Pre-Native American settlers of North America? [VIDEO]

reply to post by Quetzacoatl


I didn't know people were still alive that came over the land bridge .

I read somewhere that Native Americans said there was a group of whites living in the land before they came, esp West Virginia.
Manly Wade Wellman based some stories on this, calling them 'Shonokins'.
will try to find link

I went one time to a place called Wolf Creek Indian Village in Virginia. It was a tourist site built on the grounds of a particular Native American village that was found by archeologists. The people there run the place explaining what the people in the original village did and how they lived.

www.indianvillage.org...

One of the most interesting things to note was they found among the things there was the atlatl.

Wooden darts were known at least since the Middle Paleolithic (Schöningen, Torralba, Clacton-on-Sea and Kalambo Falls). While the spearthrower is capable of casting a dart well over 100 meters, it is most accurately used at distances of 20 meters or less. Seven spears were found in the Schöningen 13 II-4 layer, dating from about 400,000 years ago and thought to represent activities of Homo heidelbergensis.[3] The atlatl was used by early Native Americans as well. It seems to have been introduced during the immigration across the Bering Land Bridge, and despite the later introduction of the bow, atlatl use was widespread at the time of first European contact. Complete wooden spearthrowers have been found on dry sites in the western USA, and in waterlogged environments in Florida and Washington.

It says here that spears made 400,000 years ago were found. That would put people in Europe that long ago and Wolf Creek is in the East and mountainous. If they brought technology with them, it is plausible that the land mass was different at one time, which is why I believe in Pangea.

Genesis 10:25 records a great-grandson of Noah named Peleg who was born in the days the Earth divided. This is taken by most people to mean the actual geographic features of the earth was divided in such a way that it had not been before the flood.

When I think about the different cultures that arose, I always wondered how long it took to actually develop a culture that is diverse compared to neighboring peoples. The Alaskan Aleuts have a different form of religious culture than Amazon Indians, but could be based on different animals of the regions. But they are so different culturally and in physical appearance that it makes me wonder if they originated in the same place.

Originally posted by Drezden
If the discovery of a 9,000 year old European skeleton in Washington state, and the subsequent swift confiscation of it by the U.S. government is borderline-racist then you are being too politically correct.

For starters, you might want to investigate the difference between 'caucasoid' and 'caucasian'.
Secondly, there are enough interesting developments regarding the peopling of the Americas that you might also wish to consult academic sources instead of wading through 19th century poop that was designed to justify seizure of lands from the First Nations.

But hey, it's your time and your brains...use them as you wish.

Originally posted by Drezden
Edit: If the discovery of a 9,000 year old European skeleton in Washington state, and the subsequent swift confiscation of it by the U.S. government is borderline-racist then you are being too politically correct.[

Actually, it wasn't a "confiscation."

Athropologists had the body, not "government agents."

The tribes wanted it back.

The court decided the tribes, in fact, had no claim, so the study could continue. And it did.

It was found that the man fell within the descriptive boundaries of the entire Ainu population (except for his height.) In other words, he was a tall Ainu.

End of story because useable DNA was not recovered.

If, in the future, better DNA technology is developed, we can (and will) learn more about Kennewick man.

The decalogue stone and the bat creek stone are most likely frauds, and there are very good reasons for believing this.

You can find these reasons, and a whole lot of other facts that many people here seem not to be aware of, at Doug's Archaeology Site

Harte

Originally posted by Harte

Originally posted by Drezden
Edit: If the discovery of a 9,000 year old European skeleton in Washington state, and the subsequent swift confiscation of it by the U.S. government is borderline-racist then you are being too politically correct.[

It was found that the man fell within the descriptive boundaries of the entire Ainu population (except for his height.) In other words, he was a tall Ainu.
End of story because useable DNA was not recovered.

I would recommend a book entitled Bones: Discovering the First Americans by Elaine Dewar. She is a journalist knowledgeable in the field of archaeology and raises a number of controversial points in a well-reasoned manner...including some of the political machinations behind the US Army Corps of Engineers and their role in the Kennewick affair. Worth a look

Originally posted by JohnnyCanuck
I would recommend a book entitled Bones: Discovering the First Americans by Elaine Dewar. She is a journalist knowledgeable in the field of archaeology and raises a number of controversial points in a well-reasoned manner...including some of the political machinations behind the US Army Corps of Engineers and their role in the Kennewick affair. Worth a look

It's free on Google Books.

Link

Harte

This is what people have been trying to convey for years. By definition American Indians, Native Americans, and the indigenous or autochthons of North America are NOT the same.

The outsiders looking in will always have something to say supporting the contrary. But ask a Native American or an American Indian who built the mounds they will reply "they were already here" or "the sons of the beginning of time built them".

This will cause a lot of controversy if it ever hits the light of day. Simply because it will force EVERYONE to redefine history and time.

Here's what bothers me the most, there is a sufficient amount of evidence that proves some of the oral stories passed down in west africa and various other parts, are in fact true. The kingdom of Mali is one example of West African people sailing to the west on more than one occasion. For any one who is interested, Colombus log's has some very interesting first-hand testimony. What he saw and described would shock the mainstreamers. Oh yeah and for the record, he knew exactly where he was going, his navigator was of african descent. He just couldn't believe where he was and his logs reflect this.

I have a book and I recommend it for anyone who wants to know the real truth about the subject at hand. The book is titled "Circular Thought" by Chief Winterhawk. This brilliant individual tells his life story. In one part of the book he states how it was common to erase people from pictures because they didn't look "indian enough" or because they did not reflect "the stereotypical red-man". This is a valuable read and a must have.

This is a very interesting subject and I am very excited to see my complicated history come to ats and the light.

Originally posted by AKINOFTHEFIRSSTARS
The outsiders looking in will always have something to say supporting the contrary. But ask a Native American or an American Indian who built the mounds they will reply "they were already here" or "the sons of the beginning of time built them".

Sorry, but you can trace the progression of the culture from Mexico into Ontario. The Spanish encountered the Moundbuilders in Florida and reported on them. You are basing your comments upon 19th century white propaganda designed to steal land from the First Nations.

The paleoindians may not be the direct precursors of the Anishnaabe, who are generally regarded as the people designated as 'Archaic'...but that has squat to do with Hopewell/Adena.

Well, I suppose there's still a chance a group of Clovis people got together and created a relatively sophisticated proto-civilization on a fertile raised area of the Mid-Atlantic ridge where the Azores are now, and that served as a bridge between the French Solutreans and the North American Clovis people which would allow travel between Europe and America without the necessity of long sea voyages not technologically possible at the time.

The current Haplogroup X2 DNA evidence argues against it, though.

Originally posted by works4dhs
I read somewhere that Native Americans said there was a group of whites living in the land before they came, esp West Virginia.
Manly Wade Wellman based some stories on this, calling them 'Shonokins'.
will try to find link

There are more than a few of these stories of all sorts and types from several diffrent directions and a number of tribes from the east coast and to the west.

Just an edit here....there was a place called Slack Farm down in Tennesse. A large type burial ground were the dead were put into baked clay large jars, a sort of coffin, and buried underground in dug pits. Looters and others came in there and dug for several years and no one tried to stop them untill the place was a wreck. Some have speculated that this was allowed so that the evidence of who these folks may have been would be scattered to private artifact collections so that a good proper assesment would not be possible.

Anyway if you want to see evidence of a culture with art work and much more that indicates an old world influence start in Tennesse. See early studies on Tennesse grave diggings ect like "Antiquities of Tennesse" late 1800s. You can find that as online book.

Originally posted by AKINOFTHEFIRSSTARS

I have a book and I recommend it for anyone who wants to know the real truth about the subject at hand. The book is titled "Circular Thought" by Chief Winterhawk. This brilliant individual tells his life story. In one part of the book he states how it was common to erase people from pictures because they didn't look "indian enough" or because they did not reflect "the stereotypical red-man". This is a valuable read and a must have.

I have heard tales that back this up. One was of a tribe that lived in Tennesse when white first started moving into the area. They didnt look like "indians" and lived in wood structures much like cabins. White settlers thought that these just recently got there before they did. They accounted for the reason they didnt speak english, german, french, gaelic ect ect is becouse they were from some other part of Europe. They were said to be of light dark complextion so the story goes.

Your right I suppose. If you start at mexico the I guess you could see the progression.

I am talking about a timeline much larger than what you speak of.
The Spanish???? Right the spanish??!!!

You should read a little more before you make radical claims. I am an indigenous American, not an US citizen, so I think it would be pretty clear that I am NOT basing my knowledge off "white propaganda" as you put it. This is oral history and it is documented as well. This is the knowledge that we possess about ourselves, the knowledge that will not reach your history books.

As I stated in the post above, all of the pre-colonial inhabitants of America, North or South, do NOT stem from one single culture.
This is the biggest mistake and we see the patterns and the echo in other scenarios
Like the word hispanic or latino which is suppose to embody or encompass a multitude of cultures, The word Negro which is now obsolete, it was to suppose identify everyone who had dark skin with no respect to ones culture or land.
These are all disrespectful concepts and they should never be used, they just divide us more. In the ancient times someone was known by his nationality not his race and even then we didn't use this as an instrument to divide people. If you look carefully those names above are not nationalities. We are all humans but respect our differences because that is what makes us similar. The fact that we are all different is what everyone on earth has in common.

Sorry, but you can trace the progression of the culture from Mexico into Ontario.

I can see a more vast progression, but I will refrain from blowing your socks off.
What you see is a melting pot of different cultures. People who haven't stepped beyond "white propaganda"(as you put it) do not understand or they fail to see the differences. I recently went to a Pow-Wow and there were representatives of at least 908 tribes. They represented 908 aspects of a heritage and legacy that is salubrious to mankind and misunderstood. Just like the hundreds of different nations on earth, yes they are all nations, but they all have different origins that should be respected and not clumped together as the Natives, the Africans, The States, The Latinos, The Indians.... These are all erroneous, ambiguous, misnomers and they have no purpose if they offer more confusion.
Are you sure that this is it???? I mean the Incans reached Nova Scotia and they are only recognized in history as a 400 year old empire.
We have to dispel and unravel the racist threads that have been woven into history. The only reason "people" exclaim, and dismiss early Africans as being involved in the foundations of pre-colonial America is because you guys still assume the African was primitive. Despite the multitude of evidence we still deny it to this day. We know the Kemites (egyptians) had boats, oh but thats right you guys say the Egyptians aren't african probably because you associate African with pigmentation rather than its geographical location. The inability to see the connections and the similarities between indiginous African and indigenous America make it clear we are still blind and ignorant(lacking knowledge). The mayans and early west africans both deformed their skulls and they are the only 2 people on earth that I am aware to do this, along with the language and about a couple of hundred similiarities....

Originally posted by Blue Shift
Well, I suppose there's still a chance a group of Clovis people got together and created a relatively sophisticated proto-civilization on a fertile raised area of the Mid-Atlantic ridge where the Azores are now, and that served as a bridge between the French Solutreans and the North American Clovis people which would allow travel between Europe and America without the necessity of long sea voyages not technologically possible at the time.

The current Haplogroup X2 DNA evidence argues against it, though.

We do know that we are now talking pre-clovis, right?

reply to post by Logarock


Sorry, but I am talking about the opposite. The early indigenous Americans were influenced and the first were a direct result of African exploration and Asian exploration.

The time frame I am talking about is more grand, the conditions were not even present to create an Ice Age which resulted in the de-pigmentation of human beings. So nope. Not European. The vikings did reach The American soil, but I am talking about thousands of years before that.
There are 2 natural wind currents that go from Africa to the Americas. If the incans can navigate from the western region of south america to the eastern region of Canada then why is it so hard to believe that indigenous Africans did the same thing. The incans are a 400 year old empire, I once saw a 40,000 year old harpoon from Africa. The ishango bone is 20,000, you mean to tell me homo sapien sapien, the same exact being we are, couldn't figure it out. I smell indirect, subliminal racism, that you may not even know exist. I mean the numbers aren't false,so........

* since you guys are so fascinated with dna. Look at the rare cases of indigenous people that were isolated from spanish and european contact. Alot of them DO NOT have the same DNA that is presented to the mainstream researchers. The facts are out there.

reply to post by AKINOFTHEFIRSSTARS



You sound like Ivan Serima. He makes a good contribution to the study if you can stand his racist ax grinding. He dosent just fit in the african chapter of american history he uses it as a club to school dumb whitey. Gets old.

The thing is folks that study diffusion dont have to be convinced of african travel into america.

Originally posted by AKINOFTHEFIRSSTARS
I smell indirect, subliminal racism, that you may not even know exist.....

Well with me it wasnt racism anymore than with you most likely. I saw some reports here and their that my ancestors may have come over to the americas years before what was commonly understood and long before the Vikings. So I looked into it. The first book I ever picked up pointed out that Africans as well seemed to have sailed east and west from Africa. And then found out that most of the better researchers were saying all sorts of folks from all over the world came to the americas over the years. Even several well know "native" tribes have in thier histories contact with others and I take all those histories with a garin of salt unless they come right out of native american histories that are made independent of the deffusion study.

The main blow to the idea of African colonization of the Americas is a lack of evidence for a oceanic ship building culture. There is no sign of this anywhere on the SS continent.

I would suggest you look at when Africans got to the off lying islands of Africa to include Madagascar......Why was Bioko (Fernando Po) occupied but not the others?

What happened to the maritime culture that is claimed?

reply to post by Logarock


Dr. Ivan van Sertiman, Dr. John Henrik Clarke are 2 of my heroes and not only because they are know for going against the grain but because they were inspired by truth. Sertima did offer a healthy amount of data including the 'proper' name of Africa.

Hanslune : Next time I will predict your arrival

The main blow to the idea of African colonization of the Americas is a lack of evidence for a oceanic ship building culture.

This is an inaccurate statement.
Abubakari II sent ships in the 1200 and 1300's, and the ancient Kemites had ships. Beyond these two I will admit it becomes difficult, but that is not because it isn't fact. Some things you aren't going to be able to prove. Just because you can't find a mayan or an incan book doesn't mean they didn't exist at one point. We know that people burned every single book except for two, so asking for proof is futile.

The facts stand without proof, look at the Maori people of pre-colonial Cuba and Jamaica, they say they come from Africa, but I guess since they can't produce a ship, it should be discarded as myth. This isn't fair, because you are looking at a continent that has faced time, relentless wars, invasions, and countless other misfortunes. I bet people wouldn't believe the Sphinx exist if was still buried under the sand.
That may be a blow from you but it is a thump to a giant.

Howdy AKOTFS

Originally posted by AKINOFTHEFIRSSTARS

Dr. Ivan van Sertiman, Dr. John Henrik Clarke are 2 of my heroes and not only because they are know for going against the grain but because they were inspired by truth. Sertima did offer a healthy amount of data including the 'proper' name of Africa.

Going against the grain doesn't add to the weight of or importance of the evidence

This is an inaccurate statement.
Abubakari II sent ships in the 1200 and 1300's, and the ancient Kemites had ships.

Oh did they have ocean going ships with crews capable of such voyages? Evidence please

Beyond these two I will admit it becomes difficult, but that is not because it isn't fact. Some things you aren't going to be able to prove. Just because you can't find a mayan or an incan book doesn't mean they didn't exist at one point.

We do have such books both in eality and mentioned by Spanish and I believe Maya sources

We know that people burned every single book except for two, so asking for proof is futile.

Hans: Actually three and a fragment of another. However I understand your point BUT unevidenced claims based on speculation are noted for being rather weak...

The facts stand without proof,

lol I don't believe you meant that the way you wrote it

look at the Maori people of pre-colonial Cuba and Jamaica, they say they come from Africa, but I guess since they can't produce a ship, it should be discarded as myth.

Do you mean the Taino? I'll wait until we clear that up the Maori are the dudes in New Zealand

This isn't fair, because you are looking at a continent that has faced time, relentless wars, invasions, and countless other misfortunes. I bet people wouldn't believe the Sphinx exist if was still buried under the sand.
That may be a blow from you but it is a thump to a giant.

'Maybe' speculative evidence doesn't count - either you have or you don't have, speculation is okay but you cannot build a consensus on it - which is why your heros above got their idea shot down and in the case for African colonization you are tending towards fantasy. Europe took a far longer beating and so did the cultures of the Middle-East yet we can find large quantities of hard evidence dealing with Bronze age sailors and craft. I would recommend the book by S. Wachsmann, 'Seagoing ships & seamanship in the Bronze age Levant' this will give you a good idea of what a naval culture leaves behind.....what did these African sailors use for anchors? Ancient anchors can be found all over the ancient world - but none in SS Africa capable for holding a ocean going ship. What was the nature of their rope technology?

How would you explain a naval culture that never visited their own off shore islands but instead went across the Atlantic and ended up off the water in the center of Mexico.....?? Nor entered the Med or went around to the Indian Ocean

Can you explain the technical limitations of coastal African tribes in regards to fishing?