My local paper this morning has an article on possible evidence of early American life. Seems that an archeologist by the name of David Jenkins previously found fossilized excrement with human proteins and/or DNA that dated to 14,000 years ago. He has lately uncovered bone fragments that MIGHT indicate modification by humans. Even though he agrees that he is nowhere near the burden of proof required for humans in America at 14000 years ago, it was interesting.
One of the problems that would exhibit from such a find is that the bering strait was still an impassable ice sheet at that time; "immigrants" would have had to come by boat over the pacific.
Just an interesting tidbit of information.
And I can see that happening....how do you think people ended up in Hawaii? (when did people end up in Hawaii anyway?? lol)
another nice question is how did the aborgines get to Australia. there were no land bridges. and even if the oceans were 450 meters lower 20 thousand years ago they still couldnt have walked down under. so.... at the very least rafts.
I think most of the original hawiians came from places like Tahiti via outriggers using the stars, wind and moon as navigation devices. It was a treachorous journey, no doubt, and Im sure more than a few died along the way. Not sure when they sailed, though.
But this doesn't mean they arrived here at that particular time. Clovis man disappeared roughly 13,500 years ago but they were here for many centuries before the mass extinctions of the megafauna they preyed upon.
There have supposedly been several instances of an ice free corridor from Siberia which could have enabled migration from Asia. The precursors of the modern horse migrated from North America through this corridor before becoming extinct here along with many other species. No reason early man could not have used the same path!
I had just finnished replying to a similar question im just going to copy and paste it for you.Thomas Loscar Sr says
Darwin was a crackpot looking for approval in the scientific community. Ours is not the only civilization as noted, and the sumarian culture was not the first. There have always been civilizations of substantial intelect even 47 million years ago.history shows us that entire civilizations have completly vanished without a trace i.e. the myan civilization one of the latest civilizations to go missing. Where do they all go? extinction has always happend sometimes mass extinction happens (where are all the dinosaurs) the sumerian civilization is extinct. Wake up, quit dreaming,these questions will always have a mystique about them perhaps some day in the next great civilization we will have leaped over this hurdle that keeps us guessing. There ARE no missing links just missing families of mankind throughout history. Thank-you
Darwin was anything but a crackpot with some of his findings still being proven today. Sure, he didn't get everything right, but how many men of science have.
As far as substantial intellect 47 million years ago, I suppose it depends on what one considers "substantial."
And the Mayan civilization dissolved because of political upheaval with the population deserting the cities.
The dinosaurs became extinct 65 million years ago because of an asteroid impact in the gulf of Mexico, so that mystery has been solved. But the megafauna extinction 13,500 years ago in the Americas hasn't been satisfactorily explained yet.
The latest theory of the mastodon, mammoth, saber tooth cat, etc. extinction is also due to an asteroid or comet explosion which destroyed much of the forests and grasslands on both continents.
Fascinating stuff, huh?
The most interesting finds in the southwest , the Anasazi and those before them is amazing. Lost worlds and lost oceans too. they are still finding out things today.
actually equally incredible finds are being made in the east as well. The Mound builders who spanned the countryside from the St lawerence river in canada to La. were just as advanced and as mysterious as teh Anaszi. the Anasazi how ever left some really nifty ruins to puzzle over.
its been suggested that the Aztec might have orginated in the South west. and migrated south before founding their empire. casual associations have been made with the Anasazi.
though the Aztec legends state their previous home was an island called. aztlan. there are debates over whether the Aztec migrated from the north of mexico or from the pacific side.
My leaning is from the north and the SW deserts of the US.
My only issue is with the use of "Americans".
America is a Nation. North American, or Canadian, or South American, is relative to say the least. I think it will boil down to specific wording used, so as to identify it properly.
However, I'm willing to take it as far as to say it was human. That's about it.
No, North America and South America are continents. America is a Country - as in the United States of America.
That's right. People from other countries in America will only say that Canada, Argentina, or Ecuador is "America, too" to try to either piss-off Americans or make a point that they are not so special, and that many other countries were founded in the Americas.
Below North America (Canada and USA) is Meso-America (Mexico and a few countries below it). The lot of it is a bit confusing.
Theres plenty of sites in the Americas that have at least tentatively been shown to be older than 13k years.
The Topper site is one of the most controversial this side of the mexican border.
as far as clovis.. for almost twenty years, the Clovis first group fought, kicked gouged and ignored sites and data that showed they were older than Clovis. finaly the whole Clovis first mafia has folded their tents and left the building.
Theres a study out, Ill have to find the link, that shows point distribution across North America. it should show the heaviest density of points in the west spreading and thinning as it moves south and east. instead it surprisingly showed the heaviest density's on the east and NE coasts thinning as it moved west and south.
indicating that the Land Bridge Migration theory might be in error.
in addition to that, Enviromental conditions basically show that most people couldnt have survived the trip across the land bridge due to tempature and lack of food. at the time the Ice sheets would have covered the land bridge. the theory gaining strength now is that they used rafts and skirted the Shore following the upper pacific current.
Currently the oldest known boat was found in 2001 in Kuwait and has been dated to 7000 years Bp. that find kicked the date of boat construction back by four thousand years.
basically historians and Archeologists keep finding new things that constantly call into question the prevailing theory of Colonization of the Americas.
"in addition to that, Enviromental conditions basically show that most people couldnt have survived the trip across the land bridge due to tempature and lack of food. at the time the Ice sheets would have covered the land bridge. the theory gaining strength now is that they used rafts and skirted the Shore following the upper pacific current."
There may have been migrations to the North American continent by boat but probably not the first migration. Some theorize the boats followed the vast kelp beds which existed along the northwest coast. There was plenty of food associated with the kelp beds because of the fish using them for cover along with seals and other predators feeding on them.
But the first migration was probably via the Bering land bridge. Horses, made the trip from here to Europe via the bridge and then became extinct here, along with Clovis man and many other species. I cannot see them being carried to the old world in boats.
Early man hunted horses for food and skins to survive. If the horses could inhabit the vast steppes of the land bridge then man would follow them in their migrations both to and from the respective continents. The cold was nothing new to these people and surviving among the vast herds of animals would have been typical daily life for them.
I really should be more specific.. there were times that that the land bridge would have been passable but during the accepted time frame that humans would have migrated. it would have been frozen solid. realize im only repeating what Ive read. but accordingly, the tempatures would been too low to make it the seven hundred miles they would have had to traverse and no known plants would have survived in the extreme temps on the land bridge.
ALice Kohoe amongst others supports the Migration via water during this stage. but Main stream Archeology balks at the idea, steadfastly insisting that early man was only here at X time and was only smart enough to walk and make pointy sticks.
So how did the horse ever migrate to Europe?
the horse didnt migrate to Europe. accepted theory is that they migrated here twenty thousand years or so ago and died out. though there is evidence. ( scant) that the Native horse surivived till well after the Spaniards supposedly brought the first horse.
Again.. there were times the land bridge was open, supposedly only a narrow corridor in the ice. but during the accepted time frame of Human migration it was covered in an ice sheet. animal migrations occured thousands of years "before" Man did.
though the finds of a mastadon with a bifacial point in it has them searching for a more orthodox answer to how could a mastadon 18 thousand years ago get stabbed with a spear five thousand years before any human walked North America.
Whose accepted theory? Most theories I have read seem to indicate the horses crossed the bridge into Europe. But I will study the theory more. I do possess a few points over 10,000 years old I have found on my farm, so they were in America very early! The 13,500 BP date is the end of Clovis culture, not the beginning!
from what Ive read, and it might be wrong LOL.. the modern horse equus is over five million years old and its fossils have been found on every continent but Australia and the antarctic.. Horse's have been only on the periphery of my research.
the oldest sites in the Americas have been dated as far back as 40 thousand years ago. but these are hotly debated.
I find it interesting that the various American Indian tribes, as well as the indigenous peoples of South America, have varying physical characteristics of people from many parts of the globe, it's been too long since I read about this to recall whether DNA has shown the kinships, but I do recall the discussion of the similarities to other distinct human 'races'. Even had an elderly man in a writing group years ago who was part of some digs, and was actually able to bring to us cuttings from cave walls which were so old, so predated accepted movements of people in the USA, you were filled with awe to view them, and you certainly could not, would not, touch them.
On boats and man, I have much faith in man, and believe, as many do, that the oceans were once much traversed before a lag, a down time, in human history, due to some global tragedy or another.... like the theory, and much you find you can't explain fits nicely with it, IMO. And, if they could build a boat to traverse the high seas, they could build one to hold their horses as well, if they chose.
From what I remember KF, theres been a push to Sequence native DNA. I remember reading a while back that the Zuni tribes actually have a japanese Halotype. beyond that, I dont seem to recall any real earth shaking revelations. though Id be interested to see if any of the Southern Mexico tribes have any African DNA markers. what with the Olmec controversy.
I thought the Innuit and native Americans were already classified as Asian people
I think DNA has already connected the Inuit and Native American cultures too, AP!
Isn't this connection the basis of the land-bridge theory? and the objectors to this theory, who say that people could not have crossed the ice sheet, must be just ignoring the Innuit who live like this all the time ??
I do not deny a migration or migrations by boat, but from what i have read there were several periods when the ice free corridor was capable of allowing travel to and from Siberia by both man and animal.
The humans simply followed the game over a period of perhaps decades before they arrived here. They never realized they had entered another continent at all. They discovered a real "Garden of Eden," teeming with game with no competition from other humans for a long while.
Your right Randy the Iniut and the native americas do share some of the same genetic markers. but the inuit arrived about 6000 thousand years ago, well after the land bridge had been covered by water. in addition the Genetic markers indicate the Inuit were from the siberian coastline, with Saqqua and Chukit markers as well.
the Zuni, are considered an engma becuase of the mitchondrial DNA shows them to be from Japan.
the theory been tossed around is that the Zuni are descended from the Jomano a native of Japanese islands. depending on who writes the history the zuni appeared as a tribe around the 11th or 12th centurys.
if the japanese MtDNA turns out to be correct it will definetly prove others migrated to the Americas before columbus.
The ancient ancestors did indeed exist on many continents. But the modern horse developed in the Americas and migrated to Europe, according to the sources I have read! But I have not kept up to date on this lately so I am not stating anything for certain. A very interesting subject, by the way1
All the theories are interesting and point up new information - the biggest problem is the time scale. The oldest hominid fossil man discovered is currently reckoned to be 4.5 million years old (and 2 metres tall) , and Lucy the other famous fossil (one metre tall) 4.3 million years old. The dinosaurs went extinct millions of years before.
The tiny time difference between them is 200,000 years - one hundred times longer than our calender 2000 years !
Humanoid creatures have been about a long long time and even very recent history is hard to work out. Every new find seems to point up how resourceful and inventive we have been and just how far we got about at different times.
thats entirely true. AP. My own thoughts on the matter is that sooner or later we will find evidence of interglacial civilizations. the last few years have revealed a wealth of data about the sophistication of the stone age. including long distance travel and trade. the stone age boat they found shows some rather inventive boat building skills. that to my mind shows a long tradition of using the water for travel, fishing and possibly trade.
then again we may find nothing else for a few hundred years till some one falls into a pit and makes another major discovery. Stonehenge alone indicates some decent engineering and Math skills.
or AP are you suggesting a series of civiliations that have risen and fallen since before the last ice age.
It depends what you mean by civilization. We know that man was in Wales before the last ice age, I have a hub on it. Our idea of civilization requires social organisation (in ways like ours) although a tribe could be said to be civilized in some ways I think.
I am sure there were many 'tribes' wandering about with good social skills, boat building abilities etc etc going back more thousands of years than we have found so far. As you point out - if there is a 7000 year old boat then the skills have probably been about for infinitely longer.
A recent example would be the Druids who refused to write anything down and who appear not to have erected any monuments, preferring to use planted groups of trees etc as their meeting places. It is very hard to find any real evidence of their influence that seems to have extended all across Europe and into the middle east and they seem to have had ideas knowledge that could well have originated in Asia, indicating they at least had contacts with China and India also. But they left nothing concrete to dig up and so we 'don't know' about them.
Ill have to dig up my stuff on the celts. there is alot of debate about their influence in India. in fact some like to argue that the Celts were not the Aryans as is believed. and had no impact on india. argueing instead that the proto celtic words, images, art and weapons were independtly created by the Northern Indians.
anyway... Civlization... by that i mean a united group of peoples who share some culteral norms and advanced living. as in farming, permenant structures, a more or less organized religion, use trade and other traiits particular to their social group.
I think we do 'know' the Druids to a great extent, considering the immense passage of time. I'm of the opinion that Stonehenge was most likely a remnant of the Druids, as are the vast mounds of Ireland, and the similar very old stones that are found there. Much of the old oral history of Ireland that survives and is so very fascinating, reflects the presence of the Druidic 'culture' of the time, and surely may only exist because of that oral historical tradition of the Druids.
They did have many rituals involving tree groves, waters, etc..., that have come to us from the old oral tales that have survived. The only argument I can think to discount the idea that Stonehenge comes from the time of the Druids is the lack of such awesome efforts being found in old oral tales -- at least so far as I know, I'd love to be told different.
And if these very ancient UK 'tells' of long ago are not Druidic in their origination, then they surely must date to social cultures well before 5000 B.C., from which the Druidic ruling culture most likely derived. I think there are web sites still out there that show rock etchings found in America that appear to map the way back to Ireland and England, etc... and date back, a really really long time ago.
Just thoughts at the instant, I've spent a little time on the subject of the Druids many years ago, and it is one I find fascinating.
The only surviving mentions of the Druids come in a letter to the Romans prior to their invasion of Britain - where the Druids are talked about in uncomplimentary terms; not surprising as the writer was in effect a British 'traitor' of some kind.
Most other records are christian writings about ancient myths that are skewed to a christian point of view normally.
So - generally - we only have hearsay and nothing from themselves about themselves. What appears to be the case is that they were the 'religion' and king makers for a long time among the tribes that came out of Germany, the Celts, my guess would be from the beginning of this wave of colonisations after the ice age and may even be from before.
I also got interested in cave symbols from all over the world that includes especially a spiral with various numbers of coils - that could indicate latitude, and others that could indicate longitude. Maybe directions back to where the people of that came from ? These same symbols appear all over the world in every culture. There is also speculation that every language in the world could have a common single base a long way back.
Caesar himself talked/wrote of the Druids, and I don't find it entirely uncomplementary. All of the very ancient oral tales of Ireland's history very much highlight the Druids, and in no way do I consider that hearsay. The Romans tried their best to exterminate the Druids, but were unsuccessful, as I recall that would be Wales where they failed most clearly.
Druidic cultures/traditions are found entertwined in many European cultures of old.
The circular symbols are generally Celtic in origin. I was referring to rock etchings that are comprised of straight lines of varying lengths.
Classical knowledge of the Celts derives namely from Greek sources, The first literary reference to the Celtic people, as keltoi or hidden people, is by the Greek Hecataeus in 517 BC. Around the year 600 BC the Greek geographer Herodotus writes of the Celts dwelling beyond "the pillars of Hercules" and the Upper Danube.
Herodotus talks about the druids at least once. as does Ceasar much later. But Herodotus and others stresses that the Celts kept their religion, origins and other things totally secret from other races. how ever the Greeks say that what little they knew of the celtic homeland it was across the world ocean and lay in a place of mists.
one word used for it is Hyborea. another is Hybrasil. the celts prior to Ireland refered to themselves as the people of dan. or strangley the Tuatha de danan or more popularly Daonie Shea.
most of the terms used to refer to the early celt and proto celts meant The hidden people, the people of the mist (concealment) etc..
Ceaser wrote much about the Celts, but its obvious his comments about the druids are at least in part propoganda. he does how ever mention something interesting about a Tribe of celts called the Venetti
Ceasar described the Venitti ships as follows.
“The keels were somewhat flatter than those of our ships, whereby they could more easily encounter the shallows and the ebbing of the tide: the prows were raised very high, and, in like manner the sterns were adapted to the force of the waves and storms [which they were formed to sustain]. The ships were built wholly of oak, and designed to endure any force and violence whatever; the benches which were made of planks a foot in breadth, were fastened by iron spikes of the thickness of a man's thumb; the anchors were secured fast by iron chains instead of cables, and for sails they used skins and thin dressed leather. “
these types of craft are far and away removed from what Archeologists and historians like to say the Celts had. Even during the Reign of Brian Boru Ard Righ of Ireland the celts had real ship building skills as the vikings would attest to.
and sorry this is as far off topic as its possible to get ... LOL sorry
Not so far off topic! There is evidence that the Vikings visited America, may even have made temporary settlements there, there is also circumstantial evidence that they followed Irish explorers in the first place.
More ancient peoples roamed all over by ship, the Arabs and especially Moors visited Scotland and Wales to trade for lead so I believe. I think we vastly underestimate what the ancients did and were capable of in their ships.
It is pretty much a foregone conclusion the settlements you referenced were indeed used by the Vikings. But we are talking 13,500+ years ago as the first immigration. Perhaps we may use DNA to eventually know for sure.
That they were here long ago there's no doubt. But what destroyed Clovis Man, and the giant megafauna 13,500 years ago, is more fascinating to me.
To add to my previous post, the Topper site may yield evidence of man's presence here during the 20,000 years BP you referenced re the horse migration TO North America. Only time will tell!
Ah well, Randy... this discussion proceeded so nice and normal for a very short bit of time, an incalcuably small bit of time in the grand scheme of time.
"The grand scheme of time"? Is this your idea of a scientific term? Or are merely making up terms as you usually do? LOL! And how is it not normal when I post, KFC?
by BlissfulWriter5 years ago
Do you think people have become more selfish than say 50 years ago? By selfish, I mean more concerned for own self-interest and own financial benefits, rather than thinking of the community as a whole or doing...
by Cybermonk6 years ago
Am into hunt of articles for preparing a seminar regarding ancient world civilization. please suggest me some good hubbers thanks..
by lovemydoggy2 years ago
I am heartbroken to even be considering this, however my springer spaniel/border collie who is 14 years old is having a lot of issues. He is basically deaf, can't hardly see, sleeps most of the day, he has also become...
by donotfear5 years ago
Just wanted to see what everyone thought about it. One cannot deny that people are seeing something, but what the heck is it? Seriously.I think I heard that somebody actually admitted that this famous photo...
by TMMason6 years ago
This should not be allowed in the U.S.. it is unexceptable.Building the American Islamic Caliphate, One Enclave at a Time http://www.islamist-watch.org/It seems almost unthinkable, but Islamist groups...
by GA Anderson11 months ago
In a conversation about racism in America today, a young relative, made this statement'"It is worse than it was six years ago!"It took me a moment to catch his drift. He is a young, (many times naive),...
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.