Native Americans, Celts and Ancient Transatlantic Travel

reply to post by JohnnyCanuck


The Mic Maq did indeed ally themselves with the French.

Stop lying. There is no need for it.

Originally posted by TruthTellist
reply to post by JohnnyCanuck

 

The Mic Maq did indeed ally themselves with the French.

Stop lying. There is no need for it.

Since we're talking about linguistics here, I think 'lying' is a little bit strong. I wasn't disputing this alliance. My point was with the Iroquoin speakers...who seem to be being invoked as if all Indians are the same...which they are not.

In the grand scheme of things, the MicMaq were trading parters of the French, so they were caught up in the conflicts against the English until the conquest. And they are also Algonkian-speaking.

But mind your manners, Pumpkin. No need to be rude.

The Nez-Pierce language is supposed to have marked similarities to the Basque language. Perhaps the Basque are the last of the Iberic Celts. I did not find Barry Fell's work to be "poo." If Johnny Canuck has some expertise in the area, I am willing to listen and be enlightened as to why it is "poo." Much of the evidence is not epigraphic but is stone structure. The so called "Viking Tower" in Newport, Rhode Island and the observatory at Mystery Hill, NH in addition to the various dolmens and "root cellars" say that the land was colonized long before the Vikings failed colony on Greenland and long before Brendan's coracle was carried west.
Climate change purveyors should note that Greenland was not called Whiteland, Snowland, Coldland, or Glacierland. The Earth was warmer then than it is now and this made the voyages somewhat easier.
I will look to my sources for a reference to a merchant ship that sunk in the Med during Roman times. Part of the cargo was copper ingots. The ingots of the time look something like small pillows -- made by pouring molten copper into a depression -- that were small enough to be carried in baskets to load vessels. The isotopic ratio of the copper was measured to determine the origin of the metal. The best match was the Upper Michigan Peninsula.
It is true that the Celts were assimilated after the Romans repeatedly defeated them throughout Europe and those in the British Isles were untouched until the Vikings started raiding for booty and, especially, slaves. Depopulation by forced emigration for coastal dwellers.
St. Patrick was the son of a Roman soldier and a British camp follower. How Celtic he was is up for discussion but it looks like "not very." The snakes may say differently, but we haven't heard from them, yet.
There was nothing particularly noble about any of the ancient peoples as they all survived as best they could, conquered what they could, and tried to have the easiest lives possible when they could.
This attitude was an early preview of Wall Street brokers.

for the record , Basque is NOT related to Gaelic. it is an isolated language from pro-Indo European times.

i.e. its actually pre-celtic.


en.wikipedia.org...

Originally posted by pteridine
I did not find Barry Fell's work to be "poo." If Johnny Canuck has some expertise in the area, I am willing to listen and be enlightened as to why it is "poo."

Much of what Fell came up with is simply bad science, and it is not a conspiracy for knowledgable people to dismiss his work. I refer you to the following website for other opinions: www.hallofmaat.com...

I will look to my sources for a reference to a merchant ship that sunk in the Med during Roman times. Part of the cargo was copper ingots. The ingots of the time look something like small pillows -- made by pouring molten copper into a depression -- that were small enough to be carried in baskets to load vessels. The isotopic ratio of the copper was measured to determine the origin of the metal. The best match was the Upper Michigan Peninsula.

I have seen a similar paper and have spent a while trying to track it down.

There are still a lot of questions out there, but just because we don't know the answers doesn't mean we should accept poor ones. Look to Farly Mowat...The Farfarers...for a more reasoned approach than Fell.

(bbcode)

[edit on 24/10/08 by Jbird]

Originally posted by TruthTellist
reply to post by pieman

 

I already apologized for daring to mention it a couple of posts ago. I'll say it again: I'm sorry I pointed out the phonetic similarities. I won't do it anymore...

I guess there is no point in mentioning that although they allied themselves with the French against the English, they Allowed Irish missionaries and traders into their society - which led to their majority converting to Roman Catholicism and assimiliating of English/Irish culture.

This greatly enhanced their ability to negotiate with Great Britain, as they could read and write the language as well as the English could and had an almost parliamentary type system of governance, which earned them respect and aided treaty ratification as their representatives spoke with the authority of their Nation and who represented them via democratic processes.

Noble Savages Indeed. They had long ago relegated the mantle and power of Kings and Queens to mere symbols in favour of a proto-Republic, wher Women were equal Hence - 'matricarchial'

-they couldn't admit such a society existed, there would be riots back in England.

[edit on 24-10-2008 by TruthTellist]

in traditional Irish culture, the family name would pass down through the MOTHER of the family. not the father.

that tradition still lives on. the irish mother is traditionally the centre of the family - and even nowadays that is still case. which is radically different to the father centred anglo-saxon culture.

a curious aspect of this, is that i find this tradition to be very similar to mediterranean cultures, especially italian. we all seen those Mafia films, where you have some mafia psycho gangster turning into an utter wimp because "mama" is giving out to him...

VERY similar to the Irish!

excellent wikipedia resource here - on pre-columban contact with the americas

en.wikipedia.org...

Originally posted by netron
excellent wikipedia resource here - on pre-columban contact with the americas

en.wikipedia.org...

I never thought of looking at wikipedia for this. Excellent overview right there. Thanks a lot.

This is very interesting, just as I think that groups of people came to South America from South Pacific/ South Asian Islands.

You can see similarities in people's appearances that can't easily be explained.

Unfortunately, most of the beliefs in migration seem to be static, that people came in groups within a relatively limited time frame over specific routes, instead of dynamic migrations over hundreds of years.

Perhaps with the introduction of Royalty, government, power bases, etc, the migrations stopped as people's lives began to be ruled over by those higher in power who then created invisible borders that ultimately separated people.

Originally posted by netron
in traditional Irish culture, the family name would pass down through the MOTHER of the family. not the father.

that tradition still lives on. the irish mother is traditionally the centre of the family - and even nowadays that is still case. which is radically different to the father centred anglo-saxon culture.

doesn't add up, when you say traditionally, up until when? post christian it always patriarchal, and if a family name was carried through the mother pre-christian then why is it that every o' and mac is followed by a male name?

it's a feminist myth that celtic culture was in any way matriarchal, women had a certain level of rights but it was still essentially a masculine culture. while you could use your mothers clan name, that clan name was still masculine, o donnells or o brians or whatever.

the other thing i'ld mention is, to say irish men go weak kneed when their mother starts yelling is a bit misleading, irish men tend to get a bit wobbly if any irish woman starts giving out, they're all crazy.
______________________________________________________________

truthtellist, don't appologise to me, i'm just trying to add what i can. it was well worth putting the idea forward, i just thought it was worth explaining the name thing further as the miq mak/mc mac is pretty compelling at first glance.

in saying that, something has occurred to me in relation, you mentioned that m'ikmaq is derived from "my kin friend", i've often heard mac used in roughly the same way in the west of ireland, the phonetic form is slightly different due to a complexity of the language, so it didn't pop straight into my head, but the meaning is there.

[edit on 24/10/08 by pieman]

I believe this is my first post on ATS, though I've been a lurker for many months. I just have a few things to say.

There is another, widely-documented connection between Tibetans and Hopi Indians. Google "Hopi-Tibetan connection" for more info.

Secondly, there is an excellent book out, published in 2007, entitled "1491." It's a journalistic summary of the most recent shifts in the scientific paradigm regarding our opinion of what life was like in the Americas before Columbus. It's very much worth reading, if this subject interests you.

Finally, beware of any theories that presume any sort of paternity. Most Natives will tell you that their people were created right here in North America. And really, we have yet to provide concrete evidence to disprove them.

Originally posted by pieman
doesn't add up, when you say traditionally, up until when? post christian it always patriarchal, and if a family name was carried through the mother pre-christian then why is it that every o' and mac is followed by a male name?

it's a feminist myth that celtic culture was in any way matriarchal, women had a certain level of rights but it was still essentially a masculine culture. while you could use your mothers clan name, that clan name was still masculine, o donnells or o brians or whatever.

the other thing i'ld mention is, to say irish men go weak kneed when their mother starts yelling is a bit misleading, irish men tend to get a bit wobbly if any irish woman starts giving out, they're all crazy.

That's what I was trying to point out on the other page, but got put on 'ignore' for the trouble.

I don't buy into this idea that the Celts were a specifically matriarchal society either. As well as the point I mentioned about names, it raises a question about the predominantly - but not solely - male druids who played such an integral role in Celtic society.

Similarly the idea that it's an Irish - and therefore Celtic - trait that the women are centre of the family is a nonsense too. I know a lot of 'Anglo-Saxon' families where it's definitely the woman that's 'worn the trousers' and a couple of Irish families where the wife/girlfriend has more of less been on the receiving end from what can only be called abuse from their Irish partners. In a lot of working class/large families, the woman is often both the engine and the tiller that drives families and keeps them afloat. That's down to the resourcefulness, resilience and strength of the actual woman, not some notion of notion of matriarchy.

[edit on 24-10-2008 by Merriman Weir]

reply to post by Merriman Weir


ignore is a compliment of the highest regard, you should be proud. it can't be your first time on ignore though, you're a disagreeable sod

na, i get the mother thing, it's universal i think, there was a piece on the radio a while back that was talking about the difficulty muslim women have in regard to being judged against an idolised mother by their husbands.

there were no female druids that i know of. i've never read a good history nor heard a myth nor read a fiction that had a woman as the leader of anything significant. women weren't treated as badly as they might have been but they were still 2nd class.

just generally, the big stone heads on page 3 don't seem all that unlike the natives, is that just me?
the south americans used stone tools, i thought, i'ld imagine this affected the way that the carved these figures. does anyone know if there a sculptor on ATS that might be able to give me/us an assessment of the techniques involved.

Originally posted by pieman
reply to post by Merriman Weir

 

there were no female druids that i know of. i've never read a good history nor heard a myth nor read a fiction that had a woman as the leader of anything significant. women weren't treated as badly as they might have been but they were still 2nd class.

Here is 1 female warrior leader.....

en.wikipedia.org...




[edit on 24-10-2008 by Heratix]

Very interesting thread. I enjoy this sort of thing.

However, it is commonly thought that Gaelic is not the native language of the people who call themselves the "Celts" today, but rather it must have been adopted.

Genetic studies show that the people of the Isles, (Ireland, England, Wales, and Scotland) are genetically most similar to the Basques.

DNA methods for seeking ancient ancestry are increasingly being used to test the origins of the Basques.[1][2][3] An interesting possibility is that Parkinson's disease may be related to the Basque dardarin mutation.[4] Partly as a result of DNA analysis, "...there is a general scientific consensus that the Basques represent the most direct descendants of the hunter-gatherers who dwelt in Europe before the spread of agriculture, based on both linguistic and genetic evidence..."[5] This would make them the descendants of some of the earliest human inhabitants of Europe.

The Basque genetic markers also reveal a very strong relationship with the Celtic peoples of Ireland, Wales and Cornwall.[6][7] The shared markers are suggestive of having passed through a genetic bottleneck during the peak of the last ice age, which would mean the two peoples were in Europe by at least about 17,000 years ago, and probably 45,000 to 50,000 years ago. Despite the genetic connection, there is little reason to suppose that the Celtic languages are related to Basque. It is rather probable that British people related to the Iberian population switched to Celtic with La Tène culture migrations, but we can only speculate on whether these ancient peoples were using a language related to Basque or some other language.

And while there is significant Scandinavian genetic input in parts of Scotland and England, they certainly did not populate the islands as someone else mentioned.

www.geneticarchaeology.com...

The second half of this episode concludes with a round table style discussion where the findings of the DNA analysis are revealed. Julian starts by clarifying that there are two types of Vikings: Norwegian and Danish, and continues by saying that initially about 30% of the population of Shetland and Orkney are of Norwegian Viking descent. By the end of the analysis the figure was revised to 60%. The next area discussed was Durness in the Hebrides which was discovered to have 30% of the male population being of Norwegian Viking descent.

They continue to the Isle of Man in the Irish Sea, where 15% of the male populations are found to be of Norwegian Viking descent. They move on to Castlerea in Ireland, where they found that no one there was of Viking descent, Norwegian or Danish. Julian then discusses Dublin where there is significant archeological evidence of Vikings, but where they found that 0% of the male population is of Norwegian Viking descent.

Julian continues to Anglesey and Wales where no genetic evidence is found of a Viking genetic contribution to the area. In fact the only English sites tested that had any genetic evidence of Norwegian Vikings was Penrith, though the amount isn't disclosed.

It would be really interesting to see some genetic study undertaken to discern if indeed there were some genetic link between the Algonquin people and the people who either call themselves "Celtic" today or those who genetically were.

reply to post by Heratix

good point, and now i think of it there is an irish legend in which a woman plays a prominent part, it's called the brown bull of cooley and meave is a key componant.

i retract my no significant leader statement.

that doesn't make it a matriarchal society though. bodicca was allowed to lead her people, but only after her husband was dead. meave was allowed to be queen and rule, but the society was still patriarchal by nature, although more equal than rome or greece, for instance.




[edit on 24/10/08 by pieman]

reply to post by Illusionsaregrander


celtic is a cultural identity rather than a genetic identity, i think, it is a nice name to describe non-romanised people in these islands. there would have been a fair number of different peoples on the islands at the time which we would call celtic now, but they would refer to themselves otherwise.

for instance, the norsemen never would have had the numbers to make a big impact on the genetic make-up but they made a big impact linguistically, especially as regard place names. this is an interesting note as regard the possible indian linguistic influence.

if celtic people travelled to america and settled for a number of generations the place names they used may well have been the names the indians adopted and continued to use long after the celts had been assimilated or died out.

Originally posted by Heratix
Here is 1 female warrior leader.....

en.wikipedia.org...

[edit on 24-10-2008 by Heratix]

Yeah, that's the one everyone knows.

Unfortunately, it was actually her husband, Prasutagus, that was the King/Chief. Hereditary law, which is a good indicator of matriarchal or patriarchal lineage, shows that one of the big elements of the Boudica story is the fact, that when Prasutagus died, the Romans moved in. This surely wouldn't have even been an issue if this was a matriarchal society, because Prasutagus' death would have been immaterial to the story if Boudica was leader/chief. She only became a leader as such after her kids - quite literally - were shafted and the Romans called the bailiffs in.

Originally posted by pieman
there were no female druids that i know of. i've never read a good history nor heard a myth nor read a fiction that had a woman as the leader of anything significant. women weren't treated as badly as they might have been but they were still 2nd class.

First, we know very, very little factually about the Druids.

Secondly, what we do know comes from writers from other cultures. (Romans)

Since Romans did not recognize women as being particularly important, it is just as reasonable to assume that if there were female Druids they would not have dealt with or acknowledged them.

Thirdly not reading a "good" history, myth or fiction that contained female leadership is reflective of two things. One, up until very recently, most history was written and studied by men, as women were exempted from participation except on the rarest occasion. And two, your own self selecting bias.

There are lots of myths about women leaders, Queens, goddesses, etc. Particularly in the Celtic tradition. After all the greatest male warrior hero in Irish legend was trained in the art of war by a woman.

en.wikipedia.org...

Scáthach teaches Cúchulainn all the arts of war, including the use of the Gáe Bulg, a terrible barbed spear, thrown with the foot, that has to be cut out of its victim. His fellow trainees include Ferdiad, who becomes Cúchulainn's best friend and foster-brother. During his time there, Scáthach faces a battle against Aífe, her rival and in some versions her twin sister.