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.

 

Native Americans arrived to find natives already there, fossil poo shows

page: 1
7
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 13 2012 @ 10:20 AM
link   

Native Americans arrived to find natives already there, fossil poo shows


www.theregister.co.uk

The ancient people who have long been thought to be the first humans to colonise North America were actually johnny-come-latelies, according to scientists who have comprehesively analysed the ancient fossilised poo of their predecessor Americans.

(visit the link for the full news article)




posted on Jul, 13 2012 @ 10:20 AM
link   

These new points are of a completely different construction from those found in the Clovis culture. As our radiocarbon dating shows, the new finds are as old, or possibly older than the Clovis finds, this proves that the Clovis culture cannot have been the 'Mother technology' for all other technologies in America. Our results show, that America was colonized by multiple cultures at the same time. And some perhaps even earlier than Clovis."


www.theregister.co.uk
(visit the link for the full news article)
edit on Fri Jul 13 2012 by DontTreadOnMe because: IMPORTANT: Using Content From Other Websites on ATS



posted on Jul, 13 2012 @ 10:39 AM
link   
Ha, had many discussions with blow hards here on the ats Ancient forums who claim the clovis were the first when showed evidence that they werent. As you can see the wanna be, so called scholars on this forum have had their butts handed to them again.

To the pseudo scholars here : Dont say something is fact when it isnt. Its ok to say you are wrong or admit you most likely dont know more than the average 10 year old.

The Clovis were not the first Americans and many more sites have yet to be found that would make most profs or wanna be scholars hang themselves in embarrassment and shame for promoting such ignorance.

There have been sites found that predate the clovis but the argument is that they cant be older because the clovis were the first. Sigh.
edit on 13-7-2012 by Shadow Herder because: (no reason given)

edit on 13-7-2012 by Shadow Herder because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 13 2012 @ 10:49 AM
link   
reply to post by leosnake
 



A detailed demographic history of the mtDNA sequences estimated with a Bayesian coalescent method indicates a complex model for the peopling of the Americas, in which the initial differentiation from Asian populations ended with a moderate bottleneck in Beringia during the last glacial maximum (LGM), around ∼23,000 to ∼19,000 years ago. Toward the end of the LGM, a strong population expansion started ∼18,000 and finished ∼15,000 years ago. These results support a pre-Clovis occupation of the New World, suggesting a rapid settlement of the continent along a Pacific coastal route.
www.sciencedirect.com...


...Because the earlier date for Monte Verde implies that peopling of the Americas south of Beringia occurred before the ice-free corridor was formed, a first migration along the Pacific coast may have been a viable route.4 Unfortunately, archaeological verification of this scenario is very difficult because most of the late Pleistocene coast is currently underwater; the sea level has risen more than 120 m since the end of the last glacial maximum (LGM).5
www.sciencedirect.com...



posted on Jul, 13 2012 @ 11:14 AM
link   
I don't know if this is on or off topic.

But - - if you believe in Pangaea - - isn't it possible humans were always here?

Sure there were probably waves of migration - - even some by sea.

But I always considered it logical - - life - including humans were always here.



posted on Jul, 13 2012 @ 01:20 PM
link   
The Smithsonian's paleontology alarm ought to be going off, in response to this. This story sounds a little too dangerously close, to resembling what a few of the less mainstream among us, already know to be the truth. I think J and K are going to need to be sent out with the normaliser, if too many people read this one.



edit on 13-7-2012 by petrus4 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 13 2012 @ 01:29 PM
link   
Its even worse than that, this planet has been cleaned up many many times in the many many cycles, that have occurred. There were people everywhere and we didn't come out of the Sumar labs of Africa 27-280 000 years ago either.



posted on Jul, 13 2012 @ 01:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Annee
I don't know if this is on or off topic.

But - - if you believe in Pangaea - - isn't it possible humans were always here?

Sure there were probably waves of migration - - even some by sea.

But I always considered it logical - - life - including humans were always here.



Sorry, but Pangea was too far in the past. You would have ended up with differing species of humans evolving in different areas, as opposed to the different species evolving out of the one area.



posted on Jul, 13 2012 @ 01:41 PM
link   
Seems usa is rewriting history to cover up the mass murder of 100 million native americans it committed...

hmmm...



posted on Jul, 13 2012 @ 01:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by mkgandhas
Seems usa is rewriting history to cover up the mass murder of 100 million native americans it committed...

hmmm...


Whut? Eh?



posted on Jul, 13 2012 @ 02:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by mkgandhas
Seems usa is rewriting history to cover up the mass murder of 100 million native americans it committed...

hmmm...



What IF it would be the exact other way around; a mass murder of a bunch of much earlier settlers, that was supposedly killed off by the so called Native Americans, as some 'Conspiracists' claims, and that this info have been intentionally swept under the carpet, as such an info is simply not Politically Correct and too loaded and would create racial disputes?

Personally, I have no specific opinion on whether the so called Native Americans hurt these earlier settlers they encountered or if the encountering groups got along and lived in peace, but I certainly do not rule the possibility of a extinction out, as history, after all, is filled with similar scenarios, and that way, way before USA even existed.



posted on Jul, 13 2012 @ 02:06 PM
link   
reply to post by Nightchild
 


sorry,I do not believe the propaganda of american media.Thieves and murderers cannot be preachers .



posted on Jul, 13 2012 @ 02:09 PM
link   
I can only imagine, 500 years in the future, what information is derived from OUR poo....



posted on Jul, 13 2012 @ 02:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by mkgandhas
reply to post by Nightchild
 


sorry,I do not believe the propaganda of american media.Thieves and murderers cannot be preachers .



I see. Well, in that case, and just so that you know, that same "logic" of yours applies to every other culture on Earth aswell, as both thieves and murderers and not the very least, genocide, are very old concepts and in no way unique to anything American. Rather, in fact, the contrary, just so that you are aware about that fact and do not become too disappointed and shocked when the truth eventually makes itself known for you.



In any case, for the people interested in further information on this fascinating topic, I supply with the following reports on the matter;



European style stone tools suggest Stone Age people actually discovered America

(PhysOrg.com) -- Archeologists and historians have long known that it wasn’t really Christopher Columbus who discovered America. Native Americans had been living all over North, Central and South America long before he arrived. And Native Americans came from Asia across the frozen-over Bering Sea in the west. But now, it appears Europeans might have been first to arrive on the scene after all. Stone tools found recently in Delaware, Maryland and Virginia in the eastern United States, all appear to bear a striking resemblance to tools used by Stone Age peoples in early Europe, and have been dated to a time between 19,000 and 26,000 years ago, a period during which Stone Age people were making such tools, and long before the early Asians arrived.


Read more at: phys.org...


And, from The Independent;

New evidence suggests Stone Age hunters from Europe discovered America

New archaeological evidence suggests that America was first discovered by Stone Age people from Europe – 10,000 years before the Siberian-originating ancestors of the American Indians set foot in the New World.

A remarkable series of several dozen European-style stone tools, dating back between 19,000 and 26,000 years, have been discovered at six locations along the US east coast. Three of the sites are on the Delmarva Peninsular in Maryland, discovered by archaeologist Dr Darrin Lowery of the University of Delaware. One is in Pennsylvania and another in Virginia. A sixth was discovered by scallop-dredging fishermen on the seabed 60 miles from the Virginian coast on what, in prehistoric times, would have been dry land.

The new discoveries are among the most important archaeological breakthroughs for several decades - and are set to add substantially to our understanding of humanity's spread around the globe.

More: www.independent.co.uk...
edit on 13-7-2012 by Nightchild because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 13 2012 @ 02:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by AngryCymraeg

Originally posted by Annee
I don't know if this is on or off topic.

But - - if you believe in Pangaea - - isn't it possible humans were always here?

Sure there were probably waves of migration - - even some by sea.

But I always considered it logical - - life - including humans were always here.



Sorry, but Pangea was too far in the past. You would have ended up with differing species of humans evolving in different areas, as opposed to the different species evolving out of the one area.


Thank you. I did look up more info after the post.

The "Fertile Crescent" I believe is considered the birth place of modern man/civilization. (I may be stupid here again).

There was a documentary on 2 sisters (I believe) from the east coast of South America that showed DNA different then anyone else in the region. I guess I would like to believe some migration was by sea.



posted on Jul, 13 2012 @ 02:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by mkgandhas
reply to post by Nightchild
 


sorry,I do not believe the propaganda of american media.Thieves and murderers cannot be preachers .



Erm, there are a large number of scholars from a large number of countries who have looked into these issues. I suggest that you might be a teeny bit biased against the USA.



posted on Jul, 13 2012 @ 02:18 PM
link   
reply to post by AngryCymraeg
 


USA has waged the maximum number of wars in history.And 'scholars' when bought by corporate or american grants are going to spout propaganda favorable to their funders.

Next...



posted on Jul, 13 2012 @ 02:24 PM
link   
reply to post by Shadow Herder
 


I'm still thinking that man actually came from the Americas originally, migrating to Africa then to Europe and Asia instead of the other way around. I looked at a lot of evidence and see some discounted evidence that shows this. I like to keep an open mind.



posted on Jul, 13 2012 @ 02:32 PM
link   
reply to post by mkgandhas
 


Your hatred knows no bounds does it?

What do your lies, hatred and bigotry have to do with a topic such as this? - your hatred will consume you one day - a very sad and pityful scenario.

Apologies if I strayed off topic but his posts have absolutely nothing constructive to offer this thread.

I recently read this article on the BBC News website about the results of the largest survey of American DNA.

It shows that settlement of the American continent occurred in three waves about 15000years ago.

The three wave theory is supported by previous interpretation of languages relationships and dental features of Natives American groups.

www.bbc.co.uk...

I suspect that The Americas may well have been visited by various other groups going far back in history, but it seems as if this would have been in such few numbers to have a significant bearing and impact on American DNA gene pool.



posted on Jul, 13 2012 @ 02:36 PM
link   
reply to post by mkgandhas
 


pretty sure the french british romans(by extension the itialians) and to be blunt the mongols have the monopoly for most wars started considering they are thousands of years older then america meaning that in our breif history as a country we have simply not had the time to wage as many wars as the older countries coincidently and some what ironicly the french have the most successfull military record of any nation(something like 170 wars) due to exactly how many wars and whatnot they have been in.....perhaps if you would read a few books on subjects other then all the "bio superweapons" the russians are gonna use on the rest of the world every time soemthing happens that you dont like in the world you would know that as a country of 236 years(depending on if you count it from ratification of consitution,start of hostilities or recognition of britian the age can change)we have not even come close to how many wars the europeans asians got up to back in the day (romans ancient chinese russians and greeks have been fighting since the bc days)in the 20th century you may be right but in all of history we are just a small drop in the bucket wiki.answers.com... sums it up far better then i could and en.wikipedia.org... shows the top ten war death toils seems one mongal invasion war killed as many as all who died in ww2....then ya get the chinese rebellion 25 million and the anshen rebeliion of 36 million soo we hardly have a monopoly on people killed over the years



new topics

top topics



 
7
<<   2 >>

log in

join