Native Americans, Celts and Ancient Transatlantic Travel

page: 6
32
<< 3  4  5    7  8 >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 26 2008 @ 08:10 AM
link   
In terms of DNA the irish and basque share a massive amount of HAPLOGROUP 1. The province of Connaught in Ireland has the highest concentration of this in the world. And even more bizzare the Pakistani HAZARA have this haplogroup 1 more than alot of other europeans.. As far as the native american connection, i dont know, but i will look into it..




posted on Oct, 27 2008 @ 01:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by Prima Facie
In terms of DNA the irish and basque share a massive amount of HAPLOGROUP 1. The province of Connaught in Ireland has the highest concentration of this in the world. And even more bizzare the Pakistani HAZARA have this haplogroup 1 more than alot of other europeans.. As far as the native american connection, i dont know, but i will look into it..


I learned something new right there.

This thread raises more questions than it answers.



posted on Oct, 27 2008 @ 06:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by Skyfloating



Originally posted by Prima Facie
In terms of DNA the irish and basque share a massive amount of HAPLOGROUP 1. The province of Connaught in Ireland has the highest concentration of this in the world. And even more bizzare the Pakistani HAZARA have this haplogroup 1 more than alot of other europeans.. As far as the native american connection, i dont know, but i will look into it..


I learned something new right there.

This thread raises more questions than it answers.


Regardless of whether it's Y Chromosome or mtDNA genetic testing, there is NO Haplogroup 1. All haplogroups are lettered, not numbered. Here is a breakdown of Y Chromosome and mtDNA Haplogroups for the Basque:

Y DNA Results

J2 Semitic origin
R1b1 Western European origin
G2 Caucasus of Europe
R1b1 Western European origin
R1b1 Western European origin
E1b1a African origin
R1b1 Western European origin
R1b1 Western European origin
R1b1 Western European origin
I Nordic (Northwestern European) origin
R1b1 Western European origin
R1b1 Western European origin
G2 Caucasus of Europe
R1b1 Western European origin
R1b1 Western European origin
R1b1 Western European origin
J1 Semitic origin
R1b1 Western European origin
R1b1 Western European origin
E3b1a Mediterranean origin
E3b1a Mediterranean origin
R1b1 Western European origin
R1b1 Western European origin
R1b1 Western European origin
R1b1 Western European origin
R1b1 Western European origin
R1b1 Western European origin
R1b1 Western European origin
R1b1 Western European origin
R1b1 Western European origin
G2 Caucasus of Europe
I Nordic (Northwestern European) origin
R1b1 Western European origin
E1b1a African origin
R1b1 Western European origin
J2 Semitic origin
G2 Caucasus of Europe
J2 Semitic origin
R1b1 Western European origin
I1b Nordic (Northwestern European) origin
R1b1 Western European origin
R1b1 Western European origin
R1b1 Western European origin
R1b1 Western European origin
R1b1 Western European origin
E3b1b2 Mediterranean origin
R1b1 Western European origin
R1a Eastern European origin
E3b1a Mediterranean origin
R1b1 Western European origin
R1b1 Western European origin
R1b1 Western European origin
R1b1 Western European origin
R1b1 Western European origin
R1b1 Western European origin
R1b1 Western European origin
R1b1 Western European origin
I1b Nordic (Northwestern European) origin
R1b1 Western European origin

mtDNA

A Eastern Eurasia and throughout the Americas
H1 European Origin
K Mediterranean Origin
J* Semitic Origin
B Eastern and southeastern Eurasia and throughout the Americas
C Eastern Eurasia and throughout the Americas
H European Origin
H European Origin
C Eastern Eurasia and throughout the Americas
C Eastern Eurasia and throughout the Americas
A Eastern Eurasia and throughout the Americas
V European Origin
H European Origin
A Eastern Eurasia and throughout the Americas
A Eastern Eurasia and throughout the Americas
H European Origin
H European Origin

Sources for more information on the Irish and Basques:

Source 1

Source 2

cormac



posted on Oct, 27 2008 @ 07:05 AM
link   
reply to post by cormac mac airt
 


OK. Thanks for clarifying.



posted on Oct, 27 2008 @ 09:20 PM
link   
reply to post by Skyfloating
 


Dr. Barry Fell, of Harvard University wrote a book on this subject titled "America B.C." Also covred in this was Egyptian colonization as far west as Oklahoma, and coal mining in the area around present day Chicago.



posted on Oct, 27 2008 @ 11:19 PM
link   
reply to post by Illusionsaregrander
 


This thread has really gotten me thinking about my ancestry coming from the McLeod clan and also recently learning of a distant connection to a First Nations bloodline in my family tree. My mother also has some distant Spanish relatives so perhaps through mixed breeding, I've actually gotten closer to a more well rounded individual


Nonetheless, great post about the timeline, I'd never seen that and thought I'd recommend to anyone who skipped or missed it.

Just to throw a little bit of spice in the mix...not directly related by rather a Celtic/Vedic connection, "Indian" all-the-same...


Celtic-Vedic Connection?



posted on Oct, 28 2008 @ 02:39 AM
link   

The native name of Brittany in France is Armorica, another big hint as to their origins.


I'm not exactly sure what is suggested by this passage. But if you are to imply that Armorica was in fact an Algonquin name for their "continent" (or region-they wouldn't have been aware of their own locality in any particular context) then you are, or your source is rather, completely incorrect. Surely you know that America was named after the latinized form of the explorer by the name of Amerigo Vespucci, or "Americus".

Or did that name Armorica sift its way through European culture, and almost as if by fate, did Amerigo Vespucci return only to name the continent by the name it was originally given by the Algonquin? That would be quite bizarre; but however intriguing it may be, it is most probably impossible. This whole thread appears only to be a fruitless escapade into the annals of history, a connection of dots where one can't possibly create a coherent image. But it's far from useless; even misinformation can serve a purpose.

[edit on 28-10-2008 by cognoscente]



posted on Oct, 28 2008 @ 07:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by Anonymous ATS
reply to post by Skyfloating
 


Dr. Barry Fell, of Harvard University wrote a book on this subject titled "America B.C." Also covred in this was Egyptian colonization as far west as Oklahoma, and coal mining in the area around present day Chicago.


Barry Fell was a marine biologist and had no formal training whatsoever in epigraphics.

Of course, that didn't prevent him from spouting his own brand of nonsense - primarily to make a buck - which he was quite successful at.

Harte



posted on Oct, 28 2008 @ 08:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by HarteBarry Fell was a marine biologist and had no formal training whatsoever in epigraphics.

Of course, that didn't prevent him from spouting his own brand of nonsense - primarily to make a buck - which he was quite successful at.
Harte


In Fell's defence...and you don't see me taking that position very often...I think he honestly believed what he put forward. Truth is there are awkward anomalies out there, and once you get an explanation you can live with in your head, that's the filter you use. It doesn't make it right, though.

I've has some archeaological training, so I have a firm respect for the science. I also tend to work on the fringes...which is what I'm doing here, right?...so I also have a respect for what's unknown. The key is to know the difference!!



posted on Oct, 28 2008 @ 11:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by JohnnyCanuck

Originally posted by HarteBarry Fell was a marine biologist and had no formal training whatsoever in epigraphics.

Of course, that didn't prevent him from spouting his own brand of nonsense - primarily to make a buck - which he was quite successful at.
Harte


In Fell's defence...and you don't see me taking that position very often...I think he honestly believed what he put forward. Truth is there are awkward anomalies out there, and once you get an explanation you can live with in your head, that's the filter you use. It doesn't make it right, though.

I've has some archeaological training, so I have a firm respect for the science. I also tend to work on the fringes...which is what I'm doing here, right?...so I also have a respect for what's unknown. The key is to know the difference!!


Okay.

However, a short discussion of one of Fell's favorites - Ogham - is in order here, I believe.

Ogham consists of series of vertical (or horizontal, sometimes) lines. Nothing more. Letters (or sounds) in Ogham correspond to certain numbers of vertical lines, IOW.

Now, "Dr." Fell saw Ogham everywhere he went. Anytime he saw a series of vertical lines, it was Ogham to him.

Fell identified all kinds of places all over the U S where the Celts "must have" been based on the presence of series of vertical lines he (or somebody else) had found.

So, answer this question:

Can a bear write in Ogham?

According to Fell's method, yes. All a bear needs to do is take one swipe at a tree trunk and he has "written" an Ogham sound or letter.

If a bear is particularly frisky, he might possibly "write" a short passage, or even a novella, in Ogham.

Fell's so-called "research" is completely and utterly useless.

There's more.

Fell once "translated" some ancient text some farmer found over the phone!. Based entirely on the caller's mere description of what he had seen.

Please - the man was a complete kook.

Harte



posted on Oct, 28 2008 @ 12:28 PM
link   
reply to post by Anonymous ATS
 


Yes. Prior to this thread on the Algonquin/Gaelic linguistic similarity, Sanskrit is the language that I have heard Gaelic compared to more frequently.

There are some really good comparisons of the religions, like the one you posted, and others as well.

Another thing that is frequently pointed out is the similarity if the way they use language, not just the language itself. The oral tradition.

I suspect, based on the fact that so many of the religions have such profound similarities, that these stories have been passed along for many, many more years than many scholars suggest. I suspect that when we find striking similarities in groups that have been separated for vast amounts of time rather than it being evidence of more recent intermingling, it is instead a tradition that traces back to the time when these groups were actually one group, prior to the great divergence and migration.

It occurred to me one day when watching something on the Neanderthals about how they lived side by side with Cro Magnons. The first two books I can remember loving were books of mythology, Greek and Norse. One thing that struck me was how similar they were, except that the Norse had all these "giants" and "trolls" and the Greeks did not. After watching the show on Neanderthals, it made me realize, (unproven of course) that this was likely because the Norse added in their experiences with the Neanderthal. Which would place those tales at around 30,000 years ago.

That then would imply that the similar portions of the myths, (the flood, the one male one female origin, etc) would have to have arisen prior to the movement of those people into Europe, at least 40,000 years ago, and most likely prior to that. (As those myths also exist in the middle east, famously in what became Judaism and Christianity) Even here in the Southwest United States the mythologies of the Native Americans that I have seen have that same flood myth.

From a Mayan myth;

www.indigenouspeople.net...


"These men will not do either. I must destroy them also". And he sent a great flood and the houses of the wooden men fell down. The wooden men wanted to escape, but the animals they had starved and beaten, and cooking pots they had burned, and the trees whose branches they had chopped off, all turned against them and wouldn't help them. Only a few of them escaped from the flood, and it is said that their descendants are the monkeys.


Of course this is all just speculation, I have not yet taken the time to look (using the Journey of Mankind timeline) at all the mythologies in the various areas and tried to "time" all the divergences in a serious way, but someday I hope to. However, since we do not find evidence of a global flood (using current science,) it seems more likely to me that this was a local event that occurred in, most likely, Africa, and that it may very well go back nearly to the beginning of humankind itself.

As I said, this is speculation, not many people are considering the possibility that these stories are that old, but on researching a little I did find I am not the only one thinking that way.

I cannot find the source for Gemwolfs addition to this thread, so I will just post a link to the thread itself. His post is about 4 posts down.

www.abovetopsecret.com...&colorshift=yes



[edit on 28-10-2008 by Illusionsaregrander]



posted on Oct, 28 2008 @ 02:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Harte Please - the man was a complete kook.


I won't dispute that...I'm simply saying that I think he believed it himself.



posted on Oct, 28 2008 @ 05:12 PM
link   
reply to post by Harte
 


I agree that the ogam script was a weak point of his book. Barry may have been a bit over the top with the translations but the things that interested me were the structures. The "root cellars" that align with solar dates, dolmens and monuments similar to those on the Iberian penninsula, and the Mystery Hill observatory are difficult to explain away as bad translations and they are evidence of an advanced civilization that was not what was found during European colonization of the Americas.



posted on Oct, 28 2008 @ 05:19 PM
link   
Just thought i'd add this.




[edit on 28-10-2008 by Shawn B.]



posted on Oct, 28 2008 @ 06:15 PM
link   
reply to post by Illusionsaregrander
 
Norwegian and Danish Vikings were NOT the largest group of Vikings here in the Nordic country's, who do think RURIK were? who populated Russia?
Even the name Russia is from us Nordic people!.
Modern genetics today know that North American Indians originate from Siberians, which has been mixed with Vikings. So....
Swedish Vikings traveled east to Russia. The name Russia comes from these Swedish Vikings RUSER.

But none of you m8s, has yet figured out were i was going!



[edit on 28-10-2008 by Kukulcangod]



posted on Oct, 29 2008 @ 08:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by Kukulcangod Modern genetics today know that North American Indians originate from Siberians, which has been mixed with Vikings. So....
Swedish Vikings traveled east to Russia. The name Russia comes from these Swedish Vikings RUSER.


I'm not sure this does a+b+c=d. Again, we are talking about common roots here, not a progression. It's like saying "man descended from apes", when it's more proper to say that modern man and modern apes shared a common ancestor.

Speaking anthropologically, the Viking site at L'Anse aux Meadows does not only represent a trans-Atlantic crossing. On a larger scale, it represents mankind having encircled the globe and re-met after having dispersed from Africa. That's pretty cool too!

An edit to address those (you know who you are) who constantly accuse academia of suppressing anything that upsets the current paradigm...I picked up the following item from a mailing list for working archaeologists.
Here's the link: www.world-science.net...

The point is that the date of the peopling of the Americas has been pushed back once again, as the criteria needed to accept new data have been met.

Monte Verde has been officially accepted as 14.6 kya. Watch for that to be extended to 40kya before too very long.

[edit on 29-10-2008 by JohnnyCanuck]

[edit on 29-10-2008 by JohnnyCanuck]



posted on Oct, 29 2008 @ 11:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by Kukulcangod

But none of you m8s, has yet figured out were i was going!



Well, enlighten us. This is a discussion thread, so discuss it.

I may very well have misunderstood your point, but instead of just pointing out the misunderstanding, clarify your idea and support it.



posted on Oct, 29 2008 @ 09:10 PM
link   
I am simply saying that we must continually think outside the box. There are always anomalys popping up in every scientific field, including archeology. But archeologists want to say the time frame was too early for a particualr artifact to exist, so it is ignored, or mininmized;



posted on Oct, 30 2008 @ 08:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by kettlebellysmith
I am simply saying that we must continually think outside the box. There are always anomalys popping up in every scientific field, including archeology. But archeologists want to say the time frame was too early for a particualr artifact to exist, so it is ignored, or mininmized;


Archaeology is a science in which one destroys one's database as it is investigated. That is why such meticulous records are kept...so one can revisit them if need be. The lay person often forgets that without a sure date...and one date is no date...an artifact is just an interesting 'thing'.

In my previous post, I showed how the paradigm has changed. This has been conjectured for a number of years now, but it took one site in Chile to be verified...ironclad... and that opens the floodgates for the less certain sites to be entertained with new eyes. Science and knowledge are based upon what we can accept as certainties at any given time. If we accept anything less, then we are building upon sand. That's ok for the Barry Fells of this world, but not the Tom Dillihays...and that's as it should be.

I have looked at a 'rabbit shaman' at a famous set of petroglyphs...ones cited by Barry Fell. The native interpreter that toured me around the site told me that it was actually a "Playboy" bunny head that had been carved in the '70s...and that wasn't the only error committed there...

Like somebody else here at ATS has cited...sure, keep an open mind, but not open enough that your brains fall out.



posted on Nov, 4 2008 @ 03:50 PM
link   





new topics
top topics
 
32
<< 3  4  5    7  8 >>

log in

join