriptions would be lost for posterity.


If Cotton Mather shipped the inscriptions off to the Royal Society in London in 1712, they MUST have been built prior to that time. (Hint: you can't ship what doesn't exist.)



Yes, I was aware of that. I axed a longer explaination, mainly that if it really WAS old Phoenecians/Canaanites, they would have inscribed another name and written or carved other symbols around that related to their worship. And they would have done a better job on the altar.


The truth is we know next to nothing about Megalith builders, including those who built Stonehenge. The speculation about what the megaliths were used for have been going on for centuries. So, you suddenly have a theory about who and what the Mystery Hill builders were based on 'facts' that no one else has access to?

What I was saying is that Megalith building was most likely spread by human contact between ancient peoples in much the same way religion is spread today. I might build a church in my community, but it doesn't mean I was converted by my neighbor.



They DID have the technology to make the stone nice and square and to carve idols and do terracotta figures of the deity in order to worship properly. Why would they come all the way to the US and then set up an altar and NOT put up the things (so simple to make) to properly worship their deity? Why carve a blood groove if your altar isn't properly finished to worship your deity on (that's a bit of an insult to the deity)?


Again you're making an assumption based on facts not in evidence. Even if the builders were worshipers of Baal, does that automatically mean they were Phoenician/Canaanites? No.



Nobody disputes the Celts and human sacrifice, but the stone was set up to Baal (according to what you'd written and the site wrote)... and that's not a Celtic deity.


Bel is, and like the endless number of middle eastern counterparts, Bel is a Sun god. And again, since we don't have written records from Megalith building times, we're left to conjecture based on what we find (not on what we assume).



And the link you gave shows that the Scots had chariots in England. This is interesting because of the technology, but not unusual. The proto-Celts were Central European, and the Celtic language groups are found in Scotland, Ireland, Wales, England, Anatolia, Iberia, Denmark.


I provided this link because it showed the extent in which Celts travelled was far greater than had been previously assumed. The chariot, while interesting, was not the point. It was merely proof that Celtic contact had taken place that was previously unknown, proven by the incontrovertial evidence of identical chariot manufacture.



BUT... the language groups don't say that they had the capability to sail boats across the sea or specalized ocean-going technology like the Vikings. They used coracles and rowed. Wind-travel tech didn't come to them early.


Need I remind you that until a VERY few years ago, it was assumed that Vikings sailed around Europe and that was it? We know they travelled far greater distances NOW, because we've studied their travels and discovered that our prior assumptions about the limits to their travel were wrong. What I'm saying is that it could be the case for Celts, as well.



Actually, I did. That's why I put in the bit about the Boston Hall -- it was built prior to the time that the tree started growing and was an example of how people could lift heavy stones and move and dress and cut stones with a considerable amount of ease during the 1600's.


OK, what about this:



The Upton Chamber is one of the the largest and most perfectly built stone chambers in New England and is all underground. It is mammoth—a six foot high and fourteen foot long tunnel leading into the side of a hill with an inner chamber of small quarried stones. The chamber is topped with several large oval stones weighing several tons as a roof and measures 12 feet in diameter and 11 feet high. The Upton chamber has been dated by experts to 710 A.D.1




But even more than mere physical resemblance to European sites, it was carbon dating, carried out under the supervision of respected scientists from Geochron Laboratories in 1971 that supported the disputed claims of researchers who were being ridiculed for insisting that Mystery Hill was a site of extreme antiquity. Carbon tests conducted on charcoal found alongside a stone pick and a hammer stone unearthed at an excavation near one of the underground chambers reveal a date of 2,000 B.C. The artifacts were clearly related to Neolithic pieces of the same era in the British Isles and Iberia. The excavation pit carbon tested had been undisturbed before digging and layers of strata above were perfectly intact. Charcoal dating of tree roots penetrating one of the other chambers revealed a date of 1690 B.C. (Could it be that this complex was started by the same culture who built Stonehenge? The Stonehenge builders must have possessed sturdy ships if scholars are correct about their ability to haul the multi-ton monoliths hundreds of miles along the rivers of England to their resting sites on the Salisbury Plain . . . )


www.barnesreview.org...

Your dates for the construction of the Megaliths are wrong.



Fairly standard stone stacking technique from Europe, really. No sophisticated tools needed to make it and it takes only a day or so to build something like that with a few people working. It makes a very nice front for someone's underground/sod house.


Boy, you need to actually do some of this stone work yourself. I used to live in Texas near where the German immigrants routinely use stone to build fencing, barns, houses and what have you. The effort required is much more than you imply.



Erm, the Anastazi were several thousand miles away, nobody suspects them of involvement with Mystery Hill (and vice-versa) and the only thing measured at that location is the Summer Solstice. Not all the other points shown at Mystery Hill.


I used the Anastazi as a known Native American group who utilized atronomical techniques in their construction - one of the very few in America who did so - as you said, if they were related, the construction should reflect it. But it doesn't.

In addition:



The setting sun had cast a beam of light through the vent shaft at the back of the chamber. This beam of light slowly moved down the east wall and spotlighted into the small beehive crypt near the entrance. This stone-lined tube was designed precisely to permit the Equinoctical sunset to fully penetrate the chamber’s dark interior on only two days during the year—March 22nd and September 21. The high density of garnet in the stones magnified the intensity of the sunlight entering the chamber. It certainly acts as a predictable calendar. The Gungywamp site has been carbon dated to 600 A.D.9




They *have* been. It's just that the site owners didn't like the results.


OK, please provide links to this extensive research. I'd be interested in reading it. Preferably from an educational institution.



posted on Jun, 12 2005 @ 09:13 PM
link   
Could we possibly separate this into two discussions (another thread, please) ... when I answer a specific about one site you suddenly dart off and start talking about another site across the ocean or across the continent and so forth.

I'd be glad to discuss Mystery Hill (sorry, Cotton Mather's findings aren't relevant. There's no link to them and MH. If the rock was found ON MH, then that's a different matter. Found 10 miles or more away on the coast doesn't mean anything.) But if we're discussing MH, then we should limit ourselves to that.

The charcoal and axe say that yes, American Indians lived in the area. They don't say that the structure was there when the charcoal was formed. If we dug deep enough under my house, we might find an arrowhead or two... but that doesn't mean that Native Americans built my house.

And so far, you haven't given any evidence that links all the megaliths (and perhaps even defined what a megalith IS... I was using the terms as defined here: www.megalith.ukf.net... but things like the Anasazi site are NOT megaliths the way most of us define them.

So... what, exactly are you calling a megalith? Could we start with that definition, please?

And then tell me what proof you have that all these were made by the same culture.


[edit on 12-6-2005 by Byrd]



posted on Jun, 12 2005 @ 11:05 PM
link   


And so far, you haven't given any evidence that links all the megaliths (and perhaps even defined what a megalith IS...


From Merriam-Webster:



Main Entry: mega·lith
Pronunciation: 'me-g&-"lith
Function: noun
: a very large usually rough stone used in prehistoric cultures as a monument or building block
- mega·lith·ic /"me-g&-'li-thik/ adjective




Could we possibly separate this into two discussions (another thread, please) ... when I answer a specific about one site you suddenly dart off and start talking about another site across the ocean or across the continent and so forth.


The topic of this thread is 'Why are we ashamed of American Megaliths?' PLURAL not 'Why are we ashamed of Mystery Hill?' SINGULAR.

We can't take one artifact and make a determination about whether or not peoples other than Native Americans were active anciently in America. The plural topic is right on the money. I'm not sure what dividing out a single site will do.



The charcoal and axe say that yes, American Indians lived in the area. They don't say that the structure was there when the charcoal was formed. If we dug deep enough under my house, we might find an arrowhead or two... but that doesn't mean that Native Americans built my house.


You are again making assumptions. Are you trying to imply that Celts never used axes?



And then tell me what proof you have that all these were made by the same culture.


Let me have someone else argue the case for me:



Professor Norman Totten, Islamic historian and archaeologist who has conducted a number of expeditions in the Near East and North Africa, and who teaches a course on the origins of writing, here gives some reasoned consideration to the claims of those archaeologists who deny the reality of New World epigraphy.




The question of Celtic origins and the range of dates for European megaliths are far from the settled issues Daniel's and Nicholaisen imply. My own opinion is that when Europe's visual symbols from Upper Paleolithic to Iron Age are better understood, a continuum here and in other material evidences will be identified as at least as important as the east to west migrations of culture in the Iron Age. Hallstatt and La Tene newcomers must have amalgamated with other cultures already in existence in Western Europe. Has any archaeologist seriously suggested that Nicolaisen's migrants completely eradicated the existing populations whose ancestors built Stonehenge and all the rest? The term "Celt" begs for redefinition on other than purely diffusionist grounds which many in the archaeological community have preferred until recent times. The geographical extent of Celtic culture is also due for some serious revisions.




Certain European dolmens are virtually identical to some of New England's megalithic structures (several of which carbon dates now place long before Columbus). Daniel's "however we may interpret the radio-carbon dates" is ambiguous and confusing. For if we interpret carbon dates and other form of dating by the same principals in both Europe and America (which we should), then we have solid evidence for the antiquity of some lithic structures in both North and South America.

I have visited megalithic burial grounds at Newgrange, Ireland; West Kennet Long Barrow, England; Barnenez, France; Damiyeh, Jordan; and at sites in Malta, Denmark and elsewhere in Europe. I have also visited various megalithic sites in North and South America. While we cannot yet prove that any of New England's dolmens were, like their topological counterparts in Europe, Asia and Africa, tombs, we can do so at one site in South America.

San Agustin, Columbia, is located near the Equadorean border Archaeologist Reichel-Dolmatoff in his book SAN AGUSTIN (1972, 148) gives a table of 15 radio carbon dates from different sites there ranging from 555 BC +/- 50 to 1630 AD +/- 90. That some of the dolmens at San Agustin were tombs is incontestable as is the proof that similar but slightly larger megalithic structures there were shrines, or temples. Archaeologists who have viewed my slides of San Agustin dolmens, before hearing my commentary have invariably supposed them to be Old World.

Though the statement by Ross and Reynolds is more detailed than that of Daniel, they do seem bent on confusing the issue by grouping later minilithic structures such as "cleits" and "root cellars" with earlier megalithic structures which seem to have been temples and tombs. Archaeologists don't do this in Europe, why insist in doing this in America? If we were discussing horses it would seem out of place to mix in donkeys and proceed to discuss them all together. To include obvious colonial and post-colonial structures in a grouping being investigated as ancient confuses the issue; later structures should be categorized separately, for comparison when desired.

While Daniel is generally regarded as something of an expert on European megaliths, there are significant problems in his stated views about those in America. For information about America's lithic structures, the reader should consult not only Fell, but also the BULLETIN of the early Sites Research Society, publications of NEARA, and Salvatore Trento's THE SEARCH FOR LOST AMERICA (1978).




Sanford Etheridge, department of classical languages, Tulane University, in the Irish-language periodical, GAELTACHT (VII, May 1980, 3) refers to Fell as the leading living scholar in Ogam. Earlier in GAELTACHT (VI, 1979, 6, 7, and 8), Etheridge notes in agreement with Fell that Celtiberians left Ogam inscriptions across America, and of the Amerindian language Takhelne "in British Columbia is so full of Celtic words...that one may call it a Celtic language." For Fell's articles see ESOP, IV, 1977, no. 92, and ESOP, VII, 1979, no. 140. In a 1979 issue of KELT it is reported that Lou Menez, a Breton Missionary among the Takhelne tribe, "is that Professor Fell's theory on the origins of the Takhelne language is correct. He too believes that the roots relate to Celtic languages."


www.equinox-project.com...

AND:



Dr. Barry Fell of HArvard University has indentified inscriptions found in New England that are in Ogham writing. Ogham was a method of inscribing writing on stone used by Gaels in Ireland, Scotland and Wales as early as 500 B.C. According to his studies, Dr. Fell beleives a group of Celts first settled in New Hamshireat the mouth of the Merrimac River. Later the Celts went up the Merrimac River as far as Quechie, Vermont and westward into the Green Mountains. In his book, America B. C., Dr. Fell mentions sites found at South Woodstock and South Royalton, Vermont; in New Hampshire at Raymond, Bartlett and Mystery Hill; in Maine at Madison and off the coast at on MananaIsland and Mohegan Island; in Massachusetts at Upton, Merrimackport, Westport, Burnt Mountain and the Boston area.

Dr. Fell reports that Cotton Mather wrote the Royal Academy in England in 1712 about Ogham writing he found at a site in Dighton, Massachusetts. Othe sites were found at Danbury, Connecticut; North Salem, New York and the Susquehanna River Valley in Pennsylvania.

Gloria Farley, a colleague of Dr. Fell, has found evidence of Celts who left Ogham writing as they travelled up the Mississippi River, westward on the Arkansas River to the Cimmarron River that borders Arkansas and Oklahoma.

The New England sites have more evidence than just Ogham writing, there are doldems, druid circles, burial tombs and oracle chambers - all reflecting Celtic culture.


users.ev1.net...



The Celtic language family is a branch of the larger Indo-European family, which leads some scholars to a hypothesis that the original speakers of the Celtic proto-language may have arisen in the central Asian steppes. However, the Celts enter history and archaeology located in central Europe, whence they (or their language and culture) spread over a range from Ireland in the west to Anatolia in the east, and from Denmark and Scotland in the north to the Iberian peninsula and northern Italy in the south.


For the ancient geography challenged, Anatolia is now Turkey. So the above quote basically says the Celts covered almost all of Europe and Turkey.



An alternate theory, proposed during the 1970s by Colin Burgess in his book The Age of Stonehenge theorized that Celtic culture in Great Britain 'emerged' rather than resulted from invasion and that the Celts were not invading aliens, but the descendants of the people of Stonehenge. Support for this idea comes from the study by Cristian Capelli, David Goldstein and others at University College, London which shows that genes typical of Ireland and Scotland are common in England and Wales and these genes are similar to the genes of the Basque people, who speak a non-Indo-European language. This similarity, they argue, shows that the non-Indo-European native inhabitants of Britain were not wiped out by invasions of either Indo-Europeans bringing farming or Celts in 600 BC. They suggest that 'Celtic' culture and the Celtic language were imported to Britain by cultural contact not mass invasion. The genetic similarity is less marked in women in Britain who have a genetic makeup closer to that of Northern Europe —possibly because women tended to move to their husbands' homes.


encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com...



posted on Jun, 13 2005 @ 09:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by AWingAndASigh
From Merriam-Webster:


Main Entry: mega·lith
Pronunciation: 'me-g&-"lith
Function: noun
: a very large usually rough stone used in prehistoric cultures as a monument or building block
- mega·lith·ic /"me-g&-'li-thik/ adjective



Now we're getting somewhere!


So you are taking the tradition of it's a (say) man-sized or larger rock that is used as a monument or in constructing a building, right?




The topic of this thread is 'Why are we ashamed of American Megaliths?' PLURAL not 'Why are we ashamed of Mystery Hill?' SINGULAR.

We can't take one artifact and make a determination about whether or not peoples other than Native Americans were active anciently in America. The plural topic is right on the money. I'm not sure what dividing out a single site will do.


Well, nothing... but when I started talking about sites in general, you brought up Mystery Hill. Sooooo... I can follow the lead, there.






The charcoal and axe say that yes, American Indians lived in the area. They don't say that the structure was there when the charcoal was formed. If we dug deep enough under my house, we might find an arrowhead or two... but that doesn't mean that Native Americans built my house.


You are again making assumptions. Are you trying to imply that Celts never used axes?


No. What I'm implying is that Native Americans have been in the area for around 20,000 years. A stone axe and charcoal are not unique to either culture. And this wasn't an axe, but was a preform or core. I don't see how someone could suddenly decide it was Celtic in the absence of other evidence of Celts. Furthermore, nearby archaeological sites show a range of dates of stone tool using people who are all Native American and not Celtic. Data includes types of arrows not made in England/Europe plus basket patterns and so forth not made in Europe.
www.fpc.edu...

So I don't think that the artifacts can be explained as Celtic in the face of all the other evidence.



The question of Celtic origins and the range of dates for European megaliths ... (etc) ...

...but we were talking about AMERICAN megaliths.




While we cannot yet prove that any of New England's dolmens were ...(snipped for clarity)... tombs, we can do so at one site in South America.


He's not saying that they're like the megaliths/dolmens of Europe. He says that unlike a number of European sites which were tombs, there's only one megalithic site in South America that is a tomb.

...and, as he says, there's debate over what it means. They're still doing researches. But he's not offering any support for the idea that megaliths were an imported idea from Europe.





Sanford Etheridge, department of classical languages, Tulane University, in the Irish-language periodical, GAELTACHT (VII, May 1980, 3) refers to Fell as the leading living scholar in Ogam. Earlier in GAELTACHT (VI, 1979, 6, 7, and 8), Etheridge notes in agreement with Fell that Celtiberians left Ogam inscriptions across America, and of the Amerindian language Takhelne "in British Columbia is so full of Celtic words...that one may call it a Celtic language."


Had to go look this one up.

Etheridge (I can't find any papers he's published or any record of his being a professor/lecturer... for all we know, he was a student) says that he thinks Barry Fell was right that Takhelene is a "creole" (for those of you reading the discussion who aren't familiar with the term, "Creole" means a very very specific thing to linguists. courses.essex.ac.uk... )

Now, for the record, Fell wasn't a linguist (he was a marine biologist) who set out to prove Celtic contact in the new world. He did what a lot of people do who aren't linguists -- based his paper on "This sounds the same as this, and means something similar, therefore this language came from THAT one."

There's a couple of problems with that.

Have a look at this page -- it's not terribly technical, but does give you enough information to see that the structure and words of the two languages are not very similar:
www.ydli.org...

I hope I'm not being tiresome to readers here, but let me cite a few paragraphs from that article and talk about them a bit as someone who's going to be struggling through a graduate linguistics course in about 4 weeks (EEEK!)


Takhelne is Fell's distortion of Father Morice's transcription of dakelhne ``Carrier people'', which he mistakenly took to be the name of the language. All of Fell's information on the language comes from Father Morice's book The Carrier Language.

Right from the get-go, there, you see the main problem faced by linguists: what you hear may not be what they are saying. Transcripts are notoriously unreliable, and Morice's transcriptions may have been good, but they're what he *heard.*

Example: I say "lighthearted." You might hear "lighthearted" but an oriental who was transcribing my words might hear "r'high'htarted." That oriental linguist would write it down ... but it wouldn't be the way I pronounce it.

That's why linguists are always suspicious of single source translations if the transcriber isn't a native. Franz Boas, one of the first men to try and preserve a record of Native American languages and traditions has a wonderful, VERY readable paper on this... and I can't find it (perhaps someone can google it up... in a bit of a hurry right now)


Celtiberian refers to the Celtic language once spoken in the northern Iberian Penninsula, known to us primarily from a few inscriptions.


In other words, he was making this connection not from a fully understood language with a lot of recorded words (the "word list" for any language is called a "corpus") but rather from inscriptions only (before the age of standardized spelling) and a smaller set of words.

That's like saying English came from Chinese because we have words like "lee" and "young."


Carrier is considered to be an Athabaskan language because there are extensive systematic correspondances between Carrier and the other Athabaskan languages in every part of the language. Individual words and morphemes, including the most basic vocabulary items, correspond according to regular sound laws. The order of the morphemes in the complex verb is very similar in Carrier to the other languages. For example, in Carrier as in the other languages there are two sets of subject markers, which occur in different positions in the verb. In Carrier as in the other languages, the object markers precede the leftmost subject markers.


Translating that mouthfull: It's Athabaskan. Carrier and Athabaskan have the same type of sentences (think about the difference between English and Yoda-Speak. Carrier and Athabaskan would both be using Yoda-Speak sentences and the Celts would be using English-speak sentences.) They use a different set of sounds, and they use a different set of root words.

Furthermore, word prefixes and suffixes (like "un" or "con" or "tion" or "ing") are not the same. That page gives several examples.



Dr. Barry Fell of HArvard University has indentified inscriptions found in New England that are in Ogham writing. Ogham was a method of inscribing writing on stone used by Gaels in Ireland, Scotland and Wales as early as 500 B.C. According to his studies, Dr. Fell beleives a group of Celts first settled in New Hampshire at the mouth of the Merrimac River. (etc)


Since these aren't megaliths, I'll gladly discuss them elsewhere. I'd be happy to discuss Ogham inscriptions found on/in megalithic sites (but we really need to look at pictures... and yes, I can actually read a bit of Ogham and we can certainly translate them together) but I don't see that the ones cited are on/at megalithic sites.

...and we were, of course, talking about American megaliths and not "stuff found in the counties/states around them."


The New England sites have more evidence than just Ogham writing, there are doldems, druid circles, burial tombs and oracle chambers - all reflecting Celtic culture.
users.ev1.net...


I don't think you should use a site that confuses "dolmens" for "doldems" and as we've already seen (per the reference you gave us), there's only one burial tomb and possible temple... and that's in South America. It has some other problems (and other Ogham scholars dismiss this claim, by the way) -- perhaps we could discuss Ogham in American under another thread rather than American megaliths?



An alternate theory, proposed during the 1970s by Colin Burgess (etc)...


And, just to clear my fuzzy, ancient head (and make sure I'm talking apples to apples), which sites are you considering on your list of American megaliths?


[edit on 13-6-2005 by Byrd]

[edit on 13-6-2005 by Byrd]



posted on Jun, 13 2005 @ 10:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by AWingAndASigh
We have quite a number of Megaliths in America that no one ever talks about. It's like the elephant in the living room. See this link:

www.barnesreview.org...

Is there a politically correct conspiracy to keep the full truth about our heritage quiet? What's wrong with the idea that celtics and native americans might have coexisted at certain times in America's past? Is the government taking PC so far that they actually conceal these types of sites from the public and refuse to fund research about them?


If the government is concealing these types of sites, it is because they know nothing about them, or to admit the truth is to admit that they are corrupt.

A big elephant in the room is a great way to describe it. IMO I think the reason no one talks about them is because besides the natives, no one knows anything about them. The ......wow, cant think of a allowable name to call them......burned their homes, killed them if they spoke of their religion, killed them if they spoke in their own language, and destroyed almost all their writings, they were treated worse than the jews in the time of Hitler. They have an oral history only - cant blame them. If they trust you they might tell you. From my understanding, if they trust you enough to tell you then you will respect them enough not to write it down.
In other words, anytime someone looks or reads about megaliths or anything else dating back to when the Natives were incharge of this land, it just reminds us of how this land belongs to no one but the natives. Knowing that, that wrong will never be made right, really sucks. So, how dare we ask them about their history.



posted on Jun, 15 2005 @ 11:26 PM
link   


Now we're getting somewhere!

So you are taking the tradition of it's a (say) man-sized or larger rock that is used as a monument or in constructing a building, right?


Yes. That is a megalith. However, as is true in all archaeology, I'm also talking about items found in association with said megaliths. For example, Stonehenge as a topic also includes those items found in conjunction with Stonehenge. The reason why I include those items is that they are intrinsically tied to the history of the Megalith they're found with.

For example, I would consider the mummy king and all his hoopla as tied to the pyramid in which he was found. I would also consider the evidence of grave robbers, whether the site was disturbed or not, etc. etc. That's how a history of the object can be developed with the limited information we have.

Also, if I found the kings hoopla scattered about the countryside (distributed by grave robbers or who knows what), I would look at the item and what's discovered in the pyramid to see if there's a link. If I found the same style writing in a tomb and on a monument 1000 miles away, I would look for a link (and discuss them both). Normal stuff.

There are an awful lot of artifacts scattered around Egypt that are NOT found in pyramids but ARE directly related to the culture that built them. I would examine American Megaliths in the same context.



Well, nothing... but when I started talking about sites in general, you brought up Mystery Hill. Sooooo... I can follow the lead, there.


Er... You may be different from me, but I can't talk about sites in general without starting to talk about sites in particular as examples of the sites in general. We'll have to muddle along on that.



No. What I'm implying is that Native Americans have been in the area for around 20,000 years. A stone axe and charcoal are not unique to either culture. And this wasn't an axe, but was a preform or core. I don't see how someone could suddenly decide it was Celtic in the absence of other evidence of Celts. Furthermore, nearby archaeological sites show a range of dates of stone tool using people who are all Native American and not Celtic. Data includes types of arrows not made in England/Europe plus basket patterns and so forth not made in Europe.
www.fpc.edu...


Since the megalith you refer to shows no relation whatsoever to other Native American sites you reference, I fail to see why you make the assumption they are somehow related. Making assumptions is bad science. Until overwhelming facts are presented as to the origins of American Megaliths, I think good science would demand that no assumptions be made as to their origins. Just because Native Americans live here now doesn't mean they are the only ones who have ever lived here. Remember Kennewick man? And there are a bunch they found down in Mexico...

In fact here's a link (to show you an example of a people that DOES exist but doesn't have artifacts laying all over the place):



Some of the earliest settlers of America may have come from Australia, southern Asia, and the Pacific, new research suggests. Traditional theories have held that the first Americans originated from northern Asia.

Dr Silvia Gonzalez conducted a study of ancient bones found in Mexico and found that they have very different characteristics to Native Americans.

The results are being presented at the BA Festival of Science this week.

Some of the ancient skulls she has looked at are more than 12,000 years old.

These skulls have long and narrow heads that are very different from the short, broad skulls of today's Native Americans.

'Controversial bomb'

One particularly well-preserved skull of a long-headed female, who has been dubbed Penon Woman, has been carbon dated to 12,700 years ago.

"They appear more similar to southern Asians, Australians and populations of the South Pacific Rim than they do to northern Asians," Dr Gonzalez, of Liverpool John Moores University, told the British Association's annual meeting in Exeter.

"We think there were several migration waves into the Americas at different times by different human groups."
She said there was very strong evidence that the first migration came from Australia via Japan and Polynesia and down the Pacific coast of America.

Dr Gonzalez said the research would be controversial. "[Native Americans] cannot claim to have been the first people there," Dr Gonzalez said.


www.megalithic.co.uk...

It's like saying modern humans are the only humans who have ever existed because there are no Neanderthals (and a bunch of others) running around now. And lord knows the only things we see scattered around the world are the creations of modern humans... Hunting up evidence of the others is not a minor undertaking, but it doesn't mean they never existed.

The reason why Celtic peoples are a good HYPOTHESIS for building American Megaliths is the country of their origins have megaliths that are similar.



So I don't think that the artifacts can be explained as Celtic in the face of all the other evidence.


Again, you're making assumptions. I don't see a lot of Neanderthal artifacts laying around, but they certainly DID exist!



...but we were talking about AMERICAN megaliths.


How EXACTLY can you determine if Celts have ever been to America if you know NOTHING about European Celts? The information I provided shows the Celts travelled far greater distances than was previously known, and new theories that are becoming well accepted argue the Celts are probably decended from the builders of Stonehenge and other megaliths. Why would you think this is not relavant in exploring whether or not American megaliths might have been built by Celts?



He's not saying that they're like the megaliths/dolmens of Europe. He says that unlike a number of European sites which were tombs, there's only one megalithic site in South America that is a tomb.


OK, now I'm starting to get irritated. MOST megaliths in Europe ARE NOT tombs! He's basically saying he sees the same thing in America!



...and, as he says, there's debate over what it means. They're still doing researches. But he's not offering any support for the idea that megaliths were an imported idea from Europe.


What he's saying is standard scientist speak to say we don't know enough yet to PROVE anything. He's not making assumptions before the fact. I support that position. We don't know, therefore we should not make assumptions either way. However, we CAN formulate hypotheses.



Have a look at this page -- it's not terribly technical, but does give you enough information to see that the structure and words of the two languages are not very similar:


Here's the key phrase from the page you referenced:



Although Fell claims that Carrier is not Athabaskan, he offers no evidence or argument in support of his claim. He does not offer any critique of the evidence for the relationship of Carrier to Athabaskan. He seems to believe that, if Carrier is related to Celtic, it cannot also be Athabaskan. This is false: Carrier could perfectly well be related both to the Celtic languages and to the Athabaskan languages.


I'm not a linguist, and I have no intentions of arguing language origins. Considering the fact that a lot of Native American tribes were practically wiped off the face of the map, and some languages have become extinct, I'm not even sure if examination of languages will even prove anything.



Since these aren't megaliths, I'll gladly discuss them elsewhere. I'd be happy to discuss Ogham inscriptions found on/in megalithic sites (but we really need to look at pictures... and yes, I can actually read a bit of Ogham and we can certainly translate them together) but I don't see that the ones cited are on/at megalithic sites.


Do you really expect me to find a picture of every Celtic artifact ever found so that we can discuss each one individually?



I don't think you should use a site that confuses "dolmens" for "doldems" and as we've already seen (per the reference you gave us), there's only one burial tomb and possible temple... and that's in South America. It has some other problems (and other Ogham scholars dismiss this claim, by the way) -- perhaps we could discuss Ogham in American under another thread rather than American megaliths?


Now you're just being silly. The fact that a web site has a typo doesn't say anything at all except that someone is a bad typist. That's like saying I should totally disregard everything you say because I found a typo in your post.



And, just to clear my fuzzy, ancient head (and make sure I'm talking apples to apples), which sites are you considering on your list of American megaliths?


I think you know what we're talking about.



So you are taking the tradition of it's a (say) man-sized or larger rock that is used as a monument or in constructing a building, right?


Debate your position, but keep the red herrings to yourself.

But just to remind you, here's some info that I would include in the 'American Megalith' category:



Crisscrossing the New England countryside are thousands of miles of rude stone walls, the result of an extraordinary effort on the part of colonial farmers to clear their fields of unwanted stone and define their property lines. Most of this wall construction presumably occurred between c.1775 and 1825 as a result of several converging factors: the lack of wood for fences following the widespread deforestation of the colonial period, the end of common herding and the enclosure of common lands, and an increase in sheep herding (Allport 1990, Foster 1999). These are the reasons normally upheld by historians and archaeologists to explain this ubiquitous feature of the New England landscape.

Within this same region are stone walls that do not appear to be the result of field clearing or an attempt to mark property lines. These walls (hereupon called ‘rows’) do not usually form neat enclosures. They are frequently open-ended, make odd and unexpected turns, and do not seem to conform to what we know about colonial wall building. James Mavor and Byron Dix (1989) ascribed these to pre-contact Native American tribes, and proposed that some of them, along with standing stones and underground chambers, were used for determining solar and celestial events. Reaction to their view and that of their proponents among archaeologists and scientists has been harsh and sometimes derogatory (Parker 1982, Conuel 1997, Levillee 1997), and few professional archaeologists have come forward to question openly whether there might be any validity to their hypothesis (Hoffman 1990).

There are various ways that stone rows can be studied, and my own interest has focused on their morphology in relation not only to large or unusual looking boulders that they might be linked to, but also the landscape in which both are found. Toward this end, over the past two years I have studied a very unusual site in the Oley Hills of eastern Pennsylvania in an attempt to determine whether the stone features found on it are Colonial or Native American. (Fig. 1).

Deeds were traced back to the first settler in 1751 to see whether any of the property lines as mentioned in the deeds coincided with existing stone rows. Historical documents were also checked to see if anyone had mentioned the unusual stone rows and other features, and who might have built them. Nothing was found to substantiate the colonial hypothesis. Then, in October 1998, I guided Bill Sevon, a geologist with the Pennsylvania Geological Survey, through the site to get his perspective on how some of the large boulders were formed. When he saw the large quartz rocks incorporated in some of the stone rows and other features, he remarked that they could not have come from the ridge site itself, which consisted wholly of granitic gneiss, but must have been gathered somewhere in the Hardyston Formation in the valley below, a mile or more away (Buckwalter 1957).


www.neara.org...

Who built them and why is something I'd like to explore. If it were Native American peoples, then we're doing them a tremendous disservice by saying it's colonials. If it was Celts or their predecessors, then we're denying an important bond between European and Native American peoples. Either way, we're not going to discover anything at all unless we keep an open mind to the POSSIBILITY that either could be true.



posted on Jun, 15 2005 @ 11:55 PM
link   
I also found this very interesting article talking about astronomical alignments of American Megaliths:



Chambers in an archaeo-astronomical sense, contain aspects of both sun calendars and sacred caves. Such caves are nearly always found in pyramids, mounds, and at sacred mountains. While a natural cave can exist in any locale, stone chambers or "beehive" chambers are found primarily throughout the northeastern section of North America. Construction at the sites is remarkably similar. Nearly all are oriented to face the east, and were constructed in such a way so that sunlight at a particular point of the year could fall into the innermost section, often illuminating artwork inside [15]. Such chambers are typically found in the vicinity of megaliths and dolmens. The similarity of these structures to those constructed in Europe and Teutonic lands has given strength to the conviction that Europeans visited in prehistoric times. Members of modern tribes have not claimed an association to the chamber sites, and adding to the confusion surrounding their origin and purpose is the fact that early colonists to North America often utilized the sites as root cellars and storage areas. In some instances, this usage resulted in disturbing or damaging the site. In particular cases, colonists and settlers intentionally dismantled the chambers and used the stone for the construction of homes and fences. Chambers are one of the least studied archaeo-astronomical forms, yet over 40 exist in Vermont alone. Although only a few of these have been studied and their astronomical significance confirmed, several of the best examples can be found at the Calendar I and II sites. At II, we find the largest known stone chamber in North America with an interior of 10 x 20 ft. It is aligned so that the winter solstice sunrise illuminates the rear of the chamber [11].


paganastronomy.net...



posted on Jun, 16 2005 @ 09:27 AM
link   
(busy day on this end. Will give an answer to one point and address others later)


Originally posted by AWingAndASigh
However, as is true in all archaeology, I'm also talking about items found in association with said megaliths. ... (snippage...)

For example, I would consider the mummy king and all his hoopla as tied to the pyramid in which he was found. I would also consider the evidence of grave robbers, whether the site was disturbed or not, etc. etc. That's how a history of the object can be developed with the limited information we have.

Also, if I found the kings hoopla scattered about the countryside (distributed by grave robbers or who knows what), I would look at the item and what's discovered in the pyramid to see if there's a link.


Actually, you couldn't, and that's the problem with ancient disturbed sites. The artifacts may be in poor condition, and there is no engraving on them to say "built especially for Two Jaguars of the city of Cacaxtla."

Just because you see something that looks like it came from somewhere, you can't conclude that this was its origin or that you have the right time period or that there's any relationship.


If I found the same style writing in a tomb and on a monument 1000 miles away, I would look for a link (and discuss them both). Normal stuff.


All you could say was that the same culture POSSIBLY produced the two items. But you couldn't deduce that the builders of the one moved to the other site, that the other site was done by the same culture, or that the builders of the first sent the monument to the second as a gift, or that the culture of the second didn't make war on the builders of the first monument and trot off with that monument as spoils of war, or that the monument was bought by a wealthy person in the 1300's or later and moved to the second site or that the engraving was made much MUCH later than the monument is a fraud (see the "James ossuary" fraud within the past 3 years for a modern example of this type of fruad)... etc, etc.

(I'm not making any of the above examples up. Those are known problems with out-of-place artifacts and are based on real incidents that caused (deliberatly or otherwise) misinterpretation of the data.)

You need good provenance and good site research before you can draw conclusions.




Sorry to post and run, but I have two papers due in the next 24 hours. Will discuss the rest of this later, when I have more time.


[edit on 16-6-2005 by Byrd]

[edit on 16-6-2005 by Byrd]



posted on Jun, 17 2005 @ 02:16 AM
link   


Actually, you couldn't, and that's the problem with ancient disturbed sites. The artifacts may be in poor condition, and there is no engraving on them to say "built especially for Two Jaguars of the city of Cacaxtla."


I agree, there are difficulties. You also can't say they DON'T come from the site. They would tend to be inconclusive. However, a preponderance of evidence can lead you to conclusions that in all likelihood are correct. Just because an artifact is outside a site doesn't mean it's unimportant or irrelevant. It just means you need more data. It can help you form good hypotheses for testing.



Just because you see something that looks like it came from somewhere, you can't conclude that this was its origin or that you have the right time period or that there's any relationship.


It depends on what the item is. For example, if I found a conopic jar with contents, perhaps I could link items through testing of the contents. Or perhaps there's some unique coating on the jars that match. The fact that it was found separately doesn't mean it shouldn't be examined.



All you could say was that the same culture POSSIBLY produced the two items. But you couldn't deduce that the builders of the one moved to the other site, that the other site was done by the same culture, or that the builders of the first sent the monument to the second as a gift, or that the culture of the second didn't make war on the builders of the first monument and trot off with that monument as spoils of war, or that the monument was bought by a wealthy person in the 1300's or later and moved to the second site or that the engraving was made much MUCH later than the monument is a fraud (see the "James ossuary" fraud within the past 3 years for a modern example of this type of fruad)... etc, etc.


Agreed. You would have to be careful in the conclusions you draw from any such items. However, it doesn't mean the items shouldn't be examined or that the possibility of links be considered. As I said, these items can lead you to important hypotheses that can be confirmed with other more substantial data. An item that is not found in situ should not be ignored or discarded.

And, if it looked as if there might be links between the two, I think it's definately up for DISCUSSION (although not conclusions).



Sorry to post and run, but I have two papers due in the next 24 hours. Will discuss the rest of this later, when I have more time.


No problem. I look forward to your future reply.



posted on Jun, 17 2005 @ 09:38 AM
link   
Another quick "post and run"... still under the gun for some papers. Two points I did want to address.




How EXACTLY can you determine if Celts have ever been to America if you know NOTHING about European Celts?

No offense intended, but I've found it's a bad idea to assume what any particular ATS-er might know or NOT know. In my case, I'm part of a Celtic Reconstructionist group and my close friend who mentors me in this is one of their fillidechts. And she DOES speak the language, as do many others (not me, but I know who to ask about this stuff, eh?)


I'm not a linguist, and I have no intentions of arguing language origins.


Understood, which is why I added links to help you and others who are unfamiliar with linguists (which would be most of the 40,000 plus members) about the details.


Considering the fact that a lot of Native American tribes were practically wiped off the face of the map, and some languages have become extinct, I'm not even sure if examination of languages will even prove anything.


However, Fell based his claims on the language and linguistics. That was one of his core claims.


and some languages have become extinct, I'm not even sure if examination of languages will even prove anything.


While tribes might have been decimated, the languages he was comparing are both living languages and do have living representatives.

Although I'm not a linguist, I do understand the issues (from having to read more than a dozen papers on IRC channels and linguistic analysis over the past semester. Oy veh.) I carefully reviewed the comparisons and did some independent poking around myself through some more scholarly, eyeball-bending material before I pointed you to the simpler site. I didn't just go "oh, find me something to show he's wrong" and glom the first thing I saw.

Fell was doing linguistics simply by the "folk-knowledge model" of "this sounds like this and these two words sound alike and mean something similar in these two languages therefore one had contact with the other group." This is bad research, but is somewhat excusable, given that linguistics and linguistic analysis is a fairly recent field.

...but he's still wrong about the languages being related. If he'd been right, that would be one strong point for a Celtic presence in North America (and there are some Viking/Norse markers in at least one of the tribal coast languages, as I recall.)

[edit on 17-6-2005 by Byrd]



posted on Jun, 19 2005 @ 08:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by AWingAndASigh
I agree, there are difficulties. You also can't say they DON'T come from the site. They would tend to be inconclusive. However, a preponderance of evidence can lead you to conclusions that in all likelihood are correct. Just because an artifact is outside a site doesn't mean it's unimportant or irrelevant. It just means you need more data. It can help you form good hypotheses for testing.


Actually, it can't. Artifacts found by themselves are collectable and data can be assessed. But unless they're found in conjunction with a lot of other materal (burial site, shell mounds, charcoal, other artifacts) it's not useful for tesing anything. You don't know how it got there, who brought it, or when it was put there. No hypothesis checking is possible.

This is one thing that most folks don't know about archaeology -- lone artifacs tell you nothing. The big lesson came in Egypt, where there's a lot of artifacts and many are brought in by poor villagers, because the archaeologists of the 1800's and early 1900's would pay good money for these things. As a policy, it retrieved lots of goods from the black market, but for research purposes it was an absolute disaster.

It turned out that some of these "found valuables" weren't found in the place where it was said they were found (leading to a lot of mistakes), or that they were outright fakes (leading to a lot of mistakes), etc.

Having learned the lesson of what greed and haste does to valuable data, no scientist accepts out of place artifacts--UNLESS they are found in context and with good methodology. And yes, there's a lot of good anomalous artifacts around that museums have catalogued.


(and yes, I know about this from having gone on an archaeological dig and from taking a course and having spent one long semester in the archaeology labs, working on material from the 1998=2003 digging season at the Fitch-Dahlen site.)



posted on Jun, 19 2005 @ 09:35 AM
link   
Okay, picking up some older points and separating out the individual pieces...


Originally posted by AWingAndASigh
Since the megalith you refer to shows no relation whatsoever to other Native American sites you reference, I fail to see why you make the assumption they are somehow related.

We had been discussing the "megalith" at Mystery Hill and you brought up the charcoal and axe (the charcoal and axe were found in situ and in good context), which were dated to about 2,000 BC. Mystery Hill is multicultural site and the charcoal and axe found there are Native American. They'll tell you that themselves, in fact.

Charcoal and axe aren't proof of ancient megalith builders there; only proof that the Indians were living there some 4,000 years ago.


Until overwhelming facts are presented as to the origins of American Megaliths, I think good science would demand that no assumptions be made as to their origins.


Actually, good science says that nobody's presented a list of what they're calling "American megaliths" that everyone agrees are manmade and date to Early Archaic (8,000 BC to 10,000 BC) or earlier. Meanwhile, the "American megaliths" website seems to be ignorant or overlooking a lot of data such as the huge geoglyphs in California (which you'd think would count), the large and well-documented medicine wheels and so forth.



In fact here's a link (to show you an example of a people that DOES exist but doesn't have artifacts laying all over the place):


Some of the earliest settlers of America may have come from Australia, southern Asia, and the Pacific, new research suggests. Traditional theories have held that the first Americans originated from northern Asia... etc, etc.


She didn't find the data she believed she would find. Her DNA analysis (confirmed by others) showed the skeletons were indeed the same Northern Asian group that American Indians belong to:
www.nature.com...



The reason why Celtic peoples are a good HYPOTHESIS for building American Megaliths is the country of their origins have megaliths that are similar


As far as I can tell, they aren't. I think what I need to do is find Fell's list of what he THINKS are megaliths.

There are no rows of standing stones (ala the megalithic constructions of the southern part of the British isles), there are no associations with tombs and no burials (like there are in Europe.) I do see some structures called "megaliths" in the Causcus mountains that DO look like medicine wheels, but this isn't conclusive that the Russians brought the medicine wheel to America:
megalith.ru...

I often refer to this site for material on megaliths:
www.stonepages.com...







So I don't think that the artifacts can be explained as Celtic in the face of all the other evidence.

Again, you're making assumptions. I don't see a lot of Neanderthal artifacts laying around, but they certainly DID exist!


Not in America, no. They were localized to Europe only... which, I should add, has rich sources of Neanderthal artifacts.



How EXACTLY can you determine if Celts have ever been to America if you know NOTHING about European Celts? The information I provided shows the Celts travelled far greater distances than was previously known,

Not really. It shows that the Scottish Celts traveled a bit further within the British Isles. Not outside them.


and new theories that are becoming well accepted argue the Celts are probably decended from the builders of Stonehenge and other megaliths.


That's confirmed, actually, and has been known for some time.


Why would you think this is not relavant in exploring whether or not American megaliths might have been built by Celts?

Because the timeline and the technology is all wrong.

The proto-Celts and the Celts themselves had a peculiar type of technology, including ways of making stone (and bronze) axes that they'd been doing since 3,000 BC or thereabouts:
www.natvan.com...

They had a particular style of building and a particular style of ornamentation and weaving.

I see no way that they would sail across the ocean, end up in America, forget ALL their technology (including how to work metal and how to shape the axes they liked) and build two or three "megaliths" and then settle down to playing Indians. And leave their native plants and animals (domestic) behind, going to a land where they weren't sure they'd have food or be able to find it.

They took their technology and artifact patterns everywhere ELSE they went. Hence, they should have brought it to America.





OK, now I'm starting to get irritated. MOST megaliths in Europe ARE NOT tombs! He's basically saying he sees the same thing in America!


I'll just leave the links to megaliths, tombs, and Europe. You can read them if you like. The fact is that a significant number of European megaliths are indeed burial sites/tombs::
www.comp-archaeology.org...

www.geocities.com...

(in German, sorry...)
tw.strahlen.org...

(lower section of this extensive list of English megaliths):
www.megalithics.com...




I'll leave the stone rows discussion for another thread and another time (after I read up on them. They certainly aren't megalithic.)




top topics



 
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join