9,000 year old Caucasian mummy found in Nevada

Well I've heard of the theory being put forward of a few fisherfolk from Europe being blown across the Atlantic (during last ice age), but this stuff is dynamite.

The remains of a caucasion skeleton have been discovered.
The Peyote native's don't want the DNA test to be done due to the fact it would rock the first nation's status to the core.
So the remains are in-limbo to this day!

reply to post by WatchRider


I can hear the denials already.
This is a very interesting find.

so this issue has not been taken to the Nevada Supreme Court?

i would think it should...because claiming ownership & asserting rights over remains...
needs a justified basis in fact

reply to post by WatchRider

Hi, this would be the Spirit Cave Mummy, and has been covered as recently as this:
www.abovetopsecret.com...
Don't let that stop you from investigating the real story, though...and finding out the difference between Caucasoid and Caucasian.
Cheers, JC

reply to post by WatchRider


This Story sounds simular to the 9,000 Year Old Kennewick Man Skeleton controversy. Looks like another hearing to decide this one too .

Eight anthropologists, led by Owsley, contested that proposed repatriation, pointing to Kennewick Man's potential contributions to science and the fact that he could not be linked to any specific area tribe.

So the anthropologists filed a lawsuit on the matter in 1996 in U.S. District Court in Portland.

Meanwhile, five Indian nations fought the anthropologists in court, contending that the repatriation law covered Kennewick Man, and that scientific examinations disrespected Native American beliefs about the sanctity of their dead.

The five Indian nations were the Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation, the Yakama Indian Nation, the Nez Perce Tribe, and the Colville and Warm Springs nations.

In 2002, Judge John Jelderks ruled in the anthropologists' favor. The U.S. Ninth Circuit court of Appeals upheld that ruling in 2004.

I'm not sure what percentage of Native Americans believe in the Bering straits migration theory, or the Clovis first theory, etc., but the traditional origin beliefs and burial taboos would be threatened if these remains are proven to be European somehow. Most native origin stories involve being born out of the earth of their tribal lands somehow. It wouldn't support tribal beliefs to find that white men may have sprouted from the same soil.

reply to post by WatchRider


I just think it is kinda funny how this seemingly large story is being covered... locally?? From the video quality and three i the bottom, it looks as if it is only a locally covered story?? I may be wrong, just think it is a bit funny is all. I mean, it would be important enough for the MSM to not actually cover it right?

Originally posted by MichiganSwampBuck
I'm not sure what percentage of Native Americans believe in the Bering straits migration theory, or the Clovis first theory, etc., but the traditional origin beliefs and burial taboos would be threatened if these remains are proven to be European somehow. Most native origin stories involve being born out of the earth of their tribal lands somehow. It wouldn't support tribal beliefs to find that white men may have sprouted from the same soil.

Ehh, no big deal... most white people already believe that 'God' made them from dirt anyway... I don't see a conflict... Unless they are Racist! JK

No, I was created from the soil!

No! I was! My soil!

Maybe they should all go roll around in the mud, then get up, and try to tell the differences.

"And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life and man became a living soul"

The video on the thread JohnnyCanuck posted stated that photos weren't released due to respect for the dead, all one could see were a drawing of the mummy. I find it all strange being that as mentioned in the above thread scientist have paraded mummies all over the world with no regards to "respect" of those mummies. Now all of a sudden they've found "respect" for the dead? It's a shame when news is released by scientists you can't take it as fact because of money to be gained or hidden agendas. I question the whole story something is just not making much sense.

Originally posted by PhysicsAdept
reply to post by WatchRider

 

I just think it is kinda funny how this seemingly large story is being covered... locally?? From the video quality and three i the bottom, it looks as if it is only a locally covered story?? I may be wrong, just think it is a bit funny is all. I mean, it would be important enough for the MSM to not actually cover it right?

I tend to share your sentiments concerning this story and why it's not widely covered.

I never did understand how Columbus is credited with discovering something that was already here and the people that were living here at that time were probably very confused when he proclaimed..."I have discovered this new land"

This would be the instant that "Crazy White Man" was first first uttered I believe...

Peace

Originally posted by jude11
I never did understand how Columbus is credited with discovering something that was already here and the people that were living here at that time were probably very confused when he proclaimed..."I have discovered this new land"

This would be the instant that "Crazy White Man" was first first uttered I believe...

Peace

Who do you think were crazier? The Spanish or the Vikings?

Is there any documentation/cave drawings or anything to the effect of Viking interaction with the native people of Newfoundland?

But back to the OPs topic. I would assume that sense the only thing the public gets to see is a sketch that this story is either a) a fraud or b) something that scientists can't put a finger on so they are suppressing it from the masses.

reply to post by JohnnyCanuck


At nine thousand years of age, even the term "caucasoid" is almost meaningless. Ethnic features change fairly rapidly in human populations, and you can get "false positives" for relations pretty easily (the San bushmen of Southern Africa have more in common, physically, with Eastern Asian people than with their African neighbors, while the skeletons of Australian aborigines more resemble Europeans, despite the Australians being genetically closest to eastern Asians. Go figure)

Which brings us to the Spirit Cave man. I've read hypotheses (which I am not sure if I support) about the notion of Ice Age Australians following the southern ice shelf to reach South America, and spreading north from there. If true, it could explain some weirdness (such as the Monte Verde site) and would give a source for these "caucasoid" mummies...

The more likely explanation, however, is simply that Indians nine thousand years ago looked different from Indians today. Hell, there's pretty clearly a huge range of ethnic features among Indians (An Aleut does not look like a Shoshone does not look like a Arawak does not look like a Tsalagi does not look like a Maya does not look like a Yanomami does not look like a Quecha does not look like a Yaghan)

reply to post by olliemc84


The Spanish, no doubt.

See, when the Greenlanders showed up, they found out that the "Skraelings" did not want the Greenlanders there. So the Greenlanders left. Despite their reputation, the Viking peoples were generally decent neighbors, and were more concerned with the survival of htier cows than glorious battle. Pretty sensible.

The Spanish however, came to a big heap of tropical volcanic dirt, demanded all the gold of people wearing leaves and paint, and when there was no gold, proceeded to wage war against those people. when those folks fought back, the Spanish brought in armies to wage genocidal warfare through the Caribbean, in order to lay claim to all the gold that was never there to begin with.

So yeah. The Spanish? Kind of nuts. But then, they were still operating in a "crusade" mentality at the time.

Well, duh! Who do ya think built the LUXOR casino?

Originally posted by TheWalkingFox
reply to post by JohnnyCanuck

 

At nine thousand years of age, even the term "caucasoid" is almost meaningless.

I am specifically addressing the mistaken idea here that this individual was European. I do recommend a book called "Bones: Discovering the First Americans" by Elaine Dewar. A Google search might even find a free version on line. It's somewhat contentious in its suggestions...but the contention is between scientists. A good read.

Originally posted by olliemc84
Who do you think were crazier? The Spanish or the Vikings?
Is there any documentation/cave drawings or anything to the effect of Viking interaction with the native people of Newfoundland?

Actually, the Inuit have oral traditions relating to the Norse at L'ans aux Meadows...and the Norse have their sagas, which is how the site was discovered in the first place. What's interesting is that both sides blame the other for creating a fuss.

reply to post by WatchRider


Desecrating the dead...

Well, he's dead and been that way for a long time. I somehow think he will not even care .

I'm a christian and when i die i don't give a flip what happens to my corpse because its going back to the dust anyways. Ashes to ashes, dust to dust.

There was a number of migrations across Beringia to the new world.
the earliest could have happened as far back a 35.000 BCE

Early ones (pre clovis and/or clovis)may have not been from east central Asia but my have been a Caucasian group/s displaced by the east central Asia groups and/or from europe.(Solutrean hypothesis)

It is possible for a group of people to have followed the North Atlantic ice sheet from europe.
www.angewandte-geologie.geol.uni-erlangen.de...

Then you have the mystery of the chicken and the sweet potato (Polynesian trans-oceanic)
Chicken bones found at the site El Arenal near the Arauco Peninsula in Chile support a pre-Columbian introduction of chicken to South America. The bones found in Chile were radiocarbon-dated to between 1304 and 1424, before the arrival of the Spanish. DNA sequences taken were matched to those of chickens in American Samoa and Tonga,
The sweet potato, which is native to the Americas, was widespread in Polynesia when Europeans first reached the Pacific. Sweet potato has been radiocarbon-dated in the Cook Islands to 1000 CE, and current thinking is that it was brought to central Polynesia c. 700 CE and spread across Polynesia from there. It has been suggested that it was brought by Polynesians who had traveled to South America and back, or that South Americans brought it to the Pacific. It is unlikely that the plant could successfully float across the ocean by natural means.
en.wikipedia.org...

Then you have Traces of coca and nicotine found in some Egyptian mummies.
These are both from new world plants.

Another curious thing is Spirit Cave man and Wizard's Beach man along with Kennewick Man and Arlington Springs woman were all water people.
Kennewick Man, Arlington Springs woman,Prince of Wales Island Man, Eve of Naharon(Eva de Naharon dated at 13,600 years old) were sea coastal .
www.cnn.com... Spirit Cave man and Wizard's Beach man were people that lived along the large ancient fresh water lakes of Nevada.

The topper site is also coastal and may date as old as 50,000 BCE
www.cnn.com...

This all leads me to believe The first Americans did use boats and were at ease on water and may have been boat/sail people from ether Siberia or Europe.
And spread down both coast by boat/sail and could have been Caucasian. both Pre Clovis and Clovis cultures
fit this. but the Pre Clovis culture did not have the weapons/stone tech of the later Clovis.
www.pbs.org...
www.scientificamerican.com...

The later native Americans were foot people and spread by walking.

Another interesting point is A projectile found lodged in the hip of Kennewick Man was leaf-shaped, long, broad and had serrated edges known as a Cascade point and this was the dividing period when Clovis was disappearing and the later Folsom/Cascade culture

Were the remaining Clovis people being killed off by the later group(Folsom/Cascade) because of racial differences. (race war???)

Originally posted by PhysicsAdept
reply to post by WatchRider

 

I just think it is kinda funny how this seemingly large story is being covered... locally?? From the video quality and three i the bottom, it looks as if it is only a locally covered story?? I may be wrong, just think it is a bit funny is all. I mean, it would be important enough for the MSM to not actually cover it right?

Maybe that's because it's an old story.

The mummy was discovered in the 1940's. The most recent scientific work on it was published in 1999, though it might be the story has arisen because of new studies,.

More likely the only reason it's news at all is because of recent court rulings in a case brought by Native Americans regarding their claimed affiliation with the remains and the proper control/disposal thereof.

Harte