Fisherman Pulls Up Beastly Evidence of Early Americans

A 22,000-year-old mastodon skull and tool dredged from the seafloor in the Chesapeake Bay hints of early settlers in North America.

The two relics, which were pulled up together, may come from a place that hasn't been dry land since 14,000 years ago. If so, the combination of the finds may suggest that people lived in North America, and possibly butchered the mastodon, thousands of years before people from the Clovis culture, who are widely thought to be the first settlers of North America and the ancestors of all living Native Americans.

I love reading about such finds. TRULY AMAZING!

news.yahoo.com...

a reply to: nighthawk1954

Except that "Clovis First" has been disputed for decades and its quite readily recognized by the majority of archaeologists and anthropologists to be untrue as there are pretty clear indications HSS have been in the America's quite a bit longer. There is a site a little north of Austin Texas that dates to between 15&16,000 BPE

It's called the Buttermilk Creek Complex
www.sciencemag.org...

I think it's time to drop the Native American moniker. The fossil record has proven long ago that they're not.a reply to: nighthawk1954

originally posted by: Oudoceus
I think it's time to drop the Native American moniker. The fossil record has proven long ago that they're not.a reply to: nighthawk1954

It's never meant to infer they just popped up out of the dirt...simply that they were here first. Not sure what your problem is with this.

a reply to: Oudoceus

All that name implies is that they were here for millennia and were the indigenous population of the Americas when Europeans first arrived here 522 years ago.

originally posted by: peter vlar
a reply to: Oudoceus

All that name implies is that they were here for millennia and were the indigenous population of the Americas when Europeans first arrived here 522 years ago.

...if you count Columbus. Can't forget the Norse, and probably the Basque and others.

a reply to: JohnnyCanuck

Damnit... You've got me there. I don't know how I could forget about the Norse another 500 years prior to ole Columbo. The basque claim I'm embarrassed to say I'm unfamiliar with. Do you have any links or recommended reading on that? Always happy to add something new to the wheel house.

you also forgot the egyptians (in ohio if i recall correctly) and the Hebrews carving graffiti in the middle of the western wastelands.

a reply to: stormbringer1701

Would I be correct in assuming the reference to Egyptians in Ohio is in regards to the so called "Burrows Cave"?
If so there's no evidence that its real aside from the claims of its alleged discoverer as nobody else haS seen it. Without verification, the claim doesn't really have any legs.

As for pre Colombian Hebrew contact, I again have to assume because you weren't very specific, but the only purported pre Colombian Hebrew is the so called Los Luna's Decalogue Stone. I honestly don't think its precolumbian and that its most likely what is called a Samaritan Mezuzah which was an inscribed stone at the entrance to a property or Synagogue. There is nothing else let alone anything concrete to indicate that any Hebrew speaking people were here at the timeframe associated with proto Hebrew as the would have had to have made their way to New Mexico of all places a minimum of 2500 years ago and there are no other traces of them anywhere else. Just my humble opinion.

It's not really important who was here first. Only in the minds of those who believe it makes a difference. I am sure someone was here back then, someone who made stone tools. It is possible that the tools that some of the spearheads that we claim are Native American or clovis made are actually much older. These people could have found these stones just as we have. They could have found some and started to make more like them, blurring the real creators. For all we know, there could have been another culture here at the time, even an advanced hominoid other than humans.

There is no proof of who made stone tools or even metal artifacts. People would have picked up these things, even gold artifacts, and brought them home. People were killing and plundering, taking the nicest for their brag rights back long ago. Some of the stone and metal artifacts we attribute to cultures could have been much older and made by a whole different society. The way they prove things is sometimes flawed. They relate things to the consensus of how they think things worked, this could all be wrong. But if those who are in this field back each other this forms reality, although it is possibly flawed it is reality.

Like I said, it really didn't matter. Some person created this artifact and neandarthals and other hominoids are people in my book.

originally posted by: peter vlar
a reply to: stormbringer1701

Would I be correct in assuming the reference to Egyptians in Ohio is in regards to the so called "Burrows Cave"?
If so there's no evidence that its real aside from the claims of its alleged discoverer as nobody else haS seen it. Without verification, the claim doesn't really have any legs.

As for pre Colombian Hebrew contact, I again have to assume because you weren't very specific, but the only purported pre Colombian Hebrew is the so called Los Luna's Decalogue Stone. I honestly don't think its precolumbian and that its most likely what is called a Samaritan Mezuzah which was an inscribed stone at the entrance to a property or Synagogue. There is nothing else let alone anything concrete to indicate that any Hebrew speaking people were here at the timeframe associated with proto Hebrew as the would have had to have made their way to New Mexico of all places a minimum of 2500 years ago and there are no other traces of them anywhere else. Just my humble opinion.

as far as additional evidence for egyptian transoceanic travel: undisturbed mummies and canoptic jars and other funerary paraphenalia with coca leaf residue allegedly without modern cross contamination.

as to the decalogue stone the nature of the hebrew used leads some researchers to the conclusion it was not modern or contemporary hebrew but an ancient long extinct script.

The Native American name was meant to be a jab at everyone living here who is not of Indian decent. It's an attempt to imply that we are less American. I was born here that makes me a native American. Like I said the fossil record spanning all the Americans has proven that they were not here "first". Do a little research. You will find evidence of other races of humans living in the Americas long before the "Bering land bridge" was formed. The oldest human remains found (approx. 50,000 years) were discovered near the tip of South America and guess what, They Ain't American Indian. You need to do your own research though. Because I'm sure you won't believe what I say.
reply to: JohnnyCanuck

a reply to: Oudoceus

Or you could do what anyone else does when making a claim related to science, support your supposition with a citation. Because without a citation its just your opinion. The onus lies squarely on you to support your statements, not on others to research the validity of your claims.

a reply to: stormbringer1701

Something to consider is that the derivative of the coca plant said to be found in the bitumen and pottery samples is a tropane alkaloid. While the coca plant is not found in Africa, there are several tropane alkaloids such as the belladonna plant which was actually used in some funerary preparations. There are many rational explanations for why these alkaloids were found in Egyptian funerary remains but trying to tie in a site in Ohio that nobody except for the alleged finder have seen with South American alkaloids is a huge stretch in my opinion. Especially since the tropane alkaloids haven't actually been found in human tissue, only in preparatory remains.

The proto Hebrew script that was located on the Los Luna's stone is, in my opinion, exactly that, proto-Hebrew which was in used between 3000 and 2500 BPE. I could certainly be wrong and would welcome some evidence to the contrary if you have any links, I would be more than happy to check them out.

originally posted by: Oudoceus
The Native American name was meant to be a jab at everyone living here who is not of Indian decent. It's an attempt to imply that we are less American. I was born here that makes me a native American. Like I said the fossil record spanning all the Americans has proven that they were not here "first". Do a little research. You will find evidence of other races of humans living in the Americas long before the "Bering land bridge" was formed. The oldest human remains found (approx. 50,000 years) were discovered near the tip of South America and guess what, They Ain't American Indian. You need to do your own research though. Because I'm sure you won't believe what I say.
reply to: JohnnyCanuck

I believe what you say, though it's within the archaeological record, and the genetic record that the information lies. Yes, it is emerging that the first visitors to the southern hemisphere quite possibly came from Micronesia around the 50kya mark. That is not hidden knowledge...it is emerging science. But even 15 years ago, there was muttering out of Monte Verde that they were looking at a possible 40kya occupation. But I doubt they got very far.

Your Native Americans can comfortably call first dibs on North America, through several migrations. I know that because I do do my research.

And your comment about you being a native American? Sure. That's why in Canada, we call our indigenous peoples the First Nations. I will add that even you noted the difference between native Americans and Native Americans. That subtle capital letter changes the context...sorta like north America and North America. Just sayin', eh?

originally posted by: peter vlar
a reply to: JohnnyCanuck
Damnit... You've got me there. I don't know how I could forget about the Norse another 500 years prior to ole Columbo. The basque claim I'm embarrassed to say I'm unfamiliar with. Do you have any links or recommended reading on that? Always happy to add something new to the wheel house.

Talk in Red Bay, Labrador is that the site (and others yet unknown) may well pre-date Columbus.

a reply to: JohnnyCanuck

I certainly don't rule it out. If I can entertain the possibility of the Solutrean hypothesis there's no reason that this too couldn't be a possibility. It'll have to be tonight's insomniac fixation!

originally posted by: stormbringer1701
you also forgot the egyptians (in ohio if i recall correctly) and the Hebrews carving graffiti in the middle of the western wastelands.

You recall poorly.

Harte

The end of the Younger Dryas whipped out 90% of biological life in North America.

The entire continent was completely burned out. It took 1500 years before life returned.



Its important to keep this in mind when dealing with America's past.



And stop using the Moniker: Columbus. His name was Cologne. Columbus is Columbia - Isis - Venus

a reply to: nighthawk1954

I love reading about such finds. TRULY AMAZING!

What would be ideal, is if you actually wrote something
more than one line. Provided some meat for discussion?

A quote, one line, an annotation and a link?

Here's my annotation.

This gentleman must be very good with a dredge?