America in B.C. and A.D.

Here's what was happening in America during the B.C. and A.D. before and after year 0. It says here that people here spoke Italian and English way before the Europeans were able to sail to America like they did way later during the ~1600s A.D.

Classical civilization

reddishrecue said:

Here's what was happening in America during the B.C. and A.D. before and after year 0. It says here that people here spoke Italian and English way before the Europeans were able to sail to America like they did way later during the ~1600s A.D.

Classical civilization

Click to expand...

Uhh...mind running that by me again?

Particularly: Native Americans spoke English before English speakers arrived in America. That doesn't make any sense linguistically.

Owen Glyndwr said:

Uhh...mind running that by me again?

Particularly: Native Americans spoke English before English speakers arrived in America. That doesn't make any sense linguistically.

Click to expand...

Well.. the natives spoke many different languages and dialects that included italian and english. More than 200 dialects were developed, I'm guessing that included italian and english which were European civilizations. Christ's arrival during that time and Caesar being the main currency during this time made me curious to know about the past of the americas since the new testament in the bible showed Europe during these time periods. I was wondering what was happening in America during those times.

Time to practice those reading comprehension skills. The article you attach actually says "By this time the Native Americans spoke many different languages, some as different from each other as Italian from English."

As Browd wrote, there was no English language in Pre-Columbian America.

But - were there "English" (or European in general) people there? Apart from the brief presence of the Vikings?

For some time there has been a hypothesis (so called Solutrean hypothesis - based mostly on genetics and archaeology) that Native Americans were actually descended from Europeans, who crossed along the ice sheet of the north Atlantic Ocean.

But, more recently came a discovery that a lot of European ancestry comes from Russia and Central Asia (see "massive migration from the steppe is a source for Indo-European languages in Europe") and that Russian hunter-gatherers from the 6th millennium BC had some "Native American component" in their DNA, and were most likely among paternal ancestors of those later migrants who brought Indo-European language.

So now it seems that the Solutrean hypothesis is dead. It was perhaps a genetic imprint of some people, who were among ancestors of both Russian hunter-gatherers (whose descendants later migrated into Europe) and Siberians (who later migrated into North America, across the Bering Strait).

Now it seems equally "valid" that Europeans were ancestors of Native Americans, as that Native Americans were ancestors of Europeans... ^^

==============================================

And apart from discovering "Native American admixture" in Russians from 5000 - 6000 BC, another blow to the Solutrean hypothesis is this:

http://phys.org/news/2015-01-kennewick-dna-native.html

20 January 2015, by Sandi Doughton, The Seattle Times:

Nearly two decades after the ancient skeleton called Kennewick Man was discovered on the banks of the Columbia River, the mystery of his origins appears to be nearing resolution. Genetic analysis is still underway in Denmark, but documents obtained through the federal Freedom of Information Act say preliminary results point to a Native American heritage.

The researchers performing the DNA analysis "feel that Kennewick has normal, standard Native-American genetics," according to a 2013 email to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, which is responsible for the care and management of the bones.

"At present there is no indication he has a different origin than North American Native American."

If that conclusion holds up, it would be a dramatic end to a debate that polarized the field of anthropology and set off a legal battle between scientists who sought to study the 9,500-year-old skeleton and Northwest tribes that sought to rebury it as an honored ancestor.

Click to expand...

"At present there is no indication he has a different origin than North American Native American."

If that conclusion holds up, it would be a dramatic end to a debate that polarized the field of anthropology and set off a legal battle between scientists who sought to study the 9,500-year-old skeleton and Northwest tribes that sought to rebury it as an honored ancestor.

Click to expand...

This is all the fault of those who let a fan of Star Trek make anthropological reconstructions...

Kennewick Man who lived 9500 years ago in America (reconstruction):




Link to video.

I guess its proving that American pyramids were built by English-speaking space aliens!

Hell yeah, another genealogy thread! BRING IT

On the bright side, he has only resigned to WH, which already was in a quite bad state. At least, in OT, they're discussing rational and sane things.

Domen said:

This is all the fault of those who let a fan of Star Trek make anthropological reconstructions...

Click to expand...

The article said the facial reconstruction resembled Patrick Stewart. His most widely-recognized role is that of Captain Jean-Luc Picard, in the Star Trek: The Next Generation series.

The article does not state that the anthropologist is himself a Star Trek fan. And keep in mind that Patrick Stewart has fans who know him from other roles than only Star Trek. I still think of him more as Lucius Aelius Sejanus or Gurney Halleck or Henry Grey from I, Claudius, Dune, and Lady Jane respectively.

So no space aliens are required here.

The article does not state that the anthropologist is himself a Star Trek fan

Click to expand...

Well, OK - but other reconstructions of Kennewick Man don't resemble Patrick Stewart:

https://www.google.pl/search?q=Kenn...pgN&ved=0CAcQ_AUoAQ&biw=1368&bih=630#imgdii=_

If you gave him long hair and facial hair, even that reconstruction probably wouldn't look the same.

Browd said:

Time to practice those reading comprehension skills. The article you attach actually says "By this time the Native Americans spoke many different languages, some as different from each other as Italian from English."

Click to expand...

Yeah, thats true.. that does make more sense, thanks for clarifying.

reddishrecue said:

Yeah, thats true.. that does make more sense, thanks for clarifying.

Click to expand...

Happens to the best of us - it's always interesting when you think about things like that, because we tend to, consciously or not, assimilate 'the natives' together. It's far too common to read phrases like 'the natives suffered from a lack of unity' in history books, which impose that same view onto them. In reality, there was no good reason why 'the natives' should have acted as a single entity any more than there would be today for the natives of the European Atlantic coast to form their own union. We tend to map our own categories (in this case, 'American') onto the past.