Ancient America Rocked!

Well I can see how some would feel that they may look african but from what I've read here and elsewhere there does not see to be any genetic proof.

I would like to ask a question
Are the Olmec related in anyway to the Incas or is that too far south?

In this study, they are making the case for pre-columbian exchange of Polynesian Chickens...interesting

Two issues long debated among Pacific and American prehistorians are (i) whether there was a pre-Columbian introduction of chicken (Gallus gallus) to the Americas and (ii) whether Polynesian contact with South America might be identified archaeologically, through the recovery of remains of unquestionable Polynesian origin. We present a radiocarbon date and an ancient DNA sequence from a single chicken bone recovered from the archaeological site of El Arenal-1, on the Arauco Peninsula, Chile. These results not only provide firm evidence for the pre-Columbian introduction of chickens to the Americas, but strongly suggest that it was a Polynesian introduction.

Link to this documentt

Originally posted by leira7
In this study, they are making the case for pre-columbian exchange of Polynesian Chickens...interesting

The claims in this paper have already been shown to be false.

It was posted here at ATS, by the way.

Harte

reply to post by Harte


yes,
but the polynesian cultivation of the sweet potato, which is native to the andean highlands, indicates that there was contact with SA by no later than 700 AD.
I think it was a little earlier myself, because the polynesians had already integrated sweet potato cultivation in to their culture by the time they arrived in hawaii and was being cultivated in the western pacific by 700 ad.

Part of the problem is that we have always looked at the pre-colonial days as "prehistory" a bias that suggest "history" only started with the Europeans. In practical terms, I suspect that meant that ancient American research, at least in North America, has always been resource poor.

[edit on 23-4-2009 by metamagic]

just to add my bit.

I talked to and indigenous australian (ngarrindjeri) several years ago who travelled to the US. He met with a local 'tribe' (is that the right word?) and they took him to a site where there were paintings and they asked for an explanation.

The man told me that the paintintgs clearly depicted kangaroos and that the locals had been wondering about this for years. He didn't explain anything to me except that around the cave was a collection of plants that his people had eaten for years. Can't remember what they called exactly but I have eaten them too. Some kind of plant with juicy leaves and a purple flower. The locals said they had seen them before but never knew they were edible. just thought that this was relevant to this topic.

Separate to that story another indigenous australian told me that once they used to sing songs across their own country to the end of it where somebody else used to continue the song. She said this song continued, across many countries, to the coast where the whales would sing the songs under the sea to the next country. She said it was 'the old world wide web.'

Sorry, no internet source for this, just a story. Take from it what you will.

reply to post by metamagic


I find that seems to be the case. I have a feeling there is more to this story than meets the eye.

Originally posted by punkinworks
yes,
but the polynesian cultivation of the sweet potato, which is native to the andean highlands, indicates that there was contact with SA by no later than 700 AD.

This is a genuibne mystery, that I'll grant.

But the proposition that the sweet potato came to Polynesia via contact with S. America poses more problems that the idea that it could have come there naturally.

What I mean is, the problems associated with such contact - currents, prevailing winds, etc. are just as hard to overcome as the idea that the plant could have been propagated by animals or other natural means.

BTW, I know the plant is cultivated through cuttings, but the fact is it does, rarely, produce flowers and seeds.

It's unlikely that seeds accidently got to Polynesia as well, I admit.

That's why I said it's a genuine mystery..

However, it "proves" absolutely nothing.

Harte

SLAYER69,

I just wanted to say TY for this thread, realy alot of good information that you and other ATSers have dug up.

I don't know if this is the proper place for this question or not but, I do have one question that pops up as I read the information which is why I am asking it here, It seems as though we depict a thriving civilization as on that can write use the wheel, etc, when it seems to me that a civilization that wanted to create al lasting message that was easily told to furure civilizations would use paintings and carvings with pictures in them, yes pictures could be inturpreted many ways, but would be imho much easier for future civilizations to decipher. Also an advanced civilization imho would also be able to live in harmony with the land, not destroying it for their own gains, which is what I understand these past older civilizations did. In turn this would make these older civilizations much more advanced than the one we have currently, which would be contrary to what we are being told about them currently.

Am I way off based with my thoughts on this??

reply to post by AlienCarnage


Sorry about the delay I think you may be confusing this thread with an
"Ancient Advanced Civilization" Thread. Did they have knowledge that we have not recognized yet? Yes very possibly but not an I pods or DVD collection type of situation.

I'm referring to their knowledge of the astronomy, medicine, agriculture and architecture and so on. I hope I have not given the impression that this is a lost advanced Atlantis type of thread?

Although there is a time and place for such discussions I will eventually come around with one of those threads its just that there are so many posted at the moment I'll wait till they die down and then I'll post one with newer & unique information.

I think that most of the cultures were able to transmit their knowledge for future generations to learn from. The problem is "us" not "them". "We" have to get on the ball and learn "their" ways and not try to conform their way of thinking to ours!

Remember who came first!

They did.





[edit on 4-5-2009 by SLAYER69]

reply to post by SLAYER69


Definately not talking about Atlantean cicilization, I may not have organized my thoughts quite right, I have a habit of having many things I want to get down and them all coming to me while typing, even talking and not being fast enough in talking or typing to get it out befor the next thought comes to imnd, so I apologize. I will send a U2U explaining myself better so as not to distract fromthis thread.

reply to post by SLAYER69


The very interesting thing there is when you have a look at the (now extinct) people of Tierra del Fuego, the Tehuelches and Selk’nams.

They were practically identical to Australian Aborigines. Their artwork was very similar to Aborigines as well.

I'm Native, myself and while the constant assertion that my people were too incomprehensibly stupid to stack rocks without Egyptian help is indeed racist and annoying, I can honestly say the idea of a people sharing a root with the Australians being the first people in the Americas doesn't bother me in the least. In fact the more I hear, the more likely it seems.

The question is of course whether they came from the same root population as the aborigines, or actually were aborigines who had boated out. I'm leaning more towards the former, given that there is no evidence (that I'm aware of) of pre-Polynesian settlements in the south pacific.



[edit on 21-5-2009 by TheWalkingFox]

well there were the stone tools found in Hueyatlaco, Mexico dated at 250,000 years old. Even though they were found and dated are thrown out because "that's impossible"

reply to post by The Mack


There are a few sites like that. I was tempted to include a video about that. I wanted to stick to the evidence that could be confirmed. I know a few stories that show much older dates but they are even more controversial than most. so until they can be confirmed I didn't want to include them.

reply to post by SLAYER69


Well the headtrip involved with the find of the Mexico tools was that the tools held true to their dates after 4 types of testing uranium series dating, fission track dating, tephra hydration dating, and study of mineral weathering. so the tools were there and old that is fact. The only part where it gets strange is the coverup involved, the dig site was closed down and nobody would publish the article. The whole event really just uncovered how science is constructed by agreement rather than facts. This find would not be accepted because there was no proof of anyone living there that long ago, but when you provide proof it is thrown out because there is no proof of your proof. It is enough to drive anyone nuts.

But you got the paluxy river footprints-human foot prints fossilized next to dino prints, some say they are carved but there is video of sheets of limestone being removed (by archeologists) showing that they were not carved recently.
and the Sandia Cave, New Mexico- more 200,000+ stone tools.

reply to post by The Mack


Can you provide us with some links? Maybe a video or two that would be great.

reply to post by SLAYER69



the video is making fun of heston but at 2:00 it goes over the footprints.

Originally posted by The Mack
well there were the stone tools found in Hueyatlaco, Mexico dated at 250,000 years old. Even though they were found and dated are thrown out because "that's impossible"

Actually the dates were not accepted a somewhat different category than "thrown out". There were valid criticisms of the methodologies and results of tests.

If you are interested in a detailed (if somewhat fringe tinged ) looks at the site and story I could suggest the book

The First Americans by Christopher Hardaker ISBN 10 1-56414-942-0

The controversy is such that work has been on going there for many years trying to untangle the complex geology of the site. They still don't have a clear picture due to volcanic activity there in the past.

It'll be some time before they'll be able to make a cohorent case for the tools being that old or not being that old.

A key paper on the site Steen-McIntyre, V., R. Fryxell, and H.E. Malde, 1981, Geologic Evidence for Age
of Deposits at Hueyatlaco Archaeological Site, Valsequillo, Mexico, Quaternary Research, v. 16, pp. 1-17

Which is online but my link is showing it is presently down

reply to post by SLAYER69

Well as I've stated before I'm not against the idea of ancient sea traders but to date there is no concrete proof of such travels yet, and on top of all that there is no DNA evidence nor are there verifiable artifacts.

Y-Chromosome Evidence for Differing Ancient Demographic Histories in the Americas is.gd...

these articles should be good proof as well

Indo-European and Asian origins for Chilean and Pacific chickens revealed by mtDNA is.gd...

Polynesian Chickens in Chile


genetics tend to be pretty acurate

reply to post by warrenb


Howdy Warrenb

Long time no read

Quick response, the Chicken one is somewhat dated. I posted the discovery of the that alleged Polynesian chicken bone myself on this forum. Further study has shown it WASN'T a polynesian chicken but one from SA

Chickens

The story is probably not completely closed, a few more papers and years will be needed to come to a complete understanding.

That or find a real Polynesian chicken bone - or even a Polynesians last resting place

The other link

Unsure of why you think the first link is proof of what you want. Please explain?

[edit on 21/5/09 by Hanslune]