Who Discovered the American Continent First?

page: 1
9

log in

join

posted on Jun, 18 2013 @ 03:01 PM
link   
A couple of days ago a friend gave me a link to a very well put together video documentary in which the "History International" explores this question of whom discovered the American continent first.

Although I am sure the video, information, and evidence presented in this video is not the only evidence of possible ancient people discovering, or traveling to the American continent in ancient times, it still shows that even to this day we still have much to learn about our world history.



The above video is very long, if you don't have 1 hour 28 minutes to watch it you could start watching at about 1 hour and 8 minutes to get the gist of the video.

Here is another video of a more recent discovery of an ancient, previously unknown city-port "Pavlopetri" that was very advanced 3,000-4,000 years ago, and was slowly swallowed by the Mediterranean sea due to large geological events that sunk the city in what appear to be 3 separate geological events.

I wonder how many more city/ports are underwater which had a similar fate to Pavlopetri and we haven't discovered yet?



Never under-estimate the curiosity of people, more so ancient people who did not know what could be on the other side of the seas/oceans.

It was Einstein himself who said, and I quote:

Imagination is more important than knowledge. For knowledge is limited to all we now know and understand, while imagination embraces the entire world, and all there ever will be to know and understand. -
Einstein, Albert


quotationsbook.com...

Just like many of us look at the stars now and wonder what we could find out there many ancient men, and women were doing the same but instead they were looking over the horizon of the sea or ocean.

There were quite a few ancient people who out of curiosity, and/or necessity sought other lands across seas, and oceans. We have only found a few of them, some might be just legends but I have to wonder how many more made similar voyages that we haven't found evidence of yet.

edit on 18-6-2013 by ElectricUniverse because: errors.




posted on Jun, 18 2013 @ 04:44 PM
link   
reply to post by ElectricUniverse
 


it seems to me the ones that crossed the land bridge up in Russia were the first, but that is assuming that there were not advanced civizilations 10,000 to well over 100,000 years ago that have been forgotten.

and even if there was crossing of the land bridge in russia/alaska is it not possible there was human life already here?



posted on Jun, 18 2013 @ 05:12 PM
link   
There is new evidence found our genetic material that shows where we came from, and what happened in the mean time, bringing us here.

As there is evidence of a deviding of early man, 1 million years ago with our common ancestor.
Neanderthal and Devonan man emerged from this first migration. and Devonan has been showing up in South America first.
Then 200.000 years ago modern man appeared. 120.000 another migration send man out of Africa.
When the last migration happened 65.000 years ago give or take. The original man that got devided a million years ago, suddenly got genetic material introduced, of all the sub species and their varieties of just the first wave, but also that of the second wave with the first reunited and ended up in man that left in the 3th wave.

You will find all you need in this link. To show you the evidence and how they got to learn all these things from our human genome.

Evolution of the human race.



posted on Jun, 18 2013 @ 05:20 PM
link   
The Victorian definition of discovery was effectively "to reach a place and bring back information to the European world".
That was how one explorer could "discover" a source of the Nile by using local guides.
If we follow that definition, it rules out all the pre-Columban "discoveries" except the Vikings, because nobody else brought information back to Europe.
If we discard that definition, the only sensible alternative is "first arrival".
This means that all the legendary or proposed "discoverers", like Welsh saints in coracles, are ruled out by not fitting either definition.


edit on 18-6-2013 by DISRAELI because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 18 2013 @ 06:07 PM
link   
According to the Lazuli skull found in Brazil I'd say many waves of migrating people that spread across Asia and the Pacific moved into the Americas via the Bering Strait land bridge.

This probably happened long before the earliest current dating.

The first were probably an early migration out of Africa, who moved along the Asian coast, where some of there darker skinned DNA still survives in the "negrito" peoples.

Then came people like the Ainu from central Asia, and the later waves related to modern Mongolian tribes.

As elsewhere, the earliest types were probably absorbed by more numerous later migrations.

I haven't seen the lengthy documentaries yet, but there was provably contact with Polynesia, as the distribution of some plant-foods suggest.



posted on Jun, 19 2013 @ 12:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by DISRAELI
The Victorian definition of discovery was effectively "to reach a place and bring back information to the European world".
That was how one explorer could "discover" a source of the Nile by using local guides.
If we follow that definition, it rules out all the pre-Columban "discoveries" except the Vikings, because nobody else brought information back to Europe.
If we discard that definition, the only sensible alternative is "first arrival".
This means that all the legendary or proposed "discoverers", like Welsh saints in coracles, are ruled out by not fitting either definition.


edit on 18-6-2013 by DISRAELI because: (no reason given)


That's how I view this question - who discovered the American continent first - versus who arrived first - and how can anyone claim to discover a continent that is already peopled?

An ancient Siberian race crossed a land bridge during the last ice age, and their descendents are all the native indigenous people of the American continent. A proto-Polynesian race likely arrived in Central America, and may have even established a sea-trade with the Han dynasty, based on the Chinese-styled jade artifacts produced by the Olmec, yet none of these are counted as the discoverers of the American continent - that privilege is solely reserved for the arrogance of European colonial powers.



posted on Jun, 19 2013 @ 12:44 AM
link   
Sorry you'all are mistaken,
A previously un identified homonin , or homo e or posibly homo Neanderthal, or homo demisova, actually discovered the Americas.
There is plenty of evidens that shows people have been here for s very long time



posted on Jun, 19 2013 @ 01:04 AM
link   
reply to post by punkinworks10
 


Which is reverting back to the argument of First Arrival versus legal claim of "discovery". That legal claim - as unpopular as it may be - has been settled and written into the history books by those who wielded colonial power in the era of European expansion - Britain, France, Spain and to a lesser degree Denmark. We may never be able to answer the question of Who Got Here First, but we can recognize the various entities that journeyed to the Americas on a dedicated voyage of discovery - and my vote would go to a proto-Polynesian people 'discovering' Mesoamerica (along with it's native inhabitants), and secondly to Nordic voyagers who made it at least as far as L'Anse aux Meadows, long before European colonization.



posted on Jun, 19 2013 @ 04:55 AM
link   
reply to post by Blackmarketeer
 


The following link will bring to a post, that I earlier in this thread posted: www.abovetopsecret.com...

It will provide you with new evidence, that shows the migration events and the places they show up in.
You will get much more then you expect.



posted on Jun, 19 2013 @ 08:18 AM
link   
reply to post by Blackmarketeer
 


If there are "native inhabitants"as you the subsequent people "discovered"nothing.
On the subject of proto polynesians their forays into the new world were journeys of survival, not exploration.
They were forced from their ancestral homelands in area of Taiwan by natural forces, such as vulcanism and or seismicly induced tsunamis, around 10,000 years ago, this is attested to by genetics showing they were isolated from their austronesian cousin since that time. Now the big questions is where they were, and were they weren't is Polynesia, Micronesia, our melanesia. The archeology clearly shows they weren't in any of those places.
But the archaeology does show strong cultural links with islotaed north American tribes like the tinglit and Haida Ga'waii of the western Canadian coast. In fact Haida creation mythos strongly parallels Hawiian genealogy history.
Then there is the migration myth of the Saboba, a diegoan tribe from the tehachapi mtns of so cal related to tune chumash, that tell of a great calamity that darkened the skies. A great chief gathered his band into canoes and they sailed east, which is the direction the currents will take from the tiawan area, singing songs in the darkness to keep the band together, till they reach these shores.
I put the timing of this to roughly 10-9k years ago, which by the way is when the chumash show up in the archeological record.
The predominant mtdna type of Polynesian is a daughter of the B group, and is related th HG B found on the west coast and in south America.
I will post specifics later as I am on way to work.



posted on Jun, 20 2013 @ 08:58 PM
link   
I've read the the Zuni Indians share a lot of things with the ancient Japanese even down to language similarities that aren't shared with any of the tribes surrounding them.

Here's a pretty decent article from Cracked.com that shares it. Cracked Article



posted on Jun, 20 2013 @ 09:36 PM
link   
The Maya and Aztec had many items and cultural similarities to the ancient Egyptians. This caused some to speculate that perhaps the Egyptians had made it to America at one time and either left behind people who became the South American peoples or influenced them heavily.

I don't think we can ever know who actually discovered America - perhaps it was never discovered by anyone who didn't know it was here - it might have had people on it since the dawn of time.



posted on Jun, 21 2013 @ 12:26 PM
link   
I believe these guys were the first, but who can really tell?



In any case, watch this presentation, it lays it out real well, and Stanford is thee expert on the question.



posted on Jun, 21 2013 @ 12:47 PM
link   
The psychology of who discovered what first is a flawed one, there were no national boundaries as we have now, we were quite simply a migrant species surviving and adapting to the enivironment, we all come from the earth, sustained by it and belong to it not the opposite as we are lead to believe,we are quite literally family There is much to learn from our past imo, besides the earth doesn't play finders keepers, well it does...
edit on 21-6-2013 by all2human because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 21 2013 @ 03:31 PM
link   
reply to post by Heliocentric
 


Hi
I usually don't watch yuotube vids, but watched a few minutes, but I will finish it.
The speaker is an actual academic which is rare on youtube.
Looks fascinating,



posted on Jun, 21 2013 @ 04:41 PM
link   
reply to post by punkinworks10
 


Dennis J. Stanford is an academic, but he's also one of those hands-on experimental archaeologists who looks for the truth through trial and error. If you want to know how and why the ancients made their tools in a certain manner, start chipping the flint stone and find out. Then try to skin a bison with it, and painstakingly work out the procedure until you get it right.

The evidence for an early Solutrean (a people that came out of southern France/Spain) presence in North America is building up, and personally I feel that the tipping point has been reached. We can now say with a high degree of certainty that they are behind the Clovis and pre-Clovis cultures, not the Asians coming through over the Bering land bridge.


Originally posted by all2human
The psychology of who discovered what first is a flawed one, there were no national boundaries as we have now, we were quite simply a migrant species surviving and adapting to the enivironment, we all come from the earth, sustained by it and belong to it not the opposite as we are lead to believe,we are quite literally family There is much to learn from our past imo, besides the earth doesn't play finders keepers, well it does...
edit on 21-6-2013 by all2human because: (no reason given)


I see your point, but we are conscient beings driven by an urge to find out what, how and why things happened, so yes it does matter who came and from where.
Take the legal battle over the Kennewick Man as an example. If we can establish that there were 'other' ethnic groups present on the American continent prior to the ancestors of Native Americans (which I believe to be the truth), then the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act can no longer be used as a tool to pull old bones out of the hands of scientists who try to study them.
Don't get me wrong, I have great respect for tribal cultures, but the history of the American continent does not belong to Native Indian populations, it belongs to humanity regardless of race and creed.



edit on 21-6-2013 by Heliocentric because: Soft wind music plays 0n last harp strings of sun rays



posted on Jun, 21 2013 @ 04:48 PM
link   
reply to post by ElectricUniverse
 



Who Discovered the American Continent First?,
The mighty Buffalo.



posted on Jun, 21 2013 @ 05:15 PM
link   
I see the debate about the "psychology of discovery".

I suppose to discover something it must be considered lost, or in some kind of void.

I think that shows something of the attitude of the people who bumped into it.
Almost like finders are keepers.
I don't think all cultures would have seen it as penetrating into unexplored "virgin" territory, or "discovery".
It probably takes a certain colonial cultural outlook to view the world in that way.
Even that attitude didn't develop immediately, because they first didn't know it was new continents, and it seems to be a view that developed with conquest as a kind of divine justification.

Who knows?
Perhaps one day the Sasquatch will be proved as real, and maybe they were the first to wander into North America.
edit on 21-6-2013 by halfoldman because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 21 2013 @ 05:34 PM
link   
reply to post by Heliocentric
 


Finished watching the vid, certainly interesting.

I used to be a big proponent of the solutrean hypothosis, and I recognized the real significance of the Clovis/solutrean spear technology, on my own before my exposure to the solutrean hypothosis.
I realized that in tundra/polar conditions the bardst thing to find is a good straight piece of wood with which to make a spear. And the method both cultures use to fix a point to the shaft with a fore shaft in a harpoon like tool, exemplifying the importance of the shaft over the point.
You can carry around a bag of points, but you might only have one or two shafts to work with.
It's clear now that the human presence in the Americas predates the solutrean presence in Europe.
With the newest work in genetics showing a radically different model of human dispersal than it did when this conference was, ie, Neanderthal/denisovan/ human split 1,000,000 years ago,physically modern humans showing up 300k years ago/ the native American divergence at 175k years ago, the old solutrean model has to be re examined. There is also the fact that native Americans are more closely related to hsn and hsd, than either Europeans, for hsn, or southe east Asians for hsd.
Another interesting facet of this conversation is that the oldest dog found, from the altai mtns, more closely esembles, both genetically and physically, ancient native American dogs than it does Eurasian and European dogs.
When you also look at the dention of modern humans there is a definate east to west trend in despecialization
in human dention. Native Americans show a high degree of shoveling of the incisors, a trait that goes all the way back to homo erectus. Shoveling rates decrease as you move west among population in Eurasia culminating in the very generalized teeth if European populations.
The oldest native American remains have one thing in common that are characterized as being "archaic" in morphology, and not like those of Asia, with a few exeptions, and the eauropeans at the same time are characterized as archaic.
Some of the earliest remains were so archaic that it was postulated they were related to Asian homo erectus.
I have know come to believe in a very early entrance into the new world with back migrations into Eurasia, and that the solutran connection was two way, the pre clvis people who worked the sea ice margins ran into the solutrean people and they traded goods .



posted on Jun, 21 2013 @ 06:05 PM
link   
reply to post by Heliocentric
 


With all due repsect I'm pretty confident with my interpretation and assessment of the question.
edit on 21-6-2013 by all2human because: (no reason given)






top topics



 
9

log in

join