By large canoes, of course. They didn't have the shipmaking technology the Vikings had.
I just came across a study of the cultural connections between the Anasazi and the Vikings. You can buy it on Amazon.
http://www.amazon.com/Anasazi-Viking-Tanner-Smith/dp/0865341524#reader
idiot alert wrote:
That is not BS, you retard. You have no way of checking that the information on Wikipedia is correct.
I guess you've never actually used Wikipedia? Every fact must be sourced, and if you go to the bottom you can go to the sources yourself.
gold medal-worthy performance wrote:
By large canoes, of course. They didn't have the shipmaking technology the Vikings had.
I just came across a study of the cultural connections between the Anasazi and the Vikings. You can buy it on Amazon.
http://www.amazon.com/Anasazi-Viking-Tanner-Smith/dp/0865341524#reader
What? Come on! I know this is hard, but try to think just a little. If the sea level was thousands of feet higher, all those islands would be underwater, as would much of the land all over the world (most?). This thread is utter nonsense.
No no, you've got it backwards. The sea levels rose and CREATED the groups of islands. That's what an archipelago is. Or do I have it wrong and you're suggesting the Pacific was once a solid land mass? That's crazy!
gold medal-worthy performance wrote:
After the last ice age when all the ice melted the sea levels were much higher and the canyons in which the Anasazi built their villages were full of water. The Vikings were in an age of exploration and sailed up the river from the ocean. The 'cliff dwellings' were actually riverside settlements with a similar layout to the Viking base in Newfoundland. When sea levels began to receed around 1000 AD life in the settlements became harder and harder, and the Vikings finally abandoned both the 'cliff dwellings' and Newfoundland, giving up their North American presence by 1300 AD.
gold medal-worthy performance wrote:
No no, you've got it backwards. The sea levels rose and CREATED the groups of islands. That's what an archipelago is. Or do I have it wrong and you're suggesting the Pacific was once a solid land mass? That's crazy!
Maybe I'm not reading this right. First you say the sea levels were much higher, so much higher that Vikings could sail from the ocean up a river to the four-corners area of the US, which is between 4000 and 6000 feet above current sea level. Then you say the sea level dropped giving us our modern day geography, then you say our modern day islands are the result of water rising. ... Do you understand why this doesn't make sense?
Evidence that some west coast 'native' tribes may have sailed from China and Japan and even the well-documented Viking settlements in Newfoundland are constantly argued against by those with an interest in maintaining the image of America's 'native people' as culturally and historically unique and independent, but the facts are there.
Of course. It's a world-wide conspiracy among academics, just like evolution and the utter lack of evidence for the Book of Mormon.
I'm calling troll as I don't see how anyone could be this stupid and illogical.
The Vikings came overland. Surviving Indian groups with the highest viking blood are likely eskimo and souix. Also, many east coast indians have significant amounts of Viking ancestry.
But where did the Vikings originate from? Egypt. Along with the ruling classes of Europe, which for the most part includes nearly all people's of European descent today.
Egyptians were white in the time of pharaoh. The Jews were not slaves either, they ruled Egypt. Moses was pharaoh. The mostly darker Egyptian people's caught on to this, and for this the ruling classes in Egypt were kicked out.
This is the true story behind the bible.
This tradition also continues to today's world as the egyptian descendants (most of you) still carry this on. Think of the Pope, or any monastic monarch.
The roman consuls, all Egyptian or Babylonian ancestry. Their descendants are what we know of as Europe today. Jews also have this blood and all people's of white ancestry share the connection. We are all cousins, all one.
Aryan ancestry:
Think Iran. In the time of Babylon, most Babylonian subjects were of fair complexion, with light colored eyes, and hair.
Some of these people live on in Eastern Turkey, Iraq, and Iran to this day. Visit and see for yourself, many there have blue eyes, fairer skin, and even lighter hair.
Verbally put Iran and Aryan together. Their verbal origins are the same, along with their genetic lineages of the people who spoke those words.
This was thousands of years ago, and since many factors have changed the racial landscape of the region, including the Muslim expansion, the Mongol invasions, and persecution of lighter toned peoples in the area, as well as the genetic dominant traits of dark hair and dark eyes.
But where did these fair skinned peoples come from before Babylon? Many of thousands of years before Babylon, think about 10-20 thousand years ago, a people descended from the one. It is not clear where the one lived or more appropriately landed. Many records say Tibet. This is why Hitler was so intent of finding the occult knowledge of Tibet, and indeed he did find many things that even to this day the descendants keep secret.
The first tribe of descendants of the one left tibet, and settled in what is know the caucuses region in southern Russia. This is why all white peoples are known as Caucasians.
On the origin of the one, it is not clear. The records seem to indicate extra-terrestial, but think a humanoid people much like our own today.
Even earlier than that, many hundreds of thousands of years ago, the records of the one seem to hint that an even earlier people modified the genetics of the existing homo genus. Basically nothing more than apes originally, the new breeds were given 46 chromosomes instead of the indigenous 48 so that they could be bred with the extra terrestrial peoples who look more similar to our common human appearance today.
From the time of the first creation of humans several hundred thousand years ago, to the arrival of the one and the first tribe of descendants to begin influencing human events, this is our basic history, and is withheld from the public today because of its undertones.
Those with descent of the one and earlier modifications moved nearly everywhere on earth, however today they make up the majority of European ancestry, as well as significant amounts of lighter toned peoples the world over.
This is where Blue, Green, and Gray eyes originate. As well as Blond and Red hair.
But what of the race of the one and those peoples? Think more Star Trek than anything. They are humanoids with 46 chromosomes which all descendants today bear near resemblance save for the monkey ancestry.
From these stories descend all that you know today if you are smart enough (to mean high % descendancy from the extraterrestial groups) to see the connection. You can chose to remain ignorant monkies if you wish, but the truth is out there if you can believe it.
Uh...
I want to believe!
It that the REAL Fred Norris!?
Anyway, you're asserting that islands float on water and rose with the rising ocean?
What's with all the arguing about the validity of wikipedia? Everything you need to know about wikipedia's accuracy is right here:
So here is my question to you... if the Vikings were such great explorers at the end of the last ice age then why did they take until 789 A.D. to invade England?http://www.viking.no/e/etimeline.htm
gold medal-worthy performance wrote:
No no, you've got it backwards. The sea levels rose and CREATED the groups of islands. That's what an archipelago is. Or do I have it wrong and you're suggesting the Pacific was once a solid land mass? That's crazy!
No Way wrote:
So here is my question to you... if the Vikings were such great explorers at the end of the last ice age then why did they take until 789 A.D. to invade England?
That's a good question. One of the great historical mysteries, like why the Chinese didn't do large-scale overseas exploration or colonization even though they had the technology and resources. Another mystery is why the Vikings stopped attacking other countries abruptly. Yet another is how the Anasazi transported large tree trunks over 100 km, but then used stone in their buiding anyway, the only major 'native' group in North America to do so.
Man, people talking about floating islands and white supremacy....this thread has sure brought 'em out of the woodwork!
gold medal-worthy performance wrote:
Did you know the Anasazi people who built the cliff dwellings were actually Vikings? It's true. After the last ice age when all the ice melted the sea levels were much higher and the canyons in which the Anasazi built their villages were full of water. The Vikings were in an age of exploration and sailed up the river from the ocean. The 'cliff dwellings' were actually riverside settlements with a similar layout to the Viking base in Newfoundland. When sea levels began to receed around 1000 AD life in the settlements became harder and harder, and the Vikings finally abandoned both the 'cliff dwellings' and Newfoundland, giving up their North American presence by 1300 AD.
The word Anasazi means 'northern,' while the word Viking means 'overseas exploration.' It's clear to anyone looking at pictures of their buildings that they are radically different from other 'native' structures, but contemporary polictical correctness in American culture would never conceed that some groups of 'natives' may actually have come from somewhere else, especially not from Europe. Evidence that some west coast 'native' tribes may have sailed from China and Japan and even the well-documented Viking settlements in Newfoundland are constantly argued against by those with an interest in maintaining the image of America's 'native people' as culturally and historically unique and independent, but the facts are there.
References:
http://www.crystalinks.com/anasazi.htmlhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vikinghttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indigenous_peoples_of_the_Americas
Did you get stoned and watch 10,000 BC and Waterworld at the same time?
ira wrote:
gold medal-worthy performance wrote:Did you know the Anasazi people who built the cliff dwellings were actually Vikings? It's true. After the last ice age when all the ice melted the sea levels were much higher and the canyons in which the Anasazi built their villages were full of water. The Vikings were in an age of exploration and sailed up the river from the ocean. The 'cliff dwellings' were actually riverside settlements with a similar layout to the Viking base in Newfoundland. When sea levels began to receed around 1000 AD life in the settlements became harder and harder, and the Vikings finally abandoned both the 'cliff dwellings' and Newfoundland, giving up their North American presence by 1300 AD.
The word Anasazi means 'northern,' while the word Viking means 'overseas exploration.' It's clear to anyone looking at pictures of their buildings that they are radically different from other 'native' structures, but contemporary polictical correctness in American culture would never conceed that some groups of 'natives' may actually have come from somewhere else, especially not from Europe. Evidence that some west coast 'native' tribes may have sailed from China and Japan and even the well-documented Viking settlements in Newfoundland are constantly argued against by those with an interest in maintaining the image of America's 'native people' as culturally and historically unique and independent, but the facts are there.
References:
http://www.crystalinks.com/anasazi.htmlhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vikinghttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indigenous_peoples_of_the_AmericasDid you get stoned and watch 10,000 BC and Waterworld at the same time?
Hahahaha, good one!
I just came across a study of the cultural connections between the Anasazi and the Vikings. You can buy it on Amazon.
http://www.amazon.com/Anasazi-Viking-Tanner-Smith/dp/0865341524#reader
I think I want this book. Might not b remotely credible but damn it looks like a fun read!
No Way wrote:
Also- Anasazi is a Navajo word meaning "the ancient ones" not "northern." And they first settled around 500 BC. The Viking age started around 800 AD. So how can the Vikings be the Anasazi?
The OP said the Anasazi were Vikings, not that the Vikings were Anasazi. There's a difference.
Doesn't change the truth of my statement. The Anazazi predated the age of the Vikings, when they were exploring and plundering the world, by more then a 1000 years. So it is impossible for the Anasazi to be the Vikings
geo wrote:
No Way wrote:Also- Anasazi is a Navajo word meaning "the ancient ones" not "northern." And they first settled around 500 BC. The Viking age started around 800 AD. So how can the Vikings be the Anasazi?
The OP said the Anasazi were Vikings, not that the Vikings were Anasazi. There's a difference.
Hmmn, first you said:
Do you really think the sea level was 7000 ft. higher two thousand years ago?
Now it's:
the sea levels were much higher, so much higher that Vikings could sail from the ocean up a river to the four-corners area of the US, which is between 4000 and 6000 feet above current sea level.
A little loose with the facts, are we? Throwing numbers around to support your position only obscures what the key points are. Let's keep it accurate.