How would you describe the early European and Aboriginal settlement patterns in North America?

Question

How would you describe the early European and Aboriginal settlement patterns in North America?

Answer 1

Early European? Are you referring to the British or the Norse. From what I understand its debatable about how and where the Norse and *Native Americans* came first. Which makes describing settlement patterns inaccurate. Its mostly agreed that the Norse came in through Canada from Greenland and may have made it as far south as the NorthEast of the USA. If the Native Americans really came across the bering then they moved south from there (duh!!).

Answer 2

About 20,000 yrs. ago some western Europeans followed the Atlantic Ice pack & settled in the northeastern (Great Lakes Region) of what is now the US.  Some 5 to 7 thousand yrs later a group of humans crossed what is now the Bering Straight from Siberia.  Several thousand years later some Pacific Islanders arrived on the West Coast of what is South America.

DNA tests indicate that Haplogroup X (found only in Western Europe, the Navajo, Yanamomo, Iroquoi & Algonquoin of the Americas) Haplogroups Q, A, & D make up the pre Norse populations of the US.  Chuckle, this is causing the accross the land bridge hypothesis a lot of dismay.

Around the 11th century, the Norse (also having haplogroup X) briefly settled some parts of North America but their version of the allel had mutated enough that it is obvious they contributed few if any genes to the tribes they came in contact with.

Later Europeans settled along the east coast, but brought diseases that wiped out many small tribes & severely impacted all the native civilizations they came in contact with. Contary to popular opinion the superior technnology of the Europeans & actual warfare had little impact on the American Native.

Answer 3

There is a series of books by an archaeologist named Barry Fell which points out evidence that North America was widely settled by European-based civilizatins as early as 800BC if not before.  (The titles are cited in the "sources" section below.)

According to Dr. Fell's research, the early Celts controlled territories ranging from Nova Scotia to Florida and from the Mississippi eastward to the Atlantic coast.  Julius Caesar's defeat of the Celtic fleet off the coast of Gibralter in 55BC left the Celts without the naval forces needed to periodically resupply the New World colonies and retrieve the copper ores and other valuables they gleaned from their American extensions, so the colonies eventually died out and/or were absorbed into local indian tribes.

Roman and Etruscan, as well as Libyan, artifacts have been found in the plains states.  (It is speculated that they went further west to avoid conflict with the Celts in their eastern holdings.) Carthagenian artifacts have been found in Ecuador.

Dr Fell, further points out that almost every Amerind language and dialect contains words from Celtic, Libyan and other languages from ancient eastern-hemisphere cultures.  (Words that have the same spellings, pronounciations AND meanings!)  Celtic writing is infused into Amerind cave art all over the United States.

WHY do we not read about all this in the history books?  Because when these artifacts ARE found, they are misinterpreted and their connections to ancient European cultures are ignored, unjustly discreditied, dismissed as coincidental and/or just plain "swept under the rug" by culturally paranoid and tradition-bound sciences.  Taken back to the dig's sponsoring museum and tossed into a drawer, they may not see the light of day again for decades - in some cases, even CENTURIES or NEVER - after their discovery and excavation!

In almost every branch of science, not JUST archaeology, those who claim to be seeking new knowledge are more often just seeking more old knowledge that further validates their treasured "statis quo".  Genuinely "NEW" knowledge is rarely welcomed - or even accepted AT ALL - ESPECIALLY if it contradicts what is considered the orthodox norm for that field of endeavor.

Anyway, I suggest you get the books I have listed below and check them out - you will be surprised, I guarantee you that.  Some of them are probably out of print, but you can find them all on Amazon.com - and probably at a better price than what you'd have to pay at a local used book store.

Answer 4

Nomadic and growing

they would expand quickly into places where there was plentiful foods, over populate, and move on  to the next

Answer 5

Before most aboriginal people saw Europeans, the imported diseases were already wiping out native settlements. In the end over 9/10ths of aboriginal people met early deaths from new diseases.

The earliest European settlements were tenuous and sporadic. But those epidemics of pox and flu made conquests easy. Europeans came for religious and economic reasons, and brought in slaves.

While the aboriginal populations plummeted, the European population grew steadily, generation after generation, as their descendants pushed west.