NationStates Jolt Archive

This was an interesting article that I found while doing research for a new paper I am writing on population movements around the world. Has some examples and possible explanations for African involvement in the Americas in pre-history.

http://www.raceandhistory.com/historicalviews/ancientamerica.htm

How did they get there? Was Africa and Central America, closer back then?

Or were we super mega advanced back then oO

100kya?! talk about going just a little bit beyond the available evidence...

Plus, they seem to be connecting it to the Aborigines getting to Australia which happened around 40-50k years ago...

100kya?! talk about going just a little bit beyond the available evidence...

Says it right in the article. Not saying it's 100% true. But read the first paragraph.

Stopped reading after this.


It's only possible manner of arriving where it was found had to have been through human hands.

Honestly, if you are trying to pull off a big hoax, at least proof-read first.

Edit: Thought I would add this.

The similarities between Olmec and West African civilization includes racial, religious and pyramid bilding similarities, as well as the similarities in their alphabets and scripts as well as both cultures speaking the identical Mende language, which was once widespread in the Sahara and was spread as far East as Dravidian India in prehistoric times as well as the South Pacific.

Says it right in the article. Not saying it's 100% true. But read the first paragraph.

no, i mean that the earliest evidence we have of human habitation in the americas is more on the order of 15kya

no, i mean that the earliest evidence we have of human habitation in the americas is more on the order of 15kya

Oh no way. They found evidence in South Carolina of stone tools from 50k. Another find in Oklahoma that dates to 35k. One in Chile from 33k. One in Brazil from 50-60k. Also Monte Verde they think are over 50k years old. Lots of evidence. Plus the genetic makeup of the people is very diverse. Another indication of long habitation.

I've heard something like this, and while I am skeptical, this is certainly possible.

The one I heard, however, said that the people came from the Australia region. It's quite possible, seeing how the people back then sailed boats from areas such as Australia to Polynesia and Micronesia(sp?), so they could, quite possibly, sail to S. America.

LS,

Very possible. but most articles I have read recently is that they came from West Africa. The different traditions of Central American and West African are very simular. Also Articles about pyramid building is that it was a learned concept from Africa. The phonecians for example traded with a land accross the sea. America was that land. Also unexplained ruins have been found in the Americas that are simular to N African building styles. This is from a book America BC. Interesting if you are into this kind of thing.

Oh no way. They found evidence in South Carolina of stone tools from 50k. Another find in Oklahoma that dates to 35k. One in Chile from 33k. One in Brazil from 50-60k. Also Monte Verde they think are over 50k years old. Lots of evidence. Plus the genetic makeup of the people is very diverse. Another indication of long habitation.

the 15k is the monte verde date that is clearly associated with human occupation. there are earlier ones from it, but they are still in dispute last i heard. and (again, last i heard) the other dates before 15kya are also still under dispute, though anything up to 30kya is considered plausible at this point.

The one I heard, however, said that the people came from the Australia region. It's quite possible, seeing how the people back then sailed boats from areas such as Australia to Polynesia and Micronesia(sp?), so they could, quite possibly, sail to S. America.

except that the polynesian expansion happens far too late - the marquesas islands get populated around 200 bce, hawaii at 300 ce, easter island at 400 ce, etc.

except that the polynesian expansion happens far too late - the marquesas islands get populated around 200 bce, hawaii at 300 ce, easter island at 400 ce, etc.

Well, there goes that theory.

*sets theory on fire and throws it into garbage can*

I think the Africa theory is more possible, but it's still a long shot.

Hey, have you guys heard the theory that Atlantis was/is South America? Since the maps of Atlantis look like S. America upside down. Of course, we'll never really know.

Well, there goes that theory.

*sets theory on fire and throws it into garbage can*

its ok, just turn it around. thor heyerdahl showed that it was at least possible that there was contact between the americas and polynesia. but the colonizations were seperate things from different directions.

its ok, just turn it around. thor heyerdahl showed that it was at least possible that there was contact between the americas and polynesia. but the colonizations were seperate things from different directions.

Mmmm, okay.

*pulls out fire extinguisher, puts out flaming theory, and puts it in obscure file cabinet somewhere*

its ok, just turn it around. thor heyerdahl showed that it was at least possible that there was contact between the americas and polynesia. but the colonizations were seperate things from different directions.

Wasn't there some big genetic study recently that showed that the original inhabitants of tierra del fuego were polynesian. (I can't remember when it was first settled though).

Wasn't there some big genetic study recently that showed that the original inhabitants of tierra del fuego were polynesian. (I can't remember when it was first settled though).

I believe there was...

Wasn't there some big genetic study recently that showed that the original inhabitants of tierra del fuego were polynesian. (I can't remember when it was first settled though).

don't know. but i do know that polynesians grew sweet potatoes, and that they had to have gotten them from south america somehow.

OTOH, I am not buying the west african 100,000 years ago theory. Though I could believe that there was limited contact between the Egyptians and the Americas.

Well, actually everybody in the world came from Africa around 100,000 years ago, so in that regards the article is right.

The next sentence, I had heard about this theory, it has been going around for at least 25 years, that people from West Africa settled America starting from Brazil and working their way north, perhaps even as far as the Great Lakes.

There certainly are parallelism between Olmecs and some West African cultures. The problem is that the Olmec civilization existed only 3,000 years ago, not 33,000. And besided, 33,000 years is too long a time. Anything could have happened.

So far there are many parallelism and similarities, but that's it. No hard evidence has been found yet.

This was an interesting article that I found while doing research for a new paper I am writing on population movements around the world. Has some examples and possible explanations for African involvement in the Americas in pre-history.

http://www.raceandhistory.com/historicalviews/ancientamerica.htm
There are a number of stone carvings of heads with African features which have been found in Mexico and Central America, which would lend a bit of credence to this article. The civilizations which created them are called Olmec and Toltec.

Well, there's really no way that parts of the West African culture could be so well preserved unless some West Africans came to the Americas very soon after they left Africa. If they went through the North, then they'd become just like the Inuits, etc. In other words, almost nothing like the Africans.

... Some years agos, I think I must have been in the 8th grade, doing a research papre on Incan civilitation I ran across a legend of an Incan Prince with a small fleet of reed ships (if I recall corectly) set out on a voyage, and returned one day with "dark skined slaves." Keep in mind this was only a legend and there was no mention as to where this Prince sailed, it was only a brief squib jotted down by a picture. I really wish I could remember more of the details like the name of the Prince, or even the book title... Also there have been theories that the Chinese and Japanese had come into contact with the Americas. There is some very convincing evidance of this theory. One being the Chinese accurate records detailing of a ship or fleet (I forget which) sailing east never to return. Then there are stone carvings on temples of bearded figures, elderly, and strage robed. Note that untill the arrival the Spanish; Native Americans lacked facial, and most body hair. Further there are tales of Inuit people meeting "yellow people" who came across the ice bridge. More recently scientists ran a genome of Native American tribes (again I think mostly in the north east) only to find their genome seemed to have some kind of ancestral links to Europeans. Of coures one might assume the scientists drew genetic samples from individuals who were descendents of European settlers and Natives, but the scientists were careful to collect the purest gene samples they could. There is also evidence of Lief Ericson landing on American shores, and setting up a colony, however briefly.

Also there have been theories that the Chinese and Japanese had come into contact with the Americas. There is some very convincing evidance of this theory. One being the Chinese accurate records detailing of a ship or fleet (I forget which) sailing east never to return.

And what appear to be Chinese anchors off the Californian coast. It seems very likely that during the short time the Chinese sent their fleet around, some ships got as far as America. But this contact was never more than casual, perhaps even accidental.

Then there are stone carvings on temples of bearded figures, elderly, and strage robed. Note that untill the arrival the Spanish; Native Americans lacked facial, and most body hair.

And Quetzalcoatl was a white god with a red beard. It's also likely that Vikings, Phoenicians and maybe others, made early contact with various American peoples, but this contact was also too sporadic and accidental.

More recently scientists ran a genome of Native American tribes (again I think mostly in the north east) only to find their genome seemed to have some kind of ancestral links to Europeans. Of coures one might assume the scientists drew genetic samples from individuals who were descendents of European settlers and Natives, but the scientists were careful to collect the purest gene samples they could. There is also evidence of Lief Erickson landing on American shores, and setting up a colony, however briefly.
Of course there are ancestral links. There are ancestral links between all peoples outside Africa. Chinese, European, American, South Asian, Middle Easterners; all seem to have descended from one group of people (around 20) that left Africa about 60-70,000 years ago. Their descendants are most of us.

People in Africa don't descend from that group, of course; but we are still related through a much older relative, of the order of 100-120,000 years old.

Oh no way. They found evidence in South Carolina of stone tools from 50k. Another find in Oklahoma that dates to 35k. One in Chile from 33k. One in Brazil from 50-60k. Also Monte Verde they think are over 50k years old. Lots of evidence. Plus the genetic makeup of the people is very diverse. Another indication of long habitation.

I just finished "Guns, Germs and Steel" (a damned readable Historical Anthropology book that is also a text in several leading universities now). According to it, other books such as "The Long Summer", "The Endless Frontier" (which focuses entirely on North America), and practically everybody else the overwhelming evidence is that Humans have only been in the Western Hemisphere for about 12,000 -14,000 years, and a good arguement now is that it took less than 1,000 years to settle the entire hemisphere from Alaska to Patagonia. Moving at a rate of about 8 miles a years, and with the usual low birth rate commonly found in hunter gatherer civilizations.

Agriculture reached the Americas last of all the humans on Earth, principally because there were no suitable animals for domistication other than the dog in North and Central America, and Llamas only got domesticated relatively late in South America. In addition, corn and the other crops grown in the Americas were less effective than crops developed in Eurasia in providing the basic calories and balance needed for life, inhibiting the development of agriculture as well. The Toltecs are late in history as far as developing a food cultivation culture, dating back only 2,000 years at most. By that time food crops had been grown in Eurasia, New Guinea and Africa north of the Tseste fly belt for nearly 6,000 years or more. (depending on the region).

Any evidence found is either a hoax or misinterpreted most likely. 40,000 years ago would have been during the Last Ice Age, and although sea levels were lower, we are still talking about several hundred miles of open ocean between Africa and South America in the best case.

The Austrasians who settled New Guinea, the Solomons, and Australia do date back to about 40,000 years ago, but they crossed only a few dozen miles of relatively tranquil seas to get there. Not the same as crossing even the Equatorial South Atlantic.


The fossil record backs this up as well. In every case where humans reached a land mass where the animals hadn't seen us before, extinction of all megafauna (anything bigger than about 100 pounds as an adult) followed within a few hundred years at most (and usually a lot less). The Fossil record shows that Megafauna died out in the Americas within a few years of the arrival of humans (12- 14,000 years ago).

The only exceptions are Africa and parts of Asia, where the animals had a chance as they were present when we humans (and our ancestors Homo Erectus) where still learning how to hunt and they had a chance to realize that we were dangerous.

Unlike the poor Dodo, Mammoth and practically everything else that ran into us later on when we had better tools and techniques.

the 15k is the monte verde date that is clearly associated with human occupation. there are earlier ones from it, but they are still in dispute last i heard. and (again, last i heard) the other dates before 15kya are also still under dispute, though anything up to 30kya is considered plausible at this point.


See this is a common theme in articles. They keep getting varying dates on items. Scientist can't fully agree on what is the correct date.

And what appear to be Chinese anchors off the Californian coast. It seems very likely that during the short time the Chinese sent their fleet around, some ships got as far as America. But this contact was never more than casual, perhaps even accidental.

Very likely the Chinese did get here.. but they did nothing with the knowledge.

And Quetzalcoatl was a white god with a red beard. It's also likely that Vikings, Phoenicians and maybe others, made early contact with various American peoples, but this contact was also too sporadic and accidental.


Possibly a Viking perhaps, but more likely was simply based on the fact that some Native Americans have some similarities to Europeans because of adaption to northern climates. Compare a Plains Indian to a Central American Indian for example.

Of course there are ancestral links. There are ancestral links between all peoples outside Africa. Chinese, European, American, South Asian, Middle Easterners; all seem to have descended from one group of people (around 20) that left Africa about 60-70,000 years ago. Their descendants are most of us.

Genetically we all come from Africa according to the latest theory.. pretty solid one too from what I have read. Humans reached South Asia about 50,000 years ago, Australiasia about 40,000 years ago, Europe and Northern Asia at various times (Western Europe last) and the Americas about 13-15,000 years and even then had to wait until toward the end of the Ice Age to get past an Ice barrier that prevented travel between Alaska and the rest of North America. Humans only reached the Pacific Islands within the last 1500 years (gutsy bunch those Polynesians).

People in Africa don't descend from that group, of course; but we are still related through a much older relative, of the order of 100-120,000 years old.

See above (in red)

Well, there goes that theory.

*sets theory on fire and throws it into garbage can*

I think the Africa theory is more possible, but it's still a long shot.

Hey, have you guys heard the theory that Atlantis was/is South America? Since the maps of Atlantis look like S. America upside down. Of course, we'll never really know.
If atlantis was s. america, then you would need a REALLY HUGE supervolcano to wipe out a CONTINENT that large. :p

See this is a common theme in articles. They keep getting varying dates on items. Scientist can't fully agree on what is the correct date.
They get a range, but then they have to fine tune it using different methods and items from the site. It takes some time, but they finally get it with relative certainty.

That's why new discoveries are often surrounded by so much sensationalism: "These ashes could be the remains of a campsite left by people 30,000 years ago," then they go, do some more research, fine tune the dating and come back "Ok, it was more like 12,000," or "Well, it was 30,000 years ago, but it wasn't a campsite, just a tree that got hit by lightning," but by then people have stopped paying attention.

Possibly a Viking perhaps, but more likely was simply based on the fact that some Native Americans have some similarities to Europeans because of adaption to northern climates. Compare a Plains Indian to a Central American Indian for example.
I don't see red well, I'm a bit color blind. Plains indians are clearer than Mesoamerican, but they aren't white, and much less grow a red beard. It's also possible that the Mesoamerican Indians (because Quetzalcoatl is confined only to that area of the continent) simply extrapolated the features of the sun into a human face.

That is impossible. Homo Sapiens did not fully evolve as a species until 50,000 y/a in Western Kenya. Native Americans themselves did not arrive in North America until 15,000 y/a and reached South America 12,000 y/a.

100,000 y/a Homo Ergaster, Neanderthalis, and Erectis were living in Africa, Europe and Asia respectively. Humans weren't even around then.

America and Africa were once togethor all they had to do was walk

That is impossible. Homo Sapiens did not fully evolve as a species until 50,000 y/a in Western Kenya. Native Americans themselves did not arrive in North America until 15,000 y/a and reached South America 12,000 y/a.

100,000 y/a Homo Ergaster, Neanderthalis, and Erectis were living in Africa, Europe and Asia respectively. Humans weren't even around then.

The oldest known example of modern humans is over 100k yrs old and was found on Mt Carmel, Haifa Israel. There is a very good book about this the where did we come from the title is I believe Out of Africa. Very good book.

America and Africa were once togethor all they had to do was walk

back in those days I don't think we were walking.

America and Africa were once togethor all they had to do was walk

LOL nice one. Well if we were around at the time of Pangea then that may be the case. But I think your going a bit to far with that.

That is impossible. Homo Sapiens did not fully evolve as a species until 50,000 y/a in Western Kenya. Native Americans themselves did not arrive in North America until 15,000 y/a and reached South America 12,000 y/a.

100,000 y/a Homo Ergaster, Neanderthalis, and Erectis were living in Africa, Europe and Asia respectively. Humans weren't even around then.

All of the above stated is incorrect. Check this chart. I can post others if you like.



http://www.fossilmuseum.net/GeologicalHistory.htm (http://www.fossilmuseum.net/GeologicalHistory.htm)

Also would like to make it clear that during my information gathering for a research paper. I have noticed wide variations of the appearance of what we all recognize as modern humans. I have seen papers that state modern humans predate the neanderthal. Which in itself goes against what we know. But they make a good arguement. Also the neanderthal man is not a direct ancestor to modern man. It has been shown that it is an offshoot of the human species that died out. Neanderthal man lived side by side with modern humans. Evidence of that in Europe. So I don't think it is an exact science. This is why I don't believe in hard dates for human evolution and evolvement into a intelligent society. Some papers suggest we go back 350k years. Others just 15k years. The 15k mark is becoming less of an accepted fact. Especially with the discovery of encampments of modern human artifacts and fossils that pre-date modern humans. Some of our most ancient structures are even debated on how old they are. Some structures in Egypt,China and Iraq are said to be 15k years old themselves. It's a very interesting subject to say the least.

well reliably carbon dating stonework isn't possible, but the overwhelming evidence from artifacts unearthed by those sites shows human settled habitation as well after the last Ice Age.

the Pyramids are about 4,000 years old, everything in the Western Hemisphere is less than 2,000 years old, the oldest city site found (in Turkey) is about 7,000 years old, and everything before was either seasonal camps, or hunting camps, or closer to the 7,000 year figure small villages.

Neanderthal and Cro Magnon (us) are both cousins and evolved from Homo Erectus.

DNA data (although its still being debated) shows that all Homo Sapians trace back their beginning to Africa, specifically in the Kenya/Ethopia area (the Great Rift Valley). We then spread out of Africa into the Near East, across southern Asia into Southeast Asia, into Indonesia and eventually Australia, with other branches moving north and northwest toward the end of the last Ice Age as conditions allowed, our technology improved (we learned to sew for one thing) and we displaced Neanderthal and earlier human species as we ran across them. Somewhere along the way we almost died out because of a mega volcanic event (near Krakatoa) as the DNA indicates a very small source relatively late in the game (during the last Ice Age period).

So even if homo sapiens made it somehow to where science previously didn't believe they existed, they died out as the DNA proves a common source.

I have trouble seeing how humans would have gotten to the Americas sooner, as Jared Diamond said in "Guns, Germs and Steel" (see previous post for details) humans weren't dropped off by helicopter randomly around the Americas. They walked from Alaska to Patagonia, and left a massive amount of evidence all showing the `12 - 15,000 range (with margin for error because of Carbon dating issues). Sites that are claimed to be older aren't supported by the other evidence as there would be a lot more sites showing the earlier figure otherwise.

The article talks about those african looking masks. I remember from a show on the discovery channel they also found masks like that with greek looking faces.
And wasn't there a corps found somewhere in the US of a white male of some 9000 years old?

The article talks about those african looking masks. I remember from a show on the discovery channel they also found masks like that with greek looking faces.
And wasn't there a corps found somewhere in the US of a white male of some 9000 years old?

Maybe it was a hick who just happened to be wearing fur clothes and got alot of Carbon put in his body ;)

I dunno blacks civilising the ancient world, sounds very immprobable, considering the level they have been at in Africa and other places for most of the worlds history. Those negroid statues are more likely to have been made by an ancient Indian civilisation.

I dunno blacks civilising the ancient world, sounds very immprobable, considering the level they have been at in Africa and other places for most of the worlds history. Those negroid statues are more likely to have been made by an ancient Indian civilisation.

The Africans actually made large civilizations in West Africa. They had alot of gold and large cities, and they were well off.

Of course, they didn't stand up well against the Muslim arabs who invaded N. Africa. And then they got wiped out by the European Empires. So they got screwed over.

They still werent that advanced even in West Africa, as for being screwed over, that was more their own fault for not trusting and uniting with each other.

They still werent that advanced even in West Africa, as for being screwed over, that was more their own fault for not trusting and uniting with each other.

Their empires actually were quite large. The only thing is(and I still don't understand it) is that they didn't use firearms. Morons!

Of course, neither did the Indians(of India), the Chinese, the Japanese, or anyone else besides the Europeans and Arabs...

Their empires actually were quite large. The only thing is(and I still don't understand it) is that they didn't use firearms. Morons!
Actually they did. They traded slaves for guns with the Arabs and Europeans.

Of course, neither did the Indians(of India), the Chinese, the Japanese, or anyone else besides the Europeans and Arabs...
Of course they did. Once they became available to them. But they lacked behind the Europeans in terms of development of new, more efficient firearms.

a couple of things to remember about Africa.... the Tsetse Fly keeps Eurasian domestic animals (goats, sheep, horses, cattle) from being successful until pretty much the present, and most Eurasian crops (wheat etc) don't make it south of Sahara either until European settlement.

Africa until pretty much 3,000 years ago was populated in the Equatorial belt and south by the Pygmies and Bushman. The Blacks (Bantu speakers) didn't move into the areas until fairly late, and they, like the white settlers, wiped out or pushed aside everyone in their way. The empires of Zimbabwe and others don't show up until the 1st Millinium of the Christian Era and many don't show up until the Middle Ages period

All those ruins that are quoted so widely aren't really that old... a 1,000 years or less.

The Zulus didn't create their empire until the early 1800s by the way, the last non firearm equiped empire to be constructed.

Actually they did. They traded slaves for guns with the Arabs and Europeans.

Lemme rephrase that: The Africans didn't use firearms in large numbers. The occasional tribal warrior would get an old musket, but they had nothing like what the White Men had.

Of course they did. Once they became available to them. But they lacked behind the Europeans in terms of development of new, more efficient firearms.

Exactly.