The Two A’s

The Two A’s

By Steven & Evan Strong

24/01/22

The catalyst behind this article’s content is certainly not unique. The archaeological research just released is neither ground-breaking nor without precedents, but merely one of many examples of facts and real science that calls into question the conventional belief that an unpopulated America was first settled by Asian people crossing a connecting land-bridge as the Canadian ice sheets receded. Over the last decade that traditional archaeological belief has been challenged dozens of times and the eight sites, bones and artefacts we will reference is by no means the full complement, far from it, but is more than enough to totally discredit the accepted first entry date of 12,000 years. But it doesn’t end at cancelling one set of figures. What is still far from resolved is who actually came to America, when this happened and what motivated people from so far away to leave their tribal estate.

                First up, we will begin this recalibration of timing and location by briefly examining the most recent evidence and contradictions raised by ancient footprints found in New Mexico, then move further afield.

“Ancient Footprints Could be Oldest Traces of Humans in the Americas”(1)

In what is referred to as “a landmark study,”(2) which was first published on September 23, 2021, “researchers suggest that human footprints from an ancient lakeshore”(3) found in White Sands National Park “date to between 21,000 and 23,000 years old.”(4)

                Although conceding that “research journals are dotted with claims of even earlier sites, including the controversial Nature paper that put humans in California 130,000 years ago,”(5) these earlier contributions just didn’t cut through. Those defending the traditional belief of no-one in America before 12,000 years have found ways to challenge these dates “because of equivocality of the evidence; rocks potentially mistaken as tools, marks on animal bones that might have been made by natural processes-or diggers, in the case of the California claim-rather than butchery.”(6)

                However, this time around the empirical grey area is less obvious. “The evidence is very convincing and extremely exciting,” says Tom Hingham, an archaeological scientist and radiocarbon dating expert at the University of Vienna. I am convinced that these footprints genuinely are of the age claimed.”(7) “The paper makes a very compelling case that these footprints are not only human, but they’re older than 20,000 years,” says Spencer Lewis, a palaeontologist at the New Mexico Museum of Natural History & Science in Albuquerque. “That’s a game-changer.”(8)

                The reasons why so many commentators have become so absolute and unequivocal in dismissing the conventional belief that the first human (Clovis) settlement began 12,000 years ago is simply due to the credentials of the evidence. “In 2019, study co-author David Bustos, an archaeologist and resource manager at White Sands, identified a site on the playa that had tracks that led right into layers of rock-hard sediment. The rock contained seeds of spiral ditchgrass (Rupia cirrhosa) an aquatic plant that could be carbon-dated to determine the age of the tracks. “That’s the holy grail of trying to date footprints.”(9)

                Not only were “the seeds dated to between 21,000 to 23,000 years old”(10) there had already been “a previous small-scale excavation”(11) that had “dated the sediment to around the same time.”(12) The academics were aware that extraneous factors could contaminate the site, of which the reservoir effect is the prime suspect, as it “could skew the seed’s ages.”(13) The most likely culprit was agreed to be “a phenomenon whereby organisms incorporate carbon that has leached into the water from nearby rocks.”(14) They ruled out that possibility by dating “hundreds of seeds in different sediment layers and their ages fell into line, with older seeds at the bottom, younger on top”(15) Then just to make sure there could not be an error in collection or analysis, they examined the contents “at a site that didn’t have any footprints”(16) and found that the “spiral ditchweed seeds date to the same age as charcoal in the same layer-which is not subject to the reservoir effect.”(17)

                The consensus view is according to Thomas Stafford, “an experimental geochronologist at Stafford Research Laboratories,”(18) is that “we have human footprints,”(19) and that “I really think those ages are okay.”(20) So strong is the evidence and research, the scientists involved are adamant that these “footprints will force researchers to reconsider sites that have more equivocal evidence of human occupation.”(21)

Reconsidering Earlier Equivocations

Following in the same American human footsteps yet preceding the White Sand’s research by over two decades, is the work of Dr. Silvia Gonzales (John Moores University, Liverpool). She too was fascinated by the dates returned on human footprints found at Lake Valsequillo (Mexico) and in particular a “layer of ash that was very old … more than 22,000 years old.”(22) Beneath that ash were a variety of prints, some human and some animal which were analysed using O.S.L. which measures the “last time these sediments were lit by the sun’s ray or the last time that material was heated.”(23) At the time she openly conceded that the resultant date of 40,000 years was “quite staggering.”(24)

                Such a date immediately upset many traditional archaeologists, however, in what only added to the obvious inconvenience of this number is the interpretation of Dr. Paul Rennie. He found that the magnetic field in the layer analysed had reversed and owing to the known fact that the last time there was a major polarity shift in the planet was 780,000 years ago, he felt that the much older date was appropriate, and his dating was more likely to be correct. When Gonzales and Rennie were in discussion, she openly conceded it is possible such a massive set of numbers could be correct. However, owing to fact that the layer directly above the prints had sediments dated at 38,000 years old and the layer above that was calculated to be 25,000 years using uranium analysis, she is reasonably confident the date of 40,000 years is more probable. What is extremely relevant is that neither expert gave any credence to a date of less than 40,000 years.

                As to who was walking in Mexico at no less than 40,000 years ago, Gonzales is adamant that these people came from Australia. Her examination of the bones of skull of an ancient woman referred to as Penon Woman, who is claimed to be over “20,000 years”(25) old, and “were not related to Amerindian populations but instead had affiliations with Australians,”(26) left her with only one logical candidate.

But it doesn’t end there with one skull, Gonzales obtained permission to examine in detail “several dozen Pericu skulls.”(27) Discovered at Baja, California these human remains were stored at the “regional Museum at La Paz in Baja California and the National Museum of Anthropology and History in Mexico City.”(28) Her findings were as consistent as they were “something far more enigmatic.”(29) “What they are is still not entirely clear but they do not seem to be Amerind … Their closest relatives seem to be Fuegians, the Australians, some Papua Newguineans and the other populations of Pacific and Indian Oceans.”(30)

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Mujeres_californias.jpg

It is possible Gonzales is mistaken, just because she is academically qualified that does guarantee a tick, but what needs to be appreciated that she is merely one of many. Dr. Richard Neave (Forensic Artist, University of Manchester UK) is no less qualified and is in total agreement with Gonzales’ conclusion. Neave had no doubts that his extensive research of ancient American skulls found that “the skull dimensions and facial features match most closely the native people of Australia and Melanesia.”(31) It is feasible that this Penon individual is merely a genetic aberration, if it was just one skull examined. But here through Neave’s reference points, he has 55 skulls sharing the same ancestry, and this is clearly an established pattern.

Dr. Neves and Mark Hubbe sifted through 250 sets of human remains found in the “region of Lagoa Santa, central Brazil,”(32) then isolated “the 55 best preserved skulls,”(33) which they measured then compared. Their findings were clear and unambiguous in that “the earliest South Americans tend to be more similar to present Australians, Melanesians and Sub-Sahara Africans (narrow and long neurocrania; prognatic, low faces; and relatively low and broad orbits and noses).”(34) In narrowing down the geography and ancestry even further, Neves stated “that both the first Australians and the first Americans shared a common ancestral population.”(35) The results and measurements left no other option simply because the “multivariate statistical analyses have demonstrated a strong morphological similarity between the oldest Americans and modern Australians.”(36)

It’s not Just Feet, Bones, Genes and Skulls

With direct human presence dealt with, the time is right to briefly examine one example of the indirect archaeology the experts have so readily dismissed. As we pointed out before, these inconvenient sites in South and North America have been around for some time, in the next case over two decades ago, and still is to this day held in low regard.

                This dig was resumed by archaeologist Albert Goodyear (University of South Carolina, Institute of Archaeology and Anthropology). After everyone else assumed that there was nothing more to see here, he dug deeper. Goodyear, along with his colleagues, had been working at an archaeological site on the Savannah River, near Topper (Allen County, South Carolina). It was agreed all the available evidence from this Clovis site had been gathered and their work was complete, until Goodyear decided to persevere and continue excavating. He kept digging for another four metres before an assortment of stone tools, along with a hearth, were unearthed. A small piece of charcoal was then analysed by counting the residual Carbon 14, and a date of no less than 37,000 years was deemed appropriate.

                Of course, this is merely one of many such sites, and establishes a first settlement date of no less than 40,000 years, but could it be greater? Is it possible the tenure of occupation runs into six figures as hinted at in California, or could it be even older than that?

Occupation Dates of Hundreds of Thousands of Years

The Lake Valsequillo site where Silvia Gonzales found footprints dated to be at least 40,000 years that also had the potential to be over half a million years old, has other archaeology on offer of which Gonzales knew nothing. The only reason why we now feel Gonzales’ date of 40,000 years is more than likely far too conservative and should be well into six figures, is because another site near the lake’s edge was investigated twenty years earlier and all the archaeologists got in return was an assortment of six-figured dates.

                In 1959 Professor Juan Armenta found a heavily engraved rock in an ancient creek-bed, and there amongst over a dozen engraved figures was a gomphothere. These four tusked massive elephants are closely related to the mastodon. This animal was used as a model for the gigantic four-tusked elephants used in the fictional battlefields of The Lord of the Rings. However, what certainly isn’t fictional is that it was gone from the States a million years ago.” (37) In what only added to the intrigue, the Smithsonian stated that their analysis indicated that it was “engraved when the elephant bone was still fresh, still green.”(38)

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Amebelodon21.jpg

                Such was the extent of implications and volume of unanswered question coming out of the initial research, ‘a perfect team for the perfect archaeology” was assembled in 1962. The team was led by Cynthia Irwin-Williams (Harvard, Ph.D) who had “an impressive scholastic and field resume”(39) and “others affiliated with the project were some of the leading Paleoindian archaeologists, geologists and palaeontologists the United States had to offer.”(40)

                Everything seemed so easy and rigorous, with experts in six different avenues working on a site that was so absolute and unambiguous where the artefacts “were within a mappable geological formation of stream sediments and volcanic deposits,”(41) surely nothing could go wrong. With the volcanic ash above easy to date, that must mean everything beneath was there before that coverage, and therefore, there could be no questioning of their figures. Or so the chosen experts would think, but there was something about the numbers that just would not allow this science to end well. The problem was simple. “According to Charles Naesar, a geologist involved in dating both Olduvai Gorge and Valsequillo: “while I would have thought these {200,000-year-old dates} would have stirred up a lot of interest-and they are very revolutionary concerning the evolution of man in North America-it appears that it just went off into a black hole.”(42)

                There is a passage in a book (The First American) which is devoted entirely to this site and the orchestrated resistance, which was written by Christopher Hardaker. On page 187 he poses a hypothetical question and answer session between those for and against these results, and then concludes with a response from one of the experts chosen by the US government to go to Lake Valsequillo to find out what really happened.

                “ARCHAEOLOGIST: You are asking us to believe that the sophisticated art and technology of the Upper Paleolithic was actually invented over 200,000 years ago in Central Mexico by Homo erectus? Ridiculous.

                GEOLOGIST: You are asking us to believe that Science is off by a magnitude of 10? Ridiculous.

                Charles Naesar explains.

                The question here is the relationship between the artifacts and the geology. All of the geologic evidence supports an old age for the artifact horizon. U-series, fission track and the U-Th/He dating as well as Sam’s diatoms and Ginger’s superhydration and mineral solution studies point to an age >200,000y … Someone could probably find something to question about each of the geologic indicators of a >200,000y age. The problem is that it would have to be something different for each technique. No single argument can reject all of the geologic data. That rapidly becomes a geologic impossibility.”(43)

                Irrespective of the credentials of the academics or rigour of their research, a cabal of academics who were openly referred to as the “Clovis mafia”(44) stepped in and silenced those who insisted the dates were correct. The authorities confiscated Irwin’s notes within days of her passing and made sure any who objected were ostracised from postings and colleagues alike. 

                

Much More Recently

Dr. David Reich (Harvard University) was one of many academics drawn from six universities involved in an extensive genetic analysis spanning three years that was trying to establish where the first humans in America came from. The results were not what they had assumed, Reich himself did believe that settlement in America began at around 12,000 years ago and was Clovis in make-up and Asian in extraction. He did admit that their findings were so unexpected and every time they rechecked this recurring uncomfortable answer it never varied but got stronger.

                Their genetic comparative base was two Amazonian tribes who remained very isolated and kept strictly to themselves, so much so their tribal law only allowed marriage between the two tribes and everyone else was matrimonially shunned. Their untainted ancient ancestral lineage was clearly defined as Australian Original, and the three prime genetic locations were Australia, Papua New Guinea (which was part of the Australian mainland until 8,000 years ago) and the Andaman Islands (who are Original in features and genes). The conclusion was unanimous, the first people to arrive in America were not Asian, but Australian Original humans.

Meanwhile …

                The only fact that has strengthened and dominated proceedings is that there are dozens of academic papers testifying to a much earlier human presence, and that the first candidate listed in each genetic and morphological analysis, is the Australian Original race. And why not? The incredibly ancient archaeology found in America is merely evidence of one set journeys to one of the very many global destinations they sailed towards and from.

                If they were sailing around the Pacific Rim while in transit towards America there should be, and is, unquestionable evidence of Original genes and bones in different Asian locations. Dr. Hermann Klaatsch (1863-1916) was an esteemed German academic who introduced into European Universities the novel concept of on-field studies where the academics actually lived with the people being investigated. To that end he spent five years at the beginning of the twentieth century in Australasia, with particular focus on Australia, compiling archaeology, anthropology, semantic comparisons and photographs that supported his belief modern humans were all sourced from the Australian Original genetic stock.

                He was utterly convinced, as we are, that the photograph he took of the last full-descent Ainu Elder (Japan) in 1896 is undeniably extremely similar in every respect to the features and genes of the Australian Original people he was studying. This was taken over 120 years ago, and still to this day it is agreed the genes and blood of the present-day Ainu have much in common with the Australian Indigenous population. Can we suggest, that if sampling the genes of this Elder, the match-up count would not be much but either nearly all, or all.

Professor / M.D. Hermann Klaatsch, The Evolution and Progress of Mankind, ed. Profosser / M.D. Adolf Heilborn, trans. Joseph McCabe (New York, NY: Frederick A. Stokes Company Publishers, 1923), 285 Fig. 101.-An Aino.

                Ramindjeri Elder Karno Walker is an unchallenged keeper of First Language and Culture, Clever-Fella and custodian of Wirrijin (Black-fella White-Fella Dreaming and his words on any Old Way matter cannot be questioned. He told me at our very first face-to-face meeting, that in ancient times his people set sail (and by other means) and circumnavigated the oceans in a figure-eight, this meant that along with journeys around the Pacific Rim, the Indian Ocean was also part of this global route. Dr. Rao headed an Indian Government initiative in measuring and analysing the genetic make up of peoples in the Southern India, and in particular, the Dravidians. Not only did he identify seven individuals that all had unique Australian strands, it is also well known that the ancient Dravidian language is close to identical to the Tasmanian Original language. Nor is it a coincidence that the traditional Dravidian fishing boats are an exact copy of the pre-Cook Tasmanian boats.

                In concluding this very brief overview of non-America archaeology, the global ‘seed-Dreaming’ of the planet was never sapien exclusive. All hominids were included, and this alone would explain why my Denisovan read out is 4.7%. According to every expert the Denisovans were found in Europe and Asia, only, and the same experts would add that Australian Original Homo sapiens were only located in Australia. From that supposed entry onwards It was no-one in or out, from the time of the supposed African settlement 50,000 years ago until 1788, the genes of Australians remained solely in Australia. However, only Original people of Australia exceed a 2.5% Denisovan count, and that must mean we did leave Australia, and went to America and everywhere else.

But Why?

That is the crucial, deliberately overlooked question coming out of these investigations through America, why did they come? Why risk life and limb and sail off to such distant locations? If setting off in conquest like the Vikings, which involves warfare and confiscation of money, riches, gold or castles leading on to tyranny, well none of those vices are part of this expedition. The reality of their ancient seeding of humanity is that there is no explanation available, all we can do, and will, is speculate.

                There is no narrative on any rock or in any Dreaming story, that can assist, but there are clues, inferences and gaps to be filled. What if, all of these journeys and genetic exchanges was a long-term form of seed-Dreaming in preparation for the final days? Could it be, now that the ceremony at Uluru was successful, all humans carry within an ancient genetic code that is now idling while awaiting further instructions. Could it be that because of what happened so long ago, every human today has an equal chance to receive and transmit the healing, magic and resonance of the planet’s renaissance?

                Or could it be our vision of the transformation is purely down to wishful thinking, and all that is ahead is more of the same fear, division and coercion that only gets worse? It seems to us there are two future paths on offer and right now the time to choose a path forward or backwards is running out, real quick!   

REFERENCES: 

(1): Ewen Callaway, 21st Sept, 2021. “Ancient footprints could be oldest traces of humans in the Americas”, Nature, https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02597-1

(2) –  (21): Ibid.

(22): Martin Redfern (Reporter), “Oldest American Footprints”, The Science Show, 11 February 2006, A.B.C (Australian Broadcasting Commission) Radio National Transcript in http://www.abc.net.au/rn/scienceshow/stories/2006/1564746.htm (27 Sept. 2007).

(23) – (25): Ibid.

(26): George Weber, 2007. “Pericu People (Baja California Sur, Mexico),” 54. Possible Relatives in the Americas, http://www.andaman.org/BOOK/chapter54/text-Pericu/text-Pericu.htm.

(27) – (30): Ibid.

(31): BBC Online News, ” Sci/Tech ‘First  Americans Were Australian’,”(26 Aug. 1999), http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/430944.stm

(32): Walter A. Neves and Mark Hubbe, 2005. “Cranial Morphology of Early Americans from Lagoa Santa, Brazil: Implicatons for the Settlement of the New World,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 102 102, no. 51, http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1317934

(33) – (36): Ibid.

(37): Christopher Hardaker, 2007. The First Americans: The Suppressed Story of The People Who Discovered The New World, (The Career Press: Franklin Lakes, NJ), 15.

(38): Ibid, 15.

(39) – (41): Ibid, 18.

(42): Ibid, 19.

(43): Ibid, 189.

(44): Ibid, 194.

                    

1 Comment

  1. In your thoughtfully prepared, well-researched article, you are challenging the very foundations of the archeological stance that humanity came out of Africa. As more is uncovered, is is very very possible that it will be found that Australia was part of Mu and that many migrated prior to or after the last great extinction. There are many stories passed on from one generation to the next among different indigenous peoples of the Pacific that open up such a possibility. The Nazka Lines and crop circles lend themselves to discussion over interesting practical applications. There are also many naturally occurring elongated craniums that have been collected, preserved and set aside both in South America and in Egypt to give two examples. Humans attempted to emulate that by elongating the craniums of their own offspring. The most ancient stories appear to come from Australia. On October 16, 2021 Gregg Braden talked about “Newly Discovered Ancient Relics Show Connections between Human Beings and Star Beings” at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=poNYGwUjLMU.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.


*