Forums

 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages 
The first Americans
Goto page 1, 2, 3 ... 14, 15, 16  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Fortean Times Message Board Forum Index -> Earth Mysteries - historical and classical cases
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Anonymous
PostPosted: 01-08-2002 12:14    Post subject: The first Americans Reply with quote

[Emp edit: I've split a thread to make this thread on the earliest occupation of the Americas and another one on the controversy of pre-Columbus contact:

www.forteantimes.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=6731 ]

hallybods wrote:

There is a possibility that either the Celts or Vikings may have visited North America. I vaguely remember seeing something about ancient caucasian remains being found that may predate the native Indian's arrival. If I remember correctly the Indians demanded the remains back before they could be studied. I had the feeling that they were worried in case it was found that they were not the first settlers.

The Phoenicians were master sailors and it wouldn't be beyond the realms of belief that with plenty of provisions they could have made it across to South America. There are examples of ancient Aztec or Inca art showing distinctly African faces too. Just a couple of theories to band about. Wink


I think you're referring to "Kennewick Man"; remains that were found under a shallow lake in Washington state. Kennewick's remains were suprisingly old (over 9,000 years) and he was thought to be a Caucasoid.

The term "Caucasoid", is a loaded one and could lead to misinterpretaion. This doesn't mean that the Kennewick man was European, or was even related to modern Europeans. In fact, Kennewick didn't fit into any racial category. Kennewick is thought to be similar to another ancient American find, "Spirit Cave Man".

SCM's remains were found in Nevada and share many traits with Kennewick man. These traits are specific to bone structure and form, which can determine race. Scientists found that both SCM and Kenniwick posessed traits that were shared by numerous races around the world. The skull shared features with the Ainu people of Japan, Europeans, and the Atayal of Taiwan. In fact, these two skeletons are thought to belong to a race far different than any known today.

Some, many with an axe to grind, jumped on these two finds to discredit Native people's claims that they were the first settlers. The fact of the matter is that the Native Americans are the descendants of a suprisingly diverse mix of people who settled the New World over 12,000 years ago (exact dates are not known). The tribe who buried Kennewick was merely protecting their own, or what they perceived to be an ancestor. This wasn't done with the sinister purpose of hiding the truth, but to pay respect to a family member.

Sadly Kennewick and Spirit Cave Man are more recent examples of the disservice uninformed speculation has rendered to Native cultures. Native achievements are almost always attributed to another race or culture, without any credible evidence. The Mound Builders of Ohio were, and sadly by some still are, considered to be Celts, Vikings, or a lost tribe of Israel until archeological evidence disproved these theories.

The cultures of Meso-America were also the victims of rampant speculation. The Olmec heads are said to be those of Africans. While this may, remotely, seem to be the case, that conclusion is drawn without an understanding of the culture and art from which these artifacts arose. After careful study, the only proof of African contact is the slightly "African" look of the heads.

There's little to no evidence proving that modern Europeans, Egyptians, Moors, etc. were in America prior to the Vikings. I find it strange, and insulting, that the cultural achievements of Native Americans must always have their roots elsewhere. While it's remotely possible that some outsiders visited the Americas, their influence would have been minimal. The cultures of North and South America were very advanced and complex long before any outside influence.

If Kennewick and SCM prove anything, it's that modern Native Americans have a far more diverse and ancient past than science had ever suspected, and nothing more.

REF:

Kennewick Information
http://archaeology.miningco.com/blkennewick.htm

Spirit Cave, Kennewick article
http://www.archaeology.org/online/news/kennewick5.html


Last edited by Guest on 11-10-2004 13:14; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
FraterLibreOffline
Great Old One
Joined: 27 Feb 2002
Total posts: 2235
Gender: Unknown
PostPosted: 01-08-2002 20:36    Post subject: Re: First Westerners to Reach America? Reply with quote

Quote:
[i]Originally posted by Bilderberger - OK - lets work back. Columbus? Vikings? Celts? Phoenicians? Egyptians? Anyone go back further than that? (apart from the original settlement!!!).

Also, why, when the evidence for Celtic settlement on US soil is so strong (e.g. Barry Fell's classic "forbidden" archaeology book - "America BC") do people get so excited about Columbus? It is like believing that Bill Gates invented the computer.


Firstly, it's likely there were pre Ice Age groups going back and forth, either on ice- or land-bridges, or in boats. Remember that the Egyptian civilization itself started at its peak and gradually decayed. This hints it stemmed from an earlier high civilization we don't know about. Yet.

Secondly, Columbus was important because it was his contact that opened up massive trading between Old and New World. Thus, like Gates, he didn't invent anything, but certainly spelled the doom of much.
Back to top
View user's profile 
FraterLibreOffline
Great Old One
Joined: 27 Feb 2002
Total posts: 2235
Gender: Unknown
PostPosted: 03-09-2002 01:42    Post subject: Faces Reply with quote

What of the mysterious Olmec heads with distinctive African features?

The hints of a prehistoric global culture and prehistoric world travel seem to be scattered everywhere, and especially in the Americas. It's whether we choose to link them or insist on keeping them separated, which these days seems less and less a choice, as links are suggested, if not found, every day.
Back to top
View user's profile 
Anonymous
PostPosted: 03-09-2002 06:54    Post subject: Just throwing another ingredient into the mix! Reply with quote

Saw a TV Programme on British TV last year which examined human remains and artwork found in South America. According to this programme the human remains could only be considered compatible with those of the Australian Aborigines. The remains pre-dated other human remains in the area which were identified as being 'Asian' - that is the ancestors of the people we consider today as Native Americans. In support of the claim that Aboriginals had been in South America they analysed cave paintings in the same region and found that they bore substantial similarities to those found in Australia. Interestingly enough they showed groups of figures being attacked by invaders - and used this to argue that the Aborigines living in South America were wiped out by the southern migration of Native Americans.

The show also focused on a nearly extinct tribe from the islands the Tierra del Fuego region (off the southern tip of South America). They had been the subject of an anthropological study in the early 20th Century, but now only a few indivduals survive (all of which, if I remember correctly had some "outsider" parentage of some sort). It was speculated that they were genetically and culturally unlike the rest of the inhabitants of mainland South America - and were analagous to ...... the Australian Aborigines! Various comparisons were made of which I can't remember the details... however there was one comment made by the Tierra del Fuego tribe - they excluded women from all their tribal decision making...when asked why by anthropologists - they replied that women had once been those in charge of the society - but the men had grapsed control from them long ago - and never wanted them to find out!
Back to top
FraterLibreOffline
Great Old One
Joined: 27 Feb 2002
Total posts: 2235
Gender: Unknown
PostPosted: 03-09-2002 13:26    Post subject: Down Under's Up Over Reply with quote

Marius - Fascinating stuff. I hope they show this program stateside soon, or on BBC Amerika.

Sea-faring seems to have been global long before our textbook writers are willing to concede.

That men wrested control from women almost seems obvious, doesn't it? Almost seems the biggest mistake ever made, too, at times like these.
Back to top
View user's profile 
many_angled_oneOffline
Haunter of the Dark
Joined: 18 Jan 2002
Total posts: 429
Location: Glasgow, Scotland
Gender: Male
PostPosted: 03-09-2002 13:29    Post subject: Reply with quote

I beg to differ. Look at chimp, ape, and other simian societies. It is usually the biggest, strongest, baddest male that ruled the groups.

Why would it be any different for humans?
Back to top
View user's profile 
Anonymous
PostPosted: 03-09-2002 14:02    Post subject: Reply with quote

Many_Angled_One wrote:

I beg to differ. Look at chimp, ape, and other simian societies. It is usually the biggest, strongest, baddest male that ruled the groups.

Why would it be any different for humans?


But that is not completely true either. Neither is the conclusion.

Most creatures are dominated by the females. Right across the animal kingdom. There is evidence for matrilinear royalty in the human race. As well as nomenclature being dictated by the female line. Then there is goddesses and an insistance of calling so many things "she" including mother nature.

Woman have been able to supply men with the things they needed to be men and not the other way round. Its all very well taking credit for hunting and fishing (and later on, Invention) but woman were supplying the clothes and kept them clean, they looked after the kids and cooked the food that we caught, made camp and slapped us when we suggested outherwise. Many prehistoric female skeletons have proved to be strong and robust as ourselves and sometimes more so.

There is also evidence and some fairly recent, that they helped us in battle and were reputed to have a child in one arm and a weapon in the other.
Back to top
FraterLibreOffline
Great Old One
Joined: 27 Feb 2002
Total posts: 2235
Gender: Unknown
PostPosted: 03-09-2002 14:12    Post subject: Female Dominance Reply with quote

Many of the Celtic tribes were matriarchal, and in fact some archaeologists think the myth of the Amazon may have come from encounters with proto-Celtic groups.

It is also fairly obvious that Paulist xtianity and the desert religions in general forced a switch from matriarchy to patriarchy throughout Western culture around the time of Rome.

As for dominance by brute strength, the reason it is more complicated for the humanoid primate is that there is more intelligence, and thus more subterfuge and much more layering when it comes to defining strongest, etc.

Certainly the recent electoral coup and supreme court appointment of a President demonstrated that the candidate with the strongest democratic mandate to lead may not always become the actual leader. In humanoid primates, there is always perfidy, deceit, and outright cheating to consider.

And in nature's rule book, there is no such thing as cheating, so what ever works at the moment counts, for the moment.

Chimps and non-humanoid primates of other kinds are just not quite as sophisticated at tweaking the systems of hierarchy, that's all.
Back to top
View user's profile 
many_angled_oneOffline
Haunter of the Dark
Joined: 18 Jan 2002
Total posts: 429
Location: Glasgow, Scotland
Gender: Male
PostPosted: 03-09-2002 14:40    Post subject: Reply with quote

I dont dispute that in some civilisations such as the Celtic civilisation the women could be equal to men, in NO civilisation I know of were women in control the way men were in most civilisations (as my post was referring to the statement that men wrested control from women). The myth that way back in time people all worshipped "the goddess" is just that...a myth. People did worship goddesses and female spirits, just as much as male.

Matriarchical yes, because you always know who your mother is but again that does not imply female dominance by any stretch of the imagination. All it means is that you trace your family line via the female rather than the male.

No, most animals are NOT dominated by the females....Lions for example are male-dominant. Yes a lot of animals are female dominant, a lot are not. The simian branch of evolution, including us is as far as I'm aware is all male-dominant and if you think that did not have an impact upon human social systems you are fooling yourself.

In ancient times men were always going to be the dominant driving force due to drive, strength and aggression. Raw intelligence means nothing when in context with the social developments of the times in question. With the struggle for survival the providers of food have the power of decision making. It does however get more complicated s civilisations became more advanced.

>It is also fairly obvious that Paulist xtianity and the desert >religions in general forced a switch from matriarchy to patriarchy >throughout Western culture around the time of Rome.

No I'm afraid that is completely wrong, ancient Rome and Greece were panthonists whose head god was male and were not a matriarchy, quite the reverse, women had very limitied rights compared to men.


Last edited by many_angled_one on 03-09-2002 14:49; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile 
FraterLibreOffline
Great Old One
Joined: 27 Feb 2002
Total posts: 2235
Gender: Unknown
PostPosted: 03-09-2002 15:29    Post subject: Questions, not Answers Reply with quote

Many - Yes, both Greece and later Rome were male dominated, and look what happened to THEM. LOL

However, as a doctrine, as an actual policy, the Paulist xtian heresy is what spread this sad state of affairs throughout Europe.

Further, I would dispute your assertions that big macho penis-burdened males always "dominated" but I don't know enough about it, being fair of skin and fey of eye.

Even deeper, does it not make you stop and think to realize that all your research is, uh, male-centric? Written by men? Revanchist to match our current view?

Seems to me as much a matter of interpretation as anything else, who "dominates" and perhaps we've reduced this to a call for a definition of "dominate", hm?

Or perhaps not.
Back to top
View user's profile 
tattootedOffline
Jersey Devil
Joined: 10 Aug 2002
Total posts: 167
Location: Doo, doo, doo, lookin' out my back door
Gender: Unknown
PostPosted: 03-09-2002 19:18    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
Even deeper, does it not make you stop and think to realize that all your research is, uh, male-centric? Written by men? Revanchist to match our current view?


When I was growing up (in the 70's), most of the zoological research and documentaries were conducted by men. So we ended up with information about lions, for example, that spoke of the lion and his "pride" of lionesses. The focus was on the male lion and the picture painted was one of a "harem" of female lions feeding and being sexually accessible to the male.

When women zoologists began to explore the topic they noted that the lion prides were matrilinear--the only constant members were the female lions and their female offspring. They saw the male lion as being kept for stud, but otherwise unnecessary as the lionesses organized and conducted the hunting themselves. Male cubs were either killed by the stud lion as possible competitors, or driven off by his own female relations when old enough to fend on his own. Stud lions could also be driven off when no longer able to perform their required function.

Both the male and female zoologists were viewing the same thing: lions in prides, but how they interpreted what they viewed made all the difference in how we understand lions today.

I would suspect that the same is true of women in historical and anthropological studies. For example, in many Native American societies women who are menstruating leave society and their family during the times of their menses and join other women in isolation huts or tents. Male anthropologists described the women as "taboo" and that they were "forbidden" to interact with male society during these days. Women anthropologists looked at the same situation and noted that menstruating women got a three-day pass from all the back-breaking labor that normally made up their lives, plus someone else had to take care of the kids. In the meantime the menstruating women sat around eating, relaxing and socializing.

The facts of history don't change--this event happened this year--but our interpetations of them change according to current philosophical beliefs. History, and anthropology, supposed by many to be dead and unchanging, are actually fields subject to much variance depending on who is telling the story.
Back to top
View user's profile 
FraterLibreOffline
Great Old One
Joined: 27 Feb 2002
Total posts: 2235
Gender: Unknown
PostPosted: 03-09-2002 19:25    Post subject: Bravo Reply with quote

Ted - Exactly. You made the point much better than I. Bravo, and thanks.
Back to top
View user's profile 
rynner
Location: Still above sea level
Gender: Male
PostPosted: 03-09-2002 20:59    Post subject: Reply with quote

Yes! The very essence of Forteana! There are no facts, only opinions.

Read "What do we mean by Fortean?" in any FT mag.
Back to top
View user's profile 
Anonymous
PostPosted: 03-09-2002 21:21    Post subject: Reply with quote

Spot on and gadzooks millarky!

I am glad you put it that way.
Back to top
Anonymous
PostPosted: 03-09-2002 23:16    Post subject: Reply with quote

rynner wrote:

Yes! The very essence of Forteana! There are no facts, only opinions.

Read "What do we mean by Fortean?" in any FT mag.

But how true is that? If an opinion is based on an interpretation of a 'fact', does the existence of divergent interpretations, and thus differing opinions, alter the nature of the 'fact' itself? Discuss.
Back to top
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Fortean Times Message Board Forum Index -> Earth Mysteries - historical and classical cases All times are GMT
Goto page 1, 2, 3 ... 14, 15, 16  Next
Page 1 of 16

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group