Who Was Here Before The Indians?!
I was awakened by dog head very early. His stomach is again screaming and squeaking loudly. It's crazy. Meanhwile, I have a severe headache, which I am hoping against hope to overcome, despite decaf, by intermittent rest. Coffee comes from South America, (and when I say that, I include Central America). So did cocao, or chocolate. Cashews. Cocaine. Tomatoes and eggplants, so much parts of Italian and Greek cuisine, came from South America. Squash, sweet potatoes and pumpkin came from South and North America. Corn. Wild turkeys and peanuts were a Northern thing. Pretty hard to get away from all this American food, especially on Thanksgiving.
Imagine the amazement and gluttony that occurred in Europe upon the arrival of these foods, when all they had was cabbage and, more recently, cinnamon. And other spices they wore around their necks to keep them from dropping from the plague. Tomatoes and peanuts can be 'toxic' to some, like dairy can be to some, showing that they were introduced to most, if not all, of the human race perhaps only tens of thousands of years ago. Nevertheless, it is agreed that they rock and are here to stay, offering excellent nutrients and fun.
Look at your Snickers and don't laugh - chocolate and peanuts. Your mocha - chocolate and coffee. Your Coca Cola - caffeine, well, at one time. A lot of dog food now contains sweet potatoes or pumpkin, (not very wisely). And how about that avocado dip, on your tortilla chips made of corn? Pretty damned amazing. Doesn't all this just make you stop and think for a second, "Hey! With all this food going on in the New World, maybe there were people here well before 12,000 years ago?!" I mean, you don't just have two continents offering all this uniquely humanly-edible stuff existing in abundance without word getting around, long ago, and people deliberately moving here. Which is what happened, I have always thought, and now it's being proved.
What have been indications, to me, that humans lived here several tens of thousands of years ago? First of all, datings of habitation sites in the very south of South America are older than the norm, even in the north. In the region, there have been found mummifications and skull surgeries and deformations, which are relatively advanced. And some of those mummies resemble the later mummies of Takla Khan(sp?) - tall and gracile and possible red-headed. Which is just odd. We are talking maybe 12,000 years bce. That we know of.
Meanwhile, the Amazon jungle is known to have been reclaiming to nature many areas and cities of habitation, such as in the north coast of South America and in Central America. And this has been further supported by LIDAR evidence. So, there has been a lot more going on down there than we so far have realised. Tribes existing today in the Amazon show much diversity, and string, ancient medicinal wisdom, etc., indicating they have been there quite a long time. Then there are the giant petroglyphs, and other unexplained phenomena. There have been legends and rumours of connexions between ancient South American civilisations and, e.g., Atlantis and Tibet.
Giant stone representations of human heads found in South America, accredited to the Olmecs, seem to indicate that, if not Africans, Polynesian type people had travelled there, and not via the Aleutian bridge. A look at how fast the human race intermingled and expanded, involving some Denisovan influence, leading to Micronesians and Polynesians fully capable of water travel, says to me that it was entirely possible that humans were capable of landing in South America, even before 'Easter Island', etc., even if only by handfuls. Knowing humans and there history, migration maintained bonds of trade, and these extended along coasts and across oceans.
Thus we see finely crafted reed hats still being made and traded on the coasts of Peru, while in the mountain regions, humans have developed the biological ability to maximise the use of oxygen, which is a trait shared by highlanders of the Himalayas, a trait some think evolved from the Denisovans. Whether or not that trait was reactivated in Titicaca, it shows that people lived up there long enough for it to express.
Note that Homo Erectus, a progenitor with whom everyone shares genes, and lived hundred of thousands, and millions of years ago, were often capable of travlelling by watercraft. They ended all up and down the coast of East and Southeast Asia, in their various 'iterations'. After so many, many years, it seems ridiculous to believe that some humans did not catch trade winds or currants and end up in South America. Reminds me of the old assumption that there could not be life elsewhere in the universe, or that the Earth was flat. We just keep making these unscientific assumptions, which keep getting proved naive or stupid.
Correlation does not prove causation, but some ancient temples in Cambodia, etc., resemble other ruins in South America. One thing correlation can suggest, as hypothesis, however, is shared potential, which can reside in language or habit or genes or mythology or whatever. Or freaky coincidence.
I look at the Maya, and more-so the Aztecs, which are relatively recent civilisations, as crossroads developments. Where trade passes frequently, as through the Levant, and races mingle, strong, grounded civilisations can emerge. These civilisations exploited the best of peoples from the north and from the south, including very ancient wisdom concerning relative cycles of time. Metalurgy. Agriculture. Mythology. Sports. War. And torture. Some of this wisdom derived from a formidable past, and some of it encouraged a return to barbarism and decay.
(In these sorts of societies, there remains a core of the original stock - the founders. They remain in power by exercising a dominant cult, religion or mythology. They coopt most of the the superstition side of human attention and relegate it to the verification of their own political power.)
This brings us to Lake Bonneville. This was a giant, freshwater lake that formed in what is now the west-south of the USA, somewhere between 13,000 and 30,000 years ago, (probably closer to the later. Remnants include the salinated Great Salt Lake and underground caverns of water in Nevada, etc. This lake, and others, emerged earlier the lake Missoula and even the most recent expansion of northern glaciers. A giant, freshwater lake like that, say 25,000 years ago, would most certainly have attracted travelling humans and resulted in the growth of trading communities.
I have read and hypothesized that such did in fact occur. These people could have been related to early settlers around Peru, would have contributed to the emergence of the Aztec, and may have dwindled down to some tribes we know of today in that area, and a few who travelled into Colorado to escape emerging drought fairly recently. Whereas the USA southwest can become very drought plagued during times of global warming and receding ice caps, prior and during the emergence of the most recent glacial explansion, weather conditions favoured the development of a warm and rich environment where humans could do quite well.
Imagine getting the word, across the north Pacific, of this rumoured garden of Eden. People would follow fishermen across the Alluetion coasts in that direction, even when those coasts became covered with ice. The same would occur in peoples trading alkong and with the west coast of South America. It would have been like a gold rush, although much smaller and much quieter. In any event, it seems very likely to me that there were sea-goaiong traders between Boneville and other parts of the world. This is a strong hypothesis, in my estimation.
Indeed, remains have been found in caves, by where this lake once existed, of reed-boat fishermen and women who were adept at survival, ate fish, rabbits, berries, and so forth, and who appeared to be gracile and tall, like those in very south South America, if not gigantic. These may have been stray bands of travellers, or transitional, or related to original settlers, who knows. I will have to check on the dating, but perhaps it was like 5,000 years ago, or later. We find what we can find, and must extrapolate carefully from that, until better information shows up.
We don't have much evidence of people living in North America before about 12,000 years ago, and even that is scarce. I should discuss why, later, but, suffice it to say, now, that there was almost certainly a great catclyism which occured, along with the devastating efects of the suddenly meltign glaciers. After that, the Clovis civilisations came in from Siberia, and then others - and that's what we have records of. Something wiped out most of the evidence prior to that. So, we don't really know about humans around lake Bonneville earlier than that. But, circumstantial evidence and common sense says that human activity was happening there prior to melting glaciers and even prior to expanding glaciers.
And, if this doesn't stop you in your tracks, then why are you reading this...
Revolutionary! 23,000 year old human footprints found in white sands of New Mexico!
Don't say I didn't told you so!
We have surviving myths in many Native American tribes of a great flood occurring long ago. We also have surviving myths of snake-god worship which clearly goes back several thousands of years, and is similar to such myths found in islands of the South Pacific. These myths can make the study of later petraglyphs and dwellings in the southwest USA very exciting, including how they compare to those of tribes in, e.g., the northeast, or the Alberta region.
What is today the Saint Lawrence seaway, and valley, there was glacial melting roughly 10,000 years ago, which craved out an new fertile area in which post-Clovis immigrants could settle. This became the prime territory of the Iroquois, Algonquins, Oneida, Cherokee, and others. However, at the same time, there was a greater diversity of tribes developing on the west coast, up into British Columbia AND, there was a diverse cluster along the east coast of what is now Texas and Mexico. I find this early yet diverse cluster to be interesting because, for one thing, we don't hear too much about it. And what were they doing there? Were they doing sea-to-land trading between the proto-Iroquoi and the tribes of the Pacific Northwest? Probably, yes.
Trade wasn't the only reason they were down there. It was the weather. No ice. Fairly warm. Good hunting and fishing. After all, it took a while for mammal prey to spread back up northwards after the retreat of the Wisconsin, etc., glaciers and cold - and - more.
But, I believe they were also there for another good reason. Because they had associated with earlier people. Pre-Clovis peoples, from the Gulf Coast into where Bonneville used to be. Those earlier people, now few in number, held the old trade routes. So, these new people show up, take advantage, intermingle, and stay for a long time. This is what diversity tells us. They were there for a long time AND, they probably mixed with earlier tribes. The same is absolutely true on the NW coast. (But, in the northeast - not so much, if any, earlier people to associate with, because the area had been covered with ice only thousands or hundreds of years prior to the new immigrants. Diversity would come a little later - from Europe).
Finally, Florida. Of course, you had the post-Clovis-arrival people like the Seneca, ~Seminole, and others. You also had "Indians" around the islands of the north Caribbean, which may or may not have had a genetic contribution from earlier tribes. There were pretty basic-survival fishermen and clammers - I don't know if they were more archaic or if they just lived that way because the environment was so pleasant. But, there are suggestions that earlier, pre-Clovis people lived on the coasts of Florida. There are apparently ancient ruins off the coast of the island of Bimini, and possible western Cuba, and elsewhere. In my studies, I perceived some connexion of Florida tribes to those on the coast of Venezuela - although, I can't remember what that was, at the moment. It could have been due to post-Clovis trade and travel, idk. But, as in the case of that cluster on the coast of TX/Mexico, what happens later can often be patterns or shadows of what happened earlier.
I would like to more about the ancient past of Florda, (which some claim was once Atlantis). Sadly, most of it is probably submerged. (And floods and hurricans can wash out evidence on low lying plains and swamps). Why would so much be submerged? Because, the seas rose after the glaciers melted. AND, there may have been a time, 20,000-40,000 years ago, when the seas rose even more drastically and suddenly, as there are so many examples of probably underwater ruins off the coast of Japan, etc.
OK, now, what exactly happens when or befor the glaciers started melting, about 12,000 years ago??
There have always been legends of some great flood - or floods. The Bible basically says that all of civilisation was renewed after a flood of all the world. Some think this may have been referring to the consequences of the explosion of Santorini - when? - 1200 bc or something?? Can't recall. Won't check. I've been suffering an intense migraine all morning. The Santorini eruption was probably responsible for various phenomena in the Eastern Mediterranean. But my guess is that the flooding of the Black Sea is where the Noah legend comes from. And it fits the geography and the history of populations. When did that massive flood happen? Not sure, maybe 4000 bc. Floods keep happening, and so there were surely legendary floods even before that one.
For example, ice barriors in the Great Lawrence Seaway may have broken to create a large rush of flooding at some point. Massive floods occurred in the 'USA northwest' when glaciers gave way, and out gushed Lake Missoula, ripping up the landscape of western Washington, between 15,000-13,000 years ago. Perhaps the last of these was most cataclysmic. At about that time, I estimate, at about 75% probability, that there may have been a number of comets or exploding meteors which slammed the Canada region and helped to turn vast areas of snow and ice into water. I believe the rough date estimated for this cataclysm is 12,700 years ago, or 10,700 bc. Find posts about it HERE. This barrage, if it occurred, certainly caused massive floods, accelerated extinction of mega-fauna, and the extermination of most pre-Clovis populations throughout most of North America, save some coastal areas. Leaving behind some remnants, similar to the 65 mya meteor which allowed some alligators to survive.
Soon after this, a dry spell probably set in, and dusty wind storms ensued - like the Dust Bowl but supersized, and lasting hundreds of years. Evidence of this exists in layers of sediment on the East Coast. I have seen it here, in the upper Midwest, as well. Much evidence of this cataclysm has been obscurred by the consequent rise of sea levels.
After this, accessibility to North America from Siberia opened up dramatically, while the change in climate and fauna prompted Asian populations to migrate, looking for food. Fishing and seal-hunting was excellent from Siberia to California. Eventually, people moved inland and hunted bison, deer, and so on, AND beginning agriculture, which also occurred around the Saint Lawrence which was, though, farther from Asia. Less accessible, especially when you consider that there were, early on, remaining glaciers to trek around. Now, we are no longer discussing the people who existed in America prior to, "The Indians." We are discussing Clovis and post-Clovis. The further south you go, the more likely that these new people had genetic and social influence from remaining pre-Clovis people, which is certainly the case in South America.
Most new immigrants into North America came from north central Siberia, who, very interestingly, had been mirrored long before by that south and eastward evolution I spoke of earlier, which developed into warfaring Polynesians. (Some have hypothesized that Polynesians were related to Phoenicians but, I think, if so, only by trade). Both came from the same land of Shangra La, 'first' inhabitted by Denisovan-Sapiens who were, I hypothesize, the original cultivators and consumers of marijuana. So. You get a lot of shamanism bound up with that, right? (Not that shamanism didn't exist elsewhere). It is very interesting to compare and contrast the ways and displays of Mongolians, and other central Asians, to those of Native Americans.
It has been conjectured that the newer North Americans derived from Japan, rather than Siberia. Some have frowned down upon this theory, even though Kennewick Man was first described as having Ainu features. Well, the latest research seems to close the coffin lid on this hypothesis...
A widely accepted theory of Native American origins coming from Japan has been attacked in a new scientific study, which shows that the genetics and skeletal biology "simply does not match-up." - October 13, 2021
The findings, published today in the peer-reviewed journal PaleoAmerica, are likely to have a major impact on how we understand Indigenous Americans' arrival to the Western Hemisphere.
Based on similarities in stone artifacts, many archaeologists currently believe that Indigenous Americans, or 'First Peoples', migrated to the Americas from Japan about 15,000 years ago.
It is thought they moved along the northern rim of the Pacific Ocean, which included the Bering Land Bridge, until they reached the northwest coast of North America.
From there the First Peoples fanned out across the interior parts of the continent and farther south, reaching the southern tip of South America within less than two thousand years.
The theory is based, in part, on similarities in stone tools made by the 'Jomon' people (an early inhabitant of Japan, 15,000 years ago), and those found in some of the earliest known archaeological sites inhabited by ancient First Peoples.
But this new study, out today in PaleoAmerica -- the flagship journal of the Center for the Study of the First Americans at Texas A&M University -- suggests otherwise.
Actually, my own reserch has always come up with the idea that newer Native Americans mainly derived north central Siberia, so I don't know why they call the Japan idea so popular and ingrained. However, it is undeniable, to me, that some tribes associated with some Japanese clans also migrated to that cluster in the 'USA Pacific Northwest. I found clear cultural connexions. I believe confusion arises from the fact that there was considerable migration going on in northeast Asia, from the Sakhalins down to Taiwan. Some groups migrated into Japan, but relatives remained in China, and vice versa. I have done my Wiki reading on the various waves and tribes in Japan's ancient past, as well as some American cultural (at least) relatives, including on the bear worshippers and the Akita raisers and Jamong and those before them, and I'm pretty sure there remains a Japanese connexion - even if those migrants were culturally Japanese but came from the mainland. There was also a lot of ice that people were traveling back and forth on, very early on.
Finally, we get to briefly discussing the evolution of people's in the northeast 'USA' and nearby Canada, which I have discussed before. (It would be best to find that via my tags). Having a migraine, I am forgetting a lot of name information, so I have forgotten the name of this hypothesis: It was thought that some Europeans may have migrated off the southern coast of 'Spain and France' to the area where the Iroquois, et al, were developing. This is a physical possibility but does not stand on good ground as far as evidence goes. It is possible, to imagine, that there could have been some admixture to the northeast 'USA' (etc.) from Northern Asia via a westerly arctic route - and I believe there is some conjecture on the possibility of this happening. There is a good possibility that, at some point even before Saint Brendan, there was some at least cultural admixture from 'Ireland'. Several basic words in very old Indoeuropean Irish closely resemble many in Algonquin.
Algonquin, et al, huts much resemble those on once Celtic and Nordic islands like the Shetlands and Hebrides, and then further into Europe. Convergent building evolution in adaptation to similar weather seems less likely (or prominent) than actually intercommunication between Europe and northeast North America. The same goes for mound-building, which goes back thousands of years on both continents. Iroquois not only developed representative democratic political mechanisms which influenced out constitution, but they also resembled what had been evolving simultaneously in Europe somewhat. There was probably communication along the Arctic circle between the Inuit, the Sami and the Norse, as well.
The Cherokee, who originated in the Saint Lawrence / Great Lakes area, (then went south, and bawled their way to Oklahoma, except for the ones remaining in Cherokee, NC, etc.), have been said to possess a gene in common with the Ashkenazi Jews, and were so fancied as a lost tribe of Israel. We're not sure if this genetic transfer occurred thousands of years ago, but there is reason to believe that it only occurred within the last few hundred years, if not in, like, 1940 or something.
Continuing the very long tradition of ancient migrations into the Americas from wherever, along came Saint Brendan around 400 or 500 ad. Then the Norse around 900-1000 ad, who might possibly have gotten as far south as 'Florida' and/or as far west as northern 'Minnesota'. There are, in a secluded area of Philadelphia caves in which dwelled monks hundreds of years ago, creating a large sundial in the ground. I have no idea from what era they came. Maybe it was as early as the 1400's and maybe as late as the 1700's - idk. But, I did stay in those caves for a little while, made homeless by CFS. Funny, here we are now, with my sister, claiming to save me, instead actually threatening me with homelessness again. OH praise those progressives.
There is reason to believe that some Italians and Spaniards showed up circa 1492. Soon after, many indigenous people decided to migrate back into the soil.
OK - that's about it! I can finally rest and try to cure this horrendous headache that has been plaguing me for days. And I think I'm going out of my head. Wow! Look at that! It's a whole new world!
PS - I did mean to mention a cute little tendency of floods, basically to destroy settlements, if not entire civilisations. You see, floods only visit low-lying areas, or valleys - or even depressions in higher elevations. In other words, floods generally go where there's already water. And where's there's already water, there almost always plants and animals - and humans, all settled in snug and ready for bedtime stories. Instead, some of them get the story of The Flood up close and in their faces, and downstream they go, fertilizer for the next wave of innocents. But. What this means is that floods have a tendency of wiping out both history and evidence of past activities. Probably the most destructive force to history ever. In all of history.
Also: Maybe I will come back and underline which ideas are my own originals. Because that can be important, especially when one isn't getting a paycheck from wasting so much time.
Imagine the amazement and gluttony that occurred in Europe upon the arrival of these foods, when all they had was cabbage and, more recently, cinnamon. And other spices they wore around their necks to keep them from dropping from the plague. Tomatoes and peanuts can be 'toxic' to some, like dairy can be to some, showing that they were introduced to most, if not all, of the human race perhaps only tens of thousands of years ago. Nevertheless, it is agreed that they rock and are here to stay, offering excellent nutrients and fun.
Look at your Snickers and don't laugh - chocolate and peanuts. Your mocha - chocolate and coffee. Your Coca Cola - caffeine, well, at one time. A lot of dog food now contains sweet potatoes or pumpkin, (not very wisely). And how about that avocado dip, on your tortilla chips made of corn? Pretty damned amazing. Doesn't all this just make you stop and think for a second, "Hey! With all this food going on in the New World, maybe there were people here well before 12,000 years ago?!" I mean, you don't just have two continents offering all this uniquely humanly-edible stuff existing in abundance without word getting around, long ago, and people deliberately moving here. Which is what happened, I have always thought, and now it's being proved.
What have been indications, to me, that humans lived here several tens of thousands of years ago? First of all, datings of habitation sites in the very south of South America are older than the norm, even in the north. In the region, there have been found mummifications and skull surgeries and deformations, which are relatively advanced. And some of those mummies resemble the later mummies of Takla Khan(sp?) - tall and gracile and possible red-headed. Which is just odd. We are talking maybe 12,000 years bce. That we know of.
Meanwhile, the Amazon jungle is known to have been reclaiming to nature many areas and cities of habitation, such as in the north coast of South America and in Central America. And this has been further supported by LIDAR evidence. So, there has been a lot more going on down there than we so far have realised. Tribes existing today in the Amazon show much diversity, and string, ancient medicinal wisdom, etc., indicating they have been there quite a long time. Then there are the giant petroglyphs, and other unexplained phenomena. There have been legends and rumours of connexions between ancient South American civilisations and, e.g., Atlantis and Tibet.
Giant stone representations of human heads found in South America, accredited to the Olmecs, seem to indicate that, if not Africans, Polynesian type people had travelled there, and not via the Aleutian bridge. A look at how fast the human race intermingled and expanded, involving some Denisovan influence, leading to Micronesians and Polynesians fully capable of water travel, says to me that it was entirely possible that humans were capable of landing in South America, even before 'Easter Island', etc., even if only by handfuls. Knowing humans and there history, migration maintained bonds of trade, and these extended along coasts and across oceans.
Thus we see finely crafted reed hats still being made and traded on the coasts of Peru, while in the mountain regions, humans have developed the biological ability to maximise the use of oxygen, which is a trait shared by highlanders of the Himalayas, a trait some think evolved from the Denisovans. Whether or not that trait was reactivated in Titicaca, it shows that people lived up there long enough for it to express.
Note that Homo Erectus, a progenitor with whom everyone shares genes, and lived hundred of thousands, and millions of years ago, were often capable of travlelling by watercraft. They ended all up and down the coast of East and Southeast Asia, in their various 'iterations'. After so many, many years, it seems ridiculous to believe that some humans did not catch trade winds or currants and end up in South America. Reminds me of the old assumption that there could not be life elsewhere in the universe, or that the Earth was flat. We just keep making these unscientific assumptions, which keep getting proved naive or stupid.
Correlation does not prove causation, but some ancient temples in Cambodia, etc., resemble other ruins in South America. One thing correlation can suggest, as hypothesis, however, is shared potential, which can reside in language or habit or genes or mythology or whatever. Or freaky coincidence.
I look at the Maya, and more-so the Aztecs, which are relatively recent civilisations, as crossroads developments. Where trade passes frequently, as through the Levant, and races mingle, strong, grounded civilisations can emerge. These civilisations exploited the best of peoples from the north and from the south, including very ancient wisdom concerning relative cycles of time. Metalurgy. Agriculture. Mythology. Sports. War. And torture. Some of this wisdom derived from a formidable past, and some of it encouraged a return to barbarism and decay.
(In these sorts of societies, there remains a core of the original stock - the founders. They remain in power by exercising a dominant cult, religion or mythology. They coopt most of the the superstition side of human attention and relegate it to the verification of their own political power.)
This brings us to Lake Bonneville. This was a giant, freshwater lake that formed in what is now the west-south of the USA, somewhere between 13,000 and 30,000 years ago, (probably closer to the later. Remnants include the salinated Great Salt Lake and underground caverns of water in Nevada, etc. This lake, and others, emerged earlier the lake Missoula and even the most recent expansion of northern glaciers. A giant, freshwater lake like that, say 25,000 years ago, would most certainly have attracted travelling humans and resulted in the growth of trading communities.
I have read and hypothesized that such did in fact occur. These people could have been related to early settlers around Peru, would have contributed to the emergence of the Aztec, and may have dwindled down to some tribes we know of today in that area, and a few who travelled into Colorado to escape emerging drought fairly recently. Whereas the USA southwest can become very drought plagued during times of global warming and receding ice caps, prior and during the emergence of the most recent glacial explansion, weather conditions favoured the development of a warm and rich environment where humans could do quite well.
Imagine getting the word, across the north Pacific, of this rumoured garden of Eden. People would follow fishermen across the Alluetion coasts in that direction, even when those coasts became covered with ice. The same would occur in peoples trading alkong and with the west coast of South America. It would have been like a gold rush, although much smaller and much quieter. In any event, it seems very likely to me that there were sea-goaiong traders between Boneville and other parts of the world. This is a strong hypothesis, in my estimation.
Indeed, remains have been found in caves, by where this lake once existed, of reed-boat fishermen and women who were adept at survival, ate fish, rabbits, berries, and so forth, and who appeared to be gracile and tall, like those in very south South America, if not gigantic. These may have been stray bands of travellers, or transitional, or related to original settlers, who knows. I will have to check on the dating, but perhaps it was like 5,000 years ago, or later. We find what we can find, and must extrapolate carefully from that, until better information shows up.
We don't have much evidence of people living in North America before about 12,000 years ago, and even that is scarce. I should discuss why, later, but, suffice it to say, now, that there was almost certainly a great catclyism which occured, along with the devastating efects of the suddenly meltign glaciers. After that, the Clovis civilisations came in from Siberia, and then others - and that's what we have records of. Something wiped out most of the evidence prior to that. So, we don't really know about humans around lake Bonneville earlier than that. But, circumstantial evidence and common sense says that human activity was happening there prior to melting glaciers and even prior to expanding glaciers.
And, if this doesn't stop you in your tracks, then why are you reading this...
Revolutionary! 23,000 year old human footprints found in white sands of New Mexico!
Don't say I didn't told you so!
We have surviving myths in many Native American tribes of a great flood occurring long ago. We also have surviving myths of snake-god worship which clearly goes back several thousands of years, and is similar to such myths found in islands of the South Pacific. These myths can make the study of later petraglyphs and dwellings in the southwest USA very exciting, including how they compare to those of tribes in, e.g., the northeast, or the Alberta region.
What is today the Saint Lawrence seaway, and valley, there was glacial melting roughly 10,000 years ago, which craved out an new fertile area in which post-Clovis immigrants could settle. This became the prime territory of the Iroquois, Algonquins, Oneida, Cherokee, and others. However, at the same time, there was a greater diversity of tribes developing on the west coast, up into British Columbia AND, there was a diverse cluster along the east coast of what is now Texas and Mexico. I find this early yet diverse cluster to be interesting because, for one thing, we don't hear too much about it. And what were they doing there? Were they doing sea-to-land trading between the proto-Iroquoi and the tribes of the Pacific Northwest? Probably, yes.
Trade wasn't the only reason they were down there. It was the weather. No ice. Fairly warm. Good hunting and fishing. After all, it took a while for mammal prey to spread back up northwards after the retreat of the Wisconsin, etc., glaciers and cold - and - more.
But, I believe they were also there for another good reason. Because they had associated with earlier people. Pre-Clovis peoples, from the Gulf Coast into where Bonneville used to be. Those earlier people, now few in number, held the old trade routes. So, these new people show up, take advantage, intermingle, and stay for a long time. This is what diversity tells us. They were there for a long time AND, they probably mixed with earlier tribes. The same is absolutely true on the NW coast. (But, in the northeast - not so much, if any, earlier people to associate with, because the area had been covered with ice only thousands or hundreds of years prior to the new immigrants. Diversity would come a little later - from Europe).
Finally, Florida. Of course, you had the post-Clovis-arrival people like the Seneca, ~Seminole, and others. You also had "Indians" around the islands of the north Caribbean, which may or may not have had a genetic contribution from earlier tribes. There were pretty basic-survival fishermen and clammers - I don't know if they were more archaic or if they just lived that way because the environment was so pleasant. But, there are suggestions that earlier, pre-Clovis people lived on the coasts of Florida. There are apparently ancient ruins off the coast of the island of Bimini, and possible western Cuba, and elsewhere. In my studies, I perceived some connexion of Florida tribes to those on the coast of Venezuela - although, I can't remember what that was, at the moment. It could have been due to post-Clovis trade and travel, idk. But, as in the case of that cluster on the coast of TX/Mexico, what happens later can often be patterns or shadows of what happened earlier.
I would like to more about the ancient past of Florda, (which some claim was once Atlantis). Sadly, most of it is probably submerged. (And floods and hurricans can wash out evidence on low lying plains and swamps). Why would so much be submerged? Because, the seas rose after the glaciers melted. AND, there may have been a time, 20,000-40,000 years ago, when the seas rose even more drastically and suddenly, as there are so many examples of probably underwater ruins off the coast of Japan, etc.
OK, now, what exactly happens when or befor the glaciers started melting, about 12,000 years ago??
There have always been legends of some great flood - or floods. The Bible basically says that all of civilisation was renewed after a flood of all the world. Some think this may have been referring to the consequences of the explosion of Santorini - when? - 1200 bc or something?? Can't recall. Won't check. I've been suffering an intense migraine all morning. The Santorini eruption was probably responsible for various phenomena in the Eastern Mediterranean. But my guess is that the flooding of the Black Sea is where the Noah legend comes from. And it fits the geography and the history of populations. When did that massive flood happen? Not sure, maybe 4000 bc. Floods keep happening, and so there were surely legendary floods even before that one.
For example, ice barriors in the Great Lawrence Seaway may have broken to create a large rush of flooding at some point. Massive floods occurred in the 'USA northwest' when glaciers gave way, and out gushed Lake Missoula, ripping up the landscape of western Washington, between 15,000-13,000 years ago. Perhaps the last of these was most cataclysmic. At about that time, I estimate, at about 75% probability, that there may have been a number of comets or exploding meteors which slammed the Canada region and helped to turn vast areas of snow and ice into water. I believe the rough date estimated for this cataclysm is 12,700 years ago, or 10,700 bc. Find posts about it HERE. This barrage, if it occurred, certainly caused massive floods, accelerated extinction of mega-fauna, and the extermination of most pre-Clovis populations throughout most of North America, save some coastal areas. Leaving behind some remnants, similar to the 65 mya meteor which allowed some alligators to survive.
Soon after this, a dry spell probably set in, and dusty wind storms ensued - like the Dust Bowl but supersized, and lasting hundreds of years. Evidence of this exists in layers of sediment on the East Coast. I have seen it here, in the upper Midwest, as well. Much evidence of this cataclysm has been obscurred by the consequent rise of sea levels.
After this, accessibility to North America from Siberia opened up dramatically, while the change in climate and fauna prompted Asian populations to migrate, looking for food. Fishing and seal-hunting was excellent from Siberia to California. Eventually, people moved inland and hunted bison, deer, and so on, AND beginning agriculture, which also occurred around the Saint Lawrence which was, though, farther from Asia. Less accessible, especially when you consider that there were, early on, remaining glaciers to trek around. Now, we are no longer discussing the people who existed in America prior to, "The Indians." We are discussing Clovis and post-Clovis. The further south you go, the more likely that these new people had genetic and social influence from remaining pre-Clovis people, which is certainly the case in South America.
Most new immigrants into North America came from north central Siberia, who, very interestingly, had been mirrored long before by that south and eastward evolution I spoke of earlier, which developed into warfaring Polynesians. (Some have hypothesized that Polynesians were related to Phoenicians but, I think, if so, only by trade). Both came from the same land of Shangra La, 'first' inhabitted by Denisovan-Sapiens who were, I hypothesize, the original cultivators and consumers of marijuana. So. You get a lot of shamanism bound up with that, right? (Not that shamanism didn't exist elsewhere). It is very interesting to compare and contrast the ways and displays of Mongolians, and other central Asians, to those of Native Americans.
It has been conjectured that the newer North Americans derived from Japan, rather than Siberia. Some have frowned down upon this theory, even though Kennewick Man was first described as having Ainu features. Well, the latest research seems to close the coffin lid on this hypothesis...
A widely accepted theory of Native American origins coming from Japan has been attacked in a new scientific study, which shows that the genetics and skeletal biology "simply does not match-up." - October 13, 2021
The findings, published today in the peer-reviewed journal PaleoAmerica, are likely to have a major impact on how we understand Indigenous Americans' arrival to the Western Hemisphere.
Based on similarities in stone artifacts, many archaeologists currently believe that Indigenous Americans, or 'First Peoples', migrated to the Americas from Japan about 15,000 years ago.
It is thought they moved along the northern rim of the Pacific Ocean, which included the Bering Land Bridge, until they reached the northwest coast of North America.
From there the First Peoples fanned out across the interior parts of the continent and farther south, reaching the southern tip of South America within less than two thousand years.
The theory is based, in part, on similarities in stone tools made by the 'Jomon' people (an early inhabitant of Japan, 15,000 years ago), and those found in some of the earliest known archaeological sites inhabited by ancient First Peoples.
But this new study, out today in PaleoAmerica -- the flagship journal of the Center for the Study of the First Americans at Texas A&M University -- suggests otherwise.
Actually, my own reserch has always come up with the idea that newer Native Americans mainly derived north central Siberia, so I don't know why they call the Japan idea so popular and ingrained. However, it is undeniable, to me, that some tribes associated with some Japanese clans also migrated to that cluster in the 'USA Pacific Northwest. I found clear cultural connexions. I believe confusion arises from the fact that there was considerable migration going on in northeast Asia, from the Sakhalins down to Taiwan. Some groups migrated into Japan, but relatives remained in China, and vice versa. I have done my Wiki reading on the various waves and tribes in Japan's ancient past, as well as some American cultural (at least) relatives, including on the bear worshippers and the Akita raisers and Jamong and those before them, and I'm pretty sure there remains a Japanese connexion - even if those migrants were culturally Japanese but came from the mainland. There was also a lot of ice that people were traveling back and forth on, very early on.
Finally, we get to briefly discussing the evolution of people's in the northeast 'USA' and nearby Canada, which I have discussed before. (It would be best to find that via my tags). Having a migraine, I am forgetting a lot of name information, so I have forgotten the name of this hypothesis: It was thought that some Europeans may have migrated off the southern coast of 'Spain and France' to the area where the Iroquois, et al, were developing. This is a physical possibility but does not stand on good ground as far as evidence goes. It is possible, to imagine, that there could have been some admixture to the northeast 'USA' (etc.) from Northern Asia via a westerly arctic route - and I believe there is some conjecture on the possibility of this happening. There is a good possibility that, at some point even before Saint Brendan, there was some at least cultural admixture from 'Ireland'. Several basic words in very old Indoeuropean Irish closely resemble many in Algonquin.
Algonquin, et al, huts much resemble those on once Celtic and Nordic islands like the Shetlands and Hebrides, and then further into Europe. Convergent building evolution in adaptation to similar weather seems less likely (or prominent) than actually intercommunication between Europe and northeast North America. The same goes for mound-building, which goes back thousands of years on both continents. Iroquois not only developed representative democratic political mechanisms which influenced out constitution, but they also resembled what had been evolving simultaneously in Europe somewhat. There was probably communication along the Arctic circle between the Inuit, the Sami and the Norse, as well.
The Cherokee, who originated in the Saint Lawrence / Great Lakes area, (then went south, and bawled their way to Oklahoma, except for the ones remaining in Cherokee, NC, etc.), have been said to possess a gene in common with the Ashkenazi Jews, and were so fancied as a lost tribe of Israel. We're not sure if this genetic transfer occurred thousands of years ago, but there is reason to believe that it only occurred within the last few hundred years, if not in, like, 1940 or something.
Continuing the very long tradition of ancient migrations into the Americas from wherever, along came Saint Brendan around 400 or 500 ad. Then the Norse around 900-1000 ad, who might possibly have gotten as far south as 'Florida' and/or as far west as northern 'Minnesota'. There are, in a secluded area of Philadelphia caves in which dwelled monks hundreds of years ago, creating a large sundial in the ground. I have no idea from what era they came. Maybe it was as early as the 1400's and maybe as late as the 1700's - idk. But, I did stay in those caves for a little while, made homeless by CFS. Funny, here we are now, with my sister, claiming to save me, instead actually threatening me with homelessness again. OH praise those progressives.
There is reason to believe that some Italians and Spaniards showed up circa 1492. Soon after, many indigenous people decided to migrate back into the soil.
OK - that's about it! I can finally rest and try to cure this horrendous headache that has been plaguing me for days. And I think I'm going out of my head. Wow! Look at that! It's a whole new world!
PS - I did mean to mention a cute little tendency of floods, basically to destroy settlements, if not entire civilisations. You see, floods only visit low-lying areas, or valleys - or even depressions in higher elevations. In other words, floods generally go where there's already water. And where's there's already water, there almost always plants and animals - and humans, all settled in snug and ready for bedtime stories. Instead, some of them get the story of The Flood up close and in their faces, and downstream they go, fertilizer for the next wave of innocents. But. What this means is that floods have a tendency of wiping out both history and evidence of past activities. Probably the most destructive force to history ever. In all of history.
Also: Maybe I will come back and underline which ideas are my own originals. Because that can be important, especially when one isn't getting a paycheck from wasting so much time.