Why is their no Ancient Civilization in North America?

I too have been puzzled by this. Every continent has its own "claim to fame", its own advanced society... granted, Australia is an exception (unless you take into account early Egyptian visits)... so why not North America?

Hopi and Navajo are good choices, but lack a fundamental achievement... their OWN society. Both cultures take into account and give credit to other earlier peoples. The same can be also said about the Mayans and Aztechs... never once, in any of their tales or legends, do they claim self knowledge; I guess the same arguement can be used with the Sumerians / Chaldeans, but do get back onto topic...

Roughly 10,000 years ago, North America was home to one of the largest ice formations. You cannot have an expanding society, a developing society, when the climate and environment fight you. There would be no opportunity to grow.

Even earlier still, say about 30,000 years ago (give or take 4,000 years), you have the North Pole located within the Hudson Bay area... making the entire North American region either as an "arctic" or a "frozen tundra" type ecology. Again, not an amble breeding ground for development. Please go to www.flem-ath.com... for more details concerning the Hudson Bay Pole.

Now, Flem-Ath and I have discussed these matters concerning the polar shift. He believes in a gradual alteration... so, even though I gave the date of 30,000 years, in essence, the ice and cold climate probably existed much earlier then that; he believes in the teachings of Charles Hapgood, that the entire earth surface, floating on top a molten ocean, is able to shift. I much rather prefer a magnetic alteration, that the magnetic poles are fluid and able to adjust.

But no matter what, for many thousands upon thousands of years, North America was what we find within the Actic Circle.

That, I believe, is why there are no ancient civilizations within North America.

Originally posted by Spehno
You have to walk up quite a few steps, over 200. The most famous of these mounds is Monk's mound. There are as many as 120 of these mounds. They are believed to have been built around 700 ad. It is believed that over 20,000 members of the Cahokia tribe lived at and around this area.

Thanks for the image I was wondering how it looks like, by the way I should have say by the Mississippi not in Mississippi.

I wonder if any digs has done in the base of the mound to see if it anything inside the mound.

Also I wonder also if one of the reason civilizations did not flourish that much it was due the Climate in the area compare to southern and central America.

Originally posted by marg6043

Originally posted by Spehno
You have to walk up quite a few steps, over 200. The most famous of these mounds is Monk's mound. There are as many as 120 of these mounds. They are believed to have been built around 700 ad. It is believed that over 20,000 members of the Cahokia tribe lived at and around this area.

Thanks for the image I was wondering how it looks like, by the way I should have say by the Mississippi not in Mississippi.

I wonder if any digs has done in the base of the mound to see if it anything inside the mound.

Also I wonder also if one of the reason civilizations did not flourish that much it was due the Climate in the area compare to southern and central America.

From what I remember there has been a few different digs at the site. I believe they actually found bodies inside the mound. I am not totally certain on that but I do think that is correct. It is quite an interesting place. There is also what they think is a calender with many very tall posts. The posts go as high as 10 feet and 5 feet into the ground.

Originally posted by soothsayer
I too have been puzzled by this. Every continent has its own "claim to fame", its own advanced society... granted, Australia is an exception (unless you take into account early Egyptian visits)... so why not North America?

Hopi and Navajo are good choices, but lack a fundamental achievement... their OWN society. Both cultures take into account and give credit to other earlier peoples. The same can be also said about the Mayans and Aztechs... never once, in any of their tales or legends, do they claim self knowledge; I guess the same arguement can be used with the Sumerians / Chaldeans, but do get back onto topic...

Roughly 10,000 years ago, North America was home to one of the largest ice formations. You cannot have an expanding society, a developing society, when the climate and environment fight you. There would be no opportunity to grow.

Even earlier still, say about 30,000 years ago (give or take 4,000 years), you have the North Pole located within the Hudson Bay area... making the entire North American region either as an "arctic" or a "frozen tundra" type ecology. Again, not an amble breeding ground for development. Please go to www.flem-ath.com... for more details concerning the Hudson Bay Pole.

Now, Flem-Ath and I have discussed these matters concerning the polar shift. He believes in a gradual alteration... so, even though I gave the date of 30,000 years, in essence, the ice and cold climate probably existed much earlier then that; he believes in the teachings of Charles Hapgood, that the entire earth surface, floating on top a molten ocean, is able to shift. I much rather prefer a magnetic alteration, that the magnetic poles are fluid and able to adjust.

But no matter what, for many thousands upon thousands of years, North America was what we find within the Actic Circle.

That, I believe, is why there are no ancient civilizations within North America.

I thought it took millions of years for contients to drift apart? or polar shifts have nothing to do with that?

arent all the NAtive American Indian tribes ancient civilizations ??? i mean who knows for how long were they here ???

Originally posted by Spehno
From what I remember there has been a few different digs at the site. I believe they actually found bodies inside the mound. I am not totally certain on that but I do think that is correct.

Yes...........I remember now that it was some controversies about the digging around and in the site and it was complains by the Native Americans that the place was a sacred place.

Originally posted by supafresh
I thought it took millions of years for contients to drift apart? or polar shifts have nothing to do with that?

Continental drift and global shift displacement are two different things.

Yes, continental drift, the moving of continents away from each other, does take millions of years. I believe our land masses move about 1/2 to 1 inch a year.

Global shift displacement, however, can be attained anywhere from (the most) 2000 years to as little as instant.

The way Rand Flem-Ath explains it, take an orange... loosen the peel (but leave it intact) from the orange itself. The peel represents our world's surface, and the orange its interior/molten mass. You can now rotate the peel about while keeping the center free from movement. The description I liked better was that of gravy... you have that hardened top layer (earth surface) which can slide across the liguid (molten) layer.

The reason you can have both drift and displacement is simple: Our continents, oceans, and everything else we can "see" is of one geological layer... the crust. All the earthquakes and volcanoes and drifting occur within and on top of the same layer... the crust.

Everything on or part of the crust rests (or floats) on top of the molten interior; so, while you have continents moving apart, you can also have the entire surface slide about.

Magnetic polar shifts have nothing to do with the crust, land masses, or anything else. The earth's core acts like a giant rotating magnet, a gyroscope. Sometimes, like a spinning top or a gyroscope, a little shift or wobble happens before it rights itself back up again. Since the earth already has a wobble due to its rotation (precession), this could, in essence, throw off the natural wobble of the magnetic core; there is geological evidence to support the claim that our North Pole (magnetic) was located elsewhere (several elsewheres).

A true axis polar shift (the point in which the earth rotates) could be thrown off for many reasons: impact with a celstrial object (large enough to alter our spin), proximity to another celestrial object (gravity effects), or the weight distribution of land masses, to mention a few.

It is this last one which is key to this discussion.

Right now, our rotation is pretty stable... our land mass is equally distributed, with a solid icy core at the South Pole. Even if all the ice in Antarctica were to melt, the water would be evenly distributed, and the Antarctic land would still be there. However, if the ice were to be relocated, with say an Ice Age in North America, because there is now more mass located in one area instead of being throughout, that extra mass would be enough to throw our rotation erratically as the earth tries to "right" itself.

*Also, too, it should be noted, that this could also trigger a global shift displacement*

Hope this makes some sense... I know I can go off on tangents some times!

The Americas have many ancient peoples of their own. In North America there are many Mound sites around the Midwest US. Many of the native Indians were nomadic and had no need for a premanent buildings except for some scared sites. Cahokia is one of the largest and best preserved. These sites were made of earth mounds sometimes in the shapes of animals, like the Great Serpent Mound in OH. When settlers came into these areas they just saw them as being in the way of farming and many were destroyed.
Sites like Cahokia were large cities for their time, at its greatest point it had more people then London.
Mississippian, Adena, Hopewell and Caddoan were the largest of the mound builder groups.

Thet all visited the americas, North America. It is that our archaeology society today that is involved with the goverments of the world have been covering up many finds of the past and today.

It is as simple as saying area 51 exists but the country is covering it up.

there are several websites that talk about this and all have a similiar explanation why there are no artifacts around today. Any archaelogy dig in North America has to coordinate with the smithsonian, and with this the gov allows what it wants to go public.

Check out these sitesForbidden KnowledgeEgyptian artifacts in ArizonaGiants of the Royal Incassacred amuletsSaga of Burrows cave

here's some other info

www.ancientamerican.com...

Originally posted by Chakotay
.The Indians- all 3000+ Nations of us- are the Original People. Get used to it. We encompass all races- stop thinking of us as one race opposed to another. Our legends tell us we are the ancestors of all humans. Maybe so.

As for the Aztecs, Incas, and Mayas- surprise! Indians and Mexicans, Indians and Maya, Indians and Peruvians- are the same thing.

The Spanish and English instituted a language barrier. It is artificial, and only the Spanish and English believe that seperates North from South. We are One People, Many Nations, All Races.

There is no such thing as a race.We all belong to the same specie : Homo sapiens...

[edit on 30-5-2005 by DarkSide]

Caral, Peru thought to be the oldest city in America. Nearly 5,000yrs old, thats about as ancient as Modern Civilization gets.
www.smithsonianmag.si.edu...

Another link to Caral.
archaeology.about.com...

[edit on 30-5-2005 by lost_shaman]

Regarding "oldest cities" in the Americas, I cannot help but laugh. Not because they are the oldest, but because of something entirely else...

According to the experts, the Americas were first inhabited along the Siberian Straitt, moving downward.

So, they mean to tell us that although the Indian ancestors came from up north, they walked all the way down to South America, and then built cities.

Let's not forget that after the cities were built, they then decided to travel back north, into central America (not to be confused with Central America), to teach and help other nations develope.

Sounds backwards to me. You would think that, since they were in the North first, THAT's where you would expect to find the oldest cities, or at least, the oldest settlements.

I know, I know... they were nomadic, following the great Mammoth herds across the tundra and Great Plains, and decided, like all aging cultures, to move south and settle down in the warmer climates.

Still sounds rather backwards. The only thing that would make sense is for them to have first arrived in the south... but that's on different threads, isn't it?

Originally posted by Chakotay

Originally posted by supafresh
I will simply not accept that the indians were the only people to inhabit north america... You would think that maybe the Azteks , Inca's or Maya's would have some sort of influence on the people who were living in north america at the time.

Try 'Why don't I know about the Ancient Civilization in North America'.

The Indians- all 3000+ Nations of us- are the Original People. Get used to it. We encompass all races- stop thinking of us as one race opposed to another. Our legends tell us we are the ancestors of all humans. Maybe so.

As for the Aztecs, Incas, and Mayas- surprise! Indians and Mexicans, Indians and Maya, Indians and Peruvians- are the same thing.

The Spanish and English instituted a language barrier. It is artificial, and only the Spanish and English believe that seperates North from South. We are One People, Many Nations, All Races.

Mainstream archaeology tends to erase us. Try this link and this link.

OK I have no idea what you're talking about because it makes no sense. We aren't one nation. Mexicans and Germans are not the same people. LOL Far from it mate. We aren't all 'One People' as you call it. Blacks are different than whites, just as whites are different than mexicans, etc. etc. Please don't rant about everyone being 'One People' again.

TextAnasazi is not truly the correct name the Navajo called them this but more as ancient enemy so it is known the Anaszi were forefathers of the pueblo people.
So they are now usually refrenced as Ancestral Puebloans.
Also if interested in othr ancient civilzations of the southwest or forefathers look for Mogollon and Hohokam.
There is place in Nothern Chihuahua Mx called Casas Grandes where there is an archelogical site that has been tied to the Mogollon.
I once had the opportunity to visit and now kick myself for not going. Actually have a cousin that lives in near by Nueva Casas Grandes so I would have had free room and board.
I still remember from childhood memories the Tahrahumara (ramruri) women with their babies tied in a sling selling items on the streets of Juarez. I looked at them with wonder, awe andd sadness.

reply to post by Amaravos


Yes Anazazi means Ancient Enemy,
There have been some astounding discoveries made recently involving the Anazazi, that shed light on the Ancient Enemy apellation.

Originally posted by supafresh
I’ve been puzzled by this for along time now.. You read and see on the new archeologists are finding older and older civilizations in the Asian and European parts of the world. This all got me thinking. Why isn’t there anything hiding in the remote parts of the United States.

Obviously we wont find Atlantis under Newark new jersey but my question is.

Are the Indians the only inhabitants of America?

Did the Indians ever reference any other existing people before them?

Could there be Indian cave paintings that may lead to such a discovery?

The reason there werent any more advanced civilizations in north america is because the comet strike of 12,500 years ago that caused the collapse of the laurentide ice sheet, and its subsequent effects on the environment of north america, caused a massive depopulation. In order to survive the some of the remaining people fled south and into mexico to start the mesoamerican cultures that gave rise to the olmec and maya.
The aztec were actually new comers arriving from "caves" in the north in the 12th 13th? centuries.
North america was effectivley set back several thousand years by the effects of the comet strike.
The the modern native native americans all thats left of the several groups that may have initially inhabited north america.
aside from the idea of man evolving independantly in north american
Heres a real good thread on the early population of the americas.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

The first time I went to Mesa Verde, cliff dwelling national park, as soon as
I got out of the car I was overwhelmed by a feeling of dread and despair, and looked at my wife and said " this place has bad ju-ju".
Ive never felt anything like that, and that was 20 years ago, before some of the more macabre revelations about the "Anazasi" were learned, like the whole canabalism thing.

Heres my personal take on the "Anazasi", I am using "Anazasi" because I feel that what we know as the Anazasi culture is actually two different people who had a predator and prey relationship.

First off when the Anazasi first come on the scene they lived in small farming communities in the lowlands of the canyon lands.
At some point in time they started to move into the ever increasingly precipitous and inaccesable cliff dwellings.
This move corresponds to the appearance of the very large ceramonial kivas in the lowlands.

On the cliff dwellings, in most places each cliff dwellings mesa or butte was in sight of one or more cliff dwelling sites. And these in turn were in sight of a large kiva in the lowlands.
Secondly, a complete skeleton was recently discovered buried at a large lowland kiva.
The skelton is not that of a four corners native but that of a mexican, as is attested to by the feathers of mexican tropical birds founs with it and the teeth are filed to sharp points, a practice that was common in central mexico at the time but not among the people of the four corners.
Many sites have been discovered that show signs of canabalism, and many other sites have been disovered that were left as though the people who lived there fled in a hurry, leaving corn on the gind stone and such.

Some of the larger kivas are contructed very much like a modern prison.
there are many small rooms, with no windows and doors that only open to the interior corridor. And there is only one way in or out of the building.

The cliff dwellings are an obvious reaction to a threat, they all have an easliy deffended choke spot to restrict access from below.

So I think that the people of the four corners, were invaded by other people from the south. These people were likely drivin from their homes in mexico by intercity warfare that was rampant in central mexico at the time.
These more advanced people quickly became rulers over the locals. They brougth with them their practice of human sacrifice that included ritualistic canabalism, ie eating the heart of the victim.
As the climate changed and the area grew more arid and crops began to fail they would raid the local villages to obtain food and sacrifical victims.
this caused the locals to move into the ever more precipitous cliff dwellings in order to escape the maurading lowlanders.
As times got tougher and the lowlander had a harder time getting food through raids they turned to actual canablism to survive.
Eventuall the ruling class went back to mexico, and maybe just maybe were the ancestors to the mexica. Aztec was far more brutal than that of the other cultures around them.

A museum in the sw had a collection of kachina dolls, and several of a particular type that was a malevolent spirit. These were black figures that represented night spirits.

Now there is no cover in the south west, and from your lookout on the mesa top you would be able to see a raiding party from miles away during daylight. But if you moved under the cover of darkness you could raid a cliff dwelling and have the element of surprise.
could this malevolent night spirit be a distant memory of the night raids by the lowlanders?

reply to post by DarkSide


We might be the same species but we come in different "breeds" so to speak, just like the wide variety of dogs, all the same species but with differences.

But humans do come in two distinct types as differntiated by dentition.
Africans, caucasians and autralasians(pacific islanders, south east asians:thias malays philipinos and aboriginal australians are sundadonts, and siberians, north asians, han chinese, modern japanese and native americans are sinodonts.
there is a distinct difference in tooth structure between the two types, with teeth having different numbers of roots and different shapes.
It is sinodonty that gives rise to the stereotypical bucktoothed apperance of many asian populations.

reply to post by soothsayer


Putting aside the comet impact theory, at a glance it would appear that Central America (Mexico, Belize, Guatemala, Honduras - the fish tail section) was the "New York City" and the North and South Americas were the suburbs.

The reason I say this is because Central America has the most quantity of complex temple structures. The population was most concentrated in the middle of the Americas.

I too believe some event in the past stunted the population and technological advancement of the Native Americans, way before the Spaniards arrived.

I have a feeling their "D.C." is at the bottom of the Caribbean.


Edit for spelling.

[edit on 15-7-2009 by lostinspace]