Ancient Visitors to the Americas

page: 10
8
<< 7  8  9    11  12 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 28 2007 @ 09:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by Marduk



Please don't try to trivialize my culture by making it yet another offshoot of the ancient egyptians. there is no evidence to support that.

I agree theres no proof of that
but
Graham Hancock links the NA with the Avestic Aryans of pre islamic Iran on page 215 of fingerpaints of the gods
so if hes saying it then it must be true

If Hancock believes that and hes an original thinker like you said in another thread then you must think it true
were your ancient gods all white men with beards ?

don't be rude. Its not necessary.
Saying that you respect someone for being an original thinker, is not the same as saying that you believe that all of their ideas are correct.




posted on Mar, 28 2007 @ 11:14 AM
link   
his original thoughts are robbing your culture of its heritage
how did you miss that ?



posted on Apr, 14 2007 @ 08:02 PM
link   
Is this evidence that either the Phoenicians or Carthaginians had reached as far as the Azores and left a marker pointing towards the America's for their fellow countrymen.

Interesting article on the statue and coins found here thats discusses the pro's and con's


The roots of this tale can be found in the year 1567, when Damien de Goes, biographer of the sixteenth-century Portuguese kings, reported that a stone statue of a bareheaded man clothed in a Moorish cape and seated on a horse had been found at Corvo. His left arm rested on the horse's mane, while his right arm stretched straight out with the index finger pointing to the west. King Emmanuel of Portugal (1495-1521) sent for the statue, but those in charge of the project carelessly broke it. Nonetheless, the heads of the man and horse, and the right arm with the pointed finger are said to have been brought to the king's palace for display. De Goes added that in 1529 it was noted that the base on which the statue had stood was inscribed. Wax impressions of the inscriptions were made, but could not be read as the letters were very worn and "almost without form."
In 1628, Manoel de Faria y Sousa, another Portuguese historian, repeated de Goes's tale. It might well have died there, but in 1778 Johan Podolyn, a Swede born in Portugal, published a remarkable story. He claimed that in 1761, he went to Madrid to see Fr. Henrique Flores, a professor of theology and coin collector, who gave him two gold and five bronze coins from Carthage and two bronze coins from Cyrene, in North Africa, dated to ca. 200 B.C. He claimed that the coins were the remnants of a hoard found in November 1749 in a black pot near the foundation of a destroyed building in Corvo. Podolyn added to this account a description of the statue of Corvo, citing Faria y Sousa as his source, and discussed the possibility that Carthaginian sailors discovered Corvo, settled there, erected the statue, and left the coins. He then ventured the opinion that these colonists undertook an expedition "to the west," the statue indicating with its pointed finger where they had gone.



Here is a translation of an excerpt from Johann Podolyn who was supposedly given the coins in 1761.


The statue strengthens my opinion that the islands were not only accidentally visited by the Phoenicians or the Carthaginians but that they had already settled there; for you cannot assume that a ship determined either for trade or for discovery had the whole statue already on board. You must rather conclude that they arrived there on one vehicle or several ones, during one voyage or several ones, that the crew liked the land, that they setteld there, established a municipality, kept up the connection to their home, and that they achieved a wealth which allowed them to build the mentioned monument.


The argument that no evidence has ever been found of a settlement could easily be explained by the extremely volitile enviroment which is the Azores. Either earthquake, volcanic eruption or tidal wave could have easily destroyed any settlement and evidence of its existance.

Timeline of natural disasters in the Azores

Interesting article here. It does quote Barry Fell so im sure some will dismiss it out of hand.

ancient navigators could have used longitude

Then there's the Piri Reis map and the controversy surrounding that.


The Piri Reis map shows the western coast of Africa, the eastern coast of South America, and the northern coast of Antarctica. The northern coastline of Antarctica is perfectly detailed. The most puzzling however is not so much how Piri Reis managed to draw such an accurate map of the Antarctic region 300 years before it was discovered, but that the map shows the coastline under the ice. Geological evidence confirms that the latest date Queen Maud Land could have been charted in an ice-free state is 4000 BC.


This guy does a pretty good job of debunking most of the outlandish claims regarding the map, but it can still be argued imo that it was created from a multitude of much older maps by Piri Reis.


Below is a tracing of the coastlines on the map. Western Europe and Africa are easily recognizable, the Azores, Canary Islands and Cape Verde Islands are fairly accurate both as to location and the number and arrangements of individual islands. Eastern South America is also easily recognizable, but there are a lot of things not so easily recognized. The map, by the way, is very clear on the existence of mountains in the interior of South America (in brown on the tracing).



My thoughts are that the Phoenicians and possibly the Carthaginians were more than able to have first, discovered the Azores and perhaps set up a small outpost, then travelled west from there to the Americas, more likely South America. Wether they ever traded with natives is debateable though the discovery of the Fuente Bowl and other artifacts seems to point to some interaction imo.

The Azores then would have been an important resupply point and its discovery and location jealously guarded.



posted on Apr, 15 2007 @ 08:28 PM
link   
Crops originating from the Americas
Only 44 crops are originated from america and from these only rice is found elsewhere in the world
Wiki:Wild rice

Three species of wild rice are native to North America:

Northern wild rice (Zizania palustris) is an annual plant native to the Great Lakes region of North America. Northern wild rice is the state grain of the U.S. state of Minnesota.

Wild rice (Z. aquatica), also an annual, grows in the Saint Lawrence River and on the Atlantic and Gulf coasts of the United States.

Texas wild rice (Z. texana) is a perennial plant only found in a small area along the San Marcos River in central Texas.

but

Manchurian wild rice (Z. latifolia; incorrect synonym: Z. caduciflora), is a perennial native to China.

and

The vegetable is especially common in China, where it is known as gaosun (Chinese: 高笋; pinyin: gāosǔn) or jiaobai (Chinese: 茭白; pinyin: jiāobái). Other names which may be used in English include coba, makomo (Japanese: マコモ), and water bamboo.

let's learn more about rice
Wiki: Rice

Rice is considered to have begun simultaneously in many countries over 6500 years ago.

very interesting
let's continue

One genetic study suggests that common wild rice, Oryza rufipogon, was the wild ancestor of Asian rice


From what i see here the first who should have reached america and had establish trade roots should be the Chinese/Japanese.
A rational question:
Why the rest crops didn't spread by the chinese and only rice ?
It's simple!!!
Why nobody stores rice in fridge?
that's why...

mmmmmmmm rice






[edit on 15-4-2007 by Dragonlike]



posted on Apr, 15 2007 @ 10:46 PM
link   
If you can, look this up.
Old World Sources of the First New World Human Inhabitants: A Comparative Craniofacial View
C. Loring Brace; A. Russell Nelson; Noriko Seguchi; Hiroaki Oe; Leslie Sering; Pan Qifeng; Li Yongyi; Dashtseveg Tumen
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, Vol. 98, No. 17. (Aug. 14, 2001), pp. 10017-10022.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you can't, here's the abstract:
Human craniofacial data were used to assess the similarities and
differences between recent and prehistoric Old World samples,
and between these samples and a similar representation of
samples from the New World. The data were analyzed by the
neighbor-joining clustering procedure, assisted by bootstrapping
and by canonical discriminant analysis score plots. The first
entrants to the Western Hemisphere of maybe 15,000 years ago
gave rise to the continuing native inhabitants south of the
U.S.-Canadian border. These show no close association with any
known mainland Asian population. Instead they show ties to the
Ainu of Hokkaido and their Jomon predecessors in prehistoric
Japan and to the Polynesians of remote Oceania. All of these also
have ties to the Pleistocene and recent inhabitants of Europe and
may represent an extension from a Late Pleistocene continuum
of people across the northern fringe of the Old World. With roots
in both the northwest and the northeast, these people can be
described as Eurasian. The route of entry to the New World was
at the northwestern edge. In contrast, the Inuit (Eskimo), the
Aleut, and the Na-Dene speakers who had penetrated as far as
the American Southwest within the last 1,000 years show more
similarities to the mainland populations of East Asia. Although
both the earlier and later arrivals in the New World show a
mixture of traits characteristic of the northern edge of Old World
occupation and the Chinese core of mainland Asia, the proportion
of the latter is greater for the more recent entrants.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Conclusion:
A combination of two different regional populations appears to
have been involved in the initial human expansion into the
Western Hemisphere. The regions in question were a mainland
East Asian core located in China north of the Tropic of
Capricorn and south of the Gobi Desert, and a northwestern
component originally running from near Moscow to the Atlantic
coast of Europe north of the Mediterranean Sea. The archaeological
record indicates that both of these components had been
separate in the Middle Pleistocene. The northwestern component
expanded eastwards to exploit unoccupied terrain at the
northern edge of Asia in the Middle Paleolithic ca. 200,000 years
ago. The reduction in robustness that produced the "modern"
form from an archaic version of Homo sapiens in the Late
Pleistocene led to the emergence of people of similar appearance
at the northwestern and northeastern edges of the Old World.
Technological developments and climatic amelioration starting
17,000 years ago allowed the population segment across the
northern edge of the inhabited Old World to extend north
toward the previously uninhabited Arctic (8).
At the eastern end of this range, contact with the indigenous
core population of mainland East Asia led to the incorporation
of some of their genetic characteristics, making those who were
first able to move across Beringia into the New World properly
characterized as Eurasian. After the end of the Pleistocene,
the development of agriculture led to a major expansion of
the core population of mainland East Asia and its increasingly
important contributions to the subsequent movements into
the New World, Southeast Asia, and Oceania. (Continued next post)-->



posted on Apr, 15 2007 @ 10:48 PM
link   
A schematic
representation of the placement of the original populations and
their subsequent movements and combinations is depicted in
Fig. 5.
The solid arrow labeled 1 represents the Middle Pleistocene
movement across the northern edge of the Old World (49). The arrow labeled 2 indicates the Late Pleistocene spread into
Australia (59). Arrow 3 shows the terminal Pleistocene initial
entrance into the New World (8, 11, 12), and the arrows labeled
4 show post-Pleistocene expansions made possible by the utilization
of new food resources related in part to the development
of agriculture (27). Arrows 1 and 2 represent single population
expansions into unoccupied land. Arrow 3 represents movement
into unoccupied land but by a population with both European
and Asian roots. Arrow 4 represents a technology-based expansion
of different populations into areas that, with the exception
of Oceania, were already occupied. The consequence was a much
greater rate of genetic exchange than had been true for any of
the earlier movements.
(Sorry, I couldn't get the image out).



posted on Apr, 15 2007 @ 10:54 PM
link   
The arrows indicate the spread of Levallois point makers eastward across the northern edge of the Old World between 200,000 and 170,000 years ago;
the expansion from Southeast Asia to New Guinea and Australia 60.000 years ago; the spread to the northernmost portions of the Old World and the initial entry
into the New World 15,000 years ago; and population movements at both the western and eastern edges of the Old World and into the New World after the
development of agriculture after the end of the Pleistocene.



posted on Apr, 16 2007 @ 07:14 AM
link   
Xtal_Phusion
thats all very nice and orthodox
but this thread isn't about the natives
its about the claims for Romans. Greeks, Jews, Chinese, Templars and all the other groups for who there is very little evidence in the americas

and anyway
craniometrics is not a very good way of tracking populations expecially in the americas because of the mixing of the groups that went on, one ainu descendant in a village of east asians can throw the whole study off
for that you need genetics



posted on Apr, 16 2007 @ 03:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Marduk

its about the claims for Romans. Greeks, Jews, Chinese, Templars and all the other groups for who there is very little evidence in the americas


Well, I see many China towns in America and no see England town there.


What time frame were you talking about?



posted on Apr, 16 2007 @ 04:58 PM
link   
what do you think New York was named after ?

we are talking about the timeframe mentioned by the OP
did you read it ?



posted on Apr, 16 2007 @ 09:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Marduk
what do you think New York was named after ?

we are talking about the timeframe mentioned by the OP
did you read it ?


Couldn't be more agree with that. Most town were named after England, and they speak English with many English population.
What does it mean? Does it means English goes America robbing?


Just one English robbing doesn't mean all English are robbing, but the FACT they are robbing everywhere, wherever the sun rise they rob.




posted on Apr, 17 2007 @ 12:34 AM
link   
You mean New Amsterdam, don't you, Marduk?


As for the dude talking about rice... you realize that North America and Eastern Eurasia swapped a fair amount of species while the land bridge was there, and that wild rices are quite common in Alaska?



posted on Apr, 17 2007 @ 07:49 AM
link   
How about Boston or Plymouth Rock ?



posted on May, 15 2007 @ 10:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Marduk if you had even looked at the genetic evidence you would know that it is both irrefutable and at the same time totally damning to your claim that we have been trekking all over the earth and then just forgotten about it
DNA doesnt forget
and it never lies
and the migratory patterns of the human race for the entire length of the holocene are well known.

I have seen new research that contradicts you, Marduk. It is from study into the Clovis people, and found genetic traits in Americans that are not in Asians, but are in Europeans. Also, the Clovis spearhead style is completely different, even fundamentally so, and is nearly identical to ones from a culture from Europe.
So, the migratory patterns you say are well known, are not. There would be no need for more research if all the questions were answered, but they are not.
As you said, DNA doesn't forget, but new findings in that area are changing the theories of migration right now. It is most likely that some of the migration in ancient times came from the east, according to the new genetic research. Either that or all the Asians who had that trait are gone, and so far haven't been found. Oh yeah, and the speartip thing too... the Asian migration doesn't explain that either.



posted on May, 15 2007 @ 10:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheWalkingFox
You mean New Amsterdam, don't you, Marduk?


As for the dude talking about rice... you realize that North America and Eastern Eurasia swapped a fair amount of species while the land bridge was there, and that wild rices are quite common in Alaska?

I believe we have wild rice here in Ontario as my anscestor ate it.
Mohawk Warriors.



posted on May, 15 2007 @ 11:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by BlackGuardXIII
I have seen new research that contradicts you, Marduk. It is from study into the Clovis people, and found genetic traits in Americans that are not in Asians, but are in Europeans. Also, the Clovis spearhead style is completely different, even fundamentally so, and is nearly identical to ones from a culture from Europe.
So, the migratory patterns you say are well known, are not. There would be no need for more research if all the questions were answered, but they are not.
As you said, DNA doesn't forget, but new findings in that area are changing the theories of migration right now. It is most likely that some of the migration in ancient times came from the east, according to the new genetic research. Either that or all the Asians who had that trait are gone, and so far haven't been found. Oh yeah, and the speartip thing too... the Asian migration doesn't explain that either.

are you talking about mtdna x
i posted on this in another thread
that is not new research you are talking about
it is complete garbage made up by the A.R.E. to bolster their claim that Atlantis sank in between America and Europe and survivors went in both directions
like a previous poster said
its dosnt pan out when you look at the evidence
the examples of X found in Native Americans is not the same X found in Europeans
they are not closely related
there is also an X in siberia which is not related closely to the other two either
the closest link that has been proven so far is around 30,000bce in N africa where parent group X1 originates
the groups are as follows
X1 N Africa E Africa and the Near East

X2a Amerindians

X2b and X2c European

X2e Siberia

these latter three groups are all siblings of group X1
but are not related to each other in any way

by the "speartip thing" I take it you are talking about the Solutrean hypothesis
if this was the case then both Amerindian x and European X would be the same group
they aren't



posted on May, 15 2007 @ 11:56 PM
link   
Solutrean, that is the name, thanks. As for the genetic research, the program I watched was quite recent, and had nothing to do with the group you refer to. It was about research findings from a university genetics lab in the states, though I can't say what one. They did make it clear that the type they found was not present in Asians. Also, on a related note, there is a lot of archeological evidence of people in America far before the theoretical timeline of the Bering migration. Solid evidence exists dating back 65000 years, and other sites also greatly predate the Bering migration dates.



posted on May, 16 2007 @ 12:09 AM
link   
youre talking about the PBS show "were the first americans european"
you can watch it here
www.pbs.org...
narrated by Alan Alda
forget it
it was rubbish designed to sensationalise and didn't deal with the scientific reality
pbs is not a good source
its also 3 years old
or in scientific terms
3 years out of date

as for your early date for humans in the americas
the earliest human remains found in the americas date from 11000bce
www.who2.com...
if youre talking about the tools that have been found then you should consider that not only homo sapiens sapiens is a tool maker
and most of the tools found at those early dates are extremely primtive



posted on May, 16 2007 @ 01:03 AM
link   
Nope. Hawkeye Pierce aka Alan Alda was noticeably absent, and I would have remembered him if he was on the program, which he was not. The Solutrean speartip and the Clovis speartip are very nearly identical, and no other predecessor to the Clovis one was said to have been found. Also, I have seen lots of finds which are far older than your date. One from South America is 40 000 years old, and one in New Mexico, I think, was 65 000. Then there is the Thomas Lee dig in Ontario which later ruined his career because it was too old to be accepted as real.
Besides, the Native Americans themselves say they have been here far longer. They are the people being discussed, so they should know.



posted on May, 16 2007 @ 07:06 AM
link   


the Native Americans themselves say they have been here far longer. They are the people being discussed, so they should know.

please link to a credible source that debates that claim
all the Indian cosmologies I have heard state that they arrived right around the time that anthropologists say they did
13000 bce or thereabouts
the only mystery is the route that some of them took



top topics
 
8
<< 7  8  9    11  12 >>

log in

join