Where did the Native Americans come from?

[OneLight]

Just add this question to the list of questions you have and when you meet Christ, ask Him. You will not get the truth about what happened from anyone, all you will get is theories ...

[gdemoss]

The truth is that we don't and can't know except God reveal it unto us. God wanted them here for his purpose and however he chose to get them here he brought them.

In my own life I have been 'moved' by God a few times. Sometimes seemingly by my own will and choice and other times he used outside forces to move me. In the end God has brought me right where he wants me.

Cannot God do this with everyone? The scripture speaks of a day when God brings all his enemies into one place and destroys them. Why then would I think it strange that he brought people to this land long ago?

[Persuaded]

some say that the American Indians were descendants of the lost tribes of Israel; i don't know.  but i am certain that their ancestry can be reliably traced to Adam and Eve

 

and Noah too

There aren't ten "lost" tribes. This is a silly myth, easily refuted from scripture.

[other one]

 

some say that the American Indians were descendants of the lost tribes of Israel; i don't know.  but i am certain that their ancestry can be reliably traced to Adam and Eve

 

and Noah too

There aren't ten "lost" tribes. This is a silly myth, easily refuted from scripture.

 

Lost to who???

[Persuaded]

[OneLight]

Please, let's not hijack the thread.

[other one]

well, you stole my thunder 

[Guest Teditis]

 

 

 

 

Where did NA Indians build cities??

 

Well the "Anasazi" built in the four-corners area... but not much from what I understand.

Maybe that was just a rest-stop?

 

 

Anasazi didnt build much? You havent been out west have you? 

 

 

This is a list of Anasazi major ruins. There are hundreds more minor ruins out there that are not listed and major ruins out there that are not open to the public and not on this list. Some of the ruins listed consist of multiple sites even though only 1 site is listed.

 

http://www.cliffdwellingsmuseum.com/anasazi/digging-deeper-into-the-anasazi/major-anasazi-region-and-sites

 

 

No I haven't been out there at all.

But I was referring to their cities in comparison to the great(er) cities

built by the Inca, Mayan, and Aztec (even the Olmec) cultures... all who supposedly sprang

up from peoples that migrated from Eurasian places (yet undefined) and traipsed

all the way up to the Being Sea bridge and then back down to the lower parts

of the two continents to build the large civilizations that they did.

 

In short, it makes no sense to me that there are no signs of any major civilizations congregating

further north than Mexico while so many are in the southern regions if they migrated from the north

as the claim supposes. It's counter-intuitive to natural inclinations of mankind during any epoch/era

not to settle in viable habitats.

And again in any expansion from the north to the eastern regions of the North American continent, the

building is relatively light and sparse.

I say "No, migration happened from multiple directions and predominately across the Pacific into South America

and then northward. With some occurring in the north but then more along the Oregon and California areas."

 

And the archaeological evidence supports this notion. As does historical revelation that building sea worthy

craft is older than traditional historians would like us to believe... consider what Noah built in his time period?

But others have built sea worthy craft since then and before Columbus and again archaeology supports this too.

The chain of building "mega-cities" is from south (or mid continent) to north... not the other way around.

 

The notion that Clovis people's are the sole migratory group is a fanciful tale.

 

 

You realize the age difference between the cultures you are talking about? Finding anything in archaeology is difficult to start with. It depends in part on what materials are used too. For instance, casa grande ruin in arizona is made of adobe. It is fairly recent, only around 1400 AD but it would be nothing more than a pile of mud if not for the protection given to it over the past few decades. There are numerous other "cities" in north american archaeological record too. Cahokia mound, Natchez mound are just two that readily come to mind. Archaeologists believe that the natchez people had a civilization as complex as any known from central or south america. 

 

As for the clovis people, their culture is only known by particular types of stone and ivory tools, especially a distinctive projectile point. Genetically they are related to 80% of all living native americans. Archaeologists currently believe that multiple waves of people came to the new world and spread out all over. Eventually developing their distinctive cultures. Im baffled that some folks think that there needs to be cities built all over north america in order to prove a migration towards the south. Clovis people were hunters/gatherers. That requires mobile type of living arrangements. Later on, when folks developed agriculture and could invest into a sedentary lifestyle then they built complex communities. The ones you mentioned, inca, maya, olmec, aztec, those people built ceremonial centers not the type of cities that folks lived in. For example, chichen itza, tikal and the other major sites of the mayan people were ceremonial centers only. The people lived away from them. The only site known for the olmec, la venta, since destroyed, was also a ceremonial center.

 

It is a common failing among westernized people to view the level of a civilization's advancement as relating to the size of their communities.  

 

 

I'm not sure that I follow what you're trying to say... sorry for that.

I didn't mean to insinuate that any culture was more advanced than another

in any other way than population.

 

My point is that I follow the biblical model of population and migration

as opposed to the Recent Out of Africa model (which includes the Beringia theory)

that evolutionists use.

 

The biblical model shows early settlement and agra-types. And also

demonstrates early structure building. That is rationally supported by

archaeological and sociological observations. 

 

Whereas the ROA (et al) models have some convoluted meanderings

of ancient peoples, that just isn't supported by anything but carbon dating.

Hunter/Gatherers don't move in straight lines through frozen wastelands

to unknown of happy hunting grounds.

 

As to what you say about Clovis DNA being in 80% of anyone that's news to me...

so you may have a point. I was unaware that we had found any DNA from the Clovis

culture. Besides, we know that there were "Paleo-Indians" here long before the Clovis era.

So what did their DNA show us? It couldn't be Clovis because they weren't there yet, right?

Personally, I don't trust genomic testing as a sole supportive argument tool. As I understand it,

it shows if the genome that you're looking for is present... not all genomes present.

 

The population densities are still overwhelmingly in Central and South Americas though...

we're talking groups of thousands in NA as opposed to millions in the South and Central regions.

That was my point about the megalithic structures... you need a million to build and sustain such

sites as Tiwanaku... where the Anasazi and Natchez might have amassed 6,000.

And building a population of a million or even half that number takes time.

Furthermore the DNA testing done down in SA is all over the map... as would be expected following

the biblical model.

 

just some thoughts... Peace Jade.

[Willa]

Not that Kennewick Man himself was Polynesian. This is not Kon-Tiki in reverse; humans had not reached the Pacific Islands in his time period. Rather, he was descended from the same group of people who would later spread out over the Pacific and give rise to modern-day Polynesians. These people were maritime hunter-gatherers of the north Pacific coast; among them were the ancient Jōmon, the original inhabitants of the Japanese Islands. The present-day Ainu people of Japan are thought to be descendants of the Jōmon. Nineteenth-century photographs of the Ainu show individuals with light skin, heavy beards and sometimes light-colored eyes.

Jōmon culture first arose in Japan at least 12,000 years ago and perhaps as early as 16,000 years ago, when the landmasses were still connected to the mainland. These seafarers built boats out of sewn planks of wood. Outstanding mariners and deep-water fishermen, they were among the first people to make fired pottery.

The discovery of Kennewick Man adds a major piece of evidence to an alternative view of the peopling of North America. It, along with other evidence, suggests that the Jōmon or related peoples were the original settlers of the New World. If correct, the conclusion upends the traditional view that the first Americans came through central Asia and walked across the Bering Land Bridge and down through an ice-free corridor into North America.

Sometime around 15,000 years ago, the new theory goes, coastal Asian groups began working their way along the shoreline of ancient Beringia—the sea was much lower then—from Japan and Kamchatka Peninsula to Alaska and beyond. This is not as crazy a journey as it sounds. As long as the voyagers were hugging the coast, they would have plenty of fresh water and food. Cold-climate coasts furnish a variety of animals, from seals and birds to fish and shellfish, as well as driftwood, to make fires. The thousands of islands and their inlets would have provided security and shelter. To show that such a sea journey was possible, in 1999 and 2000 an American named Jon Turk paddled a kayak from Japan to Alaska following the route of the presumed Jōmon migration. Anthropologists have nicknamed this route the “Kelp Highway.”

“I believe these Asian coastal migrations were the first,” said Owsley. “Then you’ve got a later wave of the people who give rise to Indians as we know them today

Read more: http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/kennewick-man-finally-freed-share-his-secrets-180952462/#g0H7PELLsL68lEyS.99

**link removed""

 

I remember reading that Jomon (Ainu) pottery had been discovered in Chili causing some to suspect a relationship to these peoples.  

They seem as good as suspects to migrate here as any peoples.  Kennewick Man was found to have normally eaten a diet of marine mammals such as seal, and was not from the inland Columbia basin area of Kennewick.  The tribes now claiming the remains are probably not his descendants.  

The remains of the Mexican girl in the underwater caves bear a resemblance to Kennewick Man but has DNA more like native Americans.   

Edited October 30, 2014 by ncn
removed link asking to give a gift of the magazine

[ayin jade]

 

 

 

 

 

Where did NA Indians build cities??

 

Well the "Anasazi" built in the four-corners area... but not much from what I understand.

Maybe that was just a rest-stop?

 

 

Anasazi didnt build much? You havent been out west have you? 

 

 

This is a list of Anasazi major ruins. There are hundreds more minor ruins out there that are not listed and major ruins out there that are not open to the public and not on this list. Some of the ruins listed consist of multiple sites even though only 1 site is listed.

 

http://www.cliffdwellingsmuseum.com/anasazi/digging-deeper-into-the-anasazi/major-anasazi-region-and-sites

 

 

No I haven't been out there at all.

But I was referring to their cities in comparison to the great(er) cities

built by the Inca, Mayan, and Aztec (even the Olmec) cultures... all who supposedly sprang

up from peoples that migrated from Eurasian places (yet undefined) and traipsed

all the way up to the Being Sea bridge and then back down to the lower parts

of the two continents to build the large civilizations that they did.

 

In short, it makes no sense to me that there are no signs of any major civilizations congregating

further north than Mexico while so many are in the southern regions if they migrated from the north

as the claim supposes. It's counter-intuitive to natural inclinations of mankind during any epoch/era

not to settle in viable habitats.

And again in any expansion from the north to the eastern regions of the North American continent, the

building is relatively light and sparse.

I say "No, migration happened from multiple directions and predominately across the Pacific into South America

and then northward. With some occurring in the north but then more along the Oregon and California areas."

 

And the archaeological evidence supports this notion. As does historical revelation that building sea worthy

craft is older than traditional historians would like us to believe... consider what Noah built in his time period?

But others have built sea worthy craft since then and before Columbus and again archaeology supports this too.

The chain of building "mega-cities" is from south (or mid continent) to north... not the other way around.

 

The notion that Clovis people's are the sole migratory group is a fanciful tale.

 

 

You realize the age difference between the cultures you are talking about? Finding anything in archaeology is difficult to start with. It depends in part on what materials are used too. For instance, casa grande ruin in arizona is made of adobe. It is fairly recent, only around 1400 AD but it would be nothing more than a pile of mud if not for the protection given to it over the past few decades. There are numerous other "cities" in north american archaeological record too. Cahokia mound, Natchez mound are just two that readily come to mind. Archaeologists believe that the natchez people had a civilization as complex as any known from central or south america. 

 

As for the clovis people, their culture is only known by particular types of stone and ivory tools, especially a distinctive projectile point. Genetically they are related to 80% of all living native americans. Archaeologists currently believe that multiple waves of people came to the new world and spread out all over. Eventually developing their distinctive cultures. Im baffled that some folks think that there needs to be cities built all over north america in order to prove a migration towards the south. Clovis people were hunters/gatherers. That requires mobile type of living arrangements. Later on, when folks developed agriculture and could invest into a sedentary lifestyle then they built complex communities. The ones you mentioned, inca, maya, olmec, aztec, those people built ceremonial centers not the type of cities that folks lived in. For example, chichen itza, tikal and the other major sites of the mayan people were ceremonial centers only. The people lived away from them. The only site known for the olmec, la venta, since destroyed, was also a ceremonial center.

 

It is a common failing among westernized people to view the level of a civilization's advancement as relating to the size of their communities.  

 

 

I'm not sure that I follow what you're trying to say... sorry for that.

I didn't mean to insinuate that any culture was more advanced than another

in any other way than population.

 

My point is that I follow the biblical model of population and migration

as opposed to the Recent Out of Africa model (which includes the Beringia theory)

that evolutionists use.

 

The biblical model shows early settlement and agra-types. And also

demonstrates early structure building. That is rationally supported by

archaeological and sociological observations. 

 

Whereas the ROA (et al) models have some convoluted meanderings

of ancient peoples, that just isn't supported by anything but carbon dating.

Hunter/Gatherers don't move in straight lines through frozen wastelands

to unknown of happy hunting grounds.

 

As to what you say about Clovis DNA being in 80% of anyone that's news to me...

so you may have a point. I was unaware that we had found any DNA from the Clovis

culture. Besides, we know that there were "Paleo-Indians" here long before the Clovis era.

So what did their DNA show us? It couldn't be Clovis because they weren't there yet, right?

Personally, I don't trust genomic testing as a sole supportive argument tool. As I understand it,

it shows if the genome that you're looking for is present... not all genomes present.

 

The population densities are still overwhelmingly in Central and South Americas though...

we're talking groups of thousands in NA as opposed to millions in the South and Central regions.

That was my point about the megalithic structures... you need a million to build and sustain such

sites as Tiwanaku... where the Anasazi and Natchez might have amassed 6,000.

And building a population of a million or even half that number takes time.

Furthermore the DNA testing done down in SA is all over the map... as would be expected following

the biblical model.

 

just some thoughts... Peace Jade.

 

 

I probably wasnt clear. Hubby kept interrupting me every sentence with a question of his about something unrelated. So I had a hard time keeping the flow going. 

 

Last night I thought, this really doesnt matter. Whatever folks want to think about this has no impact on the gospel message. So Im bowing out of the convo.