Ancient Americans

[Swampman]

Some new info comes to light.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/2538323.stm

[Swampman]

Another interesting find.

http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/06/29/ancient-weapon-near-yellowstone/

[Spirithawk]

Swamp, you seem to have a habit of reading into things what you wish to see rather than what is there.
First, they are talking about a very few skulls versus hundreds. They studied 27 but only mention;

 The two oldest skulls were "dolichocephalic" - that is, long and narrow-headed, saying nothing about the rest unless they were the newer ones they mention which were "Native American". Plus it is based on shape? You ever see an Osage warrior and a Lakota? The two , apearance wise, are very very differant as are many tribes. Also, in the 100 years it took them to get around to study them any type of reliable dating is a fantasy. 

  Combine that with the fact that it's mainly a Mexican study and since " Indians" have long had a gripe with Mexico since the Mexicans raided villages for scalps and slaves, not to mention the US troubles with Mexico who would love to stir up trouble, I'm afraid I won't put much faith into it untill better  undisputable evidence is put forth and evidence is found in much greater numbers. Evidence that isn't theory nor hypothesis. Secondly, again we are talking about very few in numbers at best. Nowhere has evidence been foud indicating any Nation before "Indian Nations and that is not theory that is fact and obviously the burr under your saddle! I won't argue the point that hunting groups could have landed on the shores but they were far from being a Nation and either went home or died off because they didn't have the skills to survive. Two skulls do not make a Nation Swamp nor does a few.

[Swampman]

Just one of dozens of interesting finds.

http://www.stutzfamily.com/mrstutz/ancientamericans/firstamericansnyt.html

[Spirithawk]

Well, at least we agree on something. It is interesting I won't argue that and apreciate your post.   But again, did the repeating of the words "MAY HAVE" escape your attention?

[bearmgc]

This recent discovery may scientifically dispute yours and many others long held beliefs about Native Americans being the first. Or it may not. But likely the point will be that, despite more scientific discoveries to the contrary, many will hold to their beliefs. That is your perogative. That you would so quickly dismiss the possibility suggested by this discovery, though, says that you are not even open to the possibility of new light.......unless of course, it supports your beliefs.

[Spirithawk]

No, I believe I said it's interesting but that there is no where enough evidence to call it conclusive. Those doing the studies keep saying it COULD change history, it MIGHT change history, May be, we THEORISE, we HYPOTHESISE, we think POSSIBLY. I'm against anyone taking a smidgin of clues and stating it's enough to change current knowledge based on much more solid evidence and fact. How do a few, a very few, finds suggest enough anything to throw away what is known to be fact? That's like hearing a slight noise in your engine and saying it confirms that your engine with throw a rod at 1:15 pm on tuesday of next month. The the words May be, hypohthesis, and theory have much differant meanings than the word fact. Show me one single find, just one, where not just a couple or even a few, remains prove beyond doubt that they were here in sufficient numbers to be called an American colony large enough to be called a Nation , not a hunting party, and I'll be most happy to agree with the finds. Maybe I'm stuborn but to me it's just common sense. Then I'm from Missouri...the SHOW ME state.

[Swampman]

My only point is that the term "first nation" is presumptuous and strikes me as eliteist.  As one whose ancestors have been here a very long time I would never use it.

I'm an American and proud and interested in all of our history.  While James F. Cooper via Hollywood may have shaped most Americans ideas about what early Americans were like, perhaps it wasn't a perfect paradise before white people ruined it.

[bearmgc]

I myself lean toward the Native Americans being the first here. Yet, since you now enlarged your criteria for the evidence of a "Nation", you will be hard put to even find that, within the Native populations 12,000 + years ago, where bands of Native Americans hunted and moved with the game. It was also necessary to enrich the genetics of any band by accepting newcomers, or risk the deadly effects of inbreeding, something that today, some tribes are just getting a handle on. Likely more genetic "diversity" in some large tribes than some would like to accept. But that brought strength to the genes. You might be surprised, what other cultures "enriched" those genes. As for "Nation", not likely.

[SHOOTALL]

First I find this interesting . I also see it a bit different , man went from not owning land to a patch work of countries covering most of the earth. In reality no one owns the earth they only control what they can protect . That is a harsh statement in a PC world but it has been the law of the land for most of the time mankind has been here .

[Spirithawk]

The reason for the term First Nation is very simple. For one, tell me now who has a better right to the term? Second, we are not Indians. We were not born in India. We aren't decended from anyone born in India. Native American applies to anyone who was born here period and all have a right to the term. Sooooo, in order to distinguish who they are dealing with the US Government uses First Nation which is about as good a term as they could think of. Got a beef with it Swamp, cry to them. After all, our true names such as Tsalagi Aniyunwiya Anikituwagi, Mamaceqtaw, Anishinaabe, Attikamekw, Dena'ina, Gayogohono , Kadohadacho, ect, ect, ect just doesn't seem to sit well with Government beaurocrats trying to keep records and write fact sheets. And Swamp, what has any of this got to do with such statements as no " Indian" is full blood, and "Indians" rely on checks from the Government to survive? To me, those words, out of your mouth, says what your gripe is about. Each has his own right to believe as he wants. More power to you, I'm done.

[Swampman]

As with all ethnic groups, in a year or two someome will decide the name "first nation" isn't good enough and a new one will be required of the rest of us.

The fact is there never was a nation here prior to third quater of the 18th century.  A nation fights as one body and in that manner it ensures it's right to exist.  I just don't care for eliteism.  Modern "Native Americans" wiped out those who were here prior to them and one day I believe that will likely happen again.

I also don't think my forefathers would want me to demean them by complaining about the way they were treated or defeated.  They sang their death song and died like men.  I don't wish to take that away from them.

Can we not buck up and act like braves?  That's my plan anyway.

[Spirithawk]

Swamp, you are an 1/8 Tsalagi Cherokee. I am quite glad you are proud of that but do you think it gives you a right to say what is right or isn't right for not only the Cherokee Nation but all others as well? Now who's being presumptuous?

[Swampman]

I'm saying that the way we conduct ourselves makes me sad.

[bearmgc]

The reason for the term First Nation is very simple. For one, tell me now who has a better right to the term? Second, we are not Indians. We were not born in India. We aren't decended from anyone born in India. Native American applies to anyone who was born here period and all have a right to the term. Sooooo, in order to distinguish who they are dealing with the US Government uses First Nation which is about as good a term as they could think of. Got a beef with it Swamp, cry to them. After all, our true names such as Tsalagi Aniyunwiya Anikituwagi, Mamaceqtaw, Anishinaabe, Attikamekw, Dena'ina, Gayogohono , Kadohadacho, ect, ect, ect just doesn't seem to sit well with Government beaurocrats trying to keep records and write fact sheets. And Swamp, what has any of this got to do with such statements as no " Indian" is full blood, and "Indians" rely on checks from the Government to survive? To me, those words, out of your mouth, says what your gripe is about. Each has his own right to believe as he wants. More power to you, I'm done.

Unless Swampman PM'd you, I don't see any of the things you cite here, as coming from Swampman. So I don't know what the issue is. That not all Native Americans are pure blood, is actually a necessary stage in evolution. But connecting the dots then, it suggests that 12,000+ years ago, there were simultaneous other roving bands, of people of different cultures, and newer discoveries dispute the crossing of the Bering strait, as the only method of arrival on this continent.  So the possibility exists, that more than one culture of people arrived on this continent at the same time. As to whether one is "full blood" or 1/8, the Tribal Council hears EVERYONE who comes before it, to air issues.
Anybody who has half a brain knows that dividends, from the resources sold on a Reservation, is distributed among individuals in the Tribe, whether monthly or yearly, as pre-comp or a large amt. It does not come directly from the govt, but as earnings dividends.  Ther is no "more Native than another" in the tribe.

[Spirithawk]

BearMGC -Simply read this same discussion in the insperational forum and you can see for yourself what was said, not once but twice. Even though I disagree with what he professes and I most certainly take issue with his snide remarks, I don't neccessarily dislike Swamp. I'm not that thinned skin. I'll agree that we didn't all arive here in one wave but we blended together into what is popularly known as Indians. Swamps argument is that there was a European civilization here before that and I'm sorry but I flat out disagree.

Swamp, you judge a whole race by the actions of a few. Just aint right Swamp. Simple as that. You ever been on a reservation Swamp? You ever dealt with the poverty, the corruption of Government apointed officials, the lack of food, adequit water supplies, the lack of medical and schooling. Ever spent hours holding the hand of a  ( For your benifit ) Indian veteran trying to help him cope with both the war he left and the poverty he came home to? You ever froze your but off managing food and clothing drives for those freezing in bitter winters with little to survive on? I have, and when you have too, you come back and talk to me about how you have all the answers.

I don't think much can be said that hasn't been. As I already said....to each their own. The Creator will judge who's right in life in the end. Man's judgement is just smoke in the wind.

[Swampman]

Since the replies aren't relevant to the subject matter and what I believe has been declared by someone other than myself I guess this thread is done.  I won't stick my head in the sand due to a personal agenda and I will continue to believe that holding my head up, is the best way to display my Native pride.  I am interested in real history and the latest facts.  In a few years many myths will be discarded, as more truth comes to light.

[bearmgc]

Spirithawk, rather than dispel misconceptions, if that's what they are, what is accomplished by angy rebuttals? If there is a personal agenda, not related to this thread, why bring it up here? Why weren't misconceptions corrected before? Its obvious, many tribes are having socioilogical problems right now, whether it be learning curve, corruption in the business council, or problems with education, family values, crime. We know that. Native pride is about truthfully addressing these problems. New systems are being developed, largely because somebody spoke before the Council, and took the courage to tell the truth. For the record, Council members are elected by the members of the tribe, not the Govt. But that is not what this thread is about.

[Spirithawk]

The only reason it came to be so is that this is obviously a continuation of the previous thread and I take offense that one should think that his is the only way to show Native pride and any who does not follow suit is therefore some misquided race dependant on the Government for handouts. Bear, you care to exsplain what the second Wounded Knee was about? Corrupt officials were a big part of the reason. However, you are correct. This was about, the obvious - who came first and the not so obvious - use of the term First Nation. I opologise for getting off track even though I was somewhat baited.  I've said my thoughts, others theirs so let each believe what they feel comfortable with. I see no reason to pursue the matter other than to say show me verified proof, not theory, verified proof that Europeans were here in numbers larger than a few hunting groups and then and only then will I believe it. I can theorise that we never landed on the moon, after all don't conspiriacy theories expound that, but it don't make it so now does it?

[bearmgc]

Swampy's good at baiting.
 We will wait to see if more will be revealed. And if it is, we will deal with it. Yatahe.
God bless.

[Spirithawk]

Fair enough.  Yatahe my Dine' friend

[Swampman]

Like I said I'm done because the replys were off topic.

[mechanic]

There are many things in modern archaeology that are not easily explained.  The reason is that conclusions have been drawn long ago, and the elite don't want to change what they have learned and taught, and admit they were wrong.

There is abundant evidence that many peoples visited this land long before Columbus, including the Egyptians, the Romans, and Celtic people.  Did their blood mix with those who were here?  Likely.  Therefore aberrations in facial shape probably don't amount to much.  

I have a box of sherds that I collected 30+ years ago from straw wrapped and coal hardened pottery.  Amongst them was a sherd about 2" x 3" that has a perfect representation of a gothic cross.  When showing some of my sherds to a so called expert once, he dated them at about 10,000 years old.  When I handed him the cross, he said it dated to first contact.  All were found together, and the style of pottery is the same.  I don't trust dating methods.

We all came from common ancestry by my beliefs, Adam or first man as one wishes to call him.

My Muscogee ancestors looked nothing like the Cherokee, though both shared a common boundary and it is known they intermarried.  

The races have been mixed for as long as man has exhisted.  We cannot know all the history, as it is not written.  We can know when white Europeans first came here.  Beyond that, much is speculation, and subject to interpretation.

Ben

[Swampman]

Sorry, here's one more.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1630791/posts

[Spirithawk]

Swamp, in case you haven't noticed it's trying to be steered back that direction. Lets just keep how current,  Ughhh I hate this word, but to please you " Indians " should conduct themselves according to personal opinion out of it.

Mechanic, well said bud.

Now Swamp we both know you aren't sorry one bit. lol
Let me put it like this. Saying these theories, and they are STILL just that, theories are correct. Then where did they go if not blended into what you now prefer to call  UGGGHHHHH  Indians? IF they blended in and all the races became one general race then are they not still FIRST NATION? Surely you aren't going to try and tell me that they populated the whole continent and were all killed off by the UGGGGGHHHH Indians of today though that's just what you insinuated early on in the other thread?

[Dee]

Swampy ya baited this hole pretty good. Your gettin lots of bites.

[S.S.]

  "A nation fights as one body and in that manner it ensures it's right to exist."

Is this not what happened at little big horn? Multiple tribes whipped Custers butt if
I remember my history correctly.

[Swampman]

They fought well and Custer's ego got the 7th wiped out.  Luck I'd say

[williamlayton]

Where did the first nation come from?
Are ya'll suggesting it evolved? Evolved into the purity of the first nation.
Horse hockey.
There is black blood, asian blood, Perhaps Indian blood, European blood, oriental blood---many visitors from many lines and were the orientals all pure blood--or the blacks, or the asian.
Short sighted arguement is just--well--shortsighted. There never was any pure indian bloodline--it has been poluted since Adam and Eve.
Blessings

[mcwoodduck]

I was watching something on the history Channel the other day about who discovered America.
It showed that during the Ice Age there were european hunters that were hunting in VA for Manmoths before the migration across the berring strait could have been in the eastern coast.  There was an Ice bridge from Europe to the mid atlantic region and they surmised that Europeans from what is now France and Spain may have been the first humans on this continent to arrive by boat.  They think this because of the stone spear heads found in a manmouth were of europen design and not the Asian.  They also thing different groups came across the land bridge in Alaska from different parts of Asia.
They later talked about how and why some bands of Native Americans have European features, some have Asian Features, and some have a mix
They also talked about the Polynesians having sailed to South America and parts of the west Coast hundreds of years before Columbus.
And bringing technoligy and possibly colonizing.  As well as returning with Sweet potatos.
They also spoke of St. Brenden and Eric the Red having sailed to Nova Scotia hundreds of years earlier and showed possible Viking Coins left in Connetticutt around 1000 AD.  Years after St. Brenden set up a colony here and built a church.
I think The Native american are a blending of peoples and coultures from all over the world.  Much like Europeans are a blending of invaders from other parts.  The Franks that formed France are not from the area and moved there, Much like the Celts moved, invaded or were fleeing from otheres when they setteled into Ireland and Scottland.
Heck they even had peolple fleeing from Iseral as being part of the early American founders and one tribe said they were Isrealites.
Through out world history people have moved from place to place for food, to expand, concour, or flee.  Many places have been owned by many different people through out history.  Many were treated adly by the people that moved into the areas.  Just look at recient world history with the USSR and the break up of it and how under the Czar lands were subjagated and then more were under the Communist system and the breaking up of those chains sparked war in the Balkins, the breaking away of the Baltic states as well as the Ukraine.
If we as Americans do not embrace the melting pot of cultures that was the founding of people here and we continue to have the dash Americans we will cease.  i am not saying do not be proud of your herritage and where you came from but if we dwell on the something - American it lessens the American that this nation is about.  The current group in office wants to divide you and pit one group against each other.  And kill the American Dream that as long as you work hard, have a good idea, you can make it here.