Native Americans, Celts and Ancient Transatlantic Travel

This is the first of a series of threads on Native American Mysteries. These threads are and will be inspired by ATS-member NGC2736 who provided a collection of interesting facts and links on Native Americans

1. Linguistic Similarities between the Algonquin and the Celts

Most people age 30+ remember being taught in school that the first people to cross the Atlantic lived around the time of Columbus. Only recently this belief had to be revised when evidence for Vikings having crossed the Atlantic hundreds of years earlier came up. Schoolbooks were then re-written to say the Vikings were "the first" to cross the Atlantic. They should have said "probably" the first or "maybe" the first though. There is evidence that there was earlier trans-atlantic contact...the following being only one small piece of a growing number of indicators.

There are language similarities between the Algonquin and ancient Celtic and Gaelic. Some go further to take this not only of evidence of ancient trans-atlantic contact, but of common ancient roots of the Irish and the Native Americans (in the sense of Diffusionist or Atlantis-Theory).

The Algonquins (or Algonkins) are an aboriginal North American people. ...Algonquian-speaking peoples stretch from Virginia to the Rocky Mountains and north to Hudson Bay According to the oral history of the Anishinaabeg, they originally lived on the shores of the "Great Salt Water" (presumably the Atlantic Ocean near the Gulf of St. Lawrence). They were instructed by seven prophets to follow a sacred miigis shell (whiteshell) toward the wes

Modern Gaelic preserves many spelled letters that are no longer pronounced, but when pronounced in the ancient Gaulish or ancestral tongue of the Celts and Basques, one finds a striking similarity to the Algonquian language.

For example; the Algonquian word for ‘one who takes small fish' is Amoskeag. In Gaelic Ammo-iasgag means ‘small fish stream'. In Algonquian Ammonoosuc means ‘small fishing river' and in Gaelic, Am-min-a-sugh means; ‘small river for taking out fish'. In Algonquian Coos and cohas mean ‘pine tree' and in Gaelic, ghiuthas means ‘pine tree'. Merrimack River in Algonquian means ‘deep fishing'. In Gaelic Mor-riomach means ‘of great depth'. Kaskaashadi another Algonquian name for the Merrimack River sounds similar to Guisgesiadi, which in Gaelic means ‘slow flowing waters' Nashaway River in Algonquian means ‘land between' and in Gaelic naisguir means ‘land connecting'. Piscataqua River means ‘white stone' and in Gaelic, Pioscatacua means ‘pieces of snow white stone'. Seminenal River means ‘grains of rock', which in Gaelic is; semenaill Quechee matches the Gaelic work Quithe meaning pit or chasm. Ottauquechee River flows through a 162 feet deep gorge is similar to the Gaelic word Otha-Cuithe which means; ‘waters of the gorge'. Cabassauk River in Algonquian means place of Sturgeon. The Sturgeon fish have unfortunately fallen victim to environmental degradation. Similar to Gaelic Cabach-sugh. Attilah means blueberries and in Gaelic Aiteal means juniper berries. Munt means people and in Gaelic muintear means people. Monad means mountain and in Gaelic monadh means mountain. The suffix - nock is used in New England to denote hills and mountains. Cnoc in Gaelic means hill or rocky outcrop. Wadjak means on top, in Gaelic the word is uachdar. Monomonock Lake means 'island lookout place' and in Gaelic Moine-managh-ach 'means boggy lookout place'. Pontanipo Pond means cold water and in Gaelic Punntaine-pol means ‘numbingly cold pool' Natukko means cleared place (land) and in Gaelic Neo-tugha means not covered (by vegetation). Asquam Lake means ‘pleasant watering place' and in Gaelic Uisge-amail means ‘seasonable waters'. These names which have stuck, through many changes over the past 300 years, are not names left by Bronze Age European traders who have sporadicly visitored America. These are names given to these places by the indigenous Amerindians. As the Gaelic language is unrelated to any Indo-European languages, this can mean only one thing - that the Gaelic language was the original mother tongue of many Amerindians. It stands to reason that anyone speaking Gaelic related languages in Europe were originally from America. The native name of Brittany in France is Armorica, another big hint as to their origins.

Source

Unfortunately the celtic-algonquin connection is used by some to justify racist ideologies such as "The Celts brought language to the savage Injuns". A small hint of this theory can be found here:

Gaelic & Algonquin similarities

but there are much more racist websites out there endorsing the connection. Because of the misuse of this knowledge for racist ideology, most of academia dismisses the whole field of research.

Conviniently the pseudoskeptics opposing this idea can than call anyone proposing trans-atlantic contact prior to Columbus and the Vikings a "racist" - as witnessed on this discussion board many times. However, acknowledging that the languages have common roots or met each other at some points in history has nothing at all to do with racism.

Instead it points to common roots of the two languages (a native american one and Irish as it was spoken around the year 800) which remain unexplained.


ATSer: If you know any more about this please help!

Very interesting - the similarities between the words are intriguing, but it's not true that Gaelic isn't related to other European languages, it has a well-established place in the Indo-European language tree. From what I remember from what I was taught at Uni (as part of classes on Celtic culture and history), the Celtic languages are on the West European branch same as the Germanic and Latin groups among others, though somewhat closer to the Latin branch than the others.

Still, that all doesn't mean that there isn't some kind of link between the Amerindian languages and Celtic. Would have to think about how that might work though.

This is indeed intriguing, I am interested in seeing what other words are similar to help build up this case. Perhaps there might even be some sort of physical evidence if we could find out something like ancient trade routes or sea charts. We could use those to find where old trade posts and/or settlements were located, then start digging.

Originally posted by Skyfloating
Unfortunately the celtic-algonquin connection is used by some to justify racist ideologies such as "The Celts brought language to the savage Injuns".
Conviniently the pseudoskeptics opposing this idea can than call anyone proposing trans-atlantic contact prior to Columbus and the Vikings a "racist" - as witnessed on this discussion board many times. However, acknowledging that the languages have common roots or met each other at some points in history has nothing at all to do with racism.

Sky,
I agree that this is not a legitimate argument to be made against this idea, regardless of the truth of the history of the theory.

But I wonder if you've considered the meaning of that weird combination of root and prefix you seem to be so fond of using - "Pseudoskeptic?"

Similarities in word sounds (and the so-called "remarkable" similarities your source provides seems "remarkably" lacking in similarities,) in no way indicate any commonality in the roots of two different languages. Can you agree that this is so, or do we need to go into the Atlan - Atlantis dance?

This idea of people calling you racist, or I should say your pre-emptive defense against them, seems pretty straw-mannish to me. At the very least, broad-brushist.

Originally posted by Skyfloating
Instead it points to common roots of the two languages (a native american one and Irish as it was spoken around the year 800) which remain unexplained.

Well, at least you claim it's unexplained. I guess you (thankfully) didn't buy into the explanation your source gave:

... As the Gaelic language is unrelated to any Indo-European languages, this can mean only one thing - that the Gaelic language was the original mother tongue of many Amerindians. It stands to reason that anyone speaking Gaelic related languages in Europe were originally from America. The native name of Brittany in France is Armorica, another big hint as to their origins.

My emphasis.

I'm happy to note that you have enough sense to see how utterly and ridiculously ignorant that last bolded statement (especially the underlined part) really is.

Good for you.

Harte

Being Irish I had to learn Gaelic or Gaeilge. I know live in Spain and it has certain similarities to Basque. Not that we would understand it but some words are definatley similar.

Just my .02 worth!!!

I'm 58, and when I was 10, and in the 5th grade I learned that Leif Erickson sailed west to Canada and established a colony known as "Vinland," long before Columbus was born. There is also a story of an Irish monk sailing west to the North American continent. I'm sorry I can't document where or when I heard this, but I do recall that the monk's name was "Brendan," or "Brandon." If I recall this correctly, the monk actually returned to Ireland, but I could be wrong on this.
The theory you have is interesting. Why must we assume that all Native Americans migrated the land bridge across the Bering straits?
After all, Roman coins have been found in South America, and ancient Chinese artifacts have been found on the West coast of America. I think we limit our ancestors way too much.


[edit on 23-10-2008 by kettlebellysmith]

yer this is bang on. very good post.








Mod Note: One Line Post – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 24/10/08 by Jbird]

: 'Irish Origins of Civilization' by Michael Tsarion


I read an article in kindered spirit by karen sawyer interviewing michael tarion he has some interesting words

Originally posted by kettlebellysmith
The theory you have is interesting.

I agree. It is interesting. But it's also unevidenced.

Originally posted by kettlebellysmith
Why must we assume that all Native Americans migrated the land bridge across the Bering straits?

Science usually only assumes that for which they have evidence. Note that "assume" doesn't mean it's carved in stone. We all have to make assumptions all the time in order to exist. Doesn't mean they are true.

Originally posted by kettlebellysmithAfter all, Roman coins have been found in South America,

Never in situ or in context in any archaeological site. Thus, they could have been dropped or purposefully put where they were found as a joke or as a way to advance some carzy theory or maybe they weren't found there at all.

Originally posted by kettlebellysmith and ancient Chinese artifacts have been found on the West coast of America.

News to me unless you mean the anchor stones, which were found to match the local stone and were almost certainly used by Chinese immigrants that kept fishing fleets in the area in the early 1800's.

Originally posted by kettlebellysmith I think we limit our ancestors way too much.

I gotta agree here as well. Especially those that claim that ancient man couldn't possibly have done this or that without the help of aliens or giants or intelligent dinosaurs or psychic ability or advanced Atlanteans etc. etc. etc.

Harte

Edited to fix a typo and to add:

Hey to NGC2736, haven't spoken in a while, eh?

Harte

[edit on 10/23/2008 by Harte]

reply to post by Skyfloating


Other interesting Celtic stuff:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

One brief comment

Comparative linguistics

‘Fringe’ writers (who typically know nothing of the requirement of systematicity) often work cheerfully with examples involving only very approximate (and unsystematic) phonetic similarities; but many of them seem to think that very close similarity (again involving isolated pairs or sets of words in different languages) materially strengthens their case for an unrecognised connection. In fact, however, it is actually unreasonable to expect cognate forms to show exact or near-exact similarity where a long period of time has elapsed since they had a known or reconstructed ancestor form. Even clearly related cognate forms are normally distinguished by the results of a discernible degree of (largely systematic) change and (where several descendant languages are involved) divergence, e.g. French chien ‘dog’, pain ‘bread’ versus the equivalent Italian words cane and pane. Systematically very close similarity across a range of forms suggests very recent divergence in well-documented historic times (or else a fairly unusual degree of linguistic conservatism). On the other hand, un systematic close similarities between the members of isolated pairs/sets of words are likely to be accidental.

1. This article above will explain why the method used in the link by the original poster doesn't work. Why you cannot justify links between languages by word lists.

2. Take a careful look at the word list provided, notice the high level of fudging on the meanings of the words?

3. Alqonguin is both a name for a tribal group and of a language group. Which is he comparing it too? You might also check the historical range of those tribes.

4. I would recommend taking a look at those tribes that had historical contacts with the Norse - how did their language change? That includes the Inuit who encountered them in Greenland.

5. Note that Norse finding of America was proven by finding a habitation site and there were some other finds of Norse artifacts in Maine and elsewhere, spread by the Native Americans. Gaelic finds in America? Nada. Native American items in Europe prior to contact, nada.

6. Contact contamination. Cultures that are in contact share words. Algonquin's were in contact with the French/British for several decades if not centuries before their dictionaries were written down. Is the Dictionary being used for the comparison of the easiest known or from a later time? If not from the earliest time you'll have high levels of contamination.

Back in a couple of weeks

Originally posted by Skyfloating

There are language similarities between the Algonquin and ancient Celtic and Gaelic. Some go further to take this not only of evidence of ancient trans-atlantic contact, but of common ancient roots of the Irish and the Native Americans (in the sense of Diffusionist or Atlantis-Theory).

I've also seen work published that cites similarities between the Algonkian language (and folktales) and Finno-Ugrian. Lay a glottochronology on that and you have some idea of the time of divergence. As far as I know, Finno-Ugrian is related to Magyar and Basque...but I'm sure we're talking common roots, not a trans-atlantic diffusion. Certainly not as late as 800.

You have Solutrean/clovis similarities and that's going back about 13k, but that's also material culture. I'd say that if you draw a point in northern Eurasia, and have it spread east across the Bering Strait, southwest to Hungary, Spain and then to Ireland, and northwest to Finland, you'd have a better idea of the linguistic voyage. And just off the top of my head, I'd place that Ural to Canadian Boreal Forest trip at about 14kya.

Good thread, though.

..of course there are language similarities between the Algonquin and ancient Celtic and Gaelic, because they derive from us Nordic people.

But they were not in America before us because their land were not yet populated at the time you describe. We Nordic populated those English (Englanti as we said here before) islands before anyone else and left them to, what happened after is history. Ive read the EDDA that`s the Nordic Book Of Gods same as the bible to you, and many many years before Leif Ericsson he`s great great grandfather went to New Found Land ( Ny Funnet Land, in Nordic)
Hes mission was to search for (STYRBJORN) Stearbear, that had gone their for many years ago, he also wrote in his book, " we came finally to New Found Land and we have discovered that all Vinlanders (Americans) have long black hair, but not all, some have RED hair to and blue eyes .Maybe my great great grandfather and we have relatives here still?"

Many of you Americans can`t tell the difference between Scandinavian and Nordic, so i will teach you that now.

Scandinavia no matter what you read on WIKI or any were else is: Sweden Norway and Denmark.

Nordic is: no matter what you read on WIKI or any were else: Sweden Norway Denmark Finland Island Aland and Faroeislands.

That`s how we have named it since almost 3000 years back.

The history of the NORDIC people was my major, that is why i answered to this post.

Originally posted by spec_ops_wannabe
We could use those to find where old trade posts and/or settlements were located, then start digging.

In most jurisdictions, you aren't allowed to just "start digging" as it destroys the evidence. There's more to archaeology than goodies, and if you don't have proper context, then you don't have nuthin'.

In the real world, a "Relic Hunter" is nothing but a looter.

Originally posted by Kukulcangod
..of course there are language similarities between the Algonquin and ancient Celtic and Gaelic, because they derive from us Nordic people.

Hate to burst that bubble, but the Algonkian speaking peoples are not by any stretch what one would consider "Nordic".

Originally posted by Skyfloating
Unfortunately the celtic-algonquin connection is used by some to justify racist ideologies such as "The Celts brought language to the savage Injuns". A small hint of this theory can be found here:

Gaelic & Algonquin similarities

but there are much more racist websites out there endorsing the connection. Because of the misuse of this knowledge for racist ideology, most of academia dismisses the whole field of research.

Conviniently the pseudoskeptics opposing this idea can than call anyone proposing trans-atlantic contact prior to Columbus and the Vikings a "racist" - as witnessed on this discussion board many times. However, acknowledging that the languages have common roots or met each other at some points in history has nothing at all to do with racism.

Instead it points to common roots of the two languages (a native american one and Irish as it was spoken around the year 800) which remain unexplained.


ATSer: If you know any more about this please help!

Racism is a term invented by Karl Marx as a way of destroying political oponents, and he used it to great effect. So, you are either a communist, or just lacking in basic knowledge.

There is a simple fact here, and it is as follows:

The "native Americans" and "Celts" do share very similar languages. What you do not realise is that although these people are not directly related, they do share many other links, language similarities included.

The reasons that their languages have similarities are the reasons that the modern languages of the world have similar words... for example in England the word "bungalow" means a "single level, small house". In India, the same word, denotes a "low built dwelling, or hut".

It has nothing to do with "discovering America" as people constantly assume, and everything to do with "trade routes".

For example, people wrongly assume that just because a history book tells us that 3000 years ago England was filled with savages, few of which could read or write, then it must be correct. However, if they could not read or write how is it that they had a rich culture and traded fine jewellery and gold with the Egyptians? The evidence suggests a rich culture and very shrewd businessmen... especially if dealing in fine jewellery!!! These people had trade links with most of the "old world" and strong suggestions of links with the Americas. The Vikings certainly knew where America was, and look at how many Vikings settled in England/Scotland. Do you really think that because they settled in England, etc. they forgot where America was?

Not to mention there are accounts in Egypt of people trading as far away as South Africa. There are records of trade routes from South America across the Pacific to many Pacific islands. Details of trade routes from Japan to North America, and so on... these records are all thousands of years old in many cases. They are not easy to find, but they do exist.

There is a simple reason that these records are suppressed however, and that is that they do not fit with "currently accepted THEORY"... as such "professors" would loose their funding, and subsequently their jobs if they could put it all down on paper as it really happened, because then all the work would be done. So they come up with new theories here and there, and occasionally "discover" something new.

Do some homework for yourself though, and try to prove me wrong. You shall soon see that there is a plethora of evidence out there that backs up what I have said here.

Enjoy.

[edit on 23-10-2008 by dampnickers]

Read AMERICA, BC by Barry Fell [1977 NY Times]. It has all of the evidence you are looking for. It mentions Mystery Hill, NH [Check America's Stonehenge on the web]. The evidence says that colonies of the Iberic Celts were trading Michigan copper and new world furs to the Romans. The Romans asked where thay came from and were told Brittania. The Celts were careful of the resources thay controlled. They had once populated all of Europe [the Greeks called them the Keltoi] before the Romans drove them out and left them alone only when they had retreated to the British isles. When the Romans conquered a piece of Britannia, they found the tin mines but not the copper or the furs.
Leif and Brendan were late comers. Leif was looking for more lands and people to enslave [Vikings main booty from raids was people; slaves were traded as far as the middle east from the Nordic slave markets. Interestingly enough, the Icelandic Althing, symbol of democracy, was in a country where every household had at least several slaves]
In Fell's book he shows remarkable similarities between languages and shows that Micmac indian pictograms are nearly identical to Egytian heiroglyphs. There is also a link between Basque language and Northwest indian languages.

Originally posted by dampnickers There is a simple reason that these records are suppressed however, and that is that they do not fit with "currently accepted THEORY"... as such "professors" would loose their funding, and subsequently their jobs if they could put it all down on paper as it really happened, because then all the work would be done.

Nonsense. Academics require proof. In order to change the paradigm, you need proof...not indications, not intuitive leaps, but proof. Proof is provided by dating techniques..and not just one, because one date is no date. To boot, every academic would love to change the perception of the world but the nature of science is that it has to get past stringent review.

We see it happen...look at the acceptance that Columbus didn't discover America, that the Bering strait was not the intraglacial highway some 11kya providing access to the continent. Look at the sites that are now being accepted as 40kya. These are recent changes and they all went through a vetting process that removed all doubt.

pteridine refers to Barry Fell...most of his work is poo. As a epigrapher/linguist, he was a pretty good marine zoololgist. I have personally seen some of the petroglyphs he puports to interpret, and he is simply wrong.

We don't know the whole story, but science is not afraid of seeking it out. You change the story...you gotta be right!!

reply to post by JohnnyCanuck


What tripe!

You talk as if professors never get things wrong, simply because they have a "vetting process".

I have personally been involved in these "processes" and when professionals provide solid proof, the "overseers" of these vetting processes still have the power to disregard it. Often they do!

Why? Because it doesn't fit in with currently accepted theory.

Research a chap called David Rohl. He spent years trying to convince Egyptologysts that their timelines were wrong. He was ridiculed and laughed at, even when he provided proof. It took him decades to get people to begin to change their minds...

In addition to this, at no time have I ever suggested, or insinuated that I have a "gut feeling" or whatever words you inferred, that I am right, just because it "feels right". Instead, if you bothered to read my words, I have suggested that I have done my own research and proved beyond a shadow of a doubt for myself that what I know is correct. I also suggested that you should go out and do the research for yourself.

It seems that you are forgetting the first tennet of this site... deny ignorance.

You may do just that by doing some research, instead of blindly denying what I have said.

Or are you just an ignoramous, and not a person that denied ignorance?