Discussion:
Date limit set on first Americans
(too old to reply)
Diarmid Logan
2003-07-22 14:09:15 UTC
Permalink
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3086777.stm


Date limit set on first Americans

By Paul Rincon

BBC Science

A new genetic study deals a blow to claims that humans reached America
at least 30,000 years ago - around the same time that people were
colonising Europe.

The subject of when humans first arrived in America is hotly contested
by academics.

On one side of the argument are researchers who claim America was
first populated around 13,000 years ago, toward the end of the last
Ice Age. On the other are those who propose a much earlier date for
colonisation of the continent - possibly around 30,000-40,000 years
ago.

The authors of the latest study reject the latter theory, proposing
that humans entered America no earlier than 18,000 years ago.

They looked at mutations on the form of the human Y chromosome known
as haplotype 10.

This is one of only two haplotypes carried by Native American men and
is thought to have reached the continent first. Haplotype 10 is also
found in Asia, confirming that the earliest Americans came from there.

The scientists knew that determining when mutations occurred on
haplotype 10 might reveal a date for the first entry of people into
America.

Native Americans carry a mutation called M3 on haplotype 10 which is
not found in Asia. This suggests it appeared after people settled in
America, making it useless for assigning a date to the first
migrations.

But a mutation known as M242 looked more promising. M242 is found in
Asia and America, suggesting that it appeared before the first
Americans split from their Asian kin.

Knowing the rate at which DNA on the Y chromosome mutates - errors
occur - and the time taken for a single male generation, the
scientists were able to calculate when M242 originated. They arrived
at a maximum date of 18,000 years ago for its appearance.

This means the first Americans were still living in Asia when M242
appeared and could only have begun their migration eastwards after
this date.

"I would say that they entered [America] within the last 15,000
years," said Dr Spencer Wells, a geneticist and author who contributed
to the latest study.

In 1997, a US-Chilean team uncovered apparent evidence of human
occupation in 33,000-year-old sediment layers at Monte Verde in Chile.

They claimed that burned wood found at the site came from fires at
hunting camps and that fractured pebbles found there were used by
humans to butcher meat. But the interpretation of these remains has
been questioned by several experts.

The debate over the biological origins of the first Americans has
wide-ranging political and racial implications.

In the US, the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act
(Nagpra) has resulted in the handover of many scientific collections
to claimants.

Some archaeologists argue that the remains of early Americans are
sufficiently different from their descendents to be exempt from
Nagpra.

For example, a 9,300-year-old skull from Washington State known as
Kennewick Man has been interpreted as looking European due to its
long, narrow (dolichocephalic) skull shape. More recent American
populations tend to have short, broad skulls.

Dr Wells said individuals such as Kennewick Man looked this way
because Europeans and early Americans had a common origin around
35,000-40,000 years ago in south-central Asia.

"[Dolichocephaly] is a general feature of very early skulls," Dr Wells
told BBC News Online.

He said a later migration into America from East Asia 6,000-10,000
years ago associated with the spread of Y chromosome haplotype 5 could
have been responsible for the Asiatic appearance of many present-day
Native Americans.

But Dr Wells acknowledged the possibility that even more ancient
American populations carrying unidentified Y chromosome haplotypes
could have been swamped by later migrations, resulting in their
genetic legacy being erased.

"We can't rule that out," he said, "but in science we have to deal
with what's extant."


http://diarmidlogan.blogspot.com/
Philip Deitiker
2003-07-22 14:56:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Diarmid Logan
They claimed that burned wood found at the site came from fires at
hunting camps and that fractured pebbles found there were used by
humans to butcher meat. But the interpretation of these remains has
been questioned by several experts.
There's that pebble culture again. But oddly it disappeared
in Japan 16 kya and it is appearing in the new world 15 kya.
Sounds like a displacement. What happens in Japan 15 kya,
protoJomon arrives. What does that look like, clovis
culture.
Post by Diarmid Logan
For example, a 9,300-year-old skull from Washington State known as
Kennewick Man has been interpreted as looking European due to its
long, narrow (dolichocephalic) skull shape. More recent American
populations tend to have short, broad skulls.
Dr Wells said individuals such as Kennewick Man looked this way
because Europeans and early Americans had a common origin around
35,000-40,000 years ago in south-central Asia.
Native americans did not have a common origins in south
central asia. They have many points of origin from
melanesians that came up through Japan in the south to
diplaced WEA/ME that came up from the south west to siberia.
To mongols that came from siberia proper . . . . .
Post by Diarmid Logan
But Dr Wells acknowledged the possibility that even more ancient
American populations carrying unidentified Y chromosome haplotypes
could have been swamped by later migrations, resulting in their
genetic legacy being erased.
"We can't rule that out," he said, "but in science we have to deal
with what's extant."
Then he should make a trip to Japan.
Gisele Horvat
2003-07-22 19:19:34 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 22 Jul 2003 09:56:36 -0500, Philip Deitiker
Post by Philip Deitiker
Post by Diarmid Logan
They claimed that burned wood found at the site came from fires at
hunting camps and that fractured pebbles found there were used by
humans to butcher meat. But the interpretation of these remains has
been questioned by several experts.
There's that pebble culture again. But oddly it disappeared
in Japan 16 kya and it is appearing in the new world 15 kya.
Sounds like a displacement. What happens in Japan 15 kya,
protoJomon arrives. What does that look like, clovis
culture.
Post by Diarmid Logan
For example, a 9,300-year-old skull from Washington State known as
Kennewick Man has been interpreted as looking European due to its
long, narrow (dolichocephalic) skull shape. More recent American
populations tend to have short, broad skulls.
Here we go again. What is not made clear in this article is that the
majority of the Native American Y chromsomes are phylogenetically
closer to those of Europeans than to Asians. Quoting Lell et al.
(2002):

"The major Native American founding lineage, haplogroup M3, accounted
for 66% of male Y chromosomes and was defined by the biallelic markers
M89, M9, M45, and M3. ...The second major group of Native American Y
chromosomes, haplogroup M45, accounted for about one-quarter of male
lineages."

We're already up to about 91%...

"Among the remaining 5% of Native American Y chromosomes is haplogroup
RPS4Y-T, found in North America."

RPS4Y-T is the 'Asian' haplotype.

By mentioning "short broad skulls", what is being suggested? That the
same haplotypes, which currently appear to be quite rare in Eastern
Asia, were introduced twice - once along with traits similar to those
of Europeans to account for the appearance of the Kennewick Man and
once with traits similar to those of Asians? This is not what Wells
suggested, though:

"He said a later migration into America from East Asia 6,000-10,000
years ago associated with the spread of Y chromosome haplotype 5 could
have been responsible for the Asiatic appearance of many present-day
Native Americans."

RPS4Y is haplotype 5.

If mtDNAs are maternally inherited and Y chromosomes - paternally
inherited, it should be possible to superimpose one phylogenetic chart
upon the other. Using the well-sampled Europeans as a reference
point:

Y chromosome M89 M9 M45 - precedes the majority of the European
haplotypes as do mtDNA sequences which have 12705T and 16223T. The
predominant Native American haplogroup (A) fits in this category. In
the New World, Y chromosome mutation M3 is thought to have occurred on
this M45 haplotype and been carried back to Asia. This agrees well
with the mtDNA haplogroup A sequences which could have been carried at
the same time.

The Asian/Native American mtDNA haplogroup which is roughly parallel,
phylogenetically, to the majority of the haplogroups of Europe is 'B'.
This could correspond with the Y chromsome haplotypes which have
variants M89 M9 M45 M173 since this haplotype was considered to be a
Native American founding haplotype by Lell and it is found at
relatively high frequency in Polynesia. In Europe, Polynesia and the
New World, at least, Y chromosome M89 M9 M45 M173 could correspond
with mtDNA haplogroups which have 12705C & 16223C and which are called
haplogroup cluster R.

Y chromsome RPS4Y-T could correspond with the mtDNA macro-haplogroup M
sequences in the Americas (haplogroups C & D).

In summary, Native American mtDNA sequences can be separated into 3
groups: 1) the ones which preceded the majority of the European,
phylogenetically, 2) the ones which are considered to be roughly
parallel and 3) the ones closer to those of Asians. If you divide the
relevant Y chromosome haplotypes into the same three groups,
correlations similar to the ones I have described above could be
found. But, *I* shouldn't have to be doing this, researchers in the
field should be and I should be quoting them.

I really just wanted to point out, though, how the low frequency of
the 'Asian' y haplotype is inconsistent with Wells explanation for the
physical description of Native Americans he provided.

Gisele
MIB529
2003-07-23 20:40:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gisele Horvat
By mentioning "short broad skulls", what is being suggested?
I'll be blunt: What's being "suggested" is the same shit that folks
have "suggested" ever since the Spanish made up the myth about white
gods. They manage to get away with it by lumping Indians with
Orientals. So I give them the following Clue cards:

Clue #1: Most Indians ARE dolichocephalic. Only a few in Central
America are brachycephalic.
Clue #2: The cephalic index was discredited a century ago. It's as
useful as phrenology.
Duncan Craig
2003-07-24 02:57:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by MIB529
Post by Gisele Horvat
By mentioning "short broad skulls", what is being suggested?
I'll be blunt: What's being "suggested" is the same shit that folks
have "suggested" ever since the Spanish made up the myth about white
gods. They manage to get away with it by lumping Indians with
I'm curious as to how the Spanish made up the myth of white gods in places
they had never been?... like Hawaii and the Marquesas.

Duncan
Post by MIB529
Clue #1: Most Indians ARE dolichocephalic. Only a few in Central
America are brachycephalic.
Clue #2: The cephalic index was discredited a century ago. It's as
useful as phrenology.
MIB529
2003-07-24 06:05:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Duncan Craig
Post by MIB529
Post by Gisele Horvat
By mentioning "short broad skulls", what is being suggested?
I'll be blunt: What's being "suggested" is the same shit that folks
have "suggested" ever since the Spanish made up the myth about white
gods. They manage to get away with it by lumping Indians with
I'm curious as to how the Spanish made up the myth of white gods in places
they had never been?... like Hawaii and the Marquesas.
I meant white gods in Mexico. No one with two brain cells to rub
together really believes Cortes was worshipped as a god when he
entered Tenochtitlan; the story's contrived, and reeks of white man's
burden. Of course, that doesn't stop folks like Barry Fell from
selling books.

In case your wondering, things like this thread are why anthropology
has a reputation for racism.
Tedd
2003-07-24 06:54:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by MIB529
In case your wondering, things like this thread are why anthropology
has a reputation for racism.
anthropology's reputation for racism was spurred because of Racial Scientism debates of the 19th
century, the monogenesis/polygenesis arguments of the 18th century, and then carried through by
british socio-anthropology. all pre 20th and 21st century, long before threads like this. lets keep
it realistic in accusations, misrepresentations are what lead to the impressions of derogatory
comments (and flaming).

dig deeper,

tedd.
MIB529
2003-07-25 03:07:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tedd
Post by MIB529
In case your wondering, things like this thread are why anthropology
has a reputation for racism.
anthropology's reputation for racism was spurred because of Racial Scientism debates of the 19th
century, the monogenesis/polygenesis arguments of the 18th century,
Are you sure that's restricted to the 18th and 19th centuries? Why,
just three years ago, one of the Kennewick man plaintiffs (C Loring
Brace) was claiming Indians were Neanderthals, while another (David
Meltzer) was just happy with saying inbreeding lead to what he viewed
as inferiority.
Post by Tedd
and then carried through by
british socio-anthropology. all pre 20th and 21st century, long before threads like this.
I said "things like this thread", not "threads like this". The idea of
pre-Indian Caucasians is clearly one of those things. Notice how the
theory was posted on sites like Stormfront long before Kennewick man
was uncovered. And notice how, on the flip side of the coin,
Afrocentrics like John Henrik Clarke were claiming pre-Indian Negroids
in the 30s.
Post by Tedd
lets keep
it realistic in accusations, misrepresentations are what lead to the impressions of derogatory
comments (and flaming).
MIB529
2003-07-25 13:08:37 UTC
Permalink
Dig deeper, says the man digging with a plastic spoon.
I've followed MIB's posts on the subject of anthropology (as well as a
number of other topics) over the years. I do not always agree with
him. In some cases I strongly agree with him, and in others I
strongly disagree with him. MIB is more knowledgable on the subject
of Anthropology than I am, but that is not the point.
The point is, MIB is a Native American who is well aware of the
reputation anthropologists have in the Native community. If he says
Anthropology has a reputation for racism, it would be foolish to
ignore him out of hand.
Besides the obvious reasons, relics from the 19th century, the problem
is that 20th-century anthropologists would date Indians' arrival like
this: A Chukchi crossed the Bering Strait in a kayak yesterday. He
brought us all with him. (That's essentially what this genetic clock
is, unless they want to argue that Indians are a separate species.
After all, if that Chukchi were to have sons by Indians here, and they
in turn were to marry other Indians, and so on, then the genetic
clock's a cuckoo clock.)

And besides which, as long as I assume the Bering Strait theory's
true, I honestly can see racial differences in intelligence. It's too
bad that, under the Bering Strait model, my own's at the bottom,
somewhere among the invertebrates, due to the genetic drift model that
nothing with a brain goes into a colder environment to escape the
cold. And not the higher invertebrates either; I'm talking the ones
that don't even have a basal ganglia. THAT'S how I see the Bering
Strait theory.
You could dismiss MIB as just a crazy injun, or YOU could dig a little
deeper. You could find out whether or not anthropology has such a
reputation, and you could find out why. You could try reading books
written by actual Native Americans (yes, some of us can write!). For
example, Vine DeLoria has a hilarious description of anthropologists
in one of his books. It's been over a decade since I read it, so I
forget which one. I think it was _Custer Died for Your Sins_ or
something like that. Or, you could try talking to some real live
injuns yourself. I know there are plenty around you neck of the
woods. I've talked to some not far from where you live who could tell
you what the general reputation of anthropologists is, and could also
tell you the names of anthropologists who respect, and are respected
by, the local Native community.
Speaking of Vine, I should point out to posters here that he doesn't
believe everything he says in Red Earth, White Lies. In fact, most of
the pseudoscience, he views as equally valid as the Bering Strait
theory. (If you know the theme of REWL, you know the validity he
assigns to the Bering Strait theory.)
Just putting my two cents in, I've known some very highly educated
Indians who cannot stand anthropologists.
I could also give you examples past the year 1900 of racism by
anthropologists. One of my favorites is the antrhopologist who
decided one of my ancestors was a mythical figure, even though she was
a quite well known historical person. Little things like that tend to
piss one off after a while.
My favorite was Hooten's claim of "pseudo-Australoids",
"pseudo-Negroids", "pseudo-Alpines", and "long-faced Europeans" in
Pecos Pueblo, from pre-Columbian times to even after Spanish contact,
which

Another one: Just three years ago, C Loring Brace claimed Indians were
descended from Neanderthals. I have him on record saying race has no
biological meaning, so how are we to take being considered a separate
species: That everyone's equal, except Indians, who are a separate
species altogether?

Trust me: You're not doing antiracism any favor by minimizing the
date, either. North Koreans and Mongolians deal a blow to The Bell
Curve just as effective as any Indian ever could, and you're more
implying Indian inferiority by using us as ammo against it.
Okay, let's try a little thought experiment. Anthropology is, or at
least aspires to be, a science. (Sorry, but a physical scientist like
myself can't help but find a few flaws in the rigor of Anthropology.)
All fields of science are the sum of human *interpretations* of
empirical data. Humans are flawed, therefore interpretations are
flawed. Spmetimes the data are flawed. Anthropology is a science (so
to speak) which is very sensitive to any ethnic biases. (Being that
the study of humans is especially sensitive to any biases --positive
or negative-- by the humans interpreting the data.)
(1) There are no racist anthropologists
or
(2) The field of Anthropology is necessarily tainted by the racism,
conscious or otherwise, of anthropologists.
The first possibility requires perfection in a large group of humans,
so it can safely be ruled out.
That leaves one, and ONLY one, logical possiblity. The field of
Anthropology is tainted by racism.
I'm not talking about the 18th or 19th century, I'm talking about the
21st century. The bad reputation of Anthropology in the 21st century
Native American community is due to recent and current
anthropologists.
As I've said, I don't agree with MIB all the time. In this case he's
right on target. It would take a little bit of digging to find out
why he hit the bullseye here, but I'll give you a two word clue to
help start your search: Kenniwick Man.
I described the basic failure of Kennewick man. In fact, all these
"caucasoid" skeletons seem to invariably look like so many of my
relatives.
Tedd
2003-07-25 15:13:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tedd
Post by MIB529
In case your wondering, things like this thread are why anthropology
has a reputation for racism.
anthropology's reputation for racism was spurred because of Racial Scientism
debates of the 19th
Post by Tedd
century, the monogenesis/polygenesis arguments of the 18th century, and then
carried through by
Post by Tedd
british socio-anthropology. all pre 20th and 21st century, long before
threads like this. lets keep
Post by Tedd
it realistic in accusations, misrepresentations are what lead to the
impressions of derogatory
Post by Tedd
comments (and flaming).
dig deeper,
tedd.
Dig deeper, says the man digging with a plastic spoon.
yup, dig deeper. personal biases or points of view dont equal reality, only an
interpretation of reality. there are no absolutes, there is no uniformity, to
claim so is to lock yourself to your own biased interpretations.

i'm not insulting MIB, (that would make me a fool), read the statement again,
his comment "...things like this thread..." was a shallow, surface statement
when the roots go back far beyond "this thread" (as i'm sure he'd agree). do i
agree with him, of course i do, anthropology was based on "racism" in time and
place and to a degree still is in some circles (otherwise we wouldnt be having
this conversation).

yes i have read DeLoria, and Vizenor, Silko, Welch, Erdrich, and found them to
be just as guilty of what you are claiming anthropologists to be. and if i
assumed that their points of view spoke for the entirety of the population i'd
be just as guilty as those who claim all anthropologists are racist. there are
anthropologists that are just as controversial within the discipline as Erdrich
is within the native american population.

and for what it's worth; there is more than one theological orientation in
anthropology (not to mention approaches), dont lump us all into the same mold.
that'd be like me insulting you by saying Cherokee and Inuit are one and the
same because they're both indians. (that was said in jest.) ;)

tedd.
thomas
2003-07-26 04:05:30 UTC
Permalink
But many anthropologists DO insist on comparing Indian remains to
Orientals and deciding if you can't find enough similarities, it ain't
Indian, regardless of how much it looks like Indians. From this
apparent difference, they spin wild theories about how whites were
here before Indians and how Indians wiped said whites out.
That is one of the many wild theories advanced by Vine Deloria
in his book "Red Earth, White Lies". Vine is usually advertised
as the foremost critic of anthropology.
Philip Deitiker
2003-07-26 04:25:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by thomas
But many anthropologists DO insist on comparing Indian remains to
Orientals and deciding if you can't find enough similarities, it ain't
Indian, regardless of how much it looks like Indians. From this
apparent difference, they spin wild theories about how whites were
here before Indians and how Indians wiped said whites out.
That is one of the many wild theories advanced by Vine Deloria
in his book "Red Earth, White Lies". Vine is usually advertised
as the foremost critic of anthropology.
Once again we see the race card being pulled. I don't know
if there is any direct contribution by WEA or Africans into
the pre-columbian New world, when I see evidence that is
convincing I will report it. I see lots of genetic evidence
that links Native Americans to Asia. The base problem that
Native Americans, Australos, Europeans(nationalist), Hindus,
Creationist and all what nots of tribal beleifs have to deal
with is the same. About the only people on the earth that I
know might be able to claim local origin are the biaka
pygmies. Everyone else had ancestors that migrated from
elsewhere. Thus we have a situation its not just Native
Americans that have a problem, everyone who subscribes to a
tribal belief of local origin has a problem, a conflict.
Certainly a few groups could make the argument that their
ancestors were present 100 kya and possibly be correct
(african click speakers, certain australo or melanesian
groups), but by and large most peoples are recent immigrants
to their respective regions. What makes Native Americans
look silly, with the flood of evidence suggesting
immigration on a very long path from africa, they are one of
the most recent of the recently 'peopled' peoples. Thus the
presentation of tribal beleifs will neccesarily run in the
face of any serious discussion of origin.
thomas
2003-07-26 08:53:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Philip Deitiker
Post by thomas
But many anthropologists DO insist on comparing Indian remains to
Orientals and deciding if you can't find enough similarities, it ain't
Indian, regardless of how much it looks like Indians. From this
apparent difference, they spin wild theories about how whites were
here before Indians and how Indians wiped said whites out.
That is one of the many wild theories advanced by Vine Deloria
in his book "Red Earth, White Lies". Vine is usually advertised
as the foremost critic of anthropology.
Once again we see the race card being pulled. I don't know
if there is any direct contribution by WEA or Africans into
the pre-columbian New world, when I see evidence that is
convincing I will report it.
I didn't make myself clear. Deloria himself has argued that whites
originated in the Americas and then migrated to Europe.
Point being that this particular "wild theory" is not unique to
racist white crackpots of the Asatru persuasion, but is also being
propagated by racist Indian crackpots such as Deloria.

Of course, Deloria has also argued that humans originated in South
Africa after being genetically engineered by spacemen from
the planet Nibiru to serve as slaves in the spacemen's gold
mines. How he reconciles this with his American genesis
theory is not immediately apparent....
Philip Deitiker
2003-07-26 13:41:23 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 26 Jul 2003 10:34:00 +0100, Doug Weller
But this wild idea is not one I have seen associated with him -- but I
gather that in God is Red he draws from Sitchin, is that what you are
referring to?
See there, there's another theory of mine blown to hell. I
though god was invisible, but if you saw him you shrivel up
like a petunia in a hot desert. We need a whole new group on
the internet devoted to the color of god.

I recommend:

alt.religion.preoccupied.colorofgod.proofs.mathematical

[The last segment was added for Wilkens]











[OK, so, yeah, I am Joking]
Bernard Ortiz de Montellano
2003-07-26 14:17:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by thomas
Post by Philip Deitiker
Post by thomas
But many anthropologists DO insist on comparing Indian remains to
Orientals and deciding if you can't find enough similarities, it ain't
Indian, regardless of how much it looks like Indians. From this
apparent difference, they spin wild theories about how whites were
here before Indians and how Indians wiped said whites out.
That is one of the many wild theories advanced by Vine Deloria
in his book "Red Earth, White Lies". Vine is usually advertised
as the foremost critic of anthropology.
Once again we see the race card being pulled. I don't know
if there is any direct contribution by WEA or Africans into
the pre-columbian New world, when I see evidence that is
convincing I will report it.
I didn't make myself clear. Deloria himself has argued that whites
originated in the Americas and then migrated to Europe.
Point being that this particular "wild theory" is not unique to
racist white crackpots of the Asatru persuasion, but is also being
propagated by racist Indian crackpots such as Deloria.
Of course, Deloria has also argued that humans originated in South
Africa after being genetically engineered by spacemen from
the planet Nibiru to serve as slaves in the spacemen's gold
mines. How he reconciles this with his American genesis
theory is not immediately apparent....
I would be very interested in fetting a reference for these views
Thanks
--
Bernard Ortiz de Montellano
Tedd
2003-07-26 18:38:02 UTC
Permalink
My main point is: any scientific theory is to some extent corrupted
by one's preconceptions. In the field of Anthropology, any biases
about groups of people will necessarily bias the interpretations,
thereby corrupting the theories.
a post-modernist arguement used by arm-chair anthropologist in an attempt to
continually rehash non-starter issues and to revitalize Boas because they still
believe there is credibility to psycic unity. this is where anthropologists
become appologists.
As far as who is racist: there are three basic types of people who
will admit to racism. First is the inveterate racist who thinks
racism is proper. Second is the inveterate racist who is trying to
excuse his/her racism with an 'everybody does it' cop out. Third is
the more enlightened type of person who realizes that tribalistic
feelings are a basic part of the human psyche, and uses the awareness
of his/her residual racism as a tool to try to minimize his/her
racism.
Everyone else is in denial.
I try to be in the third category. As a chemist, any residual racism
plays a small role at worst in my work. However, anthropological
theories can only approach reality when one is willing to examine
racism both in oneself and in others.
post-modern apologist, everyone in denial, examine racism,... sounds more like
sociology.

tedd.

Diarmid Logan
2003-07-24 14:14:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by MIB529
I meant white gods in Mexico. No one with two brain cells to rub
together really believes Cortes was worshipped as a god when he
entered Tenochtitlan; the story's contrived, and reeks of white man's
burden. Of course, that doesn't stop folks like Barry Fell from
selling books.
In case your wondering, things like this thread are why anthropology
has a reputation for racism.
Just because you don't agree with the findings of the researchers does
not mean that these scientists were racists.
--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG
Philip Deitiker
2003-07-24 16:14:38 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 24 Jul 2003 14:14:39 +0000 (UTC), "Diarmid Logan"
Post by Diarmid Logan
Post by MIB529
In case your wondering, things like this thread are why anthropology
has a reputation for racism.
Just because you don't agree with the findings of the researchers does
not mean that these scientists were racists.
"White" has many contexts, it could be the color of
traditional makeup of a tribe or the fact that skin color
pales when people die, any one who insists that it must come
from some unseen contact from europe fits that catagory of a
racist, I think.

You know columbus did not sail directly to mexico, he ran
into islands, as any people would and then after further
sailing reached Mexico. Saying that gods are white and come
from this place or that place in the mexico central valley,
its a little bit far fetched for the lack of information
from other places. In terms of mexico the carribe indians
traveled between the outer islands and mexico, They may have
seen columbus and traveled to mexico informing the aztec
leaders that powerful white men are coming.


The basic problem is that these cypto-WE-racist see a hint
of something and they are on their high alters proclaiming
it as evidence. There is far more than a hint of evidence of
contact over a long period of time from Asia, and no-one is
on their high alter proclaiming it here, they are ignoring
it. If for instance Inger and Erik were talking about recent
off-continent contribution from both directions, I would
certainly think more highly of them than trying to turn
every bit of 'parallels' as evidence of pre-columbian
migration from WEA. Also note the groups they exclude, they
don't talk about the potency of the basque, legendary sea
peoples, nor do they talk about contribution from africa or
canary islands. They are simply focused on Egypt, Italy,
Spain, Ireland and _Sweden_. This is why you can say they
are racist.
MIB529
2003-07-25 01:17:44 UTC
Permalink
Very well-written, Philip. Might I add ANY contact from Asia also
makes the DNA useless, since the entire assumption of DNA is phyletic
isolation.

I have the following criteria before I believe in hyperdiffusion: 1)
An idea can't be a near-universal, 2) it has to be in both locations,
3) its evolution has to be tracked in location X, and not in location
Y, and 4) it must appear in location X before it appears in location
Y. Obviously, this hypothetical diffusion is X>Y. For technology, I
look for environmental reasons as well; if there's an environmental
reason for a technology in location Y, we can assume it was invented
independently.
Post by Philip Deitiker
On Thu, 24 Jul 2003 14:14:39 +0000 (UTC), "Diarmid Logan"
Post by Diarmid Logan
Post by MIB529
In case your wondering, things like this thread are why anthropology
has a reputation for racism.
Just because you don't agree with the findings of the researchers does
not mean that these scientists were racists.
"White" has many contexts, it could be the color of
traditional makeup of a tribe or the fact that skin color
pales when people die, any one who insists that it must come
from some unseen contact from europe fits that catagory of a
racist, I think.
You know columbus did not sail directly to mexico, he ran
into islands, as any people would and then after further
sailing reached Mexico. Saying that gods are white and come
from this place or that place in the mexico central valley,
its a little bit far fetched for the lack of information
from other places. In terms of mexico the carribe indians
traveled between the outer islands and mexico, They may have
seen columbus and traveled to mexico informing the aztec
leaders that powerful white men are coming.
The basic problem is that these cypto-WE-racist see a hint
of something and they are on their high alters proclaiming
it as evidence. There is far more than a hint of evidence of
contact over a long period of time from Asia, and no-one is
on their high alter proclaiming it here, they are ignoring
it. If for instance Inger and Erik were talking about recent
off-continent contribution from both directions, I would
certainly think more highly of them than trying to turn
every bit of 'parallels' as evidence of pre-columbian
migration from WEA. Also note the groups they exclude, they
don't talk about the potency of the basque, legendary sea
peoples, nor do they talk about contribution from africa or
canary islands. They are simply focused on Egypt, Italy,
Spain, Ireland and _Sweden_. This is why you can say they
are racist.
MIB529
2003-07-25 04:04:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Diarmid Logan
Post by MIB529
I meant white gods in Mexico. No one with two brain cells to rub
together really believes Cortes was worshipped as a god when he
entered Tenochtitlan; the story's contrived, and reeks of white man's
burden. Of course, that doesn't stop folks like Barry Fell from
selling books.
In case your wondering, things like this thread are why anthropology
has a reputation for racism.
Just because you don't agree with the findings of the researchers does
not mean that these scientists were racists.
And when they do a snow job it does. Look at Kennewick man; the
"caucasoid" traits included:

Prognathous jaw (Um, no. It most likely occurs in negroids, and rarely
occurs in caucasoids)
Narrow face (Chatters hasn't seen many Indians.)
Cephalic index 73.8 (You'll ignore the laughter coming out of my own
skull, with its cephalic index of 72.9)
Receding cheekbones (What? Races can't have a little variation?)
Long, broad nose (I maintain Chatters hasn't seen many Indians.)
V-shaped mandible (I maintain AGAIN that Chatters hasn't seen many
Indians.)
Dental characteristics fit Turner's sundadont pattern. (Turner never
looked at Indian teeth when he announced we were sinodonts. It turns
out we lack many of the sundadont traits, such as three roots on the
lower first molar.)

His problem was that he used a system of three races. As such, he
ASSUMED Indians would look just like Orientals. Assuming all
brown-skinned people look alike is even more stereotypical than
assuming all Indians look alike.

He also assumes traits which are essentially environmental, and
stereotypical at that (cradleboard deformation, early teeth rotting,
and arthritis), are the essence of Indianness. Of course, he ignores
that modern Indians have the highest rate of diabetes in the world,
which could probably be explained by the high-carb commodities; it
doesn't take a genius to figure out what a diet high in carbohydrates
does to teeth. Similarly, a traditional lifestyle would contribute
less to arthritis, hence the higher rate of arthritis now. And the
cradleboard assumes it was an early-Holocene invention, rather than a
more recent invention, the fallacy of course being the assumption that
technology is a constant.
Eric Stevens
2003-07-25 04:47:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by MIB529
Post by Diarmid Logan
Post by MIB529
I meant white gods in Mexico. No one with two brain cells to rub
together really believes Cortes was worshipped as a god when he
entered Tenochtitlan; the story's contrived, and reeks of white man's
burden. Of course, that doesn't stop folks like Barry Fell from
selling books.
In case your wondering, things like this thread are why anthropology
has a reputation for racism.
Just because you don't agree with the findings of the researchers does
not mean that these scientists were racists.
And when they do a snow job it does. Look at Kennewick man; the
Prognathous jaw (Um, no. It most likely occurs in negroids, and rarely
occurs in caucasoids)
Narrow face (Chatters hasn't seen many Indians.)
Cephalic index 73.8 (You'll ignore the laughter coming out of my own
skull, with its cephalic index of 72.9)
Receding cheekbones (What? Races can't have a little variation?)
Long, broad nose (I maintain Chatters hasn't seen many Indians.)
V-shaped mandible (I maintain AGAIN that Chatters hasn't seen many
Indians.)
Dental characteristics fit Turner's sundadont pattern. (Turner never
looked at Indian teeth when he announced we were sinodonts. It turns
out we lack many of the sundadont traits, such as three roots on the
lower first molar.)
His problem was that he used a system of three races. As such, he
ASSUMED Indians would look just like Orientals. Assuming all
brown-skinned people look alike is even more stereotypical than
assuming all Indians look alike.
He also assumes traits which are essentially environmental, and
stereotypical at that (cradleboard deformation, early teeth rotting,
and arthritis), are the essence of Indianness. Of course, he ignores
that modern Indians have the highest rate of diabetes in the world,
which could probably be explained by the high-carb commodities; it
doesn't take a genius to figure out what a diet high in carbohydrates
does to teeth. Similarly, a traditional lifestyle would contribute
less to arthritis, hence the higher rate of arthritis now. And the
cradleboard assumes it was an early-Holocene invention, rather than a
more recent invention, the fallacy of course being the assumption that
technology is a constant.
Can I suggest that the last thing we need to do when faced with this
kind of argument is to get bogged down with arguing on the same level.
The best thing to do is to ignore possible racist motivation and
simply deal with the facts. The only problem is that there are so many
facts in this area which are not yet known.



Eric Stevens
MIB529
2003-07-25 12:10:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Eric Stevens
Post by MIB529
Post by Diarmid Logan
Post by MIB529
I meant white gods in Mexico. No one with two brain cells to rub
together really believes Cortes was worshipped as a god when he
entered Tenochtitlan; the story's contrived, and reeks of white man's
burden. Of course, that doesn't stop folks like Barry Fell from
selling books.
In case your wondering, things like this thread are why anthropology
has a reputation for racism.
Just because you don't agree with the findings of the researchers does
not mean that these scientists were racists.
And when they do a snow job it does. Look at Kennewick man; the
Prognathous jaw (Um, no. It most likely occurs in negroids, and rarely
occurs in caucasoids)
Narrow face (Chatters hasn't seen many Indians.)
Cephalic index 73.8 (You'll ignore the laughter coming out of my own
skull, with its cephalic index of 72.9)
Receding cheekbones (What? Races can't have a little variation?)
Long, broad nose (I maintain Chatters hasn't seen many Indians.)
V-shaped mandible (I maintain AGAIN that Chatters hasn't seen many
Indians.)
Dental characteristics fit Turner's sundadont pattern. (Turner never
looked at Indian teeth when he announced we were sinodonts. It turns
out we lack many of the sundadont traits, such as three roots on the
lower first molar.)
His problem was that he used a system of three races. As such, he
ASSUMED Indians would look just like Orientals. Assuming all
brown-skinned people look alike is even more stereotypical than
assuming all Indians look alike.
He also assumes traits which are essentially environmental, and
stereotypical at that (cradleboard deformation, early teeth rotting,
and arthritis), are the essence of Indianness. Of course, he ignores
that modern Indians have the highest rate of diabetes in the world,
which could probably be explained by the high-carb commodities; it
doesn't take a genius to figure out what a diet high in carbohydrates
does to teeth. Similarly, a traditional lifestyle would contribute
less to arthritis, hence the higher rate of arthritis now. And the
cradleboard assumes it was an early-Holocene invention, rather than a
more recent invention, the fallacy of course being the assumption that
technology is a constant.
Can I suggest that the last thing we need to do when faced with this
kind of argument is to get bogged down with arguing on the same level.
The best thing to do is to ignore possible racist motivation and
simply deal with the facts.
And the facts are that those "pre-Indian caucasoids" look virtually
identical to modern Indians. It's only by comparing them to Orientals
that you get anything different.

After mentioning the facts, it IS interesting, the motivation behind
such stories. Notice that when Kennewick man first occurred, I argued
the facts, THEN argued the motivation. (Not that I hadn't figured the
motivation out in, like, five seconds. In most of the US, it's open
season on Indians.)
Post by Eric Stevens
The only problem is that there are so many
facts in this area which are not yet known.
And so many of the facts are common sense. The Bering Strait theory
doesn't work in a Darwinian context, for example, unless you want to
simultaneously argue that Indians don't have the intelligence to
figure out that colder environments aren't a way to get warm, but
simultaneously argue that Indians have the technology to stay off
natural selection's radar for at least 1500 years. Which leads one to
wonder: Where did the technology come from?
MIB529
2003-07-25 06:08:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Diarmid Logan
Post by MIB529
I meant white gods in Mexico. No one with two brain cells to rub
together really believes Cortes was worshipped as a god when he
entered Tenochtitlan; the story's contrived, and reeks of white man's
burden. Of course, that doesn't stop folks like Barry Fell from
selling books.
In case your wondering, things like this thread are why anthropology
has a reputation for racism.
Just because you don't agree with the findings of the researchers does
not mean that these scientists were racists.
Ah, one of the "We're not racist" crowd. Isn't it amazing? Folks can
call for Indians' extinction with signs like "Save a spawning walleye,
spear a pregnant squaw" and still insist they're not racist. Clue:
Saying "I'm not racist" doesn't absolve you of racism.
Philip Deitiker
2003-07-24 16:01:07 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 24 Jul 2003 21:35:38 +1200, Eric Stevens
A good example of distortion and ad-hominem name dropping. Do you
actually have any evidence that the underlying story is not true?
You mean like Inger has been doing?
Eric Stevens
2003-07-24 20:43:57 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 24 Jul 2003 11:01:07 -0500, Philip Deitiker
Post by Philip Deitiker
On Thu, 24 Jul 2003 21:35:38 +1200, Eric Stevens
A good example of distortion and ad-hominem name dropping. Do you
actually have any evidence that the underlying story is not true?
You mean like Inger has been doing?
Like there is any factual basis for Duncan Craig's statement
(deliberately snipped by you) that:

"I meant white gods in Mexico. No one with two brain cells to rub
together really believes Cortes was worshipped as a god when
he entered Tenochtitlan; the story's contrived, and reeks of white
man's burden."

I'm not arguing one way or another for the origin of that story but I
certainly wouldn't try to reach a conclusion on the basis a statement
such as Duncan's. I was hoping he could produce a better argument.



Eric Stevens
Duncan Craig
2003-07-25 08:50:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Eric Stevens
On Thu, 24 Jul 2003 11:01:07 -0500, Philip Deitiker
Post by Philip Deitiker
On Thu, 24 Jul 2003 21:35:38 +1200, Eric Stevens
A good example of distortion and ad-hominem name dropping. Do you
actually have any evidence that the underlying story is not true?
You mean like Inger has been doing?
Like there is any factual basis for Duncan Craig's statement
"I meant white gods in Mexico. No one with two brain cells to rub
together really believes Cortes was worshipped as a god when
he entered Tenochtitlan; the story's contrived, and reeks of white
man's burden."
I'm not arguing one way or another for the origin of that story but I
certainly wouldn't try to reach a conclusion on the basis a statement
such as Duncan's. I was hoping he could produce a better argument.
Eric Stevens
I could and have, Eric, with Lee Huddleston and Bernard Montellano.
The subject of whether the story of a bearded white (and I use the
term broadly, as Phillip pointed out) was an invention of the
Spaniards, or pre-existant to the arrival of Europeans has been much
discussed. And the statement that I made isn't the arguement, merely
emblematic of it. I've discussed it in terms of pre-existing
portrayals, the calendrics, the reactions of Montezuma, Cortes, the
local forms the story takes. I've speculated on the origins and the
purpose of the legend,
its etymology. It's a very popular subject which I would have thought
people are familiar with, to the point of boredom. So if you're
interested in the discussions, google. I didn't think it was
appropriate in this thread subject or necessary to go into it over an
aside. as it's not exactly a new discussion.
It sounds to me as though the complexity of the argument might extend
beyond the capacity of two brain cells. :-)
What then is the true basis of the story of Moctezuma so easily
surrendering his rule of the Aztecs and why did the Aztecs so readily
accept it?
Eric Stevens
Why do you think?
Eric Stevens
2003-07-25 21:45:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Duncan Craig
Post by Eric Stevens
On Thu, 24 Jul 2003 11:01:07 -0500, Philip Deitiker
Post by Philip Deitiker
On Thu, 24 Jul 2003 21:35:38 +1200, Eric Stevens
A good example of distortion and ad-hominem name dropping. Do you
actually have any evidence that the underlying story is not true?
You mean like Inger has been doing?
Like there is any factual basis for Duncan Craig's statement
"I meant white gods in Mexico. No one with two brain cells to rub
together really believes Cortes was worshipped as a god when
he entered Tenochtitlan; the story's contrived, and reeks of white
man's burden."
I'm not arguing one way or another for the origin of that story but I
certainly wouldn't try to reach a conclusion on the basis a statement
such as Duncan's. I was hoping he could produce a better argument.
Eric Stevens
I could and have, Eric, with Lee Huddleston and Bernard Montellano.
The subject of whether the story of a bearded white (and I use the
term broadly, as Phillip pointed out) was an invention of the
Spaniards, or pre-existant to the arrival of Europeans has been much
discussed. And the statement that I made isn't the arguement, merely
emblematic of it. I've discussed it in terms of pre-existing
portrayals, the calendrics, the reactions of Montezuma, Cortes, the
local forms the story takes. I've speculated on the origins and the
purpose of the legend,
its etymology. It's a very popular subject which I would have thought
people are familiar with, to the point of boredom. So if you're
interested in the discussions, google. I didn't think it was
appropriate in this thread subject or necessary to go into it over an
aside. as it's not exactly a new discussion.
It sounds to me as though the complexity of the argument might extend
beyond the capacity of two brain cells. :-)
What then is the true basis of the story of Moctezuma so easily
surrendering his rule of the Aztecs and why did the Aztecs so readily
accept it?
Eric Stevens
Why do you think?
Does this mean you don't really know?




Eric Stevens
Duncan Craig
2003-07-25 21:06:48 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 25 Jul 2003 14:50:14 +1200, in sci.anthropology.paleo, Eric
[SNIP]
What then is the true basis of the story of Moctezuma so easily
surrendering his rule of the Aztecs and why did the Aztecs so readily
accept it?
Aren't you making some assumptions here? And why are you implying that
the Aztecs readily accepts Moctezuma's 'surrendering his rule'?
You're right, Doug. Moctezuma didn't readily accept his rule. It was
M's ambiguity and hesitation that led to his downfall.
I have an article somewhere by a military historian who goes into some
depth into the conquest of the Aztecs. I can't find it at the moment and
http://www.zum.de/whkmla/military/16cen/cortez15191521.html
Right again. Not worth bothering.
What annoys me is all the myth that has built up around this that only the
skeptics bother to penetrate. By the time he reached Mexico City In
Novenber 1919 Cortez had some formidable allies. Moctezuma was taken
hostage, remember? You wouldn't know that from your comment above. When
Cortez left Mexico City the Aztecs didn't accept rule from the garrison he
left behind, they rebelled.
Due to the heavy hand that Alvarado wielded in Cortes' absence.
It was not until August 1521, after about four months of fierce fighting,
that the Spanish finally overcame the Aztecs. Almost two years after
Cortez first took Mexico City.
Doug
Philip Deitiker
2003-07-25 22:12:40 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 25 Jul 2003 16:18:21 -0500, "Thomas McDonald"
If one thinks that, absent his Indian allies, Cortes could have walked
over the Aztecs, I have a bridge over some swampland that I'd like to sell
you.
Yes and the logic of doing that would be revealed in 1524.
lol. The enemy you know is frequently better than the one
you don't.
Doug Weller
2003-07-26 05:38:50 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 26 Jul 2003 09:45:18 +1200, in sci.archaeology, Eric Stevens
On Fri, 25 Jul 2003 18:10:58 +0100, Doug Weller
On Fri, 25 Jul 2003 14:50:14 +1200, in sci.anthropology.paleo, Eric
[SNIP]
What then is the true basis of the story of Moctezuma so easily
surrendering his rule of the Aztecs and why did the Aztecs so readily
accept it?
Aren't you making some assumptions here? And why are you implying that
the Aztecs readily accepts Moctezuma's 'surrendering his rule'?
I have an article somewhere by a military historian who goes into some
depth into the conquest of the Aztecs. I can't find it at the moment and
http://www.zum.de/whkmla/military/16cen/cortez15191521.html
What annoys me is all the myth that has built up around this that only the
skeptics bother to penetrate. By the time he reached Mexico City In
Novenber 1919 Cortez had some formidable allies. Moctezuma was taken
hostage, remember?
No, I didn't remember. I probably never knew. I don't make a practice
of asking questions merely as debating points.
It was a serious question. I assumed you knew more than you did. I'm
surprised you hadn't done a few checks before posting.
You wouldn't know that from your comment above. When
Cortez left Mexico City the Aztecs didn't accept rule from the garrison he
left behind, they rebelled.
It was not until August 1521, after about four months of fierce fighting,
that the Spanish finally overcame the Aztecs. Almost two years after
Cortez first took Mexico City.
THank you. That's the kind of information I was after.
Doug
--
Doug Weller -- exorcise the demon to reply
Doug & Helen's Dogs http://www.dougandhelen.com
Doug's Archaeology Site: http://www.ramtops.demon.co.uk
Diarmid Logan
2003-07-24 21:47:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by MIB529
Post by Duncan Craig
Post by MIB529
Post by Gisele Horvat
By mentioning "short broad skulls", what is being suggested?
I'll be blunt: What's being "suggested" is the same shit that folks
have "suggested" ever since the Spanish made up the myth about white
gods. They manage to get away with it by lumping Indians with
I'm curious as to how the Spanish made up the myth of white gods in places
they had never been?... like Hawaii and the Marquesas.
I meant white gods in Mexico. No one with two brain cells to rub
together really believes Cortes was worshipped as a god when he
entered Tenochtitlan; the story's contrived, and reeks of white man's
burden. Of course, that doesn't stop folks like Barry Fell from
selling books.
In case your wondering, things like this thread are why anthropology
has a reputation for racism.
So you are accusing Spencer Wells and the other scientists who
participated in this research racists?
MIB529
2003-07-25 06:19:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Diarmid Logan
Post by MIB529
Post by Duncan Craig
Post by MIB529
Post by Gisele Horvat
By mentioning "short broad skulls", what is being suggested?
I'll be blunt: What's being "suggested" is the same shit that folks
have "suggested" ever since the Spanish made up the myth about white
gods. They manage to get away with it by lumping Indians with
I'm curious as to how the Spanish made up the myth of white gods in places
they had never been?... like Hawaii and the Marquesas.
I meant white gods in Mexico. No one with two brain cells to rub
together really believes Cortes was worshipped as a god when he
entered Tenochtitlan; the story's contrived, and reeks of white man's
burden. Of course, that doesn't stop folks like Barry Fell from
selling books.
In case your wondering, things like this thread are why anthropology
has a reputation for racism.
So you are accusing Spencer Wells and the other scientists who
participated in this research racists?
In a word, yes. Sorry, but if they're not racist, they're incredibly
stupid. Geologists agree the Cordilleran and Laurentide ice sheets
met, and thus Clovis is untenable. (In fact, the only way to do it is
either a 10,500-year maximum or a 40,000-year minimum. Radiocarbon
REPEATEDLY tells us against a 10,500-year maximum - and even against
this 18,000-year maximum - therefore, either we're going to redefine
quantum mechanics, in which case I'll x-post this to sci.physics right
now; or we'll reject the 18,000-year minimum entirely.)

What do I have to do? Build a time machine and bring one of these
early Indians here? The case for an age over 18,000 years has done
pretty much everything but that. I've also provided you with a variety
of Indian features, such as longer limbs, which couldn't survive
Siberia.

Let me guess: Geology, physics, and biology are all "Jew science",
right?
Daryl Krupa
2003-07-25 20:36:01 UTC
Permalink
***@zxmail.com (Bob Lancaster) wrote in message news:<***@posting.google.com>...
<snip>
For example, there is a group in a unuversity close to where I live
that is currently digging in central Alaska, looking for remants of a
civilization that has already been shown to have been there from 13k
BP to about 6k BP.
Unless cities have been found there, there was no "civilisation"
there.
You claim too much.
Except the Clovis crowd says the first
paleo-injuns got to Alaska about 12k BP.
Wrong. They claim that the first paleo-Indians got
OUT OF Alaska about 12 ka BP.
Until then, they were IN Alaska waiting for the ice-free corridor to
open up and let them migrate southeast OUT OF Alaska so that they
could GET TO Alberta about 12 ka BP.
Alaska is the northernmost part of the United States of America,
just across the Bering Strait from Russia, with a Pacific Ocean coast
and an Arctic Ocean coast, and is bordered on the east by Yukon
Territory and on the southeast by British Columbia (both part of the
Dominion of Canada).
Alberta is also part of the Dominion of Canada, but it has no sea
coasts.
Alberta is on the east side of British Columbia, east of the
Conrinental Divide.
While your confusion is understandable
(both "Alaska" and "Alberta" start with an "A" and end with and "a",
and they both have thre syllables)
you really should have a look at a map of North America before you
start
criticizing others for being ignorant.
Isn't faster than light
migration fun?
-Bob
Philip Deitiker
2003-07-25 20:51:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Daryl Krupa
While your confusion is understandable
(both "Alaska" and "Alberta" start with an "A" and end with and "a",
and they both have thre syllables)
you really should have a look at a map of North America before you
start
criticizing others for being ignorant.
Daryl at his finest once again. Pray tell us Daryl, when did
the arrive in AlAskA? 1 my BC?
Philip Deitiker
2003-07-26 02:17:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Daryl Krupa
<snip>
For example, there is a group in a unuversity close to where I live
that is currently digging in central Alaska, looking for remants of a
civilization that has already been shown to have been there from 13k
BP to about 6k BP.
Unless cities have been found there, there was no "civilisation"
there.
You claim too much.
Except the Clovis crowd says the first
paleo-injuns got to Alaska about 12k BP.
Wrong. They claim that the first paleo-Indians got
OUT OF Alaska about 12 ka BP.
Until then, they were IN Alaska waiting for the ice-free corridor to
open up and let them migrate southeast OUT OF Alaska so that they
could GET TO Alberta about 12 ka BP.
Alaska is the northernmost part of the United States of America,
just across the Bering Strait from Russia, with a Pacific Ocean coast
and an Arctic Ocean coast, and is bordered on the east by Yukon
Territory and on the southeast by British Columbia (both part of the
Dominion of Canada).
Check thread
"Siberian site suggests earlier arrival for First Americans"

in sci.archaeology.mesoamerican
Inger E Johansson
2003-07-26 02:31:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Philip Deitiker
Post by Daryl Krupa
<snip>
For example, there is a group in a unuversity close to where I live
that is currently digging in central Alaska, looking for remants of a
civilization that has already been shown to have been there from 13k
BP to about 6k BP.
Unless cities have been found there, there was no "civilisation"
there.
You claim too much.
Except the Clovis crowd says the first
paleo-injuns got to Alaska about 12k BP.
Wrong. They claim that the first paleo-Indians got
OUT OF Alaska about 12 ka BP.
Until then, they were IN Alaska waiting for the ice-free corridor to
open up and let them migrate southeast OUT OF Alaska so that they
could GET TO Alberta about 12 ka BP.
Alaska is the northernmost part of the United States of America,
just across the Bering Strait from Russia, with a Pacific Ocean coast
and an Arctic Ocean coast, and is bordered on the east by Yukon
Territory and on the southeast by British Columbia (both part of the
Dominion of Canada).
Check thread
"Siberian site suggests earlier arrival for First Americans"
in sci.archaeology.mesoamerican
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/chronicle/a/2003/07/25/MN253509
.DTL

http://community-2.webtv.net/Topiltzin-2091/AncientAmericaand/

Inger E
Daryl Krupa
2003-07-26 07:30:33 UTC
Permalink
***@yahoo.com (MIB529) wrote in message news:<***@posting.google.com>...
<snip>
Post by MIB529
Geologists agree the Cordilleran and Laurentide ice sheets
met, and thus Clovis is untenable. (In fact, the only way to do it is
either a 10,500-year maximum or a 40,000-year minimum.
<snip>

Dating of megafaunal remains around here shows that central Alberta
was ice-free until about 22,000 years ago, thus an "ice-free corridor"
was open for migration east of the Rockies until that time.
So, your "40,000-year minimum" should rather be a 22,000 year
minimum.

A short mention of that dating is here:

http://www.pma.edmonton.ab.ca/natural/paleo/intro.htm

Daryl Krupa
MIB529
2003-07-26 18:19:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Daryl Krupa
<snip>
Post by MIB529
Geologists agree the Cordilleran and Laurentide ice sheets
met, and thus Clovis is untenable. (In fact, the only way to do it is
either a 10,500-year maximum or a 40,000-year minimum.
<snip>
Dating of megafaunal remains around here shows that central Alberta
was ice-free until about 22,000 years ago, thus an "ice-free corridor"
was open for migration east of the Rockies until that time.
So, your "40,000-year minimum" should rather be a 22,000 year
minimum.
http://www.pma.edmonton.ab.ca/natural/paleo/intro.htm
Thanks. Still, it cleans the molecular clock. <G>
MIB529
2003-07-25 02:23:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by MIB529
Post by Duncan Craig
Post by MIB529
Post by Gisele Horvat
By mentioning "short broad skulls", what is being suggested?
I'll be blunt: What's being "suggested" is the same shit that folks
have "suggested" ever since the Spanish made up the myth about white
gods. They manage to get away with it by lumping Indians with
I'm curious as to how the Spanish made up the myth of white gods in places
they had never been?... like Hawaii and the Marquesas.
I meant white gods in Mexico. No one with two brain cells to rub
together really believes Cortes was worshipped as a god when he
entered Tenochtitlan; the story's contrived, and reeks of white man's
burden. Of course, that doesn't stop folks like Barry Fell from
selling books.
A good example of distortion and ad-hominem name dropping. Do you
actually have any evidence that the underlying story is not true?
Because no Aztec deity even appears to be fully human?
Eric Stevens
2003-07-25 02:50:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by MIB529
Post by MIB529
Post by Duncan Craig
Post by MIB529
Post by Gisele Horvat
By mentioning "short broad skulls", what is being suggested?
I'll be blunt: What's being "suggested" is the same shit that folks
have "suggested" ever since the Spanish made up the myth about white
gods. They manage to get away with it by lumping Indians with
I'm curious as to how the Spanish made up the myth of white gods in places
they had never been?... like Hawaii and the Marquesas.
I meant white gods in Mexico. No one with two brain cells to rub
together really believes Cortes was worshipped as a god when he
entered Tenochtitlan; the story's contrived, and reeks of white man's
burden. Of course, that doesn't stop folks like Barry Fell from
selling books.
A good example of distortion and ad-hominem name dropping. Do you
actually have any evidence that the underlying story is not true?
Because no Aztec deity even appears to be fully human?
Did Cortez appear fully human to the Aztecs?



Eric Stevens
Duncan Craig
2003-07-25 08:46:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Eric Stevens
Post by MIB529
Post by MIB529
Post by Duncan Craig
Post by MIB529
Post by Gisele Horvat
By mentioning "short broad skulls", what is being suggested?
I'll be blunt: What's being "suggested" is the same shit that folks
have "suggested" ever since the Spanish made up the myth about white
gods. They manage to get away with it by lumping Indians with
I'm curious as to how the Spanish made up the myth of white gods in places
they had never been?... like Hawaii and the Marquesas.
I meant white gods in Mexico. No one with two brain cells to rub
together really believes Cortes was worshipped as a god when he
entered Tenochtitlan; the story's contrived, and reeks of white man's
burden. Of course, that doesn't stop folks like Barry Fell from
selling books.
A good example of distortion and ad-hominem name dropping. Do you
actually have any evidence that the underlying story is not true?
Because no Aztec deity even appears to be fully human?
Did Cortez appear fully human to the Aztecs?
Eric Stevens
Probably more human than he turned out to be...and certainly more
human than the Aztecs appeared to Cortez.
Duncan
Eric Stevens
2003-07-25 21:45:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Eric Stevens
Post by MIB529
Post by MIB529
Post by Duncan Craig
Post by MIB529
Post by Gisele Horvat
By mentioning "short broad skulls", what is being suggested?
I'll be blunt: What's being "suggested" is the same shit that folks
have "suggested" ever since the Spanish made up the myth about white
gods. They manage to get away with it by lumping Indians with
I'm curious as to how the Spanish made up the myth of white gods in places
they had never been?... like Hawaii and the Marquesas.
I meant white gods in Mexico. No one with two brain cells to rub
together really believes Cortes was worshipped as a god when he
entered Tenochtitlan; the story's contrived, and reeks of white man's
burden. Of course, that doesn't stop folks like Barry Fell from
selling books.
A good example of distortion and ad-hominem name dropping. Do you
actually have any evidence that the underlying story is not true?
Because no Aztec deity even appears to be fully human?
Did Cortez appear fully human to the Aztecs?
To which I must reply, did he have brown scales? Did he have a rainbow tail?
He had a beard, He wore strange clothes and, presumably, armour. He
was a different colour. Clearly he did not physically conform to the
Aztec model/




Eric Stevens
Duncan Craig
2003-07-26 05:15:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Eric Stevens
Post by Eric Stevens
Post by MIB529
Post by MIB529
Post by Duncan Craig
Post by MIB529
Post by Gisele Horvat
By mentioning "short broad skulls", what is being suggested?
I'll be blunt: What's being "suggested" is the same shit that folks
have "suggested" ever since the Spanish made up the myth about white
gods. They manage to get away with it by lumping Indians with
I'm curious as to how the Spanish made up the myth of white gods in places
they had never been?... like Hawaii and the Marquesas.
I meant white gods in Mexico. No one with two brain cells to rub
together really believes Cortes was worshipped as a god when he
entered Tenochtitlan; the story's contrived, and reeks of white man's
burden. Of course, that doesn't stop folks like Barry Fell from
selling books.
A good example of distortion and ad-hominem name dropping. Do you
actually have any evidence that the underlying story is not true?
Because no Aztec deity even appears to be fully human?
Did Cortez appear fully human to the Aztecs?
To which I must reply, did he have brown scales? Did he have a rainbow tail?
He had a beard, He wore strange clothes and, presumably, armour. He
was a different colour. Clearly he did not physically conform to the
Aztec model/
Eric Stevens
Montezuma was full of forboding as the venus great cycle reached its
five hundred and eighteen year cumulation on the one reed year that
fell on 1519. Twelve years before Cortes' landing, he began to offer
obeisence to Quetzalcoatl, or whichever of his incarnations appeared;
Huitzilopochti, or Smoking Mirror. In any case, none of it was good
news, for as the Codex Chimpopca reveals; the One Reed year strikes at
kings. And it is with Quetzalcoatl that he would be most vulnerable,
it is Quetzalcoatl who was the enemy of human sacrifice. The triune
aspects of this god evolved from a layering of history, myth and the
dim memory of two men who held the post before the coming of Cortes.
The ascension of the warlord Quetzalcoatl Tolitzin in 999ad was one
aspect, and the man who outlawed human sacrifice in 478 ad was
another. These two and Cortes were heralded by the four-sky-serpent
alignment of the planets. In 1505, Montezuma built a grand temple in
the sacred precint in the capital, and this one, unlike the others,
was round, for the wind god. On a hill above the city, an image of
Quetzalcoatl was carved into the rock. In 1507 he commisioned the
carving of a greenstone box upon which is the image of a bearded man
above the glyph for One Reed. This box is in the Hamburgishe Museum in
Germany.
So when Cortes arrived, he certainly did bear marked characteristics
of the 'Aztec idea of Quetzalcaotl'. They wore black, a Q color, but
it also happened to be Maudy Thursday before Good Friday. Cortes
carried a blue pennant, a color strongly associated with Q. And the
beard. Yet Montezuma was confused because Cortes also displayed
aspects identified with Huitzilopochtli, and he came with about four
hundred men which was also the size of Huitzilopochtli's retinue.
And while Cortes displayed Huitzilopochtlis desire for riches, Cortes
also showed some of the traits of the warlord. So Montezuma sent three
items associated with the different aspects to see which Cortes chose.
Teudile brought back to Montezuma, a spanish helmet which closely
resembled the one in the temple of Huitzilcoatli. That these men
bleed, or were joyous, or rowdy did not diminish the possibility of
their divinity, because Aztec gods exhibited , in the manner of the
greeks, all of the foibles of humanity. God or human, the strangers
arrived on the four-sky-serpent one reed year and Montezuma needed to
know which of the aspects he was dealing with. But he knew Cortes was
a teule; a lord whether human or divine. After the fall of the Aztecs,
Cortes would write to his sovereign king Charles the Fifth, that he
was treated like "a lost leader". It is not the letter of one who
concoted the whole story.
But why, with the situation so delicate, with Montezuma under house
arrest, would Cortes hurry back to the coast to engage the men sent to
arrest him?
In his book, 'Conquest', Hugh Thomas also wonders why this struggle
for the mosquito infested rivermouth called the Panuco? Why succesive
expeditions by Pizzaro and Tapia and Garay follow that of Grijalva?
Because the Panuco was Tamoanchan, the landing place of the
Quetzalcoatl. Does anyone seriously believe that a civilization so
precisely laid out in time, it wouldn't be so gridded in space as
well? On a map, begin at the temple of Quetzalcoatl at the south end
of the Avenue, extend the axis and see where it meets the coast. How
did the Spaniards know? Through the council of the tw Jeronymite
fathers in Cuba. And no Eric, it doesn't mean that "I don't know", it
means a lot of writing.
Did Thomas call me a slanger?

Duncan Craig
Eric Stevens
2003-07-26 05:38:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Duncan Craig
Post by Eric Stevens
Post by Eric Stevens
Post by MIB529
Post by MIB529
Post by Duncan Craig
Post by MIB529
Post by Gisele Horvat
By mentioning "short broad skulls", what is being suggested?
I'll be blunt: What's being "suggested" is the same shit that folks
have "suggested" ever since the Spanish made up the myth about white
gods. They manage to get away with it by lumping Indians with
I'm curious as to how the Spanish made up the myth of white gods in places
they had never been?... like Hawaii and the Marquesas.
I meant white gods in Mexico. No one with two brain cells to rub
together really believes Cortes was worshipped as a god when he
entered Tenochtitlan; the story's contrived, and reeks of white man's
burden. Of course, that doesn't stop folks like Barry Fell from
selling books.
A good example of distortion and ad-hominem name dropping. Do you
actually have any evidence that the underlying story is not true?
Because no Aztec deity even appears to be fully human?
Did Cortez appear fully human to the Aztecs?
To which I must reply, did he have brown scales? Did he have a rainbow tail?
He had a beard, He wore strange clothes and, presumably, armour. He
was a different colour. Clearly he did not physically conform to the
Aztec model/
Eric Stevens
Montezuma was full of forboding as the venus great cycle reached its
five hundred and eighteen year cumulation on the one reed year that
fell on 1519. Twelve years before Cortes' landing, he began to offer
obeisence to Quetzalcoatl, or whichever of his incarnations appeared;
Huitzilopochti, or Smoking Mirror. In any case, none of it was good
news, for as the Codex Chimpopca reveals; the One Reed year strikes at
kings. And it is with Quetzalcoatl that he would be most vulnerable,
it is Quetzalcoatl who was the enemy of human sacrifice. The triune
aspects of this god evolved from a layering of history, myth and the
dim memory of two men who held the post before the coming of Cortes.
The ascension of the warlord Quetzalcoatl Tolitzin in 999ad was one
aspect, and the man who outlawed human sacrifice in 478 ad was
another. These two and Cortes were heralded by the four-sky-serpent
alignment of the planets. In 1505, Montezuma built a grand temple in
the sacred precint in the capital, and this one, unlike the others,
was round, for the wind god. On a hill above the city, an image of
Quetzalcoatl was carved into the rock. In 1507 he commisioned the
carving of a greenstone box upon which is the image of a bearded man
above the glyph for One Reed. This box is in the Hamburgishe Museum in
Germany.
So when Cortes arrived, he certainly did bear marked characteristics
of the 'Aztec idea of Quetzalcaotl'. They wore black, a Q color, but
it also happened to be Maudy Thursday before Good Friday. Cortes
carried a blue pennant, a color strongly associated with Q. And the
beard. Yet Montezuma was confused because Cortes also displayed
aspects identified with Huitzilopochtli, and he came with about four
hundred men which was also the size of Huitzilopochtli's retinue.
And while Cortes displayed Huitzilopochtlis desire for riches, Cortes
also showed some of the traits of the warlord. So Montezuma sent three
items associated with the different aspects to see which Cortes chose.
Teudile brought back to Montezuma, a spanish helmet which closely
resembled the one in the temple of Huitzilcoatli. That these men
bleed, or were joyous, or rowdy did not diminish the possibility of
their divinity, because Aztec gods exhibited , in the manner of the
greeks, all of the foibles of humanity. God or human, the strangers
arrived on the four-sky-serpent one reed year and Montezuma needed to
know which of the aspects he was dealing with. But he knew Cortes was
a teule; a lord whether human or divine. After the fall of the Aztecs,
Cortes would write to his sovereign king Charles the Fifth, that he
was treated like "a lost leader". It is not the letter of one who
concoted the whole story.
But why, with the situation so delicate, with Montezuma under house
arrest, would Cortes hurry back to the coast to engage the men sent to
arrest him?
In his book, 'Conquest', Hugh Thomas also wonders why this struggle
for the mosquito infested rivermouth called the Panuco? Why succesive
expeditions by Pizzaro and Tapia and Garay follow that of Grijalva?
Because the Panuco was Tamoanchan, the landing place of the
Quetzalcoatl. Does anyone seriously believe that a civilization so
precisely laid out in time, it wouldn't be so gridded in space as
well? On a map, begin at the temple of Quetzalcoatl at the south end
of the Avenue, extend the axis and see where it meets the coast. How
did the Spaniards know? Through the council of the tw Jeronymite
fathers in Cuba. And no Eric, it doesn't mean that "I don't know", it
means a lot of writing.
Did Thomas call me a slanger?
All I can say is that I am impressed. Thank you very much.

I am also surprised that so much of the pre-Cortes politics appears to
be known. Cortes and Quetzalcoatl are very much peripheral to my main
interests but you have encouraged me to read a bit more about it some
time in the future. It continues to amaze me the extent to which
popular accounts of the events of history turn out to be grossly in
error.




Eric Stevens
Doug Weller
2003-07-26 08:42:54 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 26 Jul 2003 02:24:14 -0500, in sci.archaeology, Thomas McDonald
wrote:
[SNIP]
You might also want to think hard about Duncan's view of the letter he
says Cortes sent to the Spanish king; that "[i]t is not the letter of one
who concoted (sic) the whole story". I don't think a sober look at Cortes'
life would support the contention that he was a keen and disinterested
observer of things that had the potential to be useful to him.
There were 5 letters in all I believe, or rather we have 5 letters.
http://www.mexica.ws/CORTES%20IN%20HIS%20OWN%20WORDS.htm

It's important to remember that Cortez had disobeyed Velazquez, Governor
of Cuba,, and had to justify that disobedience.

I posted this in April 2000:
Some recent posts:

Subject: Re: Cortez and Montezuma
From: "Hades" <***@please.com>
Newsgroups: soc.culture.mexican, soc.culture.native,
sci.archaeology.mesoamerican, alt.native
Date: Mon, 3 Apr 2000 21:44:56 -0700

Moctezuma decided on the most disastrous course of all: he attempted to
bribe Cortés into leaving Mexico by sending embassies laden down with
rich gifts. "This was to reveal, at once, both his wealth and his
weakness," wrote William H. Prescott, celebrated l9th century historian
of the Conquest.

Cortés was as bold as Moctezuma was indecisive. He was the original man
who won't take no for an answer. When Moctezuma's envoys told him the
emperor was not available for an audience, Cortés brashly replied that
he couldn't leave Mexico before coming to Tenochtitlán to pay his
respects in person. Then, in an act of supreme daring (or rashness, if
one prefers), he had all his ships burned save one that would return to
Spain to report developments to King Charles V.

Possibly believing that only supernatural beings could be endowed with
such supernatural gall, Moctezuma allowed Cortés to enter Tenochtitlán
on November 12, 1519. What Cortés saw made him very nervous. With a
population of over 300,000, the Aztec capital was larger than any city
in Europe. Even with Spanish cannon and cavalry, his small force could
be wiped out by such overwhelming odds.

Moctezuma's next irresolute mistake paved the way for what has been
describe as one of the most daring moves in the annals of history. The
Aztec emperor allowed Cortés and a few trusted aides into the imperial
palace -- and they promptly placed him under arrest. The flimsy excuse
given was that Moctezuma had ordered a coastal tribe to attack the
Spanish garrison at Veracruz.

The Spaniards now had a valuable hostage. Furthermore, this act of
degradation appears to have broken Moctezuma's spirit. Having forfeited
the respect of his people, the emperor spent the pathetic last months of
his life trying to ingratiate himself with his captors -- playing ball
games with them in the imperial gardens and lavishing gifts on the men
who had so degraded him. He accepted Christianity and
meekly swore allegiance to Charles V.

The sad drama ended in April 1520. Cortés had just returned from
defeating a
rival Spanish force at Veracruz sent by the envious governor of Cuba. In
his absence, Pedro de Alvarado -- the most brutal of the conquistadores
-- slaughtered 3,400 Aztecs because he mistook a spirited religious
ceremony for an outbreak of rebellion. The furious population of
Tenochtitlán rose massively against the Spaniards, who were barricaded
inside the imperial palace. They sent the docile Moctezuma to calm his
subjects but he was greeted with jeers and stones. One projectile
knocked him unconscious and he was carried downstairs by attendants.
Though he didn't appear to be seriously hurt, he died within two weeks -
undoubtedly of a broken heart.

And Cuahutemoc, the last Aztec emperor was tortured by the spaniards to
reveal the hiding place of Moctezuma Tresure, they burned his feet and
since he didn't talk, he was hanged.

And:

Subject: Re: From the horse's mouth: Cortez [sic] and Montezuma [sic]
From: "Erik A. Mattila" <***@tomatoweb.com>
Newsgroups: soc.culture.mexican, soc.culture.native,
sci.archaeology.mesoamerican, alt.native
Date: Mon, 03 Apr 2000 20:09:43 GMT

Personally, I think the history of the conquest of Mexico is a great
example of how myth is born. But there is a lot of source material -
yet
it takes some critical reading to sort out and reinterpret the lies that
were popular in 1520, on the part of the Indians as well as the
Spaniards. "Lies?" Perhaps too harsh a term - it's just that history
always serves the interest of the present.

Let's take the idea of Quetzalcoatl's return, which has a lot of
interesting in pop-history. In one of the letter's of Hernan Cortés he
writes of his first meeting with "The Great Speaker," Motecuhzoma
Xocoyotzin:

"For a long time we have known from the writings of our ancestors that
neither I [Moctezuma], nor any of those who dwell in this land, are
natives of it, but foreigners who came from very distant parts; and
likewise we know that a chieftain, of whom they were all vassals,
brought our people to this region. And he
returned to his native land and after many years came again, by which
time all those who had remained were married to native women and had
built villages and
raised children. And when he wished to lead them away again they would
not go nor even admit
him as their chief, and so he departed. And we have always held that
those who descended from him would come and conquer this land and take
us as their vassals. So because of the place from which you claim to
come, namely, from where the sun rises, and the things you tell us of
the great lord or king who sent you here, we believe and are certain
that he is our natural lord, especially as you say that he has known of
us for some time. So be assured that we shall obey you and hold you as our
lord in place of that great sovereign of whom you speak; and in this there
shall be no offense or betrayal whatsoever. I know full well of all that
has happened to you from Puntunchan to here, and I also know how those
of Cempoal and Tascalteca have told you much evil of me; believe only
what you see with your eyes, for those are my enemies, and some were my
vassals, and have rebelled against me at your coming and said those things
to gain favor with you. I also know that they have told you the walls of
my houses are, made of gold, and that the floor mats in my rooms and other
things in my household are
likewise of gold, and that I was, and claimed to be, a
god; and many other things besides. The houses as you see are of stone
and lime and clay."

There's really no reference here to Quetzalcoatl, either in a historical
or mythological aspect. However, the 'chieftan' that Motecuhzoma refers
to is more likely to be Mecitli, a legend by 1519 among the Tenochas,
who was the great chief during the the years of wandering of these
people.
Motecuhzoma Xocoyotzin was a devotee of Quetzalcoatl and other things
Toltec, which got him into some trouble with his people because they
thought he was ignoring their unique Mexica god, Huitzilpotchli. But
Cortés goes on to write:

"Then he raised his clothes and showed me his body, saying, as he
grasped his arms and trunk with his hands, "See that I am of flesh and
blood like you and all other men, and I am mortal and substantial. See how
they have lied to you? It is true that I have some pieces of gold left to
me by my ancestors; anything I might have shall be given to you whenever
you ask. Now I shall go to other houses where I live, but here you shall
be provided with all that you and your people require, and you shall
receive no hurt, for you are in your own land and your own house."

This is a very interesting issue because Motecuhzoma is documented to
have been engaged in a very overt movement, during the years of his
reign, to establish the 'divinity' of the kings (Great Speakers) of
Tenochitlan, and on a whim he had his entire staff killed because these
people regarded the previous Great Speakers as mortals. A very good
account of the Mixica royal lineage can be found here:
http://northcoast.com/~spdtom/a-rul.html#RULERS

Anyway, it's pretty easy to start to unravel the roots of the
Quetzalcoatl story with a little engagement in history. The story is
constructed out of several important themes. One, from Spain, is of
course the messianic belief of Christ's return. Whether or not there
are native counterparts is problematical. When you look at the context in
which early colonial ethnography was written, native informants who wrote
in Nahua but who had also been converted the Chiristianity, there is
ample cause to suspect that the older stories have been redefined along
the lines of Christian themes. One the other hand, there is a possiblity
of a messianic them ocurring in pre-columbian thought, as it is after all
part of the mythological archetype of the 'myth of the eternal return.'

As for La Malinche, you have to remember that the Nahuatl word
"malinche" means 'military captain' which was applied to Cortés. "La
Malinche" means, more or less, "the Captain's woman." There's little
doubt that Malintzin (the 'tzin' is curiously a honorific, usually
reservered for political caciques) was a slave. The story is well known
and documented in the writings of Bernal Diaz, who took Dona Marina to
visit her mother, who had put the woman into slavery years prior to the
meeting.

But to say that Cortés couldn't have succeeded without her is pushing it
a bit, I think. During the reign of the Otter (Ahuitzotl, 1468-1502) the
political power of the Mexican states pushed throught Oaxaca to the
Pacific Coast of Guatemala, and there were many people in Southern
Mexico who were bilingual, speaking Nahua as well as their native tongue,
or even five or six languages.

Erik Mattila
--
Doug Weller -- exorcise the demon to reply
Doug & Helen's Dogs http://www.dougandhelen.com
Doug's Archaeology Site: http://www.ramtops.demon.co.uk
Bernard Ortiz de Montellano
2003-07-26 14:58:27 UTC
Permalink
.'
Post by Doug Weller
As for La Malinche, you have to remember that the Nahuatl word
"malinche" means 'military captain' which was applied to Cortés. "La
Malinche" means, more or less, "the Captain's woman." There's little
doubt that Malintzin (the 'tzin' is curiously a honorific, usually
reservered for political caciques) was a slave. The story is well known
and documented in the writings of Bernal Diaz, who took Dona Marina to
visit her mother, who had put the woman into slavery years prior to the
meeting.
This is from *Between two Worlds. Interpreters, Guides ands Survivors*
by Frances Karttunen (the author of *An analytical Dictionary of
Nahuatl*) p .5-6

"... the woman destined to Aguilar's professional colleague [BOM
Malinche] ws given the baptismal name "Marina." In the speech of
Nahuatl-speaking Indians her new name took the form "Malintzin" but for
her Spanish-speaking contemporaries, she was "Dona Marina."...
"Malintzin" does not seem much like "Marina," but it makes sense in
terms of how Nahuatl speakers borrowed Spanish words into their own
language. nahuatl replaces Spanish (r) with (l) and "Marina" becomes
"Malina". to this is added an ending -tzin, which expresses respect and
honor in much the same way as Spanish Dona does when it is put in front
of the name. Thus, the equivalent of "Dona marina" is Malina-tzin, and
losing a volwel becomes "Malintzin."
Spanish borrowed "Malintzin" back from Nahuatl. Just as Nahuatl speakers
could not pronounce Spanish(l), Spanish speakers coould not pronounce
Nahuatl (tz) and changed it to (ch). They didn't hear the
often-whispered Nahuatl (n) at the end of the word either, and the
result was "Malinche."


There a number of words for "captain" in Nahuatl-- tlacateccatl,
yaotachcauh, yaotequihua, yyaoquizca, teachcauht- but malinche is not a
nahuatl word.

Bernard
Post by Doug Weller
But to say that Cortés couldn't have succeeded without her is pushing it
a bit, I think. During the reign of the Otter (Ahuitzotl, 1468-1502) the
political power of the Mexican states pushed throught Oaxaca to the
Pacific Coast of Guatemala, and there were many people in Southern
Mexico who were bilingual, speaking Nahua as well as their native tongue,
or even five or six languages.
Erik Mattila
--
Bernard Ortiz de Montellano
Eric Stevens
2003-07-26 09:17:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gisele Horvat
Post by Eric Stevens
Post by Duncan Craig
Post by Eric Stevens
Post by Eric Stevens
Post by MIB529
Post by MIB529
Post by Duncan Craig
Post by MIB529
Post by Gisele Horvat
By mentioning "short broad skulls", what is being
suggested?
Post by Eric Stevens
Post by Duncan Craig
Post by Eric Stevens
Post by Eric Stevens
Post by MIB529
Post by MIB529
Post by Duncan Craig
Post by MIB529
I'll be blunt: What's being "suggested" is the same shit
that folks
Post by Eric Stevens
Post by Duncan Craig
Post by Eric Stevens
Post by Eric Stevens
Post by MIB529
Post by MIB529
Post by Duncan Craig
Post by MIB529
have "suggested" ever since the Spanish made up the myth
about white
Post by Eric Stevens
Post by Duncan Craig
Post by Eric Stevens
Post by Eric Stevens
Post by MIB529
Post by MIB529
Post by Duncan Craig
Post by MIB529
gods. They manage to get away with it by lumping Indians
with
Post by Eric Stevens
Post by Duncan Craig
Post by Eric Stevens
Post by Eric Stevens
Post by MIB529
Post by MIB529
Post by Duncan Craig
I'm curious as to how the Spanish made up the myth of white
gods in places
Post by Eric Stevens
Post by Duncan Craig
Post by Eric Stevens
Post by Eric Stevens
Post by MIB529
Post by MIB529
Post by Duncan Craig
they had never been?... like Hawaii and the Marquesas.
I meant white gods in Mexico. No one with two brain cells to rub
together really believes Cortes was worshipped as a god when he
entered Tenochtitlan; the story's contrived, and reeks of white
man's
Post by Eric Stevens
Post by Duncan Craig
Post by Eric Stevens
Post by Eric Stevens
Post by MIB529
Post by MIB529
burden. Of course, that doesn't stop folks like Barry Fell from
selling books.
A good example of distortion and ad-hominem name dropping. Do you
actually have any evidence that the underlying story is not true?
Because no Aztec deity even appears to be fully human?
Did Cortez appear fully human to the Aztecs?
To which I must reply, did he have brown scales? Did he have a rainbow
tail?
Post by Eric Stevens
Post by Duncan Craig
Post by Eric Stevens
He had a beard, He wore strange clothes and, presumably, armour. He
was a different colour. Clearly he did not physically conform to the
Aztec model/
Eric Stevens
Montezuma was full of forboding as the venus great cycle reached its
five hundred and eighteen year cumulation on the one reed year that
fell on 1519. Twelve years before Cortes' landing, he began to offer
obeisence to Quetzalcoatl, or whichever of his incarnations appeared;
Huitzilopochti, or Smoking Mirror. In any case, none of it was good
news, for as the Codex Chimpopca reveals; the One Reed year strikes at
kings. And it is with Quetzalcoatl that he would be most vulnerable,
it is Quetzalcoatl who was the enemy of human sacrifice. The triune
aspects of this god evolved from a layering of history, myth and the
dim memory of two men who held the post before the coming of Cortes.
The ascension of the warlord Quetzalcoatl Tolitzin in 999ad was one
aspect, and the man who outlawed human sacrifice in 478 ad was
another. These two and Cortes were heralded by the four-sky-serpent
alignment of the planets. In 1505, Montezuma built a grand temple in
the sacred precint in the capital, and this one, unlike the others,
was round, for the wind god. On a hill above the city, an image of
Quetzalcoatl was carved into the rock. In 1507 he commisioned the
carving of a greenstone box upon which is the image of a bearded man
above the glyph for One Reed. This box is in the Hamburgishe Museum in
Germany.
So when Cortes arrived, he certainly did bear marked characteristics
of the 'Aztec idea of Quetzalcaotl'. They wore black, a Q color, but
it also happened to be Maudy Thursday before Good Friday. Cortes
carried a blue pennant, a color strongly associated with Q. And the
beard. Yet Montezuma was confused because Cortes also displayed
aspects identified with Huitzilopochtli, and he came with about four
hundred men which was also the size of Huitzilopochtli's retinue.
And while Cortes displayed Huitzilopochtlis desire for riches, Cortes
also showed some of the traits of the warlord. So Montezuma sent three
items associated with the different aspects to see which Cortes chose.
Teudile brought back to Montezuma, a spanish helmet which closely
resembled the one in the temple of Huitzilcoatli. That these men
bleed, or were joyous, or rowdy did not diminish the possibility of
their divinity, because Aztec gods exhibited , in the manner of the
greeks, all of the foibles of humanity. God or human, the strangers
arrived on the four-sky-serpent one reed year and Montezuma needed to
know which of the aspects he was dealing with. But he knew Cortes was
a teule; a lord whether human or divine. After the fall of the Aztecs,
Cortes would write to his sovereign king Charles the Fifth, that he
was treated like "a lost leader". It is not the letter of one who
concoted the whole story.
But why, with the situation so delicate, with Montezuma under house
arrest, would Cortes hurry back to the coast to engage the men sent to
arrest him?
In his book, 'Conquest', Hugh Thomas also wonders why this struggle
for the mosquito infested rivermouth called the Panuco? Why succesive
expeditions by Pizzaro and Tapia and Garay follow that of Grijalva?
Because the Panuco was Tamoanchan, the landing place of the
Quetzalcoatl. Does anyone seriously believe that a civilization so
precisely laid out in time, it wouldn't be so gridded in space as
well? On a map, begin at the temple of Quetzalcoatl at the south end
of the Avenue, extend the axis and see where it meets the coast. How
did the Spaniards know? Through the council of the tw Jeronymite
fathers in Cuba. And no Eric, it doesn't mean that "I don't know", it
means a lot of writing.
Did Thomas call me a slanger?
All I can say is that I am impressed. Thank you very much.
I am also surprised that so much of the pre-Cortes politics appears to
be known. Cortes and Quetzalcoatl are very much peripheral to my main
interests but you have encouraged me to read a bit more about it some
time in the future. It continues to amaze me the extent to which
popular accounts of the events of history turn out to be grossly in
error.
Eric,
Best not get too impressed ahead of your own research. For a start,
look up (in a real reference) Huitzilopoctli. Also known as "Hummingbird on
the left". The main Aztec god from their early days, and a great lover of
hearts and blood. Also the war god. If he's an incarnation of
Quetzalcoatl, it would be Q's dark side.
You might also want to think hard about Duncan's view of the letter he
says Cortes sent to the Spanish king; that "[i]t is not the letter of one
who concoted (sic) the whole story". I don't think a sober look at Cortes'
life would support the contention that he was a keen and disinterested
observer of things that had the potential to be useful to him.
Best remember the AVM fiasco, and verify before you get too excited.
Don't worry too much. Once I decide to hunt down a subject I do it
fairly thoroughly. Amazon has done quite well out of my curiousity.
:-)



Eric Stevens
Bernard Ortiz de Montellano
2003-07-26 14:34:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gisele Horvat
Post by Eric Stevens
Post by Duncan Craig
Post by Eric Stevens
Post by Eric Stevens
Post by MIB529
Post by MIB529
Post by Duncan Craig
Post by MIB529
Post by Gisele Horvat
By mentioning "short broad skulls", what is being
suggested?
Post by Eric Stevens
Post by Duncan Craig
Post by Eric Stevens
Post by Eric Stevens
Post by MIB529
Post by MIB529
Post by Duncan Craig
Post by MIB529
I'll be blunt: What's being "suggested" is the same shit
that folks
Post by Eric Stevens
Post by Duncan Craig
Post by Eric Stevens
Post by Eric Stevens
Post by MIB529
Post by MIB529
Post by Duncan Craig
Post by MIB529
have "suggested" ever since the Spanish made up the myth
about white
Post by Eric Stevens
Post by Duncan Craig
Post by Eric Stevens
Post by Eric Stevens
Post by MIB529
Post by MIB529
Post by Duncan Craig
Post by MIB529
gods. They manage to get away with it by lumping Indians
with
Post by Eric Stevens
Post by Duncan Craig
Post by Eric Stevens
Post by Eric Stevens
Post by MIB529
Post by MIB529
Post by Duncan Craig
I'm curious as to how the Spanish made up the myth of white
gods in places
Post by Eric Stevens
Post by Duncan Craig
Post by Eric Stevens
Post by Eric Stevens
Post by MIB529
Post by MIB529
Post by Duncan Craig
they had never been?... like Hawaii and the Marquesas.
I meant white gods in Mexico. No one with two brain cells to rub
together really believes Cortes was worshipped as a god when he
entered Tenochtitlan; the story's contrived, and reeks of white
man's
Post by Eric Stevens
Post by Duncan Craig
Post by Eric Stevens
Post by Eric Stevens
Post by MIB529
Post by MIB529
burden. Of course, that doesn't stop folks like Barry Fell from
selling books.
A good example of distortion and ad-hominem name dropping. Do you
actually have any evidence that the underlying story is not true?
Because no Aztec deity even appears to be fully human?
Did Cortez appear fully human to the Aztecs?
To which I must reply, did he have brown scales? Did he have a rainbow
tail?
Post by Eric Stevens
Post by Duncan Craig
Post by Eric Stevens
He had a beard, He wore strange clothes and, presumably, armour. He
was a different colour. Clearly he did not physically conform to the
Aztec model/
Eric Stevens
Montezuma was full of forboding as the venus great cycle reached its
five hundred and eighteen year cumulation on the one reed year that
fell on 1519. Twelve years before Cortes' landing, he began to offer
obeisence to Quetzalcoatl, or whichever of his incarnations appeared;
Huitzilopochti, or Smoking Mirror. In any case, none of it was good
news, for as the Codex Chimpopca reveals; the One Reed year strikes at
kings. And it is with Quetzalcoatl that he would be most vulnerable,
it is Quetzalcoatl who was the enemy of human sacrifice. The triune
aspects of this god evolved from a layering of history, myth and the
dim memory of two men who held the post before the coming of Cortes.
The ascension of the warlord Quetzalcoatl Tolitzin in 999ad was one
aspect, and the man who outlawed human sacrifice in 478 ad was
another. These two and Cortes were heralded by the four-sky-serpent
alignment of the planets. In 1505, Montezuma built a grand temple in
the sacred precint in the capital, and this one, unlike the others,
was round, for the wind god. On a hill above the city, an image of
Quetzalcoatl was carved into the rock. In 1507 he commisioned the
carving of a greenstone box upon which is the image of a bearded man
above the glyph for One Reed. This box is in the Hamburgishe Museum in
Germany.
So when Cortes arrived, he certainly did bear marked characteristics
of the 'Aztec idea of Quetzalcaotl'. They wore black, a Q color, but
it also happened to be Maudy Thursday before Good Friday. Cortes
carried a blue pennant, a color strongly associated with Q. And the
beard. Yet Montezuma was confused because Cortes also displayed
aspects identified with Huitzilopochtli, and he came with about four
hundred men which was also the size of Huitzilopochtli's retinue.
And while Cortes displayed Huitzilopochtlis desire for riches, Cortes
also showed some of the traits of the warlord. So Montezuma sent three
items associated with the different aspects to see which Cortes chose.
Teudile brought back to Montezuma, a spanish helmet which closely
resembled the one in the temple of Huitzilcoatli. That these men
bleed, or were joyous, or rowdy did not diminish the possibility of
their divinity, because Aztec gods exhibited , in the manner of the
greeks, all of the foibles of humanity. God or human, the strangers
arrived on the four-sky-serpent one reed year and Montezuma needed to
know which of the aspects he was dealing with. But he knew Cortes was
a teule; a lord whether human or divine. After the fall of the Aztecs,
Cortes would write to his sovereign king Charles the Fifth, that he
was treated like "a lost leader". It is not the letter of one who
concoted the whole story.
But why, with the situation so delicate, with Montezuma under house
arrest, would Cortes hurry back to the coast to engage the men sent to
arrest him?
In his book, 'Conquest', Hugh Thomas also wonders why this struggle
for the mosquito infested rivermouth called the Panuco? Why succesive
expeditions by Pizzaro and Tapia and Garay follow that of Grijalva?
Because the Panuco was Tamoanchan, the landing place of the
Quetzalcoatl. Does anyone seriously believe that a civilization so
precisely laid out in time, it wouldn't be so gridded in space as
well? On a map, begin at the temple of Quetzalcoatl at the south end
of the Avenue, extend the axis and see where it meets the coast. How
did the Spaniards know? Through the council of the tw Jeronymite
fathers in Cuba. And no Eric, it doesn't mean that "I don't know", it
means a lot of writing.
Did Thomas call me a slanger?
All I can say is that I am impressed. Thank you very much.
I am also surprised that so much of the pre-Cortes politics appears to
be known. Cortes and Quetzalcoatl are very much peripheral to my main
interests but you have encouraged me to read a bit more about it some
time in the future. It continues to amaze me the extent to which
popular accounts of the events of history turn out to be grossly in
error.
Eric,
Best not get too impressed ahead of your own research. For a start,
look up (in a real reference) Huitzilopoctli. Also known as "Hummingbird on
the left". The main Aztec god from their early days, and a great lover of
hearts and blood. Also the war god. If he's an incarnation of
Quetzalcoatl, it would be Q's dark side.
The Mexica are more complicated than that. Quetzalcoatl and Tezcatlipoca
were both creator gods and seen in a way as opposites. Myths about Tula
set them up as rivals and the myth is that Tezcatlipoca won and
Quetzalcoatldissapeared to the East --- but you have been discussing
this already. Evidence of this dichotomy is the dual system of
education. Commoner males were educated in the telpochcalli- whose
patron was Tezcatlipoca representing war and warriors; nobles and the
future priests were educated in the calmecac-- whose patron was
Quetzalcoatl theywere trained in literature, astrology, writing, etc.
They also got military training. Thus, the dichotomy was
Tezcatlipoca/Quetzalcoatl. Huitzilopochtli was the patron of the Mexica
and not as widely revered as the previous two. All the Aztec gods were
involved in sacrifice-- even Quetzalcoatl-- it was more a matter of
degree.
Bernard
Post by Gisele Horvat
You might also want to think hard about Duncan's view of the letter he
says Cortes sent to the Spanish king; that "[i]t is not the letter of one
who concoted (sic) the whole story". I don't think a sober look at Cortes'
life would support the contention that he was a keen and disinterested
observer of things that had the potential to be useful to him.
Best remember the AVM fiasco, and verify before you get too excited.
Tom McDonald
--
Bernard Ortiz de Montellano
Duncan Craig
2003-07-26 18:43:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gisele Horvat
Post by Eric Stevens
All I can say is that I am impressed. Thank you very much.
I am also surprised that so much of the pre-Cortes politics appears to
be known. Cortes and Quetzalcoatl are very much peripheral to my main
interests but you have encouraged me to read a bit more about it some
time in the future. It continues to amaze me the extent to which
popular accounts of the events of history turn out to be grossly in
error.
Eric,
Best not get too impressed ahead of your own research.
Definitely.


For a start,
Post by Gisele Horvat
look up (in a real reference) Huitzilopoctli. Also known as "Hummingbird on
the left". The main Aztec god from their early days, and a great lover of
hearts and blood. Also the war god. If he's an incarnation of
Quetzalcoatl, it would be Q's dark side.
Thus Montezumas confusion and indecisiveness; which Q was this? The
one who landed on January tenth, 478ad who stopped human sacrifice
(for a while), and ushered in an era of unprecedented cultural
influence for Teotihuacan? or the warlord who was the source of
another layering of myth in 999ad?
Post by Gisele Horvat
You might also want to think hard about Duncan's view of the letter he
says Cortes sent to the Spanish king; that "[i]t is not the letter of one
who concoted (sic) the whole story". I don't think a sober look at Cortes'
life would support the contention that he was a keen and disinterested
observer of things that had the potential to be useful to him.
A sober look? And no, of course he wasn't a disinterested observer,
but he sure as hell wouldn't report falsehoods back to the king for
the sake of some future historians.
Post by Gisele Horvat
Best remember the AVM fiasco, and verify before you get too excited.
Tom McDonald
...and watergate, too. Don't forget that fiasco.

Duncan Craig
deowll
2003-07-23 21:12:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Philip Deitiker
Post by Diarmid Logan
They claimed that burned wood found at the site came from fires at
hunting camps and that fractured pebbles found there were used by
humans to butcher meat. But the interpretation of these remains has
been questioned by several experts.
There's that pebble culture again. But oddly it disappeared
in Japan 16 kya and it is appearing in the new world 15 kya.
Sounds like a displacement. What happens in Japan 15 kya,
protoJomon arrives. What does that look like, clovis
culture.
I'm not sure I know what Clovis culture looks like. Most artifacts other
than the points are sort of generic. I've never seen something I could call
a Clovis point from Asia. Unless you know something I don't I think the
points developed in North America. I don't question a linkage between North
Easter Asian culture and Native American culture.

I would bet that the expansion took place before the displacement or at
least the people displaced aren't the ones that moved when the group
expanded. In most cases the ones dispaced die with few if any descendents
while some may be absorbed. Large bodies of people did move around after the
mesolithic but before that is seems to have been one small group moving then
budding off another group at the expense of the neighbors and so on.
Post by Philip Deitiker
Post by Diarmid Logan
For example, a 9,300-year-old skull from Washington State known as
Kennewick Man has been interpreted as looking European due to its
long, narrow (dolichocephalic) skull shape. More recent American
populations tend to have short, broad skulls.
Dr Wells said individuals such as Kennewick Man looked this way
because Europeans and early Americans had a common origin around
35,000-40,000 years ago in south-central Asia.
Native americans did not have a common origins in south
central asia. They have many points of origin from
melanesians that came up through Japan in the south to
diplaced WEA/ME that came up from the south west to siberia.
To mongols that came from siberia proper . . . . .
Post by Diarmid Logan
But Dr Wells acknowledged the possibility that even more ancient
American populations carrying unidentified Y chromosome haplotypes
could have been swamped by later migrations, resulting in their
genetic legacy being erased.
"We can't rule that out," he said, "but in science we have to deal
with what's extant."
Genes not found in a living populations aren't found in a living population
and taking a trip won't help. Genes that once were but have no living owners
are gone. Sometime you might get lucky and find a few but as you have
pointed out unless they are frozen somewhere in the tundra the older ones
are most likely gone.
Post by Philip Deitiker
Then he should make a trip to Japan.
Philip Deitiker
2003-07-24 16:00:00 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 24 Jul 2003 01:09:56 -0600, "Tedd"
this opens up a whole other topic of debate; there is currently (as far as my undergraduate
knowledge knows) no supportive evidence for linkage between clovis technology or clovis culture and
asian contexts. there are multiple relationships as evident in the record between alaska and eastern
asia, but as of yet no one has been able to produce a clear relationship to link alaska and clovis
of the lower 48. dates retrieved from alaskan sites which are claimed to be pre-clovis are still
disputed due to carbon contamination and lack of cultural layer association, those that are
established are shown to be younger than clovis. in both cases neither group of dated sites contain
assemblages that show any cultural relation to clovis.
C. Vance Haynes 1982
Irrelevantly old.
Roosevelt, Douglas and Brown 2002
There are researchers that say that, but I frankly disagree
with them. There is a current divide in this study some come
for cultural exchange and carry over from asia, some come
against it. I think in the next 5 years the archaeology from
Japan will become so convincing that no-one would reasonably
there was no cultural carry over from asia.
Michael Clark
2003-07-25 03:53:17 UTC
Permalink
[..]
this opens up a whole other topic of debate; there is currently (as far as my
undergraduate
knowledge knows) no supportive evidence for linkage between clovis technology or
clovis culture and
asian contexts. there are multiple relationships as evident in the record between
alaska and eastern
asia, but as of yet no one has been able to produce a clear relationship to link
alaska and clovis
of the lower 48. dates retrieved from alaskan sites which are claimed to be
pre-clovis are still
disputed due to carbon contamination and lack of cultural layer association,
those that are
established are shown to be younger than clovis. in both cases neither group of
dated sites contain
assemblages that show any cultural relation to clovis.
C. Vance Haynes 1982
Roosevelt, Douglas and Brown 2002
tedd.
Has anything been done to compare clovis points with Monte Verde points?
Some references:

Clovis revisited: New Perspectives on Paleoindian Adaptations from
Blackwater Draw, New Mexico (Philadelphia: The University Museum,
University of Pennsylvania, 1999) Anthony T. Bouldurian, John L. Cotter

The Fenn Cache: Clovis Weapons and Tools (Santa Fe: One Horse
Land and Cattle Company, 1999) George Frisson, Bruce Bradley

Clovis Blade Technology: A Comparative Study of the Kevin Davis
Cache, Texas (Austin: University of Texas Press, 1999) Michael B. Collins,
Marvin Kay
Duncan
MIB529
2003-07-25 06:49:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by deowll
Post by Philip Deitiker
Post by Diarmid Logan
They claimed that burned wood found at the site came from fires at
hunting camps and that fractured pebbles found there were used by
humans to butcher meat. But the interpretation of these remains has
been questioned by several experts.
There's that pebble culture again. But oddly it disappeared
in Japan 16 kya and it is appearing in the new world 15 kya.
Sounds like a displacement. What happens in Japan 15 kya,
protoJomon arrives. What does that look like, clovis
culture.
I'm not sure I know what Clovis culture looks like. Most artifacts other
than the points are sort of generic. I've never seen something I could call
a Clovis point from Asia. Unless you know something I don't I think the
points developed in North America. I don't question a linkage between North
Easter Asian culture and Native American culture.
this opens up a whole other topic of debate; there is currently (as far as my undergraduate
knowledge knows) no supportive evidence for linkage between clovis technology or clovis culture and
asian contexts. there are multiple relationships as evident in the record between alaska and eastern
asia
...which therefore explains the lower date for DNA evidence. The BBC
article was written by idiots. If anthropologists weren't so insistant
on the rantings of a 17th-century missionary, perhaps we could get
something done.

I'm still wondering: Why the HELL would someone enter Siberia in an
ice age? Oh, wait, I forgot, the Bering Strait was decided upon before
we even knew there was a time when the world was a lot cooler.
John Wilkins
2003-07-25 07:01:27 UTC
Permalink
In article <***@posting.google.com>,
***@yahoo.com (MIB529) wrote:
...
Post by MIB529
I'm still wondering: Why the HELL would someone enter Siberia in an
ice age? Oh, wait, I forgot, the Bering Strait was decided upon before
we even knew there was a time when the world was a lot cooler.
I'm intrigued to know: what is your preferred paleoanthropological
history then? Did humanity evolve in North America, or what?
--
John Wilkins
It is not enough to succeed. Friends must be seen to have failed.
Truman Capote
MIB529
2003-07-25 11:57:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Wilkins
...
Post by MIB529
I'm still wondering: Why the HELL would someone enter Siberia in an
ice age? Oh, wait, I forgot, the Bering Strait was decided upon before
we even knew there was a time when the world was a lot cooler.
I'm intrigued to know: what is your preferred paleoanthropological
history then? Did humanity evolve in North America, or what?
Straw man. I'm not surprised. Just because I don't have a theory
doesn't logically mean that I can't debunk a current theory. Let's
face it: The theory claims that Indians have all the intelligence of
mollusks. Are you willing to hold that theory? Are you also willing to
explain why the features we associate with Indianness are the exact
features that would've been selected AGAINST in the Bering Strait
region? Oh, let me guess: A miracle happened. Lots of em.
MIB529
2003-07-25 11:59:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Wilkins
...
Post by MIB529
I'm still wondering: Why the HELL would someone enter Siberia in an
ice age? Oh, wait, I forgot, the Bering Strait was decided upon before
we even knew there was a time when the world was a lot cooler.
I'm intrigued to know: what is your preferred paleoanthropological
history then? Did humanity evolve in North America, or what?
So, what you're saying is, since Redi didn't know about evolution, we
should believe in spontaneous generation?
John Wilkins
2003-07-26 03:12:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by MIB529
Post by John Wilkins
...
Post by MIB529
I'm still wondering: Why the HELL would someone enter Siberia in an
ice age? Oh, wait, I forgot, the Bering Strait was decided upon before
we even knew there was a time when the world was a lot cooler.
I'm intrigued to know: what is your preferred paleoanthropological
history then? Did humanity evolve in North America, or what?
So, what you're saying is, since Redi didn't know about evolution, we
should believe in spontaneous generation?
No, since Redi was in the era where no other explanation but divine
creation was around, I do not expect him to have had any position on
evolution. I am asking *you* for *your* preferred alternative view. You
may not have one - in which case say so. If you object to the consensus
view on scientific grounds, then you are not obliged to have an
alternative view, but if you do, I was intrigued to know what it was.
--
John Wilkins
It is not enough to succeed. Friends must be seen to have failed.
Truman Capote
MIB529
2003-07-26 18:21:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Wilkins
Post by MIB529
Post by John Wilkins
Post by MIB529
I'm still wondering: Why the HELL would someone enter Siberia in an
ice age? Oh, wait, I forgot, the Bering Strait was decided upon before
we even knew there was a time when the world was a lot cooler.
I'm intrigued to know: what is your preferred paleoanthropological
history then? Did humanity evolve in North America, or what?
So, what you're saying is, since Redi didn't know about evolution, we
should believe in spontaneous generation?
No, since Redi was in the era where no other explanation but divine
creation was around,
And there's no evidence for the Bering Strait other than that
anthropologists think it's the Word of God. (I'm using that
figuratively, of course.)
Post by John Wilkins
I do not expect him to have had any position on
evolution. I am asking *you* for *your* preferred alternative view. You
may not have one - in which case say so. If you object to the consensus
view on scientific grounds, then you are not obliged to have an
alternative view, but if you do, I was intrigued to know what it was.
Well, if you insist, boats.
Tedd
2003-07-25 16:24:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Wilkins
...
Post by MIB529
I'm still wondering: Why the HELL would someone enter Siberia in an
ice age? Oh, wait, I forgot, the Bering Strait was decided upon before
we even knew there was a time when the world was a lot cooler.
I'm intrigued to know: what is your preferred paleoanthropological
history then? Did humanity evolve in North America, or what?
which theory would you like? land route? coastal route? water transport? how
about Stanford and Bradly's theory of migration across a northern atlantic land
bridge? or the southern route up through argentina?

very few archaeologist (with the exception of the old cultural historians, but
they are dying out) actually believe beringia was the _only_ migratory route to
the america's, in fact, few believe it was even the primary route, the time line
just doesnt fit. the problem is... we dont know, we dont have the information.
we all have speculation, conjecture, hypotheses, but very little, if any,
evidence of what route was used at this time. there is more evidence to stand
against the beringia migration than there is against the joe smith renaissance
of the water transport theory from the middle east, thats a pretty far fetched
idea, but it's the reality of it. you dont have to have subscribe to an
alternative theory to know you dont agree with an outdated one.
MIB529
2003-07-23 20:49:14 UTC
Permalink
Yeah, and moon dust proves a young earth. You don't date something by
the YOUNGEST date; you date something by the OLDEST date.

Anyway, the idea of telling the age of a mutation eerily mirrors
neo-Lamarckism, in which the organism "remembered" its ancestral forms
and was thus able to go through them more quickly, adding something at
the end. Seems there are still those who would Haeckel biology.

As for the skull shape, here's a second clue for you: Most Indians are
dolichocephalic, and the cephalic index was discredited a century ago.
Quit trying to find differences between ancient remains and Orientals,
as if all brown-skinned people look alike.

Reminds me of Hooten's claim of "pseudo-Australoids",
"pseudo-Negroids", "pseudo-Alpines", and "long-faced Europeans", all
in a single pueblo 700 years ago. His data, when viewed from a
scientific lens, disproves any claim of pre-Indian Caucasians; after
all, if these Caucasians were here 700 years ago, in the middle of the
Mojave no less, then a cline exists - while the entire "pre-Indian
Caucasian" claim rests on the lack of a cline.
Post by Diarmid Logan
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3086777.stm
Date limit set on first Americans
By Paul Rincon
BBC Science
A new genetic study deals a blow to claims that humans reached America
at least 30,000 years ago - around the same time that people were
colonising Europe.
The subject of when humans first arrived in America is hotly contested
by academics.
On one side of the argument are researchers who claim America was
first populated around 13,000 years ago, toward the end of the last
Ice Age. On the other are those who propose a much earlier date for
colonisation of the continent - possibly around 30,000-40,000 years
ago.
The authors of the latest study reject the latter theory, proposing
that humans entered America no earlier than 18,000 years ago.
They looked at mutations on the form of the human Y chromosome known
as haplotype 10.
This is one of only two haplotypes carried by Native American men and
is thought to have reached the continent first. Haplotype 10 is also
found in Asia, confirming that the earliest Americans came from there.
The scientists knew that determining when mutations occurred on
haplotype 10 might reveal a date for the first entry of people into
America.
Native Americans carry a mutation called M3 on haplotype 10 which is
not found in Asia. This suggests it appeared after people settled in
America, making it useless for assigning a date to the first
migrations.
But a mutation known as M242 looked more promising. M242 is found in
Asia and America, suggesting that it appeared before the first
Americans split from their Asian kin.
Knowing the rate at which DNA on the Y chromosome mutates - errors
occur - and the time taken for a single male generation, the
scientists were able to calculate when M242 originated. They arrived
at a maximum date of 18,000 years ago for its appearance.
This means the first Americans were still living in Asia when M242
appeared and could only have begun their migration eastwards after
this date.
"I would say that they entered [America] within the last 15,000
years," said Dr Spencer Wells, a geneticist and author who contributed
to the latest study.
In 1997, a US-Chilean team uncovered apparent evidence of human
occupation in 33,000-year-old sediment layers at Monte Verde in Chile.
They claimed that burned wood found at the site came from fires at
hunting camps and that fractured pebbles found there were used by
humans to butcher meat. But the interpretation of these remains has
been questioned by several experts.
The debate over the biological origins of the first Americans has
wide-ranging political and racial implications.
In the US, the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act
(Nagpra) has resulted in the handover of many scientific collections
to claimants.
Some archaeologists argue that the remains of early Americans are
sufficiently different from their descendents to be exempt from
Nagpra.
For example, a 9,300-year-old skull from Washington State known as
Kennewick Man has been interpreted as looking European due to its
long, narrow (dolichocephalic) skull shape. More recent American
populations tend to have short, broad skulls.
Dr Wells said individuals such as Kennewick Man looked this way
because Europeans and early Americans had a common origin around
35,000-40,000 years ago in south-central Asia.
"[Dolichocephaly] is a general feature of very early skulls," Dr Wells
told BBC News Online.
He said a later migration into America from East Asia 6,000-10,000
years ago associated with the spread of Y chromosome haplotype 5 could
have been responsible for the Asiatic appearance of many present-day
Native Americans.
But Dr Wells acknowledged the possibility that even more ancient
American populations carrying unidentified Y chromosome haplotypes
could have been swamped by later migrations, resulting in their
genetic legacy being erased.
"We can't rule that out," he said, "but in science we have to deal
with what's extant."
http://diarmidlogan.blogspot.com/
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...