Historum - History Forums  

Go Back   Historum - History Forums > World History Forum > American History
Register Forums Blogs Social Groups Mark Forums Read

American History American History Forum - United States, Canada, Mexico, Central and South America


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old September 25th, 2013, 04:40 AM   #31

BoilerL1's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Apr 2013
From: St. Augustine
Posts: 1,041

Quote:
Originally Posted by purpleguy89 View Post
A lot of people might feel offended by this statement. Also:

While indigenous influence might not be so obvious in the US, don't forget that it was the aborigines who basically taught the settlers how to develop agriculture in the 13 Colonies. Without that knowledge, colonization would've been unsuccesful there and the US probably would've never existed.
No matter what you say it seems some jasper is offended, I don't worry about it.

I think European farmers would've figured it out, farmers usually do. Just what particular techniques did the Indians teach the Europeans? When I was a kid the teachers talked about Squanto teaching the English to put a dead fish in with each corn seed but now some say Squanto learned the dead fish trick in the Canary Islands or Europe.

In any event I maintain a discovery is when you find someone that's new to you, to your culture. That means depending on one's viewpoint any number of people discovered America. And the discovery that matters to my culture is that of Columbus; to Westerners his was the most significant.
BoilerL1 is offline  
Remove Ads
Old September 25th, 2013, 04:56 AM   #32

Shaddam IV's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Aug 2010
From: Atlanta, GA
Posts: 1,195

Quote:
Originally Posted by rocket7777 View Post
They don't want genetic proof on historum so I will skip it lol.
There's linguistic as well as general migration toward end of ice age known as "out of taiwan" which made way all way to polynesia, south india and americas.

Look at a picture of taiwanese aborigine

The out of Taiwan model is about the pre-Austronesian-speaking peoples migrating out of Asia between 4,000 bc to 10,000 bc, they did not even reach Hawaii to at least around 400 AD. While their seems to be some evidence of possible contact with Polynesians peoples in South America, this contact happened long after the Americas had been settled by peoples migrating out of Northeast Asia across the Bearing Strait land bridge. The ancestors of Native American populations came from Siberia to the Americas 13 to 17 thousand years ago, not from Taiwan.

Quote:
They weren't the first. That's what I called ICE or SMALL boat.
Their some debate about how early the Americas were settled, some believe based on some skeletal studies of remains of some early natives peoples found in the Americas that possibly before the migration out of Northeast Asia occured, that an early migration of Australoid like people might have migrated to the Americas much early only to be later subsumed by the people of the later migration from Northeast Asia. Also some archaeological sites in the Americas have been dated in some studies to be 30 thousand years or older, while their is great debate about how to interpret these sites, it is possible that the Americas were populated by humans far early then previously thought.

Quote:
It really don't matter, I personally believe lots things are out of date and MOST will accept.
"both have a low rate of a virus not known in other populations, HTLV-1."
Valdivia culture - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
https://www.google.com/search?q=ecua...ient=firefox-a
I am already well aware of the speculation surrounding this studies findings, I tend to wait and see how such findings are taken by other geneticist and whether the finding are verified by other studies and by other teams. There has been people migrating into the Americas from Northeast Asia since the ice receded and routes opened. These migrations never really stopped, the ancestors of the Inuit peoples arrived the Alaska from Northeast Asia in 1000 AD. The gene that links the Jomon of Japan and with some Native American peoples could have more then likely arrived with peoples who have absorbed or mixed with people who carried these genes before they even left Asia, who then migrated into the Americas and eventually ended up in what is now Ecuador, which seems supported by the study finding of the gene in Alaska. In any event, future genetic and archaeological studies will continue to better bring into focus the population history the Americas.

Here is a good review of the study by anthropologist German Dziebel on his blog.
Y-DNA hg C3* in South America and Putative Ancient Transpacific Contacts

He points out some pretty big flaws in the studies claims about a possible Jomon connection.
Meggers beliefs about the pottery of [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valdivia_culture"]Valdivia culture[/ame] similarity to Jomon pottery being evidence of a direct cultural connection has never been accepted by Mesoamerican archaeologist, later archaeology findings clearly showed the pottery style was an evolution of local pottery styles that evolved over time and that any similarity to Jomon pottery was simply coincidence. Not to mention that the chronology just does not support Meggers hypothesis.

VALDIVIA, JOMON FISHERMEN, AND THE NATURE OF THE NORTH PACIFIC: SOME NAUTICAL PROBLEMS WITH MEGGERS, EVANS, AND ESTRADA'S (1965) TRANSOCEANIC CONTACT THESIS
Gordon F. McEwan and D. Bruce Dickson American Antiquity, Vol. 43, No. 3 (Jul., 1978), pp. 362-371
Quote:
Meggers, Evans, and Estrada's (1965) thesis, that storm-tossed Jomon fishermen drifted across the North Pacific to the coast of Ecuador and introduced pottery-making at the Valdivia site, is presented. The thesis is examined from the standpoint of the mechanics of such a voyage. The nature of the surface current patterns in the North Pacific are discussed, together with the weather conditions found along the presumed route, the types of vessels known archaeologically for the early Jomon, and the suitability of such vessels for a trans-Pacific crossing. Finally, the survival problems faced by a crew adrift in an open boat on the North Pacific are presented. It is concluded that contact between Jomon and Valdivian peoples was unlikely to have occurred in the manner suggested by Meggers, Evans, and Estrada. Several possible alternative routes and explanations are advanced
Mesoamerican archaeologist Michael Coe's 1967 Review of Meggers' book.
Direction of Cultural Diffusion - Michael D. Coe - Science, Vol 155 pp 185-18

Quote:
There is an effective gap in the archeological record between the Preceramic period and the early ceramic culture of Valdivia on the coast, with which Meggers' Formative Period begins (at about 3000 B.C.). As just about everyone must now know, Meggers and Evans propose that a boatload of Jomon fishermen from Neolithic Japan were blown off course and landed in Ecuador, thereby introducing ceramics to the New World. However, few of their colleagues, even those most sympathetic to hypotheses of long-distance diffusion, have accepted this explanation, and I suspect that the reason is that it has by no means been proved that a local pottery-making antecedent for Valdivia does not' exist somewhere on the coast. Until Meggers and Evans show us that there is a preceramic culture extending right up to the beginnings of Valdivia, with a sudden appearance of a Jomon-like ceramic complex, we will remain unconvinced. Furthermore, on the Caribbean coast of Colombia there is another ceramic phase, Puerto Hormiga, which has equal claims of antiquity, and unless the relations between it and Valdivia are solved one could just as easily propose that Valdivia arose from a native, Puerto Hormiga-like development as from an accidental' introduction from across the wide Pacific.
Migration from Japan to Ecuador: The Japanese Evidence
Richard Pearson
American Anthropologist > New Series, Vol. 70, No. 1 (Feb., 1968), pp. 85-86

Quote:
My point in this brief communication is to evaluate the authors' use of Japanese archaeological materials, which has been largely neglected by previous reviewers, and to point out that the Jomon traits they have selected in no way demonstrate the existence of a prehistoric community from which migrants could have drifted to the New World.
Quote:
One of the feature of Middle and Late Jomon pottery in Kyushu regarded as especially distinctive and significant by Japanese archaeologist is the tapered rim, the diagnostic feature of the Ichiki series, common at the Izumi site. The absence of this trait in Valdivia, mentioned in passing by Meggers, Evans and Estrada (1965:157), is probably more significant than the presence of other convergent motifs, yet the authors, without a through investigation of the Kyushu Jomon were unable to do any weighting of the traits.
Quote:
In fact, the whole idea of deep-sea fishermen from the Jomon of South Kyushu is somewhat unsubstantiated. Fishhooks are not uniformly present in Jomon; they are largely limited to sites in the Tokyo and Tohoku areas (Watanabe, 1966), which are interestingly enough, in the region of the Oyashio, or Cold Current. The statement that their food "included..deep water fish caught with hooks by fishermen in canoes offshore" (Meggers and Evan 1966:34) is still conjectural for South Kyushu. Fishing gear is conspicuously scare in Kyushu sites, and much of the seafood collecting was probably done in sheltered bays and shallow areas.
Quote:
Nevertheless, the available evidence, the bulk of which was not considered by Meggers, Evans and Estrada, would tend to make the derivation of Valdivia traits from Kyushu Middle Jomon communities, or any other comminutes, extremely unlikely.
Pre-Valdivia Occupations on the Southwest Coast of Ecuador Author(s): Henning Bischof and Julio Viteri Gamboa Source: American Antiquity, Vol. 37, No. 4 (Oct., 1972), pp. 548-551
Quote:
ABSTRACT: Recent excavations at the Valdivia site (G-3 1) have led to the discovery of a pre-Valdivia pottery complex named San Pedro, and of apparently preceramic occupation layers, below deposits of the Valdivia phase. A description of the San Pedro pottery is offered and the implications of the new evidence are discussed.

"Pottery does not seem to make a sudden appearance at Valdivia. This would argue against the hypothesis that it was introduced there by a single long-range, possibly even tran s-Pacific contact with pottery-making groups. The decorated sherds (Fig. 2) do not seem to demonstrate particularly close Yomon affiliations."
Ancient and Modern Hunter-Gathers of Lowland South America: An Evolutionary Problem by Anna C. Roosevelt in Advances in Historical Ecology. Columbia Univ. Press
Quote:
The Smithsonian scholars Clifford Evans and Betty Meggers believed that pottery had been introduced from Japan to the west coast of South America about 5,000 years ago and spread from there through the continent (Meggers, Evans, and Estrada, 1965), when the institution's laboratory produced dates earlier than 5,000 B.P. in eastern Amazonia, they were reluctant to accept the dates.
Reassessing the Developmental and Chronological Relationships of the Formative of Coastal Ecuador
John Edward Staller
Journal of World Prehistory Issue: Volume 15, Number 2 Date: June 2001 Pages: 193 256

Quote:
Abstract: The Ecuadorian Formative was initially interpreted as a result of long-distance diffusion, and migration, more recent research has changed our perception of the Valdivia, Machalilla, and Chorrera culture complexes. In this analysis, these archaeological investigations are reassessed in order to reevaluate our understanding regarding the nature of these prehistoric cultures. Formative chronologies, distributions, interrelationships are reviewed in the light of Pre-Hispanic occupations in El Oro Province. Previous investigations on the Ecuadorian littoral are examined. Results indicate (1) Valdivia and Machalilla are part of the same ceramic tradition and (2) the interrelationships of these complexes to Late Formative Period ceramic sequences are more complex than previously assumed. (3) A major adaptive shift related to an increased dependence upon agriculture occurred during Valdivia VI-VIII, and continued into the Late Formative with the widespread distribution of Chorrera related material culture. (4) Long-distance interaction with the Ecuadorian highlands resulted in the spread of what may be termed a Chorrera horizon and formed the basis of subsequent Andean cosmology where it was symbolically represented according to local and regional artistic canons and over a vast area of Andean South America.
Meggers hypothesis was pretty well refuted soon after she proposed it by other Mesoamerican archaeologist, it was not supported by the archaeological evidence then and even much less so now.

Last edited by Shaddam IV; September 25th, 2013 at 05:51 AM.
Shaddam IV is offline  
Old September 25th, 2013, 05:44 AM   #33
Suspended indefinitely
 
Joined: May 2013
From: usa
Posts: 793

Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaddam IV View Post
The out of Taiwan model is about the pre-Austronesian-speaking peoples migrating out of Asia between 4,000 bc to 10,000 bc, they did not even reach Hawaii to at least around 400 AD.
http://www.ishtarsgate.com/forum/sho...rom-Siberia%29

Hawaii is islands so it is NOT necessary to be discovered before longer distance but can't missed target. Beside oral history of menehune implies that there was small population of small technological race living there before polynesian got there.

Other than that there's my theory about pots.
Pottery

I think you are breaking historum rules binging out dna. I would say if most analytical people look at all the migration maps and go through hundreds of newly discovered evidences and picture I showed, they would agree with me, but don't really matter if you disagree. It will be proven in 30 years or less when technology advances as well as more evidences are discovered.
Quote:
Meggers hypothesis was pretty well refuted soon after she proposed it by other Mesoamerican archaeologist, it was not supported by the archaeological evidence then and even much less so now.
It really don't matter. I would say virus is worth opinions of 1000 archaeologist who did not based their opinion with it.

Last edited by rocket7777; September 25th, 2013 at 06:01 AM.
rocket7777 is offline  
Old September 25th, 2013, 06:04 AM   #34

HistoryFreak1912's Avatar
History Freak since 1999.
 
Joined: Apr 2009
From: Alabama, USA
Posts: 4,364
Blog Entries: 20

The people who crossed the Bering Strait. I mean, even when the Vikings crossed over, there were people living there already.
HistoryFreak1912 is offline  
Old September 25th, 2013, 07:05 AM   #35
Suspended indefinitely
 
Joined: Jun 2013
From: West Palm Beach, Fl
Posts: 808

The Vineland Map showing part of the east coast of North America (see google) shows Greenland as a island. It was probably copied from the Zeno Map of the North (see google) published 70 years before -1380. This map shows much of Greenland without its ice cover which means the map was originally made thousands of years ago.
The Vineland Map has been tested on and off for nearly 50 years and has passed every test. It is true that the history professors admit the Vikings were here before Columbus, but they sill have to protect his reputation so they have tried to prove the map was fraud. A map of North America in a book published in 1453 makes him look like a liar and the people who supported him also liars.
Mike215 is offline  
Old September 25th, 2013, 07:07 AM   #36

Linschoten's Avatar
nonpareil
 
Joined: Aug 2010
From: Wessex
Posts: 12,551
Blog Entries: 11

'Discovery' always implies discovery from the point of view of someone in particular, in this case Europeans; the Vikings went to America, but their travels there were not made made widely known in Europe, and their significance went unrealized; so Columbus can reasonably be regarded as the discoverer of America, since it was only as a result of his voyages that Europeans first came to realize that there was another continent to the West between them and Asia.
Linschoten is offline  
Old September 25th, 2013, 07:07 AM   #37

Shaddam IV's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Aug 2010
From: Atlanta, GA
Posts: 1,195

Yeah sorry, but I am not wasting my time on some online pseudo-scholarship from a forum which seems to have been created for the express purpose of catering to people who believe in pseudo-historical/scientific nonsense. When you have something from a peer-reviewed source or the work of a professional scholar which supports your assertions about the Out of Taiwan migration model somehow populating the Americas first, even though people had been migrating to the Americas from Siberia before the out of Taiwan migration even began, then I will gladly bother to read the material.

Quote:
Hawaii is islands so it is NOT necessary to be discovered before longer distance but can't missed target. Beside oral history of menehune implies that there was small population of small technological race living there before polynesian got there.
Irrelevant, none of this supports anything you have said.

Quote:
Other than that there's my theory about pots.
Pottery
Independent development of pottery happened all over the world at different times and places, your belief about all pottery originated from ancient China is not supported by the archaeological evidence, it also smacks of the hyperdiffusionist thinking that was so prevalent in historical/archaeological circles in 19th and early 20th centuries.

Quote:
I think you are breaking historum rules binging out dna. I would say if most analytical people look at all the migration maps and go through hundreds of newly discovered evidences and picture I showed, they would agree with me, but don't really matter if you disagree. It will be proven in 30 years or less when technology advances as well as more evidences are discovered.
You free to believe whatever you want, but fact of the matter is that you have no substantiated evidence to support your assertions of the peopling of the Americas.

Quote:
It really don't matter. I would say virus is worth opinions of 1000 archaeologist who did not based their opinion with it.
HTLV-1 is present in populations in Japan, South America, Central America, and Africa. It seems that HTLV-I/II most likely arrived with the original migrants who left Asia to populate the Americas. Post-Columbian Japanese migrants and African slaves also introduced their own strains of the virus into American populations.

Here is a study about it in South America.
http://medicina.ufmg.br/osubh/wp-con...-HTLV-I-II.pdf
Shaddam IV is offline  
Old September 25th, 2013, 07:27 AM   #38

Linschoten's Avatar
nonpareil
 
Joined: Aug 2010
From: Wessex
Posts: 12,551
Blog Entries: 11

Quote:
The Vineland Map showing part of the east coast of North America (see google) shows Greenland as a island. It was probably copied from the Zeno Map of the North (see google) published 70 years before -1380. This map shows much of Greenland without its ice cover which means the map was originally made thousands of years ago.
The Zeno map doesn't show Greenland as an island, but as attached to the Eurasian continent; and it is of no geographical value, being peppered with legendary islands.

Quote:
It is true that the history professors admit the Vikings were here before Columbus, but they sill have to protect his reputation so they have tried to prove the map was fraud. A map of North America in a book published in 1453 makes him look like a liar and the people who supported him also liars.
This is totally irrational. It was already recognized in the 19th Century, on the basis of evidence from the sagas, that the Vikings had probably visited the American continent. That this should subsequently have become known doesn't make Columbus a 'liar', or anyone who 'supported' him a 'liar'; and it was only as a result of Columbus's voyages that the existence of the American came to be generally recognized by Europeans, so he was in a certain sense its discoverer anyhow. The 'history professors' have simply followed the evidence wherever it led, and since the discovery of the archaeological evidence on Newfoundland, it has been acknowledged by academics as a demonstrated fact that the Vikings did visit America, as the sagas suggest. So why should they want to show that the Vinland map is a fraud unless they believe that it is in fact a fraud? Otherwise, they would only have a motive to do so if, (a) they wanted to deny that the Vikings visited America, and (b) if the Vinland map provided the only evidence or at least main evidence that they did visit America. But the main evidence is literary and archaeological.

Last edited by Linschoten; September 25th, 2013 at 07:30 AM.
Linschoten is offline  
Old September 25th, 2013, 07:57 AM   #39

Rubinero's Avatar
Citizen
 
Joined: Sep 2013
From: Oporto, Portugal
Posts: 26

A great song about the theme:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IH3yq5fDv0w]Vangelis - Conquest of Paradise - YouTube[/ame]
Rubinero is offline  
Old September 25th, 2013, 01:15 PM   #40
Suspended indefinitely
 
Joined: May 2013
From: usa
Posts: 793

Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaddam IV View Post
Yeah sorry, but I am not wasting my time on some online pseudo-scholarship

Irrelevant, none of this supports anything you have said.
I provided evidence that invalidated your statement and made evidence of similar migration that support my statements.
rocket7777 is offline  
Reply

  Historum > World History Forum > American History

Tags
america, discovered



Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Who really discovered North America? n1ck Medieval and Byzantine History 151 July 22nd, 2011 10:04 PM
Who discovered America? Spontaneous43 American History 68 May 27th, 2011 11:16 PM
Chinese Discovered America? mingming Speculative History 41 March 5th, 2011 08:04 AM
The Carthiginians discovered America? markdienekes Ancient History 12 April 20th, 2010 02:19 AM
Who discovered America? Isaac American History 12 February 10th, 2007 09:15 PM

Copyright © 2006-2013 Historum. All rights reserved.