Ancient city discovered deep in Amazonian rainforest linked to the legendary white-skinned Cloud Peo

This might clear up some of the controversies here or actually, maybe not. From some references it make me think of the legendary Amazon Women.


Other World Mysteries from January 2011

One controversial explorer named Gene Savoy claimed that the Chachapoya had light hair and blue eyes but there is really no evidence for this. Others have claimed that some of the mummies have red or reddish blond hair. A few have thought they might be descended from Phoenician sailors, King Solomon’s gold miners, or from Egyptians. However, the analysis of the mummy skeletons and testing of DNA samples so far has shown that the people were probably related to other Native Americans of the region.

the telegraph.co.uk

The women of the Chachapoya were much prized by the Incas as they were tall and fair skinned. The Chronicler Pedro Cieza de León offers wrote of the Chachapoyas. "They are the whitest and most handsome of all the people that I have seen in Indies, and their wives were so beautiful that because of their gentleness, many of them deserved to be the Incas' wives and to also be taken to the Sun Temple."

The Cloud People, also known in legend as “the white warriors of the clouds” - See more at: www.therightperspective.org...

The Right Perspective.org edited July 7, 2013

Originally posted by jammer2012
reply to post by Harte

 

The point is not whether or not their eyes were blue,

Yet the post I responded to absolutely stated they had blue eyes. I suppose, according to you, it's okay to state incorrect, misleading and erroneous "facts" in order to further ignorant speculation?

Originally posted by jammer2012the point is they were described as "white-skinned" people in a pre-Colombian civilization that is possibly thousands of years old.Since you pointed out that particular flaw in this thread,perhaps you are an expert on the Cloud People and you can explain to all of us exactly how they appeared.

According to the source (and he's the only one we have that was a contemporary,) they were the whitest and most handsome people he'd seen in South America.

So, somewhat lighter than the local Incas.

Trust Europeans to judge a culture by how dark (or light) their skin is.

They did leave behind some mummified remains. It's not speculation when I state they were not related to Europeans, but carried the same typical genetic markers ALL Native Americans have been found to possess.

Obviously, the mummies can't exactly represent what they really looked like, being dead and dried up and likely discolored and all. Here's what they look like now:

Originally posted by riiver
If you read the Mail Online article, it says that they were fair and blonde (though granted, it doesn't say they were blue-eyed).

The tribe had white skin and blonde hair - features which intrigue historians, as there is no known European ancestry in the region, where most inhabitants are darker skinned.

The article says it, but Pedro Cieza de Leon doesn't say that.

Harte

Originally posted by riiver
reply to post by randomtangentsrme

 

If you read the Mail Online article, it says that they were fair and blonde (though granted, it doesn't say they were blue-eyed).

The tribe had white skin and blonde hair - features which intrigue historians, as there is no known European ancestry in the region, where most inhabitants are darker skinned.

MailOnline article

Fair compared to who? Blonde in what reference?
If you've ever seen an albino African they are blond and white, with African features. Maybe the city was a refugee sanctuary for albinos?
The point is as of yet we do not know. Just to agree from written records and dismiss DNA seems premature.

reply to post by Harte

I wasn't saying that de Leon said it. I was simply answering the question

Reading comprehension 101, where is white skin mentioned?

the answer being "in the Mail Online article", which was the source cited in the original post of the thread.

Great Post minus the propaganda.
It is very easy to see how the truth can be manipulated to convey a different image.

I really tip my hat off to Harte on this one. It was corrected in the first page.
It is also amazing to here people mix racist ideology with science. In the post we went from white, to blue-eyes, to blonde, to europe. Why couldn't anyone say India or Africa???? I just here echoes of false history and science. Next I should see the word misnomer (Aryan).

I like what random says above me. The sad part, if it doesn't fit the "theory", dna along with many other irrefutable bits of evidence will get rejected. Simply because, "it does not fit".

akin stares at the stares, "help us!!"

Originally posted by riiver
reply to post by Harte

 

I wasn't saying that de Leon said it. I was simply answering the question

Reading comprehension 101, where is white skin mentioned?

the answer being "in the Mail Online article", which was the source cited in the original post of the thread.

Leon was there. The Mail was not there.

Harte

reply to post by purplemer


I wonder if any DNA studies have been done from the mummies.

If anyone reads of such, please let me know.

It should be part of the National Geographic DNA study. LOL.

reply to post by fluff007

Fascinating but just got to thinking - I wonder if 'Albino People' are decedents from this race - don't know if that would be possible???? Just made me think!

reply to post by randomtangentsrme


To clarify---I wasn't saying the people were or were not fair-skinned and blonde. I'd never heard of them before reading the article, and don't know a thing about 'em. I was only saying that that is where it had been stated, in the Mail article. Not whether the statement was true or false. Jeez.

The point is as of yet we do not know. Just to agree from written records and dismiss DNA seems premature.

I agree, and I don't see how you jumped to the conclusion that I was ignoring/arguing with the written record, or ignoring DNA.

I actually thought "where does it say white skin" was a legitimate question, that you missed that when reading the article. I wasn't using that to say "OMG there was a whole tribe of caucasian people living in the Amazon when the Spaniards came," or "Europeans are better" or anything else except that's where the earlier poster got the idea from.

Originally posted by riiver
reply to post by Harte

 

To clarify---I wasn't saying the people were or were not fair-skinned and blonde. I'd never heard of them before reading the article, and don't know a thing about 'em. I was only saying that that is where it had been stated, in the Mail article. Not whether the statement was true or false. Jeez.

The point is as of yet we do not know. Just to agree from written records and dismiss DNA seems premature.

I agree, and I don't see how you jumped to the conclusion that I was ignoring/arguing with the written record, or ignoring DNA.

I actually thought "where does it say white skin" was a legitimate question, that you missed that when reading the article. I wasn't using that to say "OMG there was a whole tribe of caucasian people living in the Amazon when the Spaniards came," or "Europeans are better" or anything else except that's where the earlier poster got the idea from.

You quoted me while addressing Harte. He/she is much more knowledgeable than I.
However what you are doing is equating whitest to white. Big difference. One is a relative term, one is a modern one describing individuals of European decent.

All people coming from high mountain regions that spend generation after generation out of the harsh sun as by the coast appear more white skinned then their neighbors in lower altitudes that have less cloud cover. This is the same in nearly every place on the planet. It is just how people adapt and where they live that makes a difference in their skin color.

If I go into the high mountains for a few years I look pretty pale. If I spend a few years in South Florida or the Caribbean I look pretty dark. It is their environment that makes humans look the way they do in large part.

reply to post by randomtangentsrme

Sorry, it was you I intended to reply to. And I still don't think you understood what I was saying. I was simply pointing out the idea of light skin color didn't come from ANY poster in the thread, but from the original source article. I have no idea if the source article is correct or not.

Originally posted by BO XIAN
reply to post by purplemer

 

I wonder if any DNA studies have been done from the mummies.

If anyone reads of such, please let me know.

It should be part of the National Geographic DNA study. LOL.

Yes, there have been. And the result was that they are related to other American tribes, no relation to Europeans at all.

Originally posted by jammer2012
reply to post by randomtangentsrme

 

lol... what do you think he means buy whitest (pure in spirit)...lol...or his skin color...i don't have any problem with my reading comprehension, i think you have no common sense.

If she was found in the heart of Africa she would have been described as the "whitest" woman in Africa. Is she white? According to you she must be.

Originally posted by quedup
reply to post by fluff007

 

Fascinating but just got to thinking - I wonder if 'Albino People' are decedents from this race - don't know if that would be possible???? Just made me think!

i doubt it, most of the stuff about them being white is a misinterpretation of leon, the people around them and the propaganda of racists.

plus this is the daily mail, they are a tabloid not a real newspaper.
take any statement they make with a huge grain of salt, there is no reason to think they know what they are talking about, best to just assume they are wrong.

people claim these people were white, but that assumption is based on desire that when leon means white he means caucasian, not white in comparison to everyone else he has met already.
he is really the only source we have, so anything people claim about them is just their own speculation.

Originally posted by angrymartian

If I go into the high mountains for a few years I look pretty pale. If I spend a few years in South Florida or the Caribbean I look pretty dark. It is their environment that makes humans look the way they do in large part.

That is not necessarily true. Wouldn't living at a higher altitude make you more susceptible to the suns radiation? After all, melanin in the skin is used for protection from the suns rays.

It is also possible to get sun burned when the clouds are overhead. As an example, I remember being in Myrtle Beach, USA and the meteorologist reminding people (mainly vacationers) to use sunscreen even though it was to be cloudy that day.
www.americanscientist.org...

Regardless, main stream scientist don't like to go against the "norm" as a lot of DNA studies are funded by these people, sometimes making the results biased or not releasing all of the results to further prove what has already been stated as basic knowledge or or fact by MSS. It seems to me that anytime the term "white" or "whiter" gets mentioned when it comes to ancient civilizations, the R word comes soon after. Why is that? The Caucasian mummies of ancient China are a good example of this.

Originally posted by kimish

Originally posted by angrymartian

If I go into the high mountains for a few years I look pretty pale. If I spend a few years in South Florida or the Caribbean I look pretty dark. It is their environment that makes humans look the way they do in large part.

That is not necessarily true. Wouldn't living at a higher altitude make you more susceptible to the suns radiation? After all, melanin in the skin is used for protection from the suns rays.

It is also possible to get sun burned when the clouds are overhead. As an example, I remember being in Myrtle Beach, USA and the meteorologist reminding people (mainly vacationers) to use sunscreen even though it was to be cloudy that day.
www.americanscientist.org...

Regardless, main stream scientist don't like to go against the "norm" as a lot of DNA studies are funded by these people, sometimes making the results biased or not releasing all of the results to further prove what has already been stated as basic knowledge or or fact by MSS. It seems to me that anytime the term "white" or "whiter" gets mentioned when it comes to ancient civilizations, the R word comes soon after. Why is that? The Caucasian mummies of ancient China are a good example of this.

So following your logic that "mainstream science" is burying the fact this tribe was white, they also buried the fact the chinese mummies were white, correct?

Oh wait, that didn't happen? Mainstream scientists are the ones who found the mummies and confirmed they were caucasian? How does that fit into your conspiracy bubble?

I spend a lot of time in Peru, and I've been tracking the various Viracocha myths that falls into the same category as the Chachapoyas, notably the arrival in a distant past of white, bearded men (and women) with great skills and knowledge.

The Inca nobility was also reported by conquistador Pizarro (as well as by other Spanish chroniclers) to be white and fair-haired, being descendants of the Viracochas.

That said, questions ned to be asked and answered, if possible.

If the Chachapoyas where white skinned and blond (supposedly European immigrants), then why did the Viracocha myths (white, bearded gods arriving from the East and sharing knowledge and technology) have such an impact on the Inca culture, and why were their next door enemies the Chachapoyas not considered as gods?
That said, the Incas first mistook the Spanish for benevolent gods, but soon realized their mistake.

Also, if the Chachapoyas were of European descent, then their 'European' immune system would be better suited to deal with the Euroasian disease that the conquistadors brought to the American continent. Still they perished, while the Incas (as a people) survived, at least partially.

Originally posted by billdadobbie
if you look at the style of house it is exactly like the old french type of home white people were about long ago .

What time period are you talking about? Gallic huts?

Originally posted by billdadobbie
the hungarian language has been found over south america in tribes who have never seen white people but state that way back in time their ancestors came from there

I've already heard about Sumerian and Sanskrit links to Quechua, as well as well as links between the Aymara language and Turkish, but never Hungarian and what culture/language ?

Care to elaborate?

I thought it was established that Solutreans had made it to South America as well as North America.

That is all you need to explain blue eyes and fair skin cultures in the Americas.

Originally posted by Leonidas
I thought it was established that Solutreans had made it to South America as well as North America.

That is all you need to explain blue eyes and fair skin cultures in the Americas.

Yes, that is established to a high degree of certainty.

But the Clovis culture ended in an abrubt way, a possible extinction.

I personally suspect countless of arrivals to the Americas from both the East (Europeans, Middle Easterns, Chinese) and the West (Polynesians, Japanese), in such a big melting pot geneticists will have a tough time unravelling who came from where.