Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Nth American Indian origins

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #61
    Originally posted by Prof View Post
    I just don't buy the "one small group just one time" scenario. What was there to keep everybody else out?

    Prof
    Despite all the evidence to the contrary, the settling of NZ by Maori was long thought of as accidental and over a short period of time. Now of course we know both through oral history and archaeological finds that it was a series of waves of planned immigration, just as it is to this day.
    In the realm of spirit, seek clarity; in the material world, seek utility.

    Leibniz

    Comment


    • #62
      Originally posted by Parihaka View Post
      Despite all the evidence to the contrary, the settling of NZ by Maori was long thought of as accidental and over a short period of time. Now of course we know both through oral history and archaeological finds that it was a series of waves of planned immigration, just as it is to this day.
      Pari-quote:

      Linguistic and mitochondrial DNA point to successive waves of migration from Taiwan starting roughly 5200 years ago. Navigation and shipbuilding skills had to be damned good or developing rapidly at that point, even the relatively short hops across Micronesia happened out of sight of land.


      Pari:

      Just so. What do you think about the widely accepted notion that the Americas were setted by a single small group of individuals who came here via the pedestrian route from Siberia & then stayed? What sort of shortcomings in MtDNA analysis are there, or could there be? It's hard to find any sort of peer-group assessment of possible built-in mistakes.

      Prof

      Comment


      • #63
        I may buy the idea that the discovery of a new place was accidental.The settling,however requires preparations,planning,lots of tribal politics etc....I recommend the ''Argonauts of the Pacific'' by Bronislaw Malinowski(sure about the author,not so sure about the title,sorry,it was 9th grade reading).Sailing hundreds of miles in a canoe is a big deal for the community.

        The situation is analogous with the discovery and colonization of Iceland,Greenland and N.America described in the Sagas.
        Those who know don't speak
        He said to them, "But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one. Luke 22:36

        Comment


        • #64
          Originally posted by Prof View Post
          I believe that I will take this to a local potter & see what she can do with it. I have some that are similar made by a friend's son, but he's stopped making pottery, & wasn't much of a hand at anything but straight glazes, not patterns.

          Prof
          Good luck with that,Prof.I bet my first pay that it will look even better with something liquid in it.Preferably something that contains alcohol:)):))
          Those who know don't speak
          He said to them, "But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one. Luke 22:36

          Comment


          • #65
            Originally posted by Prof View Post
            Pari-quote:

            Linguistic and mitochondrial DNA point to successive waves of migration from Taiwan starting roughly 5200 years ago. Navigation and shipbuilding skills had to be damned good or developing rapidly at that point, even the relatively short hops across Micronesia happened out of sight of land.


            Pari:

            Just so. What do you think about the widely accepted notion that the Americas were setted by a single small group of individuals who came here via the pedestrian route from Siberia & then stayed?

            Prof
            purely opinion on my part but the single group idea seems rooted in the same notion that justified the old view of NZ occupation, namely the natives just happened to wash up by accident or dumb luck. It was part and parcel of the 'lesser native societies' idea, where modern colonisers were bringing civilisation which in turn needed to minimise indigenous acheivements.
            Logic dictates that just as they do today, access to resources and desire to explore were driving forces across history.
            For the Asia/America land bridge to work, communication had to be two way, the migrations had to be planned. You have to get your women and children there, you have to bring food and tools with you etc etc. I'm of a mind that it had to involve effective coastal boats.
            Same would apply for a Europe/America migration, and the Europeans certainly had the coastal seafaring capabilities necessary. Our ancestors weren't stupid, they knew coastal seafaring was a far safer means of long distance travel than walking and their ability to survive extreme conditions through technology is well proven.

            As an example, I'd draw your attention to the myth of Kupe and the great Maori waka, which when the desire to wrap all the myths up into one event and character are unraveled, tell the tale of successive, well planned migrations
            Last edited by Parihaka; 21 Jan 10,, 19:54.
            In the realm of spirit, seek clarity; in the material world, seek utility.

            Leibniz

            Comment


            • #66
              Originally posted by Mihais View Post
              I may buy the idea that the discovery of a new place was accidental.The settling,however requires preparations,planning,lots of tribal politics etc....I recommend the ''Argonauts of the Pacific'' by Bronislaw Malinowski(sure about the author,not so sure about the title,sorry,it was 9th grade reading).Sailing hundreds of miles in a canoe is a big deal for the community.

              The situation is analogous with the discovery and colonization of Iceland,Greenland and N.America described in the Sagas.
              Mihais:



              Discovery vs settlement. Note my separation back up there between pedestrian migration vs maritime.

              You sail, you pretty much got to know where you're going. Well, maybe not, but at least you do if your original idea is to return & bring other people back with you. Your Iceland/Greenland/NA analogue is not only appropriate but funny as Hell. The first known real estate scam.

              You don't want to come to "Iceland" (settled & comfortable but confined, so it has a new nasty name assigned by its occupants) but instead to "Greenland", marginally inhabitable (even with the non-ACW going on), but with its new attractive name.

              So the suckers who get there proceed to the mainland coast southward, call it "Vinland" but run into a bunch of scraelings who don't like them. Stick around for awhile but the thing doesn't work so you go home.

              As for the planning settlements & tribal politics business, I doubt that seriously in the case of the folks taking the land routes. They were undoubtedly just walking around. They had no reason to think that they were doing anything special. No maps, right? These guys weren't headed for Ellis Island. They were just wandering around. The groups involved would walk, hunt, gather, stop when they found food & water sources, sources for toolmaking (like the Topper site, where several sequential & overlayed cultures stuck around because it was a fabulous chert quarry with a river nearby) & hang around until they had exhausted the resources. Or got pushed out by some other group.

              Some of them (plural) made it here, probably by accident.

              Prof
              Last edited by Prof; 22 Jan 10,, 01:24.

              Comment


              • #67
                Originally posted by Parihaka View Post
                purely subjective on my part but the single group idea seems rooted in the same notion that justified the old view of NZ occupation, namely the natives just happened to wash up by accident or dumb luck. It was part and parcel of the 'lesser native societies' idea, where modern colonisers were bringing civilisation which in turn needed to minimise indigenous acheivements.
                Logic dictates that just as they do today, access to resources and desire to explore were driving forces across history.
                For the Asia/America land bridge to work, communication had to be two way, the migrations had to be planned. You have to get your women and children there, you have to bring food and tools with you etc etc. I'm of a mind that it had to involve effective coastal boats.
                Same would apply for a Europe/America migration, and the Europeans certainly had the coastal seafaring capabilities necessary. Our ancestors weren't stupid, they knew coastal seafaring was a far safer means of long distance travel than walking and their ability to survive extreme conditions through technology is well proven.

                As an example, I'd draw your attention to the myth of Kupe and the great Maori waka, which when the desire to wrap all the myths up into one event and character are unraveled, tell the tale of successive, well planned migrations
                Same response. I don't see any need whatever for any sort of planning, except in the sense that a small group of hobos in the early '30s made some planning from day to day. Even less. The pedestrian groups had to be small, necessarily isolated from one another & independent. The "land bridge", while it existed, was huge & undifferentiated from the terrain elsewhere. They were just there, doin' their thing, & some happened across the border. & then didn't go back.

                Now, the maritime migrations would necessarily be different. They might have started off as fishing expeditions, & when enough people had come back with tales of productive mainland places to visit & eat from expeditions might well have been planned.

                Prof

                Comment


                • #68
                  Originally posted by Prof View Post
                  What sort of shortcomings in MtDNA analysis are there, or could there be? It's hard to find any sort of peer-group assessment of possible built-in mistakes.

                  Prof
                  Don't know enough about it sorry, though I'm probably now going to go off and read about it over the next few weeks, like I don't already have enough to do
                  In the realm of spirit, seek clarity; in the material world, seek utility.

                  Leibniz

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    Originally posted by Parihaka View Post
                    Don't know enough about it sorry, though I'm probably now going to go off and read about it over the next few weeks, like I don't already have enough to do
                    Pari:

                    I, on the other hand, have massive amounts of time on my hands. Until dove season opens. Chuckle. Nothing like fiddlin' with Google while eating cold Mary-Dove-Pie & avoiding #8 shot.



                    Prof

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      Originally posted by Prof View Post
                      If there were a fairly large human agricultural population within what is now the Black Sea basin (& there is now some - including underwater - archeological evidence to suggest that that there was), then the known rupture of the known barrier at the head of the Bosphorus, at the time it is now known to have happened, would have displaced the population in whatever direction that parts of the population decided to get displaced to, & would have done all that displacement at about the right time.

                      The event, if there really were an organized bunch of people there to watch it, probably took some years to develop. Not exactly the TV dam-break scenario catastrophe you will probably see next year on the History Channel, but you can't really farm land under an inch of seawater either, can you?

                      Prof
                      Read a really good book on this a few years back, if anybody is interested in this stuff: it's called "Noah's Flood: The New Scientific Discoveries About The Event That Changed History", by William Ryan and Walter Pitman. They make a pretty convincing argument for the Black Sea "craddle of civilisation" theory.
                      Last edited by Stitch; 21 Jan 10,, 20:11. Reason: Punctuation
                      "There is never enough time to do or say all the things that we would wish. The thing is to try to do as much as you can in the time that you have. Remember Scrooge, time is short, and suddenly, you're not there any more." -Ghost of Christmas Present, Scrooge

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        Originally posted by Stitch View Post
                        Read a really good book on this a few years back, if anybody is interested in this stuff: it's called "Noah's Flood: The New Scientific Discoveries About The Event That Changed History", by William Ryan and Walter Pitman. They make a pretty convincing argument for the Black Sea "craddle of civilisation" theory.
                        Stitch:

                        Gloom, again. :(

                        Like to kick a guy when he's down?

                        I thought it was a fabulous discovery. If it were true then it explained many things. Trouble is, the geologists got in there & screwed everything up. It's hard to argue with geology & RADAR cartography.

                        Yes. There was indeed a major flooding event involving the lake that then became the Black Sea sometime between 16K & 12K BP. Trouble is, that was late Pleistocene when there weren't many people around in the vicinity & those that were were nomadic hunters & gatherers. There simply weren't enough folks around to be displaced, & those people weren't very displaceable anyway, since their communities spent much of their time on the move, following resources.

                        Later, about 7.6K BP, it happened again, but this event was apparently much smaller. The flooded land only involved a small part of the extreme western end of the Sea. This, unfortunately for my prehistoric fantasies, was where the Ballard team found the remains of Wattle/Daub architecture, the tools & the two remarkably preserved boats. This second event had the potential for displacing bunches of settled people, since there were bunches of setted people there by then, & if they had been displaced, they would have wandered all over the place spreading agriculture & flood myths. Trouble is, the flood wasn't really big enough to displace them. Kind of a Katrina event rather than "Noah's Flood." Dammit.

                        This business is actually an example of branches of Science not communicating properly. Geologists have known about both events for a humiliating length of time.

                        If someone comes up with a resurrection of the notion, let me know, but for now, I'm bereft. :(

                        Prof

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          Good explanation; I didn't realize there were two events in the same general region. I guess Ryan & Pitman skipped that part. I do remember seeing a picture of one of the boats at the bottom of the Black Sea, though; pretty well-preserved. Was that because of the abnormally low oxygen levels at depth, or some other reason?
                          "There is never enough time to do or say all the things that we would wish. The thing is to try to do as much as you can in the time that you have. Remember Scrooge, time is short, and suddenly, you're not there any more." -Ghost of Christmas Present, Scrooge

                          Comment


                          • #73
                            Originally posted by Stitch View Post
                            Good explanation; I didn't realize there were two events in the same general region. I guess Ryan & Pitman skipped that part. I do remember seeing a picture of one of the boats at the bottom of the Black Sea, though; pretty well-preserved. Was that because of the abnormally low oxygen levels at depth, or some other reason?
                            Yeah. Salt water is supposedly heavier than fresh (don't know that for a fact, just repeating a frequent assertion) & displaced the fresh water at the bottom of the lake. Somehow this allowed the deep water to become deoxygenated, so borer worms, the nemesis of underwater archaeologists, can't survive.

                            I really, really regret the lack of good flood evidence. It would really explain so much. The timing of the second one would be near perfect for explaining the center, location & directions of the IndoEuropean swarm, the commonality of flood stories (including those in America) & all sorts of other cool stuff.

                            Prof :(

                            Comment


                            • #74
                              Originally posted by Stitch View Post
                              Good explanation; I didn't realize there were two events in the same general region. I guess Ryan & Pitman skipped that part. I do remember seeing a picture of one of the boats at the bottom of the Black Sea, though; pretty well-preserved. Was that because of the abnormally low oxygen levels at depth, or some other reason?
                              Stitch:

                              Ryan & Pittman didn't exactly skip the point. I doubt if they knew of it. People toiling in the "stacks" of Balkan geology do just fine when they measure probable water levels here & there & talk about it amongst themselves, but they don't tend to consider implications outside their field, & people outside their field tend not to consult the Geology paper trade. More communication between the social & physical sciences would be very nice. Especially in prehistoric anthropology, linguistics & paleontology. Dammit. I'm still grumpy.

                              Prof

                              Comment


                              • #75
                                Originally posted by Prof View Post
                                Trouble is, the flood wasn't really big enough to displace them. Kind of a Katrina event rather than "Noah's Flood." Dammit.
                                Since the remains are 300m underwater, I think it is a Noah type event. If we assume a sudden deluge rather than a steady but slow creep. And if 1 foot of water= 1 mile of coverage along flats and what ever more when the land slopes upwards then 300m= up to a 984 mile run to safety. Depending on just how fast the water rose and anything over 12 miles a day will kill anyone trying to leave with livestock and over 20 miles a day only those near the edges will get away undrowned. When the land slopes sharply upward the refugees have elss distance to travel, but will go much slower as well.

                                Furthermore if we assume that people were concentrated near the freshwater lakes and rivers, then only those upriver near the bowl rivers headwaters would really be in a position to escape with much at all.

                                Having seen first hand just how fast 6-14' of water can appear from just 2 rivers, imagine something like a sea breaking in to a bowl.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X