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.
Floyd Davidson
2003-08-03 06:55:00 UTC
Permalink
Okay. I thought you were sane. I know why you're crazy and you
have good reason but when you let hate blind you no matter how
justly you are still a blind man consumed by hate. After they
had the chance to study the bones this man didn't seem to be
much like Western Europeans or present day Native Americans
living in the region. He did look a lot like the Natives of
Northern Japan. Another group with problems who have suffered
from displacement. As sea hunters they just might have island
hoped into North America south of the glaciers before they
broke up.
*Your* assessment is insane.

*Nothing* in the study of Kenniwick man has lead anyone credible
to claim that the bones were related to "Natives of Northern
Japan". The fact that some physical characteristics were
similar is no basis to make any such claim.

There is, however, very *little* doubt that Kenniwick Man is the
ancestor of some of the Native American people who live in the
same area where the bones were found. Only whether he is the
ancestor of all of them, or which of them, is open to question.
--
Floyd L. Davidson <http://web.newsguy.com/floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) ***@barrow.com
Philip Deitiker
2003-08-03 16:23:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Floyd Davidson
Okay. I thought you were sane. I know why you're crazy
and you have good reason but when you let hate blind you
no matter how justly you are still a blind man consumed
by hate. After they had the chance to study the bones
this man didn't seem to be much like Western Europeans or
present day Native Americans living in the region. He did
look a lot like the Natives of Northern Japan. Another
group with problems who have suffered from displacement.
As sea hunters they just might have island hoped into
North America south of the glaciers before they broke up.
*Your* assessment is insane.
*Nothing* in the study of Kenniwick man has lead anyone
credible to claim that the bones were related to "Natives
of Northern Japan". The fact that some physical
characteristics were similar is no basis to make any such
claim.
There is, however, very *little* doubt that Kenniwick Man
is the ancestor of some of the Native American people who
live in the same area where the bones were found. Only
whether he is the ancestor of all of them, or which of
them, is open to question.
I'm certain that _some_ of the Native American people who
live in the area in which the KM bones were found have
little "doubt" that KM was their ancestor. Perhaps you
even sure those doubts.
He shouldn't even be posting in s.a.p. he has already admitted
that he put lying ahead of science. KF him.


Philip
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Molecular Anthropology Group
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DNAanthro/
Molecular Evolution of Hominids
http://home.att.net/~DNAPaleoAnth/
Latest Study on 10 xlinked loci
http://home.att.net/~DNAPaleoAnth/xlinked.htm
Other good sites
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Paleoanthro/
Bob Keeter
2003-08-03 17:28:19 UTC
Permalink
"Philip Deitiker" <***@worlnet.att.net> wrote in message news:HFaXa.82772$***@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
Snippage. . . . . .
Post by Philip Deitiker
He shouldn't even be posting in s.a.p. he has already admitted
that he put lying ahead of science. KF him.
Philip
ROTFLMAO!

Good one! Needed a bit of a refresher to remind me of exactly how
disgusting your hypocracy really is.

On the other hand, coming from such a dedicated and totally unselfish
professional scientist as yourself, who lets NOTHING come between himself
and honest scientific truth, who will not waver from the persuit of true
knowledge no matter where it might lead, and who would rather die than tell
a lie, bend a truth, engage in very unprofessional and juvenile hypocracy,
or . . ..(Geez, that last DOES sound a bit out of character for you now
doesnt it! Matter of fact, any body got a spare Heimlich handy?). . .

Hypocracy is only a different shade of lie, tinted (tainted?) by ego, and
slathered with a basic weakness of character and personal integrity. Bad
combination for a scientist dont you think? 8-)

Regards
bk
Floyd Davidson
2003-08-03 19:49:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bob Keeter
Snippage. . . . . .
Post by Philip Deitiker
He shouldn't even be posting in s.a.p. he has already admitted
that he put lying ahead of science. KF him.
Philip
ROTFLMAO!
Good one! Needed a bit of a refresher to remind me of exactly how
disgusting your hypocracy really is.
Is *that* ever the trueth.

This crap has been crossposted to the supposedly "science" groups,
and so far I've had responses from Deitiker and Sappo Renfor, neither
of whom and understand a logical argument nor apparently have ever
read a history book.

What a hoot.
Post by Bob Keeter
On the other hand, coming from such a dedicated and totally unselfish
professional scientist as yourself, who lets NOTHING come between himself
and honest scientific truth, who will not waver from the persuit of true
knowledge no matter where it might lead, and who would rather die than tell
a lie, bend a truth, engage in very unprofessional and juvenile hypocracy,
or . . ..(Geez, that last DOES sound a bit out of character for you now
doesnt it! Matter of fact, any body got a spare Heimlich handy?). . .
Hypocracy is only a different shade of lie, tinted (tainted?) by ego, and
slathered with a basic weakness of character and personal integrity. Bad
combination for a scientist dont you think? 8-)
Regards
bk
Aw, what's a bit of mythology, as long as it is Western mythology!
--
Floyd L. Davidson <http://web.newsguy.com/floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) ***@barrow.com
deowll
2003-08-04 01:41:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bob Keeter
Snippage. . . . . .
Post by Philip Deitiker
He shouldn't even be posting in s.a.p. he has already admitted
that he put lying ahead of science. KF him.
Philip
ROTFLMAO!
Good one! Needed a bit of a refresher to remind me of exactly how
disgusting your hypocracy really is.
On the other hand, coming from such a dedicated and totally unselfish
professional scientist as yourself, who lets NOTHING come between himself
and honest scientific truth, who will not waver from the persuit of true
knowledge no matter where it might lead, and who would rather die than tell
a lie, bend a truth, engage in very unprofessional and juvenile hypocracy,
or . . ..(Geez, that last DOES sound a bit out of character for you now
doesnt it! Matter of fact, any body got a spare Heimlich handy?). . .
Hypocracy is only a different shade of lie, tinted (tainted?) by ego, and
slathered with a basic weakness of character and personal integrity. Bad
combination for a scientist dont you think? 8-)
Regards
bk
If you want to snip at Philip feel free. He can handle it. The fact is the
guy said the only evidence I need is what I believe. Nothing else matters.
That is about as unscientific as it gets.
Steve Marcus
2003-08-03 19:48:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Floyd Davidson
There is, however, very *little* doubt that Kenniwick Man is the
ancestor of some of the Native American people who live in the
same area where the bones were found. Only whether he is the
ancestor of all of them, or which of them, is open to question.
I'm certain that _some_ of the Native American people who live in
the area in which the KM bones were found have little "doubt"
that KM was their ancestor. Perhaps you even sure those doubts.
However, evidence is what matters. Of that I believe they, and
you, have little. In fact, the whole issue involved in the KM
litigation is about obtaining such evidence.
If the Native Americans of whom you speak (and/or you, for that
matter) have evidence supporting the claims that KM is their
ancestor, how about sharing it here. We are waiting.
In fact there is no evidence which suggests that Kennewick Man
was anything *other* than native American. It is also true that
conclusive evidence that he was is not available, but that all
reasonable evidence points in exactly that direction.
See <http://www.cr.nps.gov/aad/kennewick/index.htm>
The Kennewick Skeletal Remains are "Native American" as Defined by NAGPRA
We now have sufficient information to determine that these
skeletal remains should be considered "Native American" as
defined by NAGPRA. The results of recent radiocarbon dating
of small samples of bone extracted from the remains were
given significant weight in making this determination. This
interpretation is supported by other analyses and information
regarding the skeletal remains themselves, sedimentary
analysis, lithic analysis, an earlier radiocarbon date on a
bone recovered with the other remains, and geomorphologic
analysis (summarized in McManamon 1999).
http://www.cr.nps.gov/aad/kennewick/c14memo.htm
I can't comment on what the website says, because they currently
do not connect. Possibly, they are down for maintenance over the
weekend. I'll check again on Monday.

However, what you are doing in your post is ignoring the fact
that your are quoting the position of one party to the dispute as
though it were definitve. A magistrate, after holding a lengthy
evidentiary hearing, determined that this position was not
definitive to establish the conclusion that KM was ancestral to
the Native Americans of the Kenniwick area.
Now, we all realize that everyone and their brother has run off
at the mouth for years now that Kennewick Man is European. (He
clearly was not.) That he was Ainu from Northern Japan. (He
clearly was not.) That he was a Polynesian. (He clearly was
not.) What *you* seem to have missed is how to read the papers
presented and understand what they do actually say, and what they
don't say.
Your statements about evidence above indicate you need to go
back to school and take something *other* than a course of
Rules of Evidence for the courts. This is not a court room,
there is no judge or jury. We aren't looking for an answer
as defined by US Statutes.
Your statements indicate that, contrary to your protestion in the
next sentence, you have no interest in the truth, "real" or
otherwise. Particularly telling is your admission, above, that
"It is also true that
conclusive evidence that he was is not available, but that all
reasonable evidence points in exactly that direction."

Now, what reasonable evidence would that be? The age of the
remains?? It is an open question as to whether such age
indicates that KM was a contemporary with ancestors of the Native
Americans or predated the presence of those ancestors. But even
assuming that KM was contemporary with the ancestors of the
Native Americans, this isn't conclusive that he was in fact one
of those ancestors. The same is true with respect to the lithic
and sedimentary evidence. If the stone point in KM's remains
were of such an age as to be definitively contemporary with
ancestral Native Americans (something disputed by many experts in
the field), that would not be dispositive of the matter of just
who KM was; he could still have been a member of a people other
than peoples ancestral to the area's Native Americans. The same
holds true with respect to sedimentary analysis, such as it is
(it is far from clear that such analysis can be meaningful, given
how KM was found).

Definitive ("conclusive") evidence on the issue of whether KM is
ancestral to the Native American tribes in the Kenniwich area is
most likely to come from genetic analysis. Interestingly, such
evidence as the age of the bones was obtained using bone samples,
is apparently not so disturbing to the present Native American
claimants as they alleged that the taking of some additional bone
samples to do the genetic testing would be.

Of course, your admission that you aren't looking for an answer
as defined by US Statutes is rather telling, as well. First you
cite something claiming that the NAGPRA definitions defining
whether remains are Native American are satisfied, and then
dismiss that a magistrate, after a lengthy evidentiary hearing,
has determined otherwise, in opposition to the official position
taken by the very US government that is supposed to be operating
under the Statutes that you claim not to care about.

Finally, your strawmen (Ainu, Polynesian, etc.) are simply that,
strawmen. First, there's nothing "clear" that shows that KM was
not of such ancestry, but even if there were, the issue is,
precisely, what _was_ KM's ancestry. The best chance of
ascertaining that lies with genetic testing. The Native
Americans oppose that. Again, your claim that "we" (and who are
the "we" here; do you or anyone else claim to speak for _all_
Native Americans) want the "real" truth is belied by your
opposition to scientific testing that stands an excellent chance
of yielding a definitive answer on this issue. The gratuitous ad
hominem comment re "going back to school" seems indicative of
someone who really does not have either the facts or the evidence
on his side, and is willing to accept a decision under the "US
Statutes" only so long as such decision goes his way.
We want the *real* truth. And that is indeed fairly obvious.
--
Floyd L. Davidson <http://web.newsguy.com/floyd_davidson>
Steve
--
The above posting is neither a legal opinion nor legal advice,
because we do not have an attorney-client relationship, and
should not be construed as either. This posting does not
represent the opinion of my employer, but is merely my personal
view.
mb
2003-08-03 17:22:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Steve Marcus
Your statements indicate that,
it is a netloon you'e talking to.

The anthropological report clearly shows - though carefully formulated -
no relationship of Kennewick Man to the tribes., but instead that your
opponent is intentionally twisting it's content.

e.g. from the Craniometric Analyses [1]:

"When the size-corrected data are used to generate posterior
probabilities of group membership, the Kennewick individual has the
greatest probability of inclusion in the South Japan sample (Pposterior
= 0.9861), followed by the South Pacific Moriori (Pposterior = 0.0081)
and North American Arikara (Pposterior = 0.0021) samples."

etc. etc.

Michael


[1] http://www.cr.nps.gov/aad/kennewick/powell_rose.htm
Floyd Davidson
2003-08-03 21:25:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by mb
Post by Steve Marcus
Your statements indicate that,
it is a netloon you'e talking to.
What *you* have to say below is worthy of the title "loony".
Post by mb
The anthropological report clearly shows - though carefully formulated -
no relationship of Kennewick Man to the tribes., but instead that your
opponent is intentionally twisting it's content.
The conclusions of the scientist who did the work are different
than your conclusion. Who do you expect we should trust to
understand what it actually does show?
Post by mb
"When the size-corrected data are used to generate posterior
probabilities of group membership, the Kennewick individual has the
greatest probability of inclusion in the South Japan sample (Pposterior
= 0.9861), followed by the South Pacific Moriori (Pposterior = 0.0081)
and North American Arikara (Pposterior = 0.0021) samples."
etc. etc.
Michael
[1] http://www.cr.nps.gov/aad/kennewick/powell_rose.htm
Their conclusion on that was that it doesn't mean *anything*.
It certainly does *not* demonstrate a *lack* of relationship
between Kennewick Man and *anyone*, nor does it demonstrate the
*existance* of any such relationship. Did you happen to also
read the reasons for that, which they did mention...

More importantly, it can be excluded (on the basis of
typicality probabilities) from *all* late Holocene
human groups. There are indications, however, that
the Kennewick cranium is morphologically similar to
Archaic populations from the northern Great Basin
region, and to large Archaic populations in the
eastern woodlands. While these data raise a number of
interesting questions, only a regional time series
analysis of a sequence of well-dated human remains
from east-central Washington spanning the past 9,000
can provide direct evidence of biological continuity
between Kennewick and modern American Indian tribes.
--
Floyd L. Davidson <http://web.newsguy.com/floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) ***@barrow.com
deowll
2003-08-04 01:37:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Floyd Davidson
Post by mb
Post by Steve Marcus
Your statements indicate that,
it is a netloon you'e talking to.
What *you* have to say below is worthy of the title "loony".
Post by mb
The anthropological report clearly shows - though carefully formulated -
no relationship of Kennewick Man to the tribes., but instead that your
opponent is intentionally twisting it's content.
The conclusions of the scientist who did the work are different
than your conclusion. Who do you expect we should trust to
understand what it actually does show?
Post by mb
"When the size-corrected data are used to generate posterior
probabilities of group membership, the Kennewick individual has the
greatest probability of inclusion in the South Japan sample (Pposterior
= 0.9861), followed by the South Pacific Moriori (Pposterior = 0.0081)
and North American Arikara (Pposterior = 0.0021) samples."
etc. etc.
Michael
[1] http://www.cr.nps.gov/aad/kennewick/powell_rose.htm
Their conclusion on that was that it doesn't mean *anything*.
It certainly does *not* demonstrate a *lack* of relationship
between Kennewick Man and *anyone*, nor does it demonstrate the
*existance* of any such relationship. Did you happen to also
read the reasons for that, which they did mention...
More importantly, it can be excluded (on the basis of
typicality probabilities) from *all* late Holocene
human groups. There are indications, however, that
the Kennewick cranium is morphologically similar to
Archaic populations from the northern Great Basin
region, and to large Archaic populations in the
eastern woodlands. While these data raise a number of
interesting questions, only a regional time series
analysis of a sequence of well-dated human remains
from east-central Washington spanning the past 9,000
can provide direct evidence of biological continuity
between Kennewick and modern American Indian tribes.
I don't know what the person who wrote this thinks they said or what you
think they said but what they are talking about is the kind of evidence that
anthropologist would find for a replacement in population in North America
after 1492. There is every reason to believe that not only was this man a
member of a different tribe than the local moderns, he was member of
differnt language group, with large cultural differences and a fair number
of genetic differences.

None of the above means its wrong to bring a few grave goods to put at his
feet but making wild claims of a real connection between the moderns as this
man is wonky.


Of course none of the above matters to you.
Post by Floyd Davidson
--
Floyd L. Davidson <http://web.newsguy.com/floyd_davidson>
Steve Marcus
2003-08-04 04:36:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Steve Marcus
Post by Floyd Davidson
There is, however, very *little* doubt that Kenniwick Man is the
ancestor of some of the Native American people who live in the
same area where the bones were found. Only whether he is the
ancestor of all of them, or which of them, is open to question.
I'm certain that _some_ of the Native American people who live in
the area in which the KM bones were found have little "doubt"
that KM was their ancestor. Perhaps you even sure those doubts.
However, evidence is what matters. Of that I believe they, and
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Your statement. The basis of your initial position.
So when presented with the reports of scientists detailing the
evidence, what do you say?
Post by Steve Marcus
you, have little. In fact, the whole issue involved in the KM
litigation is about obtaining such evidence.
If the Native Americans of whom you speak (and/or you, for that
matter) have evidence supporting the claims that KM is their
ancestor, how about sharing it here. We are waiting.
You act there just as if you had *never* heard that such exists!
But we know that you are attempting to distort the facts that you
already were *well* aware of.
Well, well. I was hoping to read otherwise, but it appears that
those who accuse you of being a netloon may be on the right
track. You respond to a request for evidence with an ad hominem.

Listen, Mr. Davidson. I know that you claim to have posted some
evidence by citing a URL. I told you that I could not comment on
that URL because it won't connect. I have also "heard" that
evidence re KM exists. What I haven't seen a lot of is evidence
that demonstrates that KM is necessarily ancesteral to the Native
American tribes that live today in the Kennewick area. Neither
did the magistrate who rendered the decision see a lot of such
evidence. I am still waiting for you to post some.
Post by Steve Marcus
In fact there is no evidence which suggests that Kennewick Man
was anything *other* than native American. It is also true that
conclusive evidence that he was is not available, but that all
reasonable evidence points in exactly that direction.
See <http://www.cr.nps.gov/aad/kennewick/index.htm>
The Kennewick Skeletal Remains are "Native American" as Defined by NAGPRA
We now have sufficient information to determine that these
skeletal remains should be considered "Native American" as
defined by NAGPRA. The results of recent radiocarbon dating
of small samples of bone extracted from the remains were
given significant weight in making this determination. This
interpretation is supported by other analyses and information
regarding the skeletal remains themselves, sedimentary
analysis, lithic analysis, an earlier radiocarbon date on a
bone recovered with the other remains, and geomorphologic
analysis (summarized in McManamon 1999).
http://www.cr.nps.gov/aad/kennewick/c14memo.htm
I can't comment on what the website says, because they currently
do not connect. Possibly, they are down for maintenance over the
weekend. I'll check again on Monday.
If they didn't connect for you, *you* are the problem. It
worked fine for me then, and it works fine for me now. Is your
problem that you really didn't want someone to put that much
evidence on the table to prove that what you said wasn't true?
I have now gotten your first URL to work. The meat of the first
URL (index to various papers) is found here:

http://www.cr.nps.gov/aad/kennewick/kaestle.htm

and here:

http://www.cr.nps.gov/aad/kennewick/smith.htm

The kaestle URL indicates that in the first set of DNA tests, no
tests showed consistency with mtDNA haplogroups A, B, C, D or X
which are found in the majority of pre-Columbian Native American
remains, but states that while the samples didn't permit
conclusive results, it would be expected that additional samples
should permit such results.

The smith URL describes the genetic testing after such testing
was resumed, it having been halted at the insistence of the
tribes. The testing could not be carried out to completion, and
the study recommends that further testing be carried out in the
future.

I have also now gotten the second (memo14) URLs to connect. What
it says is:

1. The C14 date clearly shows that the KM remains are
pre-Columbian.

2. Sediment layers consistent with a pre-Columbian date (perhaps
the author meant "the pre-Columbian date obtained by the C14
test) exist in the area _where they *believe* that the remains
were buried.

3. The lithic evidence (the spearpoint) in KM's ribs is
consistent with this pre-Columbian date.

Therefore, they conclude that KM must be "Native American" under
the NAGPRA.

What does this evidence actually show:

1. That the remains are pre-Columbian does not show that they
are the remains of anyone ancestral to today's Native Americans,
let alone those Native Americans living in the Kennewick area.

2. Ditto re the sediment layers; they demonstrate at most that
KM is as old as the C14 test does.

3. Ditto the lithic evidence; see #2 above.

In short, they assume that any remains found in North America
that pre-date Columbus are _necessarily_ ancestral to Native
Americans, then KM is a Native American. Of course, this
assumption assumes precisely what NAGPRA demands that one
conclude; it is not impossible that KM is simply not ancestral to
today's Native Americans.

And of course, even if KM _is_ ancestral to Native Americans, it
is simply unproven that the tribes claiming those remains are in
fact descendents of KM.
Post by Steve Marcus
However, what you are doing in your post is ignoring the fact
that your are quoting the position of one party to the dispute as
though it were definitve.
I'd accuse you of having reading difficulty if you had dropped
it right there, but you go on a bit farther down to demonstrate
that you know precisely how dishonest that statement is. I did
*not* claim it was definitive, and pointed out that it isn't.
If it isn't dispositive, then how can you (or the tribes) claim
that NAGPRA is satisfied??
You'll also note that while the summary above is indeed the
position of one side in a legal matter, the science that I've
_also_ pointed you at is *evidence*, not a legal brief.
For a jerk that puts a disclaimer about not having an
attorney-client relationship with anyone they engage in public
discussion on Usenet with, one would think you would know the
difference between evidence and a legal opinion.
How does this ad hominem statement square with your previous
sentence. And as far as jerks are concerned, since when does the
presentation of "some" evidence on one side of a legal issue
decide that issue without respect to considering contradictory
evidence?
Post by Steve Marcus
A magistrate, after holding a lengthy
evidentiary hearing, determined that this position was not
definitive to establish the conclusion that KM was ancestral to
the Native Americans of the Kenniwick area.
I didn't suggest otherwise did I. What I did do was say that
there *is* a load of evidence, which you claimed does not exist
at all.
I didn't claim that it "doesn't exist at all." But in fact, the
evidence that does exist is as described above, and as I've
analyzed it. Evidence shows that KM pre-dates Columbus.
Period. It establishes neither that KM is at all ancestral to
today's Native Americans, nor that KM is ancestral to the tribes
asserting the claim to KM's remains.
So far you haven't provided a shred of evidence that suggests
Kennewick Man could possibly be anything other than a Native
American.
Again, you make an absurd statement. First, it is not impossible
that KM could be other than Native American. Do you disagree?
(Or are you truly a netloon?) Second, the point is that without
the genetic testing that the tribes seek to prevent, there will
never be an opportunity to present evidence showing that KM is
other than Native American. Third, there is no evidence that KM
_is_ Native American, only a presumption that human remains that
pre-date Columbus are necessarily Native American.
... [irrelevant waste deleted]
Yep, a true netloon. Snip the part where you stand on NAGPRA as
supporting that KM is Native American, and snip the part where
you to post that you don't aren't looking for an answer in the US
Statutes. This latter, of course, stemming from the fact that a
US magistrate has ruled that there is insufficient evidence under
NAGPRA to reach the conclusion you desire.
Post by Steve Marcus
Definitive ("conclusive") evidence on the issue of whether KM is
ancestral to the Native American tribes in the Kenniwich area is
most likely to come from genetic analysis. Interestingly, such
In fact, it is extremely unlikely that *any* evidence is going
to come from any genetic analysis. It has been attempted and
did not produce any evidence at all.
Not true. See above, in particular, the statement in the "smith"
URL that future testing techniques will likely produce results.
Post by Steve Marcus
evidence as the age of the bones was obtained using bone samples,
is apparently not so disturbing to the present Native American
claimants as they alleged that the taking of some additional bone
samples to do the genetic testing would be.
What is apparent about that? Are you that logically challenged?
They opposed destructive sampling to date the bones. It was
done anyway.
They opposed destructive sampling to do DNA testing, it was done
anyway.
Are you just totally unaware of all facts in this particular
situation, or do you just ignore those that don't fit with your
pre-formed conclusions when you make up these illogical claims?
Even if the facts were not what they are, the logic of your
statement above is invalid.
Nonsense. The tribes objected to the genetic testing, and the
testing was halted until the Court ordered it continued. Your
own URLs indicate that genetic testing is likely to productive of
an answer. The early genetic testing could not find the mtDNA
haologroups associated with pre-Columbian Native Americans. The
sole evidence that indicates that KM is ancestral to Kennewick
area Native Americans is based upon the assumption that if it's
pre-Columbian, it must be Native American.
Post by Steve Marcus
Of course, your admission that you aren't looking for an answer
as defined by US Statutes is rather telling, as well. First you
cite something claiming that the NAGPRA definitions defining
Another bit of logically challenged garbage. It did in fact
claim that; but you must be blind if that is *all* you think
what I cited claimed. Of course, you can't even get a web
browser to work, or so you claim.
And again: you made the statement that under NAGPRA, the
Kennewick Man remains are Native American. You even cited a URL
(memo14) that says that. In the next breath, after it is pointed
out that a magistrate has held that NAGPRA has not in fact been
satisfied, you state that you aren't looking for an answerr as
defined by US Statutes.

Actually, that last is true. You are looking for an answer that
says, "he's ours because it's in our interests that he be, and
because we say so." You are happy to accept the blessing of the
US Statutes so long as you find a government agency that agrees
that the statute cuts your way, but wish to disregard the statute
when a Courts of law says that the government agency was wrong.
You asked for evidence. You got evidence. But *you* haven't
provided two milligrams of evidence that *anything* I've said
isn't true.
See above.
Plus it appears that you haven't got much integrity to bring to
the discussion either. Either improve both your evidence and
your honesty, or don't expect that I'm going to continue
bothering to discuss this with you.
I wish that you would do me that favor. It seems that you
haven't even read and understood the evidence that you've cited
yourself. Why would I wish to discuss anything with you??
--
Floyd L. Davidson <http://web.newsguy.com/floyd_davidson>
Steve
--
The above posting is neither a legal opinion nor legal advice,
because we do not have an attorney-client relationship, and
should not be construed as either. This posting does not
represent the opinion of my employer, but is merely my personal
view.
Floyd Davidson
2003-08-04 11:21:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Steve Marcus
You act there just as if you had *never* heard that such exists!
But we know that you are attempting to distort the facts that you
already were *well* aware of.
Well, well. I was hoping to read otherwise, but it appears that
those who accuse you of being a netloon may be on the right
track. You respond to a request for evidence with an ad hominem.
You really don't have _any_ integrity do you. I responded with
a reference to a *huge* volume of evidence, and pointed out that
your article exhibited dishonesty. That is not an ad hominem.
If you can't be honest, you have to expect the lies to become
points of interest in a response.
Post by Steve Marcus
Listen, Mr. Davidson. I know that you claim to have posted some
evidence by citing a URL. I told you that I could not comment on
that URL because it won't connect.
Except 1) it would connect, and 2) it appeared from your
response that you did indeed read it. You're just lying, again.

What I cited is far too complex and lengthy to repost here.
What I did post was the basic conclusions of the scientists who
did the work. But here you are denying that it exists... cute,
but no dice.
Post by Steve Marcus
I have now gotten your first URL to work. The meat of the first
http://www.cr.nps.gov/aad/kennewick/kaestle.htm
Nice try, but no that is just Chapter 2 of the DNA report which
has *five* chapters. It is not in any way "the meat" of
anything other than what it claims to be, a single part of the
overall report. That one happens to be about DNA testing done
in one particular lab at one particular time on two particular
samples. (Stop scanning in an attempt to find support for your
position, and try *reading* then entire web site. It will help
you to avoid looking like a damned fool. Then again, maybe
not.)
Post by Steve Marcus
http://www.cr.nps.gov/aad/kennewick/smith.htm
The kaestle URL indicates that in the first set of DNA tests, no
tests showed consistency with mtDNA haplogroups A, B, C, D or X
which are found in the majority of pre-Columbian Native American
remains, but states that while the samples didn't permit
conclusive results, it would be expected that additional samples
should permit such results.
You seem to be trying to hide what it did find. It found, not
"no tests showed consistency with ...." as stated, but rather
that there was no mtDNA other than "FAK" (Kaestle) contamination.

"Thus available technology and protocols do not allow
the analysis of ancient DNA from these remains."

Stop trying to suggest that the test in *any* way indicated a
negative test for DNA relating the remains to Native Americans.
It didn't.
Post by Steve Marcus
The smith URL describes the genetic testing after such testing
was resumed, it having been halted at the insistence of the
tribes. The testing could not be carried out to completion, and
the study recommends that further testing be carried out in the
future.
Once again, lets be clear. They did complete their testing, and
determine that the sample was not suitable to provide any data.

Stop trying to obfuscate what the reports concluded.

You failed to even mention the Chapters 1, 3, and 5. Chapter 3,
for example: "We were unable to obtain reliable ancient DNA
amplification results from the Kennewick samples."

There was sufficient repetition, one has no way to escape the
fact that you are *intentionally* distorting what the report said.
Post by Steve Marcus
I have also now gotten the second (memo14) URLs to connect. What
1. The C14 date clearly shows that the KM remains are
pre-Columbian.
2. Sediment layers consistent with a pre-Columbian date (perhaps
the author meant "the pre-Columbian date obtained by the C14
test) exist in the area _where they *believe* that the remains
were buried.
See Chapter 5, "Final Report ..." of the above DNA report. It
covers the physical examination of the remains. And goes into
a great deal of detail on the significance, and *why* they believe
what they do. Not to mention the other multiple chapter reports
that address exactly the subject.
Post by Steve Marcus
3. The lithic evidence (the spearpoint) in KM's ribs is
consistent with this pre-Columbian date.
Therefore, they conclude that KM must be "Native American" under
the NAGPRA.
As if that is the one and only part of this entire report which
brings them to that conclusion! You are just, again, being
absolutely dishonest.

In addition to the DNA report in 5 chapters there are other
individual studies attached as Exhibits 1 through 4, there is a
Cultural Affiliation Report in 5 chapters, there are two
separate studies (one on whether DNA future testing has value,
another on radiocarbon dating), and another 5 chapter report on
non-destructive examination, description, and analysis of the
remains. Six reports as individual documents and more 3 reports
that contain a total of 15 chapters. (What did you say about
how I have no evidence?)

The actual experts, as opposed to you, carefully weighed *all*
of that evidence to arrive at the conclusion you claim is based
on virtually nothing. It turns out the only one basing
conclusions on nothing is Steve Marcus. Shame on you.
In *your* opinion. However you have no credentials, and no
credibility. Your conclusions are worthless when they contradict
the list of the best experts in the country that could be put
together by the Department of the Interior to do the study.
Post by Steve Marcus
You'll also note that while the summary above is indeed the
position of one side in a legal matter, the science that I've
_also_ pointed you at is *evidence*, not a legal brief.
For a jerk that puts a disclaimer about not having an
attorney-client relationship with anyone they engage in public
discussion on Usenet with, one would think you would know the
difference between evidence and a legal opinion.
How does this ad hominem statement square with your previous
You don't even know what an ad hominem statement is apparently.
It isn't just evidence and honesty you haven't got a grasp of!
Post by Steve Marcus
sentence. And as far as jerks are concerned, since when does the
presentation of "some" evidence on one side of a legal issue
decide that issue without respect to considering contradictory
evidence?
You said there was none. I've provided you with a clue. The
clue is that the Department of the Interior put together
sufficient evidence for *them* to make a conclusion. The fact
that it didn't meet the needs of a magistrate at a later date
isn't really significant to what you said. There clearly is a
*huge* amount of exactly the evidence you said didn't exist.
Post by Steve Marcus
I didn't claim that it "doesn't exist at all." But in fact, the
Your short term memory seems to be faulty.

If the Native Americans of whom you speak (and/or
you, for that matter) have evidence supporting the
claims that KM is their ancestor, how about sharing
it here. We are waiting.

That came after you'd said,

However, evidence is what matters. Of that I
believe they, and you, have little.

Clearly, as we have seen above there were 6 small study reports,
plus 3 larger reports that totally 15 chapters. Yet you claimed
there was no evidence, and now you claim that *your* analysis
of the data supersedes that of the experts who obtained the data
and reported it, plus you claim that out of that huge volume
of data they relied on two or three simple lines of information
to draw their conclusion, which you contradict.

Your entire argument, sir, is a joke.
Post by Steve Marcus
evidence that does exist is as described above, and as I've
analyzed it.
And as *you've* analyzed it, is a joke. Your analysis is so
invalid with petty bias and simplicity that the audacity of
anyone who would make such a claim even on Usenet is just
astounding.
Post by Steve Marcus
So far you haven't provided a shred of evidence that suggests
Kennewick Man could possibly be anything other than a Native
American.
Again, you make an absurd statement. First, it is not impossible
that KM could be other than Native American. Do you disagree?
It is virtually impossible, given what we do know about him.

Where is your evidence of any *other* possibility? You've
presented *none*.
Post by Steve Marcus
(Or are you truly a netloon?) Second, the point is that without
the genetic testing that the tribes seek to prevent, there will
There has been, as you've clearly seen, *several* attempts by
different individuals to do DNA testing. How can you then
attempt to blame "the tribes" for the fact that it was a wasted
effort. Are you also aware that the poor handling of the
remains are one of the reasons DNA testing is unlikely to work?
Why? Well, somebody wanted to have some fun with the caucasoid
claim, so they smeared release agent over the skull and made a
mold of it in order to plaster the face of Patrick Stewart onto
it. Someone did things like use Elmer's glue to hold teeth and
broken bones together to take pictures. Someone caused *dozens*
of bone fractures which contaminated any DNA present.

The point the tribes made right from the start was that
*respect* was a requirement. They clearly did indeed have a
valid point.
Post by Steve Marcus
never be an opportunity to present evidence showing that KM is
other than Native American. Third, there is no evidence that KM
_is_ Native American, only a presumption that human remains that
pre-date Columbus are necessarily Native American.
Only in *your* foolish estimation. On the other hand, the most
expert group of scientists that the National Park Service could
put together doesn't agree with you at all.
Post by Steve Marcus
... [irrelevant waste deleted]
Yep, a true netloon. Snip the part where you stand on NAGPRA as
supporting that KM is Native American, and snip the part where
you to post that you don't aren't looking for an answer in the US
Statutes. This latter, of course, stemming from the fact that a
US magistrate has ruled that there is insufficient evidence under
NAGPRA to reach the conclusion you desire.
That is a matter of law, not a matter of if there is evidence
or if there is a known truth. Your claim was that the *evidence*
didn't exist. That's bullshit.
Post by Steve Marcus
In fact, it is extremely unlikely that *any* evidence is going
to come from any genetic analysis. It has been attempted and
did not produce any evidence at all.
Not true. See above, in particular, the statement in the "smith"
URL that future testing techniques will likely produce results.
You didn't read the entire report.

"It is our considered opinion that, for all the
parties concerned, the genetic analysis of this
skeleton may not yield the resolution that is so
dearly sought."

'Potential for DNA Testing of the Human Remains
from Columbia Park, Kennewick, Washington' by
Noreen Tuross, Ph.D. and Connie J. Kolman, Ph.D.

<http://www.cr.nps.gov/aad/kennewick/tuross_kolman.htm>

That was the conclusion of the study done to specifically determine
if more DNA testing should be attempted. The answer was no.



Again, I've deleted another mass of repetitious garbage from you.
It's all based on *your* false analysis of data that you don't
understand and that you do clearly want to distort intentionally.
Post by Steve Marcus
I wish that you would do me that favor. It seems that you
haven't even read and understood the evidence that you've cited
yourself. Why would I wish to discuss anything with you??
You don't. You've made no attempt at putting any integrity at
all into a discussion based on facts rather than distortion.
Post by Steve Marcus
The above posting is neither a legal opinion nor legal advice,
The above posting was little more than nonsense. Do you
actually get paid to do that kind of legal work, or do you
somehow find your integrity when you do have an attorney-client
relationship?
--
Floyd L. Davidson <http://web.newsguy.com/floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) ***@barrow.com
Steve Marcus
2003-08-05 04:57:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Floyd Davidson
Post by Steve Marcus
You act there just as if you had *never* heard that such exists!
But we know that you are attempting to distort the facts that you
already were *well* aware of.
Well, well. I was hoping to read otherwise, but it appears that
those who accuse you of being a netloon may be on the right
track. You respond to a request for evidence with an ad hominem.
You really don't have _any_ integrity do you. I responded with
a reference to a *huge* volume of evidence, and pointed out that
your article exhibited dishonesty. That is not an ad hominem.
If you can't be honest, you have to expect the lies to become
points of interest in a response.
Well Floyd, let's see who has "integrity."
Post by Floyd Davidson
Post by Steve Marcus
Listen, Mr. Davidson. I know that you claim to have posted some
evidence by citing a URL. I told you that I could not comment on
that URL because it won't connect.
Except 1) it would connect, and 2) it appeared from your
response that you did indeed read it. You're just lying, again.
Newsflash, Floyd. When a site is busy, it doesn't connect. The
"history" link on the National Park Service site appears to be
extremely busy during the day, Floyd. It would not connect
yesterday, Sunday August 3rd during the day and likewise on
Monday, August 4th during the day. You can tell from the headers
that my system is a bit antiquated, but the system at work is
state of the art, and when I tried it during the day on August
4th, the site simply wouldn't connect. However, I have read the
material on the site, having done so when the site would connect
after "peak hours."
Post by Floyd Davidson
What I cited is far too complex and lengthy to repost here.
What I did post was the basic conclusions of the scientists who
did the work. But here you are denying that it exists... cute,
but no dice.
Post by Steve Marcus
I have now gotten your first URL to work. The meat of the first
http://www.cr.nps.gov/aad/kennewick/kaestle.htm
Nice try, but no that is just Chapter 2 of the DNA report which
has *five* chapters. It is not in any way "the meat" of
anything other than what it claims to be, a single part of the
overall report. That one happens to be about DNA testing done
in one particular lab at one particular time on two particular
samples. (Stop scanning in an attempt to find support for your
position, and try *reading* then entire web site. It will help
you to avoid looking like a damned fool. Then again, maybe
not.)
Post by Steve Marcus
http://www.cr.nps.gov/aad/kennewick/smith.htm
The kaestle URL indicates that in the first set of DNA tests, no
tests showed consistency with mtDNA haplogroups A, B, C, D or X
which are found in the majority of pre-Columbian Native American
remains, but states that while the samples didn't permit
conclusive results, it would be expected that additional samples
should permit such results.
You seem to be trying to hide what it did find. It found, not
"no tests showed consistency with ...." as stated, but rather
that there was no mtDNA other than "FAK" (Kaestle) contamination.
Quoting from the Kaestle link:

"Thus, the results from the positive amplifications from both the
Kennewick samples and negative controls are not consistent with a
source that is a member of haplogroups A, B, C, D or X, but are
consistent with a source
that is a member of haplogroup I (such as FAK). Because ancient
DNA is highly damaged, amplification success is generally
correlated with the length of the amplified product (shorter
fragments being easier to amplify). Note that there is no
correlation between amplification success and fragment length in
this case, suggesting that the amplified DNA is not ancient.
These results are consistent with a very low level of
contamination of
the extracts with modern DNA, most likely from FAK, but possibly
originating at the reagent or lab disposables
manufacturer." Although disposable pipette tips and tubes
utilized during the extraction are certified DNA-free by the
manufacturer, in reality the manufacturer's quality control
methods will only detect DNA presence above 5 x 10-11 mg
(EppendorfT). In addition, although all reagents utilized are
produced in extremely sterile conditions and additionally
filtered and/or Ultra-Violet irradiated in the laboratory, low
levels of DNA contamination might still be present. However,
haplogroup I, defined by the loss of the DdeI restriction site at
nucleotide position 1715 and distinguished from haplogroup X by
the absence of the AccI restriction site at nucleotide position
14465, is very rare among Europeans (generally 5% or less in
frequency), and absent in all
other populations except for extremely rare examples in the
middle east (Brown et al, 1998; Torroni et al., 1994,1996)."

In English: we can't find any of the A, B, C, D or X haplogroups,
which should be there if this DNA is ancient Native American, so
it must be contaminated and invalid.
Post by Floyd Davidson
"Thus available technology and protocols do not allow
the analysis of ancient DNA from these remains."
Stop trying to suggest that the test in *any* way indicated a
negative test for DNA relating the remains to Native Americans.
It didn't.
See above.
Post by Floyd Davidson
Post by Steve Marcus
The smith URL describes the genetic testing after such testing
was resumed, it having been halted at the insistence of the
tribes. The testing could not be carried out to completion, and
the study recommends that further testing be carried out in the
future.
Once again, lets be clear. They did complete their testing, and
determine that the sample was not suitable to provide any data.
Stop trying to obfuscate what the reports concluded.
You failed to even mention the Chapters 1, 3, and 5. Chapter 3,
for example: "We were unable to obtain reliable ancient DNA
amplification results from the Kennewick samples."
There was sufficient repetition, one has no way to escape the
fact that you are *intentionally* distorting what the report said.
The repetition is sufficient only for your purposes, since it
neither proves nor disproves that KM is an ancestor to modern
Kennewick area Native Americans. This leaves you free to cling
to the "if it's pre-Columbian, it's got to be a Native American
ancestor" mantra.
Post by Floyd Davidson
Post by Steve Marcus
I have also now gotten the second (memo14) URLs to connect. What
1. The C14 date clearly shows that the KM remains are
pre-Columbian.
2. Sediment layers consistent with a pre-Columbian date (perhaps
the author meant "the pre-Columbian date obtained by the C14
test) exist in the area _where they *believe* that the remains
were buried.
See Chapter 5, "Final Report ..." of the above DNA report. It
covers the physical examination of the remains. And goes into
a great deal of detail on the significance, and *why* they believe
what they do. Not to mention the other multiple chapter reports
that address exactly the subject.
Indeed. The bottom line of the entire set of reports is that KM
is pre-Columbian. Then, assuming that any human remains that are
pre-Columbian must be ancestral to the Native American
populations of the Kennewick area, the reports arrive at the
conclusion that KM must be ancestral to the Kennewick area Native
Americans.

How very neat. And how very illogical.
Post by Floyd Davidson
Post by Steve Marcus
3. The lithic evidence (the spearpoint) in KM's ribs is
consistent with this pre-Columbian date.
Therefore, they conclude that KM must be "Native American" under
the NAGPRA.
As if that is the one and only part of this entire report which
brings them to that conclusion! You are just, again, being
absolutely dishonest.
In addition to the DNA report in 5 chapters there are other
individual studies attached as Exhibits 1 through 4, there is a
Cultural Affiliation Report in 5 chapters, there are two
separate studies (one on whether DNA future testing has value,
another on radiocarbon dating), and another 5 chapter report on
non-destructive examination, description, and analysis of the
remains. Six reports as individual documents and more 3 reports
that contain a total of 15 chapters. (What did you say about
how I have no evidence?)
The actual experts, as opposed to you, carefully weighed *all*
of that evidence to arrive at the conclusion you claim is based
on virtually nothing. It turns out the only one basing
conclusions on nothing is Steve Marcus. Shame on you.
The bottom line on the entire set of reports is that KM is
pre-Columbian. Then, assuming that any human remains that are
pre-Columbian must be ancestral to the Native American
populations of the Kennewick area, the reports arrive at the
conclusion that KM must be ancestral to the Kennewick area Native
Americans.
Post by Floyd Davidson
In *your* opinion. However you have no credentials, and no
credibility. Your conclusions are worthless when they contradict
the list of the best experts in the country that could be put
together by the Department of the Interior to do the study.
My opinion is based upon reading Adovasio's book "The First
Americans", Benedict's book about Doug Owsley's career, "No Bone
Unturned" (Owsley is acknowledged worldwide as the foremost
forensic expert on the "reading of" bones), and Chatter's book re
Kennewick Man. Both Adovasio and Owsley are experts, they have
worked on cases on the side of Native Americans, and I take their
judgements as objective in the extreme.
Post by Floyd Davidson
Post by Steve Marcus
You'll also note that while the summary above is indeed the
position of one side in a legal matter, the science that I've
_also_ pointed you at is *evidence*, not a legal brief.
For a jerk that puts a disclaimer about not having an
attorney-client relationship with anyone they engage in public
discussion on Usenet with, one would think you would know the
difference between evidence and a legal opinion.
How does this ad hominem statement square with your previous
You don't even know what an ad hominem statement is apparently.
It isn't just evidence and honesty you haven't got a grasp of!
Post by Steve Marcus
sentence. And as far as jerks are concerned, since when does the
presentation of "some" evidence on one side of a legal issue
decide that issue without respect to considering contradictory
evidence?
You said there was none. I've provided you with a clue. The
clue is that the Department of the Interior put together
sufficient evidence for *them* to make a conclusion. The fact
that it didn't meet the needs of a magistrate at a later date
isn't really significant to what you said. There clearly is a
*huge* amount of exactly the evidence you said didn't exist.
And you have absolutely no clue as to what it means when evidence
is irrelevant to the manner at hand. The evidence put together
by DoI was, quite simply, that the KM remains were pre-Columbian
(in the extreme). This is evidence of the age of the remains,
but it is NOT relevant evidence on the questions of whether such
remains are either ancestral to Native Americans in general, or
ancestral to Kennewick area Native Americans.

The DoI went to great length to bury the KM site so that
confirming evidence one way or the other on the issue of whether
this pre-Columbian individual was 1)ancestral to Native Americans
and 2)ancestral to Kennewick area Native Americans (a necessary
requirement of NAGPRA if the remains were to be turned over to
Kennewick area Native Americans).
Post by Floyd Davidson
Post by Steve Marcus
I didn't claim that it "doesn't exist at all." But in fact, the
Your short term memory seems to be faulty.
If the Native Americans of whom you speak (and/or
you, for that matter) have evidence supporting the
claims that KM is their ancestor, how about sharing
it here. We are waiting.
That came after you'd said,
However, evidence is what matters. Of that I
believe they, and you, have little.
Clearly, as we have seen above there were 6 small study reports,
plus 3 larger reports that totally 15 chapters. Yet you claimed
there was no evidence, and now you claim that *your* analysis
of the data supersedes that of the experts who obtained the data
and reported it, plus you claim that out of that huge volume
of data they relied on two or three simple lines of information
to draw their conclusion, which you contradict.
Your entire argument, sir, is a joke.
Nope, what's a joke is that you think that you can assume an
unsupporatble proposition, that any pre-Columbian human remains
are necessarily Native American and necessarily ancestral to the
Native Americans living in the area 9,000 years later, and
somehow convert evidence of age into evidence of ancestry.

Suppose, my dear Floyd, that KM had C14 tested out 100-150 years
before 1996, and that the other evidence, (lithic and sedimentary
analyses) had supported that date. Do you now conclude, without
more, that KM is necessarily Native American? Of course not; KM
could be of any other Asian origin, or of European origin.
Absent artifacts, remains of clothing, etc., and absent evidence
of KM's contemporaries, could you assign KM as ancestral to any
particular group? Of course not, not without genetic testing.

Now what changes simply because KM tests out around 9,000 years
B.P.? Nothing, unless one _assumes_ that this age means that KM
is necessarily ancestral to Native Americans. Floyd, all you've
done is assume the result that you desire.
Post by Floyd Davidson
Post by Steve Marcus
evidence that does exist is as described above, and as I've
analyzed it.
And as *you've* analyzed it, is a joke. Your analysis is so
invalid with petty bias and simplicity that the audacity of
anyone who would make such a claim even on Usenet is just
astounding.
Nope, what's astounding is your blindness (to put it kindly;
other's might call it your prejudice). Again, test the
hypothesis. Someone discovers ancient hominid remains a few
miles of the site on which Lucy was discovered. The remains are
morphologically different than Lucy, but when tested for age,
seem to be within the age of Lucy's remains. Does this
_necessarily_ mean that the new remains belonged to a member of
Lucy's species, notwithstanding the morphological differences?
Post by Floyd Davidson
Post by Steve Marcus
So far you haven't provided a shred of evidence that suggests
Kennewick Man could possibly be anything other than a Native
American.
Again, you make an absurd statement. First, it is not impossible
that KM could be other than Native American. Do you disagree?
It is virtually impossible, given what we do know about him.
What do you know about him that makes it "virtually impossible"?
You have no artifacts, nothing from the site upon which his
remains were discovered other than that it confirms the C14
determined age of KM, nothing at all beyond the age of the
remains. It is only "impossible" that KM is other than a Native
American ancestor _because you, and some experts, assume that
this must be so.
Post by Floyd Davidson
Where is your evidence of any *other* possibility? You've
presented *none*.
None has been presented because the DNA testing hasn't succeeded,
yet. And because DoI did its best to make sure that the site of
the remains will never be subjected to proper (and yes, Floyd,
proper includes respectful) investigation by expert field
archaeologists.
Post by Floyd Davidson
Post by Steve Marcus
(Or are you truly a netloon?) Second, the point is that without
the genetic testing that the tribes seek to prevent, there will
There has been, as you've clearly seen, *several* attempts by
different individuals to do DNA testing. How can you then
attempt to blame "the tribes" for the fact that it was a wasted
effort.
You'll have to read Chatters' book for the answer to that one,
Floyd.
Post by Floyd Davidson
Are you also aware that the poor handling of the
remains are one of the reasons DNA testing is unlikely to work?
Indeed. That's _one_ possibility. Chatters will lay some others
out for you, though you won't much enjoy what he has to say.
Post by Floyd Davidson
Why? Well, somebody wanted to have some fun with the caucasoid
claim, so they smeared release agent over the skull and made a
mold of it in order to plaster the face of Patrick Stewart onto
it. Someone did things like use Elmer's glue to hold teeth and
broken bones together to take pictures. Someone caused *dozens*
of bone fractures which contaminated any DNA present.
How very bigoted of you, Floyd. Forensic reconstruction was done
by an expert, noted for doing meticulous and accurate work. That
the remains resemble (in some photographs) Patrick Stewart
doesn't mean that they aren't actually Native American remains,
and Chatters would be the first to tell you that.
Post by Floyd Davidson
The point the tribes made right from the start was that
*respect* was a requirement. They clearly did indeed have a
valid point.
The point that the magistrate made in refusing to repatriate KM's
remains was that the tribes had zero evidence that KM was
ancestral to the tribes. Their interest in respect started and
stopped with whether they got their way. How respectful would it
have been had they received KM's remains and buried him, if in
fact KM is not ancestral to them?
Post by Floyd Davidson
Post by Steve Marcus
never be an opportunity to present evidence showing that KM is
other than Native American. Third, there is no evidence that KM
_is_ Native American, only a presumption that human remains that
pre-date Columbus are necessarily Native American.
Only in *your* foolish estimation. On the other hand, the most
expert group of scientists that the National Park Service could
put together doesn't agree with you at all.
As the most expert group of scientists that the NPS could put
together didn't include Doug Owsley, they simply didn't have the
most expert group they cout have. And besides, all that the DoI
scientists have succeeded in showing is that KM is pre-Columbian.
Post by Floyd Davidson
Post by Steve Marcus
... [irrelevant waste deleted]
Yep, a true netloon. Snip the part where you stand on NAGPRA as
supporting that KM is Native American, and snip the part where
you to post that you don't aren't looking for an answer in the US
Statutes. This latter, of course, stemming from the fact that a
US magistrate has ruled that there is insufficient evidence under
NAGPRA to reach the conclusion you desire.
That is a matter of law, not a matter of if there is evidence
or if there is a known truth. Your claim was that the *evidence*
didn't exist. That's bullshit.
The judge decided the case by holding that DoI had produced no
evidence showing either that KM was ancestral to Native
Americans, or that KM was ancestral to the tribes claiming his
remains. Now how in the world did the magistrate decide that
(against the big, bad, supposedly Native American unfriendly
Federal Government which was actually taking the side of the
Native Americans) if there was in fact evidence supporting an
opposite conclusion?
Post by Floyd Davidson
Post by Steve Marcus
In fact, it is extremely unlikely that *any* evidence is going
to come from any genetic analysis. It has been attempted and
did not produce any evidence at all.
Not true. See above, in particular, the statement in the "smith"
URL that future testing techniques will likely produce results.
You didn't read the entire report.
"It is our considered opinion that, for all the
parties concerned, the genetic analysis of this
skeleton may not yield the resolution that is so
dearly sought."
'Potential for DNA Testing of the Human Remains
from Columbia Park, Kennewick, Washington' by
Noreen Tuross, Ph.D. and Connie J. Kolman, Ph.D.
<http://www.cr.nps.gov/aad/kennewick/tuross_kolman.htm>
That was the conclusion of the study done to specifically determine
if more DNA testing should be attempted. The answer was no.
"May not yield" equates with "extremely unlikely"?? My Floyd,
how very ...., well, simply dishonest of you.
Post by Floyd Davidson
Again, I've deleted another mass of repetitious garbage from you.
It's all based on *your* false analysis of data that you don't
understand and that you do clearly want to distort intentionally.
Yep. Delete away. But at the end of the day, your data supports
a single conclusion. KM is mighty old. It doesn't support the
proposition that KM is ancestral to any Native American, let
alone to the Kennewick area tribes.
Post by Floyd Davidson
Post by Steve Marcus
I wish that you would do me that favor. It seems that you
haven't even read and understood the evidence that you've cited
yourself. Why would I wish to discuss anything with you??
You don't. You've made no attempt at putting any integrity at
all into a discussion based on facts rather than distortion.
As to integrity, I submit, sir, that it is you who are lacking in
that commodity.
Post by Floyd Davidson
Post by Steve Marcus
The above posting is neither a legal opinion nor legal advice,
The above posting was little more than nonsense. Do you
actually get paid to do that kind of legal work, or do you
somehow find your integrity when you do have an attorney-client
relationship?
I indeed get paid to do legal work, and such work involves
understanding what a given statute says, what sort of evidence
does, and does not, support factual findings necessary to
establish a result under such a statute, and what conclusions
result from whether evidence does, or does not, establish certain
facts. In this case, I understand precisely what the magistrate
understood: there is _no evidence_ that KM is ancestral to any
Native American in general, or to the present day Kennewick area
tribes in particular.

It has also been said that one does not need a weatherman to know
which way the wind blows. Thus, I understand the implications of
the tribes having prevailed upon the DoI to bury the KM site so
that it will never be properly (and that includes respectfully)
investigated. I also understand the implications of unfairly
attributing the horrific behaviors of 19th and early 20th century
scientists to today's scientists in general, and using such
illogical and unsupportable tarring with a bigoted brush to
impede (actually permanently prevent) future scientific
investigations that might (or might not, and there's the irony)
prove something not to someone's liking.
Post by Floyd Davidson
--
Floyd L. Davidson <http://web.newsguy.com/floyd_davidson>
Steve
--
The above posting is neither a legal opinion nor legal advice,
because we do not have an attorney-client relationship, and
should not be construed as either. This posting does not
represent the opinion of my employer, but is merely my personal
view.
MIB529
2003-08-03 19:50:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Floyd Davidson
Okay. I thought you were sane. I know why you're crazy and you
have good reason but when you let hate blind you no matter how
justly you are still a blind man consumed by hate. After they
had the chance to study the bones this man didn't seem to be
much like Western Europeans or present day Native Americans
living in the region. He did look a lot like the Natives of
Northern Japan. Another group with problems who have suffered
from displacement. As sea hunters they just might have island
hoped into North America south of the glaciers before they
broke up.
*Your* assessment is insane.
*Nothing* in the study of Kenniwick man has lead anyone credible
to claim that the bones were related to "Natives of Northern
Japan". The fact that some physical characteristics were
similar is no basis to make any such claim.
There is, however, very *little* doubt that Kenniwick Man is the
ancestor of some of the Native American people who live in the
same area where the bones were found. Only whether he is the
ancestor of all of them, or which of them, is open to question.
I'm certain that _some_ of the Native American people who live in
the area in which the KM bones were found have little "doubt"
that KM was their ancestor. Perhaps you even sure those doubts.
However, evidence is what matters. Of that I believe they, and
you, have little. In fact, the whole issue involved in the KM
litigation is about obtaining such evidence.
If the Native Americans of whom you speak (and/or you, for that
matter) have evidence supporting the claims that KM is their
ancestor, how about sharing it here. We are waiting.
If you have evidence that he is not, how about sharing it? And those
cheekbones can't possibly be enough, considering all the other
features he has that are Indian.

MIB, laughing out of a skull even more dolichocephalic than Kennewick
man's
deowll
2003-08-04 01:21:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Floyd Davidson
There is, however, very *little* doubt that Kenniwick Man is the
ancestor of some of the Native American people who live in the
same area where the bones were found. Only whether he is the
ancestor of all of them, or which of them, is open to question.
I'm certain that _some_ of the Native American people who live in
the area in which the KM bones were found have little "doubt"
that KM was their ancestor. Perhaps you even sure those doubts.
However, evidence is what matters. Of that I believe they, and
you, have little. In fact, the whole issue involved in the KM
litigation is about obtaining such evidence.
If the Native Americans of whom you speak (and/or you, for that
matter) have evidence supporting the claims that KM is their
ancestor, how about sharing it here. We are waiting.
In fact there is no evidence which suggests that Kennewick Man
was anything *other* than native American. It is also true that
conclusive evidence that he was is not available, but that all
reasonable evidence points in exactly that direction.
See <http://www.cr.nps.gov/aad/kennewick/index.htm>
The Kennewick Skeletal Remains are "Native American" as Defined by
NAGPRA
We now have sufficient information to determine that these
skeletal remains should be considered "Native American" as
defined by NAGPRA. The results of recent radiocarbon dating
of small samples of bone extracted from the remains were
given significant weight in making this determination. This
interpretation is supported by other analyses and information
regarding the skeletal remains themselves, sedimentary
analysis, lithic analysis, an earlier radiocarbon date on a
bone recovered with the other remains, and geomorphologic
analysis (summarized in McManamon 1999).
http://www.cr.nps.gov/aad/kennewick/c14memo.htm
He lived a long time ago in what is now called America and was certainly
born on the North American thus he is a Native American. Of course the term
Native American or North American continent meant nothing to this man. I
don't know what his tribe is or was other than he wasn't a member of any
modern tribal organization.
Now, we all realize that everyone and their brother has run off
at the mouth for years now that Kennewick Man is European. (He
clearly was not.) That he was Ainu from Northern Japan. (He
clearly was not.) That he was a Polynesian. (He clearly was
not.) What *you* seem to have missed is how to read the papers
presented and understand what they do actually say, and what they
don't say.
There is some evidence that he and his kind shared a general set of physical
features and some cultural practices with the Ainu which is a heck of a lot
more than can be said for anybody else. What is also known is that they were
"displaced" to a greater or lesser degree over much of North America.
Your statements about evidence above indicate you need to go
back to school and take something *other* than a course of
Rules of Evidence for the courts. This is not a court room,
there is no judge or jury. We aren't looking for an answer
as defined by US Statutes.
I already figured it out. If the evidence doesn't say what you want it to
say, as for as you are concerned screw the evidence.
We want the *real* truth. And that is indeed fairly obvious.
What is glaringly obvious it that you want people to tell you what you what
to hear and the "real truth" doesn't mean a thing to you.
--
Floyd L. Davidson <http://web.newsguy.com/floyd_davidson>
Joe Jefferson
2003-08-04 19:46:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Daryl Krupa
<snip>
He lived a long time ago in what is now called America and was certainly
born on the North American thus he is a Native American.
It's very likely that he was born in North America, but not absolutely
certain.
--
Joe of Castle Jefferson
http://www.mindspring.com/~jjstrshp
Site Updated November 25th, 2001

"Defend the cause of the weak and fatherless; maintain the rights of the
poor and oppressed. Rescue the weak and needy; deliver them from the
hand of the wicked." - Psalm 82:3-4
Seppo Renfors
2003-08-04 02:45:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Floyd Davidson
There is, however, very *little* doubt that Kenniwick Man is the
ancestor of some of the Native American people who live in the
same area where the bones were found. Only whether he is the
ancestor of all of them, or which of them, is open to question.
I'm certain that _some_ of the Native American people who live in
the area in which the KM bones were found have little "doubt"
that KM was their ancestor. Perhaps you even sure those doubts.
However, evidence is what matters. Of that I believe they, and
you, have little. In fact, the whole issue involved in the KM
litigation is about obtaining such evidence.
If the Native Americans of whom you speak (and/or you, for that
matter) have evidence supporting the claims that KM is their
ancestor, how about sharing it here. We are waiting.
In fact there is no evidence which suggests that Kennewick Man
was anything *other* than native American. It is also true that
conclusive evidence that he was is not available, but that all
reasonable evidence points in exactly that direction.
See <http://www.cr.nps.gov/aad/kennewick/index.htm>
The Kennewick Skeletal Remains are "Native American" as Defined by NAGPRA
We now have sufficient information to determine that these
skeletal remains should be considered "Native American" as
defined by NAGPRA. The results of recent radiocarbon dating
of small samples of bone extracted from the remains were
given significant weight in making this determination. This
interpretation is supported by other analyses and information
regarding the skeletal remains themselves, sedimentary
analysis, lithic analysis, an earlier radiocarbon date on a
bone recovered with the other remains, and geomorphologic
analysis (summarized in McManamon 1999).
http://www.cr.nps.gov/aad/kennewick/c14memo.htm
Now, we all realize that everyone and their brother has run off
at the mouth for years now that Kennewick Man is European. (He
clearly was not.) That he was Ainu from Northern Japan. (He
clearly was not.) That he was a Polynesian. (He clearly was
not.)
THAT you have no proof for.
What *you* seem to have missed is how to read the papers
presented and understand what they do actually say, and what they
don't say.
Oh I see you refer to "selective reading" - meaning read only what you
WANT, to misconstrue what is said to suit your AGENDAS.
Your statements about evidence above indicate you need to go
back to school and take something *other* than a course of
Rules of Evidence for the courts. This is not a court room,
there is no judge or jury. We aren't looking for an answer
as defined by US Statutes.
What an ODD statement from someone who relies on US statutes - the
Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA)!! It
isn't often Marcus is right, but this time the shyster has it 100%
right. There IS NO factual evidence that nails down the origin of KM.
The one test that DID have that potential (and not certain even then)
to determine the ancestry was not able to be done - the mtDNA tests.
We want the *real* truth.
Apparently not....
And that is indeed fairly obvious.
THAT is far from "obvious".
--
SIR - Philosopher unauthorised
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The one who is educated from the wrong books is not educated, he is
misled.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
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]
MIB529
2003-07-27 16:40:57 UTC
Permalink
Actually, he draws from Velikovsky in Red Earth White Lies. Vine's
hard to understand unless you've met him in person. He doesn't believe
most of the stuff he mentions in REWL, for example; he does, however,
believe that the land bridge is about as believable as some of the
stuff. A real cynic, that one.

Hell, in a debate with Weller, I got him down to using unbeatable
arguments like "Maybe Indians stuck to a now-underwater coastline so
any artifacts in North America are now underwater." Too bad science
works with evidence, not unbeatable arguments.
Post by Philip Deitiker
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?
<snip>
Eric Stevens
2003-07-27 20:57:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by MIB529
Actually, he draws from Velikovsky in Red Earth White Lies. Vine's
hard to understand unless you've met him in person. He doesn't believe
most of the stuff he mentions in REWL, for example; he does, however,
believe that the land bridge is about as believable as some of the
stuff. A real cynic, that one.
Hell, in a debate with Weller, I got him down to using unbeatable
arguments like "Maybe Indians stuck to a now-underwater coastline so
any artifacts in North America are now underwater." Too bad science
works with evidence, not unbeatable arguments.
Nevertheless, that coastline is now underwater and so too are any
artifacts. You can't ignore them simply because they are almost
impossible to find. However, they don't carry much weight in an
argument until you can raise a reasonable probablity that they exist.



Eric Stevens
MIB529
2003-07-28 18:34:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Eric Stevens
Post by MIB529
Hell, in a debate with Weller, I got him down to using unbeatable
arguments like "Maybe Indians stuck to a now-underwater coastline so
any artifacts in North America are now underwater." Too bad science
works with evidence, not unbeatable arguments.
Nevertheless, that coastline is now underwater and so too are any
artifacts. You can't ignore them simply because they are almost
impossible to find. However, they don't carry much weight in an
argument until you can raise a reasonable probablity that they exist.
The problem is, they are willing to ignore as-of-yet-not-found
artifacts in the Americas but not as-of-yet-not-found artifacts in
Siberia. Confirm on one end, deny on the other.

Remember, we don't have to have Indians staying along the coastline
just through the glaciers, Eric; we have to have Indians staying along
the coastline from somewhere in China, perhaps Japan, ALL THE WAY into
Chile. THAT is the kind of coastal migration we're talking about here.

Also, coasts are more humid and therefore more likely to have been
glaciated during the Wisconsonian.
deowll
2003-08-03 04:12:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by MIB529
Post by Eric Stevens
Post by MIB529
Hell, in a debate with Weller, I got him down to using unbeatable
arguments like "Maybe Indians stuck to a now-underwater coastline so
any artifacts in North America are now underwater." Too bad science
works with evidence, not unbeatable arguments.
Nevertheless, that coastline is now underwater and so too are any
artifacts. You can't ignore them simply because they are almost
impossible to find. However, they don't carry much weight in an
argument until you can raise a reasonable probablity that they exist.
The problem is, they are willing to ignore as-of-yet-not-found
artifacts in the Americas but not as-of-yet-not-found artifacts in
Siberia. Confirm on one end, deny on the other.
Remember, we don't have to have Indians staying along the coastline
just through the glaciers, Eric; we have to have Indians staying along
the coastline from somewhere in China, perhaps Japan, ALL THE WAY into
Chile. THAT is the kind of coastal migration we're talking about here.
That is more or less the way I think the first couple of groups I know
aren't wishful thinking got here.
Post by MIB529
Also, coasts are more humid and therefore more likely to have been
glaciated during the Wisconsonian.
There is some strong evidence that not every point of land and island went
under the ice and once south of the ice it was good boating. Getting to the
East coast might have taken a while.
Tedd
2003-08-03 20:09:32 UTC
Permalink
"MIB529" <***@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:***@posting.google.com...

<snip>
[...] There are sites 60,000
years old in South America.
reference?
Doug Weller
2003-08-03 20:18:40 UTC
Permalink
On 3 Aug 2003 13:06:16 -0700, in sci.archaeology, MIB529 wrote:
[SNIP]
There are sites 60,000
years old in South America. As a result, Merkins decide to reject
radiocarbon dating for anything apparently man-made in the Western
Hemisphere prior to Clovis.
How are these sites dated? They're new to me. C14 dating is fine for
pre-Clovis and a lot of American archaeologists accept pre-Clovis dates,
but few C14 specialists would put money on accurate dates from C14 that
old anywhere I believe.

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
MIB529
2003-08-04 18:28:53 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 03 Aug 2003 21:18:40 +0100, Doug Weller
[SNIP]
There are sites 60,000
years old in South America. As a result, Merkins decide to reject
radiocarbon dating for anything apparently man-made in the Western
Hemisphere prior to Clovis.
How are these sites dated? They're new to me. C14 dating is fine for
pre-Clovis and a lot of American archaeologists accept pre-Clovis dates,
but few C14 specialists would put money on accurate dates from C14 that
old anywhere I believe.
The amount of C14 left relative to 0 time = 1/(2^10) or
1:1000 the original amount, C14 at 0 time is still a small
minority of carbon. MIB obviously understands as little
about radiochemistry as the does molecular biology.
Actually, I understand that, moron. You obviously understand as little
about radiochemistry as you do about everything else. Must you ALWAYS
embarrass yourself?
Philip Deitiker
2003-08-04 19:08:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by MIB529
On Sun, 03 Aug 2003 21:18:40 +0100, Doug Weller
[SNIP]
There are sites 60,000
years old in South America. As a result, Merkins decide to reject
radiocarbon dating for anything apparently man-made in the Western
Hemisphere prior to Clovis.
How are these sites dated? They're new to me. C14 dating is fine
for pre-Clovis and a lot of American archaeologists accept
pre-Clovis dates, but few C14 specialists would put money on
accurate dates from C14 that old anywhere I believe.
The amount of C14 left relative to 0 time = 1/(2^10) or
1:1000 the original amount, C14 at 0 time is still a small
minority of carbon. MIB obviously understands as little
about radiochemistry as the does molecular biology.
Actually, I understand that, moron.
Now you do.
--
DNApaleoAnth at Att dot net
Eric Stevens
2003-08-04 21:41:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by MIB529
On Sun, 03 Aug 2003 21:18:40 +0100, Doug Weller
[SNIP]
There are sites 60,000
years old in South America. As a result, Merkins decide to reject
radiocarbon dating for anything apparently man-made in the Western
Hemisphere prior to Clovis.
How are these sites dated? They're new to me. C14 dating is fine for
pre-Clovis and a lot of American archaeologists accept pre-Clovis dates,
but few C14 specialists would put money on accurate dates from C14 that
old anywhere I believe.
The amount of C14 left relative to 0 time = 1/(2^10) or
1:1000 the original amount, C14 at 0 time is still a small
minority of carbon. MIB obviously understands as little
about radiochemistry as the does molecular biology.
Actually, I understand that, moron. You obviously understand as little
about radiochemistry as you do about everything else. Must you ALWAYS
embarrass yourself?
I suggest you both see http://www.c14dating.com/agecalc.html which
refers to ages of up to 55,000 years at which point the residual
radiation is about the same as background.



Eric Stevens
MIB529
2003-08-05 02:22:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Eric Stevens
Post by MIB529
On Sun, 03 Aug 2003 21:18:40 +0100, Doug Weller
[SNIP]
There are sites 60,000
years old in South America. As a result, Merkins decide to reject
radiocarbon dating for anything apparently man-made in the Western
Hemisphere prior to Clovis.
How are these sites dated? They're new to me. C14 dating is fine for
pre-Clovis and a lot of American archaeologists accept pre-Clovis dates,
but few C14 specialists would put money on accurate dates from C14 that
old anywhere I believe.
The amount of C14 left relative to 0 time = 1/(2^10) or
1:1000 the original amount, C14 at 0 time is still a small
minority of carbon. MIB obviously understands as little
about radiochemistry as the does molecular biology.
Actually, I understand that, moron. You obviously understand as little
about radiochemistry as you do about everything else. Must you ALWAYS
embarrass yourself?
I suggest you both see http://www.c14dating.com/agecalc.html which
refers to ages of up to 55,000 years at which point the residual
radiation is about the same as background.
What about ABOX-SC treatment?

http://www.athenapub.com/10pfurad.htm
Philip Deitiker
2003-08-04 19:07:56 UTC
Permalink
I'll admit, 60,000 is near the end of the C14 range, but that can only
mean it's older.
30,000 is near the end of the C-14 range, 60,000 is so far out of range in
most cases (assuming that you don't have a mass of diamond encased in a
water tight, gas tight box).
Al Zeller
2003-08-04 21:50:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Philip Deitiker
I'll admit, 60,000 is near the end of the C14 range, but that can only
mean it's older.
30,000 is near the end of the C-14 range, 60,000 is so far out of range in
most cases (assuming that you don't have a mass of diamond encased in a
water tight, gas tight box).
Using AMS you can get to the 50-60 kyr range. Sample quality becomes
very important in that time range, tho.

Al Zeller
deowll
2003-08-04 01:57:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by deowll
Post by MIB529
Post by Eric Stevens
Post by MIB529
Hell, in a debate with Weller, I got him down to using unbeatable
arguments like "Maybe Indians stuck to a now-underwater coastline so
any artifacts in North America are now underwater." Too bad science
works with evidence, not unbeatable arguments.
Nevertheless, that coastline is now underwater and so too are any
artifacts. You can't ignore them simply because they are almost
impossible to find. However, they don't carry much weight in an
argument until you can raise a reasonable probablity that they exist.
The problem is, they are willing to ignore as-of-yet-not-found
artifacts in the Americas but not as-of-yet-not-found artifacts in
Siberia. Confirm on one end, deny on the other.
Remember, we don't have to have Indians staying along the coastline
just through the glaciers, Eric; we have to have Indians staying along
the coastline from somewhere in China, perhaps Japan, ALL THE WAY into
Chile. THAT is the kind of coastal migration we're talking about here.
That is more or less the way I think the first couple of groups I know
aren't wishful thinking got here.
Actual sites, radiocarbon dated and everything, aren't wishful
thinking. OTOH, any claim of anyone that old in Siberia (without
actual radiocarbon dating) IS wishful thinking. There are sites 60,000
years old in South America. As a result, Merkins decide to reject
radiocarbon dating for anything apparently man-made in the Western
Hemisphere prior to Clovis.
While I think that there is a historical pattern of American Scientists
running around screaming it can't be that old cause god told me I must admit
that using Carbon dating to get a date that old exceeds the limit of the
method. Eastern Sibera is thinly inhabited and not rich. Not a heck of a lot
of reserach has been done.

Homo was in Northern China a Hades of a lot longer ago than anyone claims
Homo were in the the America's even if you had said 200, 000 years ago. If
you're claiming that humans got to North America by devine creation you are
own your own. The limits of probability are by boat from Siberia along the
Northwest North America coast or across the strait either by boat or duiring
the ice age when you could have walked and never come withing miles of the
ocean. Either way to get to North America you go through Siberia unless you
are building something that is getting out of the boat and into the ship
class for which we don't have a lick of evidence this early.
Post by deowll
Post by MIB529
Also, coasts are more humid and therefore more likely to have been
glaciated during the Wisconsonian.
There is some strong evidence that not every point of land and island went
under the ice and once south of the ice it was good boating. Getting to the
East coast might have taken a while.
...which is why there are also older sites in Southeast than out west.
MIB529
2003-08-04 18:32:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Eric Stevens
Post by deowll
Post by MIB529
Post by Eric Stevens
Post by MIB529
Hell, in a debate with Weller, I got him down to using unbeatable
arguments like "Maybe Indians stuck to a now-underwater coastline
so
Post by deowll
Post by MIB529
Post by Eric Stevens
Post by MIB529
any artifacts in North America are now underwater." Too bad science
works with evidence, not unbeatable arguments.
Nevertheless, that coastline is now underwater and so too are any
artifacts. You can't ignore them simply because they are almost
impossible to find. However, they don't carry much weight in an
argument until you can raise a reasonable probablity that they
exist.
Post by deowll
Post by MIB529
The problem is, they are willing to ignore as-of-yet-not-found
artifacts in the Americas but not as-of-yet-not-found artifacts in
Siberia. Confirm on one end, deny on the other.
Remember, we don't have to have Indians staying along the coastline
just through the glaciers, Eric; we have to have Indians staying along
the coastline from somewhere in China, perhaps Japan, ALL THE WAY into
Chile. THAT is the kind of coastal migration we're talking about here.
That is more or less the way I think the first couple of groups I know
aren't wishful thinking got here.
Actual sites, radiocarbon dated and everything, aren't wishful
thinking. OTOH, any claim of anyone that old in Siberia (without
actual radiocarbon dating) IS wishful thinking. There are sites 60,000
years old in South America. As a result, Merkins decide to reject
radiocarbon dating for anything apparently man-made in the Western
Hemisphere prior to Clovis.
While I think that there is a historical pattern of American Scientists
running around screaming it can't be that old cause god told me I must admit
that using Carbon dating to get a date that old exceeds the limit of the
method. Eastern Sibera is thinly inhabited and not rich. Not a heck of a lot
of reserach has been done.
Translation: Unbeatable argument. Do that research. If you find
nothing, don't whine to me.
Post by Eric Stevens
Homo was in Northern China a Hades of a lot longer ago than anyone claims
Homo were in the the America's even if you had said 200, 000 years ago.
Unless you're a multiregionalist, Homo <> HS.
Post by Eric Stevens
If
you're claiming that humans got to North America by devine creation you are
own your own.
If you're setting up straw men, you're as ignorant as Phillip.
Post by Eric Stevens
The limits of probability are by boat from Siberia along the
Northwest North America coast or across the strait either by boat or duiring
the ice age when you could have walked and never come withing miles of the
ocean. Either way to get to North America you go through Siberia unless you
are building something that is getting out of the boat and into the ship
class for which we don't have a lick of evidence this early.
Australians. Melanesians. :P
Philip Deitiker
2003-08-04 19:11:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by MIB529
Post by deowll
If
you're claiming that humans got to North America by devine creation
you are own your own.
If you're setting up straw men, you're as ignorant as Phillip.
Don't worry Deowll he is using Inger's OED. Probably he means NA made the
fist 747 and flew here from africa. ;^)
--
DNApaleoAnth at Att dot net
MIB529
2003-08-05 02:23:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Philip Deitiker
Post by MIB529
Post by deowll
If
you're claiming that humans got to North America by devine creation
you are own your own.
If you're setting up straw men, you're as ignorant as Phillip.
Don't worry Deowll he is using Inger's OED. Probably he means NA made the
fist 747 and flew here from africa. ;^)
Speaking of Phillip's straw men...You're just pissed that I blew a
hole in molecular clocks.
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
Doug Weller
2003-08-05 05:12:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by thomas
I didn't make myself clear. Deloria himself has argued that whites
originated in the Americas and then migrated to Europe.
This one is in Red Earth, White Lies. I think it is in the chapter
where Deloria is trying to exonerate Indians from exterminating the
mega-fauna, and so he postulates that there were some giant
white men around who did the murder and then lammed it to Europe.
Funny, I've read it, and don't remember that chapter.
Not that it matters. There is zero evidence Indians were responsible
for the extinction, most paleontologists think it's bull, and with
Clovis no longer first, the theory falls apart. I'm still wondering
why Indians would hunt the big game first, rather than the small
animals. Oh, wait! I forgot! Anthropologists think Indians have the
intelligence of a mollusk.
Don't be an idiot.

Hunting the small game, of course, could have driven some big game to
extinction.

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
Eric Stevens
2003-08-05 08:41:32 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 05 Aug 2003 06:12:34 +0100, Doug Weller
Post by Doug Weller
Post by thomas
I didn't make myself clear. Deloria himself has argued that whites
originated in the Americas and then migrated to Europe.
This one is in Red Earth, White Lies. I think it is in the chapter
where Deloria is trying to exonerate Indians from exterminating the
mega-fauna, and so he postulates that there were some giant
white men around who did the murder and then lammed it to Europe.
Funny, I've read it, and don't remember that chapter.
Not that it matters. There is zero evidence Indians were responsible
for the extinction, most paleontologists think it's bull, and with
Clovis no longer first, the theory falls apart. I'm still wondering
why Indians would hunt the big game first, rather than the small
animals. Oh, wait! I forgot! Anthropologists think Indians have the
intelligence of a mollusk.
Don't be an idiot.
Hunting the small game, of course, could have driven some big game to
extinction.
See http://www.well.com/user/elin/edentxt.htm



Eric Stevens
MIB529
2003-08-05 19:29:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Eric Stevens
On Tue, 05 Aug 2003 06:12:34 +0100, Doug Weller
Post by Doug Weller
Post by thomas
I didn't make myself clear. Deloria himself has argued that whites
originated in the Americas and then migrated to Europe.
This one is in Red Earth, White Lies. I think it is in the chapter
where Deloria is trying to exonerate Indians from exterminating the
mega-fauna, and so he postulates that there were some giant
white men around who did the murder and then lammed it to Europe.
Funny, I've read it, and don't remember that chapter.
Not that it matters. There is zero evidence Indians were responsible
for the extinction, most paleontologists think it's bull, and with
Clovis no longer first, the theory falls apart. I'm still wondering
why Indians would hunt the big game first, rather than the small
animals. Oh, wait! I forgot! Anthropologists think Indians have the
intelligence of a mollusk.
Don't be an idiot.
Hunting the small game, of course, could have driven some big game to
extinction.
See http://www.well.com/user/elin/edentxt.htm
Still has Clovis-first at its rotten core.
Eric Stevens
2003-08-05 20:36:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by MIB529
Post by Eric Stevens
On Tue, 05 Aug 2003 06:12:34 +0100, Doug Weller
Post by Doug Weller
Post by thomas
I didn't make myself clear. Deloria himself has argued that whites
originated in the Americas and then migrated to Europe.
This one is in Red Earth, White Lies. I think it is in the chapter
where Deloria is trying to exonerate Indians from exterminating the
mega-fauna, and so he postulates that there were some giant
white men around who did the murder and then lammed it to Europe.
Funny, I've read it, and don't remember that chapter.
Not that it matters. There is zero evidence Indians were responsible
for the extinction, most paleontologists think it's bull, and with
Clovis no longer first, the theory falls apart. I'm still wondering
why Indians would hunt the big game first, rather than the small
animals. Oh, wait! I forgot! Anthropologists think Indians have the
intelligence of a mollusk.
Don't be an idiot.
Hunting the small game, of course, could have driven some big game to
extinction.
See http://www.well.com/user/elin/edentxt.htm
Still has Clovis-first at its rotten core.
That was the accepted paradigm at the time the theory was developed.
It could still be right if there was a human population explosion at
about that time. Such an explosion could have been triggered by
climate change.




Eric Stevens
Doug Weller
2003-08-05 20:10:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Doug Weller
Post by thomas
I didn't make myself clear. Deloria himself has argued that whites
originated in the Americas and then migrated to Europe.
This one is in Red Earth, White Lies. I think it is in the chapter
where Deloria is trying to exonerate Indians from exterminating the
mega-fauna, and so he postulates that there were some giant
white men around who did the murder and then lammed it to Europe.
Funny, I've read it, and don't remember that chapter.
Not that it matters. There is zero evidence Indians were responsible
for the extinction, most paleontologists think it's bull, and with
Clovis no longer first, the theory falls apart. I'm still wondering
why Indians would hunt the big game first, rather than the small
animals. Oh, wait! I forgot! Anthropologists think Indians have the
intelligence of a mollusk.
Don't be an idiot.
As soon as you stop being one, I will.
Look, oh anonymous one, you know that what you said about anthropologists
isn't true.
Post by Doug Weller
Hunting the small game, of course, could have driven some big game to
extinction.
There are still small game around. And some of those big game were
herbivores.
True, but I did say 'could have' and 'some big game'.
Here's a possibility: Warmer temperatures select for a higher surface
area/volume ratio. Mammoths, dire wolves, and other Pleistocene
species didn't have that ratio.
There could be more than one reason and that could be one of them.

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
res6l2wx
2003-08-05 20:58:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Doug Weller
Hunting the small game, of course, could have driven some big game to
extinction.
There are still small game around. And some of those big game were
herbivores.
Here's a possibility: Warmer temperatures select for a higher surface
area/volume ratio. Mammoths, dire wolves, and other Pleistocene
species didn't have that ratio.
I rather imagine Paul Martin was aware of such factors. Might expect
northward migration. And there are the desert tortoises, for example.
Not all large animals are driven extinct by the heat - elephants.
Not that I don't think the odds are there were people in the Americas
pre-Clovis.
Cheers
John GW

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.
Bob Lancaster
2003-07-27 14:42:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tedd
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.
Still, you have not addressed my main point. Simple questions here:

(1) Is it at least theoretically possible for anthropology to be
tainted by racism? If not, why do anthropologists argue over the
point themselves?

(2) Are anthropologists infallible? If not, and if it is at least
theoretically possible for anthropology to be tainted by racism,
doesn't it make sense that anthropology could be tainted by racism?

(3) Is there or is there not anger and distrust within Native
communuties towards anthropologist? If not, why have I known so many
Native Americans who distrust anthropologists until a particular
anthropologist is shown to be trustworthy.

(4) Assuming there are Native Americans who distrust anthropologists,
is there any justification for this distrusts? Don't assume that
these are just ignorant savages and/or Indian racists. I've known
Native Americans who were very bright, very well educated and very
closely tied to both Native and white society who felt this way.

It seems that all I've gotten from you is either social-science
gobbledygook. or completely changing the subject.

As far as whether or not anthropologist should be apologists, it seems
to be that, like it or not, anthropologists have a lot to apologize
for.

The tragic example of Kenniwick man has been brought up a number of
times. Truly sad, because I know some of the stuff that had been
going on in that general neck of the woods (not that far from Boise,
actually).

I worked with a Native American group not too far away that once had
an Honor Dance at a 'pow-wow' for a local anthropologist. Many of the
Indians in that group were from tribes that sued over Kenniwick man.
I met that particular anthropologist on a few occasions.

I met a fellow who represented a nearby reservation in a number of
committees: dealing with land-use issues, dams on the Columbia and
Snake rivers, etc. This guy worked quite well with scientists,
governments, land owners, fishermen, etc. His reservation sued over
Kenniwick man.

I knew a woman, coincidentally a scientist, who worked with a local
tribe when the tribe revealed to her that there was a sacred location
for their tribe on her land. She and her husband worked out a deal so
the tribe could have access to the spot, and the tribe restored it. A
very touching ceremony was held on the land. That tribe sued over
Kenniwick Man.

And so on.

And so, some racist actions in the Kenniwick Man fiasco did so much
damage, creating distrust despite the good works of many others.
Post by Tedd
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.
More social-science gobbledygook. I'm a physical scientist, so please
use logical arguments. First of all, who says there is a clear line
between anthropology and sociology? Also, with so much anthropology
tainted by racism, it would seem to me that it would behoove
anthropologists to examine their work. Handwaving arguments don't cut
it. You haven't shown that anthropology is untainted by racism. You
haven't shown that anthropology is so pure that some examination would
be useless.

Sorry, but racism leads to logical fallicies. Logical fallicies lead
to bad science. Simple as that. Please either concede the point, go
away, or give a logical answer. You've criticized Vine DeLoria (who
has some very strong strengths and some very glaring weaknesses) and a
few others. You've scoffed at sociologists for daring to examine
their theories. You haven't answered the basic questions.

-Bob
thomas
2003-07-27 23:02:30 UTC
Permalink
Can you give examples of racism leading to scientific bias
in contemporary anthropology?

You did mention Kennewick man. I am aware of white-identity
religious groups making political hay out of that, and Indian
tribes making political hay out of it based on religious beliefs.
But is that an example of racial bias in contemporary anthropology?

I am not arguing that there is no racial bias in contemporary
anthropology. I just would like to see some examples of what
you're driving at.
Post by Bob Lancaster
Post by Tedd
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.
(1) Is it at least theoretically possible for anthropology to be
tainted by racism? If not, why do anthropologists argue over the
point themselves?
(2) Are anthropologists infallible? If not, and if it is at least
theoretically possible for anthropology to be tainted by racism,
doesn't it make sense that anthropology could be tainted by racism?
(3) Is there or is there not anger and distrust within Native
communuties towards anthropologist? If not, why have I known so many
Native Americans who distrust anthropologists until a particular
anthropologist is shown to be trustworthy.
(4) Assuming there are Native Americans who distrust anthropologists,
is there any justification for this distrusts? Don't assume that
these are just ignorant savages and/or Indian racists. I've known
Native Americans who were very bright, very well educated and very
closely tied to both Native and white society who felt this way.
It seems that all I've gotten from you is either social-science
gobbledygook. or completely changing the subject.
As far as whether or not anthropologist should be apologists, it seems
to be that, like it or not, anthropologists have a lot to apologize
for.
The tragic example of Kenniwick man has been brought up a number of
times. Truly sad, because I know some of the stuff that had been
going on in that general neck of the woods (not that far from Boise,
actually).
I worked with a Native American group not too far away that once had
an Honor Dance at a 'pow-wow' for a local anthropologist. Many of the
Indians in that group were from tribes that sued over Kenniwick man.
I met that particular anthropologist on a few occasions.
I met a fellow who represented a nearby reservation in a number of
committees: dealing with land-use issues, dams on the Columbia and
Snake rivers, etc. This guy worked quite well with scientists,
governments, land owners, fishermen, etc. His reservation sued over
Kenniwick man.
I knew a woman, coincidentally a scientist, who worked with a local
tribe when the tribe revealed to her that there was a sacred location
for their tribe on her land. She and her husband worked out a deal so
the tribe could have access to the spot, and the tribe restored it. A
very touching ceremony was held on the land. That tribe sued over
Kenniwick Man.
And so on.
And so, some racist actions in the Kenniwick Man fiasco did so much
damage, creating distrust despite the good works of many others.
Post by Tedd
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.
More social-science gobbledygook. I'm a physical scientist, so please
use logical arguments. First of all, who says there is a clear line
between anthropology and sociology? Also, with so much anthropology
tainted by racism, it would seem to me that it would behoove
anthropologists to examine their work. Handwaving arguments don't cut
it. You haven't shown that anthropology is untainted by racism. You
haven't shown that anthropology is so pure that some examination would
be useless.
Sorry, but racism leads to logical fallicies. Logical fallicies lead
to bad science. Simple as that. Please either concede the point, go
away, or give a logical answer. You've criticized Vine DeLoria (who
has some very strong strengths and some very glaring weaknesses) and a
few others. You've scoffed at sociologists for daring to examine
their theories. You haven't answered the basic questions.
-Bob
Philip Deitiker
2003-07-27 23:36:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by thomas
Can you give examples of racism leading to scientific bias
in contemporary anthropology?
You did mention Kennewick man. I am aware of white-identity
religious groups making political hay out of that, and Indian
tribes making political hay out of it based on religious beliefs.
But is that an example of racial bias in contemporary anthropology?
I think there were some early, understandable, mistatements
made. I don't think Kennewick is a single 'race' but from
the evidence I have seen an admix between WEA and melanesian
derived peoples (my guess is that it is WEA/Middle
eastern/Melanesian/Native american admix)
Post by thomas
I am not arguing that there is no racial bias in contemporary
anthropology. I just would like to see some examples of what
you're driving at.
Many anthropological theories are biased because of the
temptation of individuals to do research in their backyard.
MREH is a good example of a ethnocentric theory, because
there was an abundance of information from europe and a
dearth of information from africa and because archaeologist
are absolutely horrid statisticians, they keep trying to
move the emergence of humans away from africa to eurasia.
The less subjective molecular information tore that line of
bias to hell and began leading archaeologist to look in
other places. It is called research bias. For example a
portugues researcher is paid by his government to study
archaeology in portugal, even though protugal is sort of a
backwater of human evolution, his grant depends on him
making something big out of that 'backwater' as a result he
is going to not dig in africa, or india or any place
implicit by molecular information as being an early site,
and spend time investigating dozer fodder and try to make
that fodder look like an important transition in human
evolution.
Bob Lancaster
2003-07-28 15:13:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by thomas
Can you give examples of racism leading to scientific bias
in contemporary anthropology?
You did mention Kennewick man. I am aware of white-identity
religious groups making political hay out of that, and Indian
tribes making political hay out of it based on religious beliefs.
But is that an example of racial bias in contemporary anthropology?
I am not arguing that there is no racial bias in contemporary
anthropology. I just would like to see some examples of what
you're driving at.
[snip]

How do you define recent? At one point Tedd Jacobs was defining
recent as 20th and 21st Centuries. I gave two examples: Kenniwick Man
was one. The other: in the early 20th century an anthropologist
wrote a paper which concluded, among other things, that a famous
ancestor of mine could not possibly have existed. I didn't mention
her name: Nancy Ward. I just did a Google search on 'Nancy Ward
Cherokee', and came up with 16,300 results. Not bad for a ficticious
person. BTW, she was one of the best known Indian leaders of her
time, at a time when the Indian nations played a very important role.
Very sloppy research. Shortly before then, a fellow named Theodore
Roosevelt, residing at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. in the District of
Columbia, wrote about her life. I gather most anthropologists at the
time had at least heard of Roosevelt. Or, the researcher could've
simply gone over to Tennessee, and would've found a DAR chapter named
after her. Or, he could've examined the writings of Thomas Jefferson,
who coincidentally once resided as the same address as T. Roosevelt.

Or does modern start with Margaret Meade? There have certainly been
allegations that her biases led her to write wildly fanciful things
about Samoan society, and that certain Samoans egged her on a bit.
Lots of Samoans complain about her, but what do they know? SHE was
the famous scientist, after all.

In another post Floyd Davidson gave an excellent account of the errors
made by anthropologists, and their reputation in Northern Alaska.
Strange as it may seem, one can find stories like that from all over.

Or, how about the case of the Yamamono? I realize this is a *very*
touchy issue among anthropologists at this time, but there are
allegations of racism at best, genocide at worst.

Or, how about Colin Turnbull? He liked Pygmies better than some other
Africans, and it certainly showed in his writing.

And, there is Kenniwick Man. The racism I see comes in mutiple parts:

(1) The scientists involved did not consider the tribes' cultural
views on burial and respect for the dead to be as valid as the
cultural views of the scientists. This is despite NAGPRA, which
exists because of that lack of respect. In other words, federal law
says the tribes' view is the legally applicable view, but the
scientists involved refuse to acknowledge this.

(2) It appears there is a theory that says the Columbia Basin was
inhabited by a group of people around K-Man's time. Then, the group
left, leaving the Basin uninhabited for a few thousand years, after
which time the ancestors of the current tribes moved in. On the other
hand, the current tribes claim to have been in the area all that time.
The tribal stories include stories about animals that were extinct
before the theory says they arrived. So how does racism enter into
this? Quite simple. I have read of cases where archeologists, etc.
have gone to great lengths to study the Bible or European legends as
aids to their work. On the other hand, Native American legends were
dismissed out of hand.

(3) The claims that K-man wasn't Indian may or may not have been
racist, but it undeniably stirred up racism.



Or, we could get into the pre-'modern' anthropologists, and the
skeletons still in Anthopology's closet, or in the museums. Consider
the Sand Creek massacre. The US soldiers killed every last old
person, woman and child in village, boiled the skin and flesh off
their bones, and sent the bones to the Smithsonian Institute. This
was NOT an isolated incident.

One of the goals of NAGPRA was the return of the bones and sacred
artifacts taken in earlier times. Some museums have been rather slow
about doing the work required of them. That is certainly seen as
racist by Indians, with good reason.


In any case, one of my points was not only the existence of racism but
the *perception* of racism by Native peoples. Strange as it may seem,
folks who have been on this land for tens of thousands of years do not
consider the 1990s, or even the 1800s, as ancient history. When
Native people encounter anthropologists, they are looking at a group
which was complicit in genocide, stole cultural artifacts, desecrated
dead bodies and sacred objects, filmed secret sacred ceremonies,
trivialized Native customs and tribal stories, and often just plain
got things wrong. Useless at best, genocidal at worst.

Of course, there are exceptions. However, hostility of native peoples
makes any work much more difficult than if the native peoples were
friendly. And so, any anthropologist or archeologist has the burden
of proving that s/he respects the Native culture, won't try to distort
it, and that s/he isn't a useless bumbling idiot.



Ah, I grow tired of this thread. It seems I am always having to try
to teach things that should be on the first page of any anthropology,
archeology or sociology book. This is just a little history and
common sense. No more from me for a while. Anyone who doesn't get it
by now never will.

-Bob
Tedd
2003-07-28 23:21:01 UTC
Permalink
"Bob Lancaster" <***@zxmail.com> wrote in message news:***@posting.google.com...

<snip>
Post by Bob Lancaster
Ah, I grow tired of this thread. It seems I am always having to try
to teach things that should be on the first page of any anthropology,
archeology or sociology book. This is just a little history and
common sense. No more from me for a while. Anyone who doesn't get it
by now never will.
-Bob
can i have my plastic spoon back before you go? :-P~

;-)
Wayne George
2003-07-29 14:03:07 UTC
Permalink
was it a "plastic spoon" ..thanks for the early morning smile Bob ?

Wayne George
~~tsc~~

~~~~~~~~~~~
Post by Daryl Krupa
<snip>
Post by Bob Lancaster
Ah, I grow tired of this thread. It seems I am always having to try
to teach things that should be on the first page of any anthropology,
archeology or sociology book. This is just a little history and
common sense. No more from me for a while. Anyone who doesn't get it
by now never will.
-Bob
can i have my plastic spoon back before you go? :-P~
;-)
Sorry, someone brought some cake to work this morning. Quite yummy,
but I'm afraid your spoon broke. An obvious act of racism on my part.
My apologies.
:-)
Philip Deitiker
2003-07-28 21:39:07 UTC
Permalink
During the whole debacle, you had C Loring Brace claiming on ABC that
Indians were Neanderthals (To give you an idea of how racist THAT is,
even the Pioneer Fund admits that Indians are human.)
Have you got a citation for Brace's statement? It sounds pretty
far-fetched to me that he would say that on TV.
Brace claimed that ancestors of Ainu probably came from WEA
and since he believes in multiregionalist, stands to reason
he belives the Aiun are descended from Neandertals, and
since Kenniwick is similar to Ainu descended from
Neandertal. It is possible to look at Brace's work on
eastern asian and native americans will 'forgetting' about
his insane position of WEA origins.

Shall I bring in my Highland/Dryland theory for some comic
relief?

Brace has taken the time to understand and connect asian
archaeology with american archaeology, and since the lithic
period along the east asian coast now is about 45 to 16 ky
depending where you look (all dates before 45 have been
thrown out at least down to the ryukyu chain). I think with
the 500 kya material out of the way his views on Neandertals
within the east asian context are immaterial.
BTW, from what I understand about Brace's click, having
Neandertal genetic makeup is a good thing, they attribute
the cultural advances in middle east and Europe to that
makeup. (Hybrid vigor) So you can't really offer it up as a
sign of racism, they tend to think Neandertals made humans
smart and creative.
Wayne George
2003-07-29 13:59:57 UTC
Permalink
Current "thinking" also comes up with 'comic book material'....
just a thought.

Wayne George
~~tsc~~

~~~~~~~~~~~
On Mon, 28 Jul 2003 16:39:07 -0500, Philip Deitiker
Post by Philip Deitiker
BTW, from what I understand about Brace's click, having
Neandertal genetic makeup is a good thing, they attribute
the cultural advances in middle east and Europe to that
makeup. (Hybrid vigor) So you can't really offer it up as a
sign of racism, they tend to think Neandertals made humans
smart and creative.
Those without neanderthal ancestry might not agree with you.
Apart from that, current thinking seems to be that neanderthal and
homo sap could not breed.
Eric Stevens
Floyd Davidson
2003-07-28 07:46:27 UTC
Permalink
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.
Surely that is an "OOOOpppsss"! If MIB's arguments are correct or
otherwise have absolutely NOTHING to do with MIB being a "Native
American". Quite frankly you have yourself fallen into the trap of
using a racist argument, as you base your whole argument on the basis
of an ethnicity or "race" - the "...because he is X race/ethnicity he
knows..". THAT is RACISM!
That statement is just silly.

The claim that MIB knows Indians because MIB is an Indian isn't
racist at all. It's common sense that he knows the back of own
hand...
(2) The field of Anthropology is necessarily tainted by the racism,
conscious or otherwise, of anthropologists.
That has to also be eliminated as there is absolutely NO NEED to
resort to racism for anthropology. To believe so is to MISUNDERSTAND
what racism is - or in the alternative a support thereof and a
"justification" for it.
More silliness.

You are correct that racism is not necessary to anthropology.
So what? That has *nothing* to do with whether it exists or not.


Oh, my... I might as well poke you with a stick or two while
I'm at it. Years ago I posted my take on how well
anthropologists were received by Alaska Natives in the 1950's
and 1960's. These were the anthropologist who said

1) Eskimos have no government,
2) Native history is all mythology and not reliable,
3) Alaska Natives had not concept of private property, and
4) Alaska Natives had nothing that resembled a Nation, but
were just separate family bands.

Well, in the 1970's the impression that I got from my neighbors,
not to mention my inlaws, was that the average Yup'ik Eskimo
family household consisted of 4 adults (Grandmother, Mother,
Father, and one Aunt or Uncle), 5.1 children, 6.3 dogs, and 0.7
anthropologist. They were considered important in the order
listed. Grandmother owned the house, and it would pass to
Mother if Grandmother died. Father (and other males) were
providers, while Mother (and other females) are preparers. Dogs
were necessary (back before snowmachines) for work and useful as
pets.

The anthropologist was worthless, got in the way, couldn't be
trusted, and unlike the dog an anthropologist _will_ bite
the hand that feeds it.

Hence the anthropologist is necessarily lower than a dog,
which would get better food and a warmer place to sleep.
--
Floyd L. Davidson <http://web.newsguy.com/floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) ***@barrow.com
Philip Deitiker
2003-07-28 14:54:44 UTC
Permalink
On 27 Jul 2003 23:46:27 -0800, Floyd Davidson
Post by Floyd Davidson
1) Eskimos have no government,
They do now, Inuvet, lol.
Post by Floyd Davidson
2) Native history is all mythology and not reliable,
Every cultures unwritten history is largely myth. Wanna talk
about adam and eve? How about moses parting the red sea.
Post by Floyd Davidson
The anthropologist was worthless, got in the way, couldn't be
trusted, and unlike the dog an anthropologist _will_ bite
the hand that feeds it.
Hence the anthropologist is necessarily lower than a dog,
which would get better food and a warmer place to sleep.
You're not speaking bad of cultural anthropologist are you,
perish that thought! ANNE come over here and straiten the
man up about the worthiness of those cultural
anthropologist.
Floyd Davidson
2003-07-28 17:34:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Philip Deitiker
On 27 Jul 2003 23:46:27 -0800, Floyd Davidson
Post by Floyd Davidson
1) Eskimos have no government,
They do now, Inuvet, lol.
They always did. But in 250+ years of contact with Western
"civilization", none of the Western observers were able to tell
that. You'll find that *every* book, right up to about 1970,
claims they had no form of government. You won't find even one
published after about 1975 saying that. (In the late 1960's the
people of Akiak and a dozen other Alaskan villages decided
Western influence from BIA boarding schools was making it
impossible to continue teaching civics to their children in the
traditional way, so they hired an anthropologist and recorded
their form of government in the Western way.)

Imagine that. From the early 1700s to the late 1900's, and
Western observers couldn't even tell they had a government!

Now, guess what characteristic of Western observers caused them
to miss that minor point? They all were blind? They were all
dumb? What was *every* *single* *one* *of* *them*?
Post by Philip Deitiker
Post by Floyd Davidson
2) Native history is all mythology and not reliable,
Every cultures unwritten history is largely myth. Wanna talk
about adam and eve? How about moses parting the red sea.
Any anthropologist who says that in regard to Native American
history is a fool.
Post by Philip Deitiker
Post by Floyd Davidson
The anthropologist was worthless, got in the way, couldn't be
trusted, and unlike the dog an anthropologist _will_ bite
the hand that feeds it.
Hence the anthropologist is necessarily lower than a dog,
which would get better food and a warmer place to sleep.
You're not speaking bad of cultural anthropologist are you,
perish that thought! ANNE come over here and straiten the
man up about the worthiness of those cultural
anthropologist.
--
Floyd L. Davidson <http://web.newsguy.com/floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) ***@barrow.com
Philip Deitiker
2003-07-28 20:32:15 UTC
Permalink
On 28 Jul 2003 09:34:27 -0800, Floyd Davidson
Post by Floyd Davidson
Post by Philip Deitiker
On 27 Jul 2003 23:46:27 -0800, Floyd Davidson
Post by Floyd Davidson
1) Eskimos have no government,
They do now, Inuvet, lol.
They always did. But in 250+ years of contact with Western
"civilization", none of the Western observers were able to tell
that. You'll find that *every* book, right up to about 1970,
claims they had no form of government. You won't find even one
published after about 1975 saying that. (In the late 1960's the
people of Akiak and a dozen other Alaskan villages decided
Western influence from BIA boarding schools was making it
impossible to continue teaching civics to their children in the
traditional way, so they hired an anthropologist and recorded
their form of government in the Western way.)
They had no officially recognized government, of course by
circularly defined standards. Governments of this per say
came out of "reservation phase" of european occupation and
the establishment of autonomous regions. Inuvet is the only
truly Native American state that currently exists, and it is
just that, a state.
But that you mention it a government has to consist of
some sort of written credo, no matter how awful those
credo's are. For example "Saddam has all the power disagree
with him and die".

Government is composed of several components
A written document with a set of maps, surveys which define
ones territory (Helps if you have your territory marked off,
so that for instance when you find a dead frozen man in the
ice you know which country he belongs in).

A written document describing your political structure, who
had authority, what are their responsibilities.

A collection of people fulfilling that authoritative roles.

And a group of people who are charged with
negotiating/communicating with neighboring countries and
accepting neighboring country officials for the purpose of
mutual recognition of the right to exist.

A means of self-perpetration (Taxation or citizen
requirements to fund these bodies above).

A group of people capable, minimally, of composing a self
defense force for defending all of the above.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

What might suffice as government is a set of paintings or
drawings recognizable by parties as boundaries.

Some description of what the laws are and how they are
enforced (graphical or otherwise). Before writing there used
to be public orators who would sort of regurgitate what
was agreed upon by the leaders.

A leadership council that has a means of succession built
into it.

Envoys or agents.

A posse controlled by the leadership council.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

But this issue with Inuit/Eskimoes is that life around the
arctic is tough and populations per square mile tend to be
low, people then tend to spread out in search of prey of
opportunity. This type of lifestyle does not easily lend
itself to western government without major technological
innovations. So not have a formal western styled government
is not to be faulted if you live as close to a frozen
wasteland as one can live. There is, for example, no formal
government on antarctica. And I am pretty sure you could run
around buck naked on the Kreugerland Islands (Fr. Southern
hemispheres equivalent of iceland) and not to many people
would pull you down and stop you. So basically government is
agreements between people who might run into each other and
occasional settlements. While eskimos may have government
within the settlements, it probably did not extend as far as
government go and pre-Russian settlements came and went
according to many factors.
Inuvet has a defined state within canada and also has a
governmental seat, a capital. I suppose that if anyone
breaks a law in Inuvet (and get caught) they will probably
be dragged to the capital for a trial according to laws of
Inuvet (and possibly canada).
Floyd Davidson
2003-07-28 21:40:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Philip Deitiker
On 28 Jul 2003 09:34:27 -0800, Floyd Davidson
Post by Floyd Davidson
Post by Philip Deitiker
On 27 Jul 2003 23:46:27 -0800, Floyd Davidson
Post by Floyd Davidson
1) Eskimos have no government,
They do now, Inuvet, lol.
They always did. But in 250+ years of contact with Western
"civilization", none of the Western observers were able to tell
that. You'll find that *every* book, right up to about 1970,
claims they had no form of government. You won't find even one
published after about 1975 saying that. (In the late 1960's the
people of Akiak and a dozen other Alaskan villages decided
Western influence from BIA boarding schools was making it
impossible to continue teaching civics to their children in the
traditional way, so they hired an anthropologist and recorded
their form of government in the Western way.)
They had no officially recognized government, of course by
circularly defined standards. Governments of this per say
"No officially recognized government"???? Are you daft or do
you just want to put on a display of *exactly* the kind of
thinking the rest of us were talking about?

They had a *very* sophisticated form of government *before* any
Europeans showed up. The still have it. It was so
sophisticated in the early 1740's when the Russians first
officially came to Alaska that not one of them noticed that it
existed. That continued to be true as other Westerners arrived
in the 1800's. That continued to be true in the 1900's as the
whole world visited.

And even now in the 2000's, *you* don't seem to be able to get
past your bias to see it yet.

Pretty good example of that bias, eh?
Post by Philip Deitiker
came out of "reservation phase" of european occupation and
the establishment of autonomous regions. Inuvet is the only
So you think they recognized no governments and had no
autonomous regions until Europeans came and established them?

Pardon me while a roll around on the floor. What kind of
an education do you have anyway? You must have studied
anthropology in 1955... or was that 1855? (Or was there
any difference?)
Post by Philip Deitiker
truly Native American state that currently exists, and it is
just that, a state.
Is that so? Try telling my daughter that. She works for a
tribal government and part of her job has been to be *very*
concerned about tribal sovereignty. (She also has a Juris
Doctorate in Indian Law, so this not trivial.)
Post by Philip Deitiker
But that you mention it a government has to consist of
some sort of written credo, no matter how awful those
Oh, I see... If it doesn't look like a European government,
it isn't a government. Are you perhaps a little Eurocentric?
Post by Philip Deitiker
credo's are. For example "Saddam has all the power disagree
with him and die".
Government is composed of several components
A written document with a set of maps, surveys which define
ones territory (Helps if you have your territory marked off,
so that for instance when you find a dead frozen man in the
ice you know which country he belongs in).
A government doesn't need *any* of that.
Post by Philip Deitiker
A written document describing your political structure, who
had authority, what are their responsibilities.
It has to be on a written document, eh? Do you know what the
Great Binding Law of the League of Nations is? Do you know how
long it existed prior Westerners writing it down on paper?
Post by Philip Deitiker
A collection of people fulfilling that authoritative roles.
And a group of people who are charged with
negotiating/communicating with neighboring countries and
accepting neighboring country officials for the purpose of
mutual recognition of the right to exist.
A means of self-perpetration (Taxation or citizen
requirements to fund these bodies above).
A group of people capable, minimally, of composing a self
defense force for defending all of the above.
So what is the point of your list? It does help to demonstrate
the bias we have been talking about, but that is probably
accidental on your part. What did you expect that list to
demonstrate?

...
Post by Philip Deitiker
But this issue with Inuit/Eskimoes is that life around the
arctic is tough and populations per square mile tend to be
low, people then tend to spread out in search of prey of
opportunity. This type of lifestyle does not easily lend
itself to western government without major technological
innovations.
Well, we could also say that Europe, what with the excess of
devastated social and environmental history, doesn't easily lend
itself to Inuit governance without major social innovations.

You are once again acting as if Western style government is the
only "real" government, and that anything else is essentially
non-existent because it is non-significant.
Post by Philip Deitiker
So not have a formal western styled government
is not to be faulted if you live as close to a frozen
wasteland as one can live.
Oh, and now it's a "frozen wasteland"? Have you any idea just
how productive that "frozen wasteland" is? Why do you think a
bazillion migratory birds fly thousands of miles to come here to
nest and raise their offspring? Why do you think bowhead and
grey whales do the same? Why does the Porcupine caribou herd
migrate hundreds of miles every year to be here.

And you do realize that Native Alaskans live all the way down in
Ketchikan. And the Eskimo people live on Prince William Sound
(Valdez) and Kodiak Island. While those places are not
tropical, the do have temperate rain-forests there, and calling
any part of southcentral or southwestern Alaska a "frozen
wasteland" is just absurd in any way you want to put it.

And in northern Alaska, why have humans lived right here where I
do for thousands of years?
Post by Philip Deitiker
There is, for example, no formal
government on antarctica. And I am pretty sure you could run
There are no permanent residents of the Antarctic. (Regardless,
you are wrong about there being no formal government. There
is.) You might have noted that several different kinds of
people in Alaska today have been here for thousands of years.
Ain't it strange that they developed governance, and it isn't
even related to European culture, laws, or social concepts!
Unbelievable, eh?
Post by Philip Deitiker
around buck naked on the Kreugerland Islands (Fr. Southern
hemispheres equivalent of iceland) and not to many people
would pull you down and stop you. So basically government is
agreements between people who might run into each other and
occasional settlements. While eskimos may have government
within the settlements, it probably did not extend as far as
government go and pre-Russian settlements came and went
according to many factors.
See, there you go again with assumptions totally based on
Eurocentric notions that simply do not apply here. Worse
yet, you've probably never been north of the Arctic Circle
and you are telling me what kind of a place I live in.

And you just landed on another of my itemized list of points
demonstrating bias by anthropologists:

1) Eskimos have no government,
2) Native history is all mythology and not reliable,
3) Alaska Natives had not concept of private property, and
4) Alaska Natives had nothing that resembled a Nation, but
were just separate family bands.

See number 4, and then tell me again what an expert you are on
"eskimos may have government within the settlements, it probably
did not..." do what you can't imagine. The problem is, your
imagination is limited by your bias.
Post by Philip Deitiker
Inuvet has a defined state within canada and also has a
governmental seat, a capital. I suppose that if anyone
breaks a law in Inuvet (and get caught) they will probably
be dragged to the capital for a trial according to laws of
Inuvet (and possibly canada).
Is that some how significant to your point? Or is your
bias suggesting that is really odd and unique in some
way for Eskimos?
--
Floyd L. Davidson <http://web.newsguy.com/floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) ***@barrow.com
Tedd
2003-07-28 23:11:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Floyd Davidson
Post by Philip Deitiker
On 28 Jul 2003 09:34:27 -0800, Floyd Davidson
Post by Philip Deitiker
On 27 Jul 2003 23:46:27 -0800, Floyd Davidson
<snip>
Post by Floyd Davidson
Post by Philip Deitiker
They had no officially recognized government, of course by
circularly defined standards. Governments of this per say
"No officially recognized government"???? Are you daft or do
you just want to put on a display of *exactly* the kind of
thinking the rest of us were talking about?
floyd, i think you missed a key qualifying statement that phillip made;

"...by circularly defined standards."

what this statement does is recognize that "officially recognized government" is
being based on a westernized standard and acknowledges that it is based upon an
outsiders bias.

phillip then goes on to discribe the statutes that define a 'westernized'
governments points of recognition and the roll of the "state".

he's not doubting that there was some form of governing involved, which is the
point you are trying to take up. he just showed you the "flaws" in the
westernized depiction of government and why they "...couldn't even tell they had
a government" by they way they define it, and where the implementation of the
"state" falls within that depiction. yes it's eurocentric, thats a given, it's
based on where it came from. thats why the statement was qualified "...by
circularly defined standards."

tedd.

p.s. he's sucking you into the argument here floyd, ;)
Floyd Davidson
2003-07-28 23:49:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Daryl Krupa
Post by Floyd Davidson
Post by Philip Deitiker
On 28 Jul 2003 09:34:27 -0800, Floyd Davidson
Post by Philip Deitiker
On 27 Jul 2003 23:46:27 -0800, Floyd Davidson
<snip>
Post by Floyd Davidson
Post by Philip Deitiker
They had no officially recognized government, of course by
circularly defined standards. Governments of this per say
"No officially recognized government"???? Are you daft or do
you just want to put on a display of *exactly* the kind of
thinking the rest of us were talking about?
floyd, i think you missed a key qualifying statement that phillip made;
"...by circularly defined standards."
No, he (and probably you) missed the point that his circularly
defined standards are biased with the intent of eliminating
non-Western governments from the definition.

*THAT* is exactly what I was talking about.

Regardless, he is still wrong. They did.
Post by Daryl Krupa
what this statement does is recognize that "officially recognized government" is
being based on a westernized standard and acknowledges that it is based upon an
outsiders bias.
Exactly, so why deny that said bias exists?
Post by Daryl Krupa
phillip then goes on to discribe the statutes that define a 'westernized'
governments points of recognition and the roll of the "state".
All of which is just clutter to continue the characterization of
Native governance as non-existant and insignificant.

A very nice demonstration of the point *you* seem to have missed.
Post by Daryl Krupa
he's not doubting that there was some form of governing involved, which is the
point you are trying to take up. he just showed you the "flaws" in the
westernized depiction of government and why they "...couldn't even tell they had
a government" by they way they define it, and where the implementation of the
"state" falls within that depiction. yes it's eurocentric, thats a given, it's
based on where it came from. thats why the statement was qualified "...by
circularly defined standards."
I didn't get the impression that he was agreeing with me at all.
Post by Daryl Krupa
tedd.
p.s. he's sucking you into the argument here floyd, ;)
Really? OH MY.

(My goodness aren't you the naive one.)
--
Floyd L. Davidson <http://web.newsguy.com/floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) ***@barrow.com
Tedd
2003-07-29 02:10:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Floyd Davidson
Post by Daryl Krupa
<snip>
No, he (and probably you) missed the point that his circularly
defined standards are biased with the intent of eliminating
non-Western governments from the definition.
(sigh... try and grant some people their point and they still find a way to
disagree...)
Philip Deitiker
2003-07-29 03:02:48 UTC
Permalink
On 28 Jul 2003 15:49:30 -0800, Floyd Davidson
Post by Floyd Davidson
Post by Tedd
"...by circularly defined standards."
No, he (and probably you) missed the point that his circularly
defined standards are biased with the intent of eliminating
non-Western governments from the definition.
I didn't miss the point; however I countered the point that
the lengua franca of governments was a certain way. Its sort
of if everyone in a country speaks a language and you speak
a different language, your language is valid, but useless if
noone you speak to understands it. From the point of veiw to
the evolvers and refiners of governments, unless you make a
public written declaration that you are a government, you
don't exist.
Post by Floyd Davidson
*THAT* is exactly what I was talking about.
Regardless, he is still wrong. They did.
Did what?
In canada, bout a year ago, yes.
Post by Floyd Davidson
Post by Tedd
what this statement does is recognize that "officially recognized government" is
being based on a westernized standard and acknowledges that it is based upon an
outsiders bias.
Exactly, so why deny that said bias exists?
The bias only exists in the word usage, which I didn't
create. Is 'government' eurocentric, yes, it is a word
created and defined by europeans. You can also say the
definition of the word 'kilt' is eurocentric, and the word
'cheesecake'.
Post by Floyd Davidson
All of which is just clutter to continue the characterization of
Native governance as non-existant and insignificant.
I didn't say insignificant. Native 'governance' has been far
from insignificant and non-existent. However from a
'governmental' point of view they have lacked official
frameworks until western bodies have forced them into such
capacities. As I said circularly defined, the language of
government is defined by europeans and their derivative
populations; however since WWII is begin redefined by other
peoples globally. The usage is an evolving definition but is
within the context of what is recognizable by the majority
of the rest of the world. Eskimos are recognized by the US
government as with native tribes, and they have the ability
to create laws within the 'reservation' system; however they
lack many of the provisions of 'state' in which the body of
native americans in some territory is in complete control of
their governance.
Post by Floyd Davidson
A very nice demonstration of the point *you* seem to have missed.
I don't think he missed my point; however, in your emotive
knee-jerk reaction, you appear to have missed it.
Post by Floyd Davidson
Post by Tedd
"state" falls within that depiction. yes it's eurocentric, thats a given, it's
based on where it came from. thats why the statement was qualified "...by
circularly defined standards."
I didn't get the impression that he was agreeing with me at all.
I agree that the eskimoes had governance in the context of
isolated societies; however in the context of dealing with
an expansive western society, they lack certain provisions
that would gain them broader recognition within a global
context. For certain peoples, like the evenk or chukchi
whether or not they define themselves is immaterial because
the central government of Russia has little ability to
govern them even if they claim as such. It is more or less a
vacuous claim if large portions of a group remain outside
the envelope which connects most other segments of society.
However if they had made the declaration that they wanted to
be independent had convened a council and were protesting
Russias occupation of Evenk or Yakut lands then you would
say they are in the process of consituting a government. You
can't say this about alaskan eskimoes because the U.S.
government is heavily into northen alaska in search for oil
and for security reasons. Nor are eskimos ignoring federal
and state governments since they have become part of the
economic system within alaska.
Very difficult for you because you seem to be wrapped up
in the emotive state of the eskimo people but you have to
approach government from the standard of western government.

The idea of government has changed radically over the last
150 years. For example India wasn't officially a country but
a part of a trading company, just like Hudson Bay and other
things the English did. You should read the mandate of the
British for palestine from 1921 to 1938. Before the united
nation existed inorder for a people to have a government,
they either had to demostrate to a body of western states
they could govern, or kick a western governing body out,
demostrating the will to govern (example U.S. and China).
The fall of the ottoman despite the participation of Arabs
in the liberation of arabia did not immediately result in
governments, but mandates. One can argue that the mandate,
to this day, for palistine has not been resolved. And yet
there is governance in palestine (both in Israel who
violation of UN resolutions conditions their government for
most of the world, and for palestine, which has no state).
In africa the colonial entities make clear how the circular
motif works. British, French, Danish, Italians, and Germans
proceeded to carve up africa into controllable managable
states. A classic strategy was to create states (colonies)
whereby the agreeable parties are the majority and the
disagreeable parties are a fractured minority. There are
many peoples in africa who are contiguous but fractured in 2
or 3 different countries, a minority in every country.
I have a rather bone to pick with the U.N. because of the
inherent conflict in trying to maintain colonially defined
state boundaries and the provisions for the protection of
endemic peoples, since there was never a vote for most of
these states by the endemics and minority groups are
constantly being abused by the majority rule governments
often puppeted into power by europeans. But that is what
government is and does. The situation in africa more than
any place in the world will someday return to haunt both the
colonial nations which drew the boundaries and the UN for
not resolving to 'remap' africa when the opportunity was
right during the demise of colonialism, there.
To a large degree the governance of native americans has
blended into the american cultural background,
intermarriages of natives and derivative europeans has
resulted in mixed families in which the values of native
americans has gone into the family structure. I come from
San Antonio which has a large mixture of people of native
american descent, not just mexicans but migrant farm workers
who left reservations early on looking for independence from
that system. Many still maintain a few traditions and even
in some catholic families two sets of Icons are kept
separate. If you go into south Texas there is a considerable
amount of admixture and it is not clear in many instances
who came from where. Somewhat similar a harsh climate and
survival govern the modus operenda, enemies become mates and
no-one ask that many questions since survival in the end is
what counts (And fair skinned europeans do very poorly in
many outdoor tasks in South Texas).
The way I see it is that the last of the strong tribes,
the southern comanche were pushed out {or so we are lead to
believe, some probably diffused into non-tribal
affiliations) and when discrimation was present, natives
were all but silent, now it seems they are not afraid to
hide themselves any more. The people who flood back into
take the outdoor jobs are from many of the areas of mexico
in which natives were pushed into (after the 1948 war many
latinized indians were forced off their lands by claimants
that the spanish/mexican land claims were invalid) , and a
sort of selective process takes place, if you can walk 100
miles following utility poles for 7 days getting your food
and water on the go, there is a pretty good chance your
ancestors could manage the same. The sons and duaghters of
anglos go off to college and take jobs in bigger towns and
the region is backfilled in with native americans from all
over the place, and they are moving up the socio/political
ladder, from policemen, councilmen, etc. Basically they are
refilling lost lands but under a new political constraint
that was defined by westerners who sort of wandered off. IOW
wait long enough and the anglos will eventually tire of
trying to conquer the wind, and the way things were begins
to return. But in evolution in never returns the same. This
is the fate of Inuvet, they waited long enough and
eventually gain their own state. This will happen in other
parts of Canada soon as land disputes heat up, I think the
canadian government will be forced to recognize native land
claims in order to protect natural resources from greedy
poachers. In texas the Comanche are 'gone' but they are not
fogotten ;^).
Floyd Davidson
2003-07-29 07:02:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Philip Deitiker
On 28 Jul 2003 15:49:30 -0800, Floyd Davidson
From the point of veiw to
the evolvers and refiners of governments, unless you make a
public written declaration that you are a government, you
don't exist.
That is an absurd statement which is absolutely not true, unless
of course you are willing to accept that in fact *every*
government that takes on *any* duty of a government, has by
doing so inherently made exactly that kind of a declaration.
(I'm sure what *you* actually meant was that they need to apply
to the appropriate Western authorities for approval. What a
ridiculous concept that is!)

Regardless, you do realize that England prior to the American
Revolution, and afterwards the United States of America, both
recognized Native governments (all of which pre-existed European
contact), and signed treaties with many of them over a period of
some 200+ years. Alaska Native people were not part of that
only because neither England nor the United States had any
significant dealings with Alaska Native people prior to 1867, by
which time the US had chosen not to engage in further treaties
with Native nations.

The Russian government recognized, and dealt with many Alaska
Native governments; though since the Eskimos had a system that
the Russians could not even see, the Russians were unaware of
actually dealing on government to government basis (which they
wanted to, and in fact actually did unawares). The Russians
stayed away from Eskimo people because they were unable to
figure out _who_ was the government. (See the writings of
Lt. Zagoskin.) (Like you, they had specific expectations about
government, and failing to see a "head man" with an army at his
side, they simply couldn't see a "government". It never
occurred to them that governance did not mean forced
governance.)

Hence, given the history of the United States, England, and
Russia dealing directly with and recognizing the very
governments that you say didn't exist by definition, we have an
appropriate perspective on your confused claims.

Your definitions are bogus.
Post by Philip Deitiker
In canada, bout a year ago, yes.
Do a little research and learn something before you continue
making such utterly ignorant statements. Start by looking up
"Yupiit Nation". Then go on to read almost *any* recent work on
anthropology that covers the subject of governance of Alaska
Native people.

I'll give you another reference that is close to home for me on
a personal basis. The village of Kipnuk in Western Alaska...
refused to even form a "Traditional IRA" government, much less
have they ever formed any kind of a State of Alaska sanctioned
municipal government. They simply said they didn't need it, as
they have always had their own government. I assure you it
works well too! My eldest son lives in Kipnuk, and I have
grandchildren there.
Post by Philip Deitiker
Post by Floyd Davidson
Post by Tedd
what this statement does is recognize that "officially recognized government" is
being based on a westernized standard and acknowledges that it is based upon an
outsiders bias.
Exactly, so why deny that said bias exists?
The bias only exists in the word usage, which I didn't
create. Is 'government' eurocentric, yes, it is a word
created and defined by europeans. You can also say the
definition of the word 'kilt' is eurocentric, and the word
'cheesecake'.
Ah, "government" itself is a European creation! No wonder you
don't see a government anywhere that a European hasn't been.

You're a work of art.
Post by Philip Deitiker
Post by Floyd Davidson
All of which is just clutter to continue the characterization of
Native governance as non-existant and insignificant.
I didn't say insignificant. Native 'governance' has been far
from insignificant and non-existent. However from a
'governmental' point of view they have lacked official
frameworks until western bodies have forced them into such
capacities.
Until they take on the form of governance that Westerners
chose, they "lacked official frameworks", eh? Without "official
frameworks" how could they have declared war, enforced laws,
provided educational frameworks for their children, allocated
common resources or protected individual resources?

Let me ask you once again if you have any idea at all what
the Great Binding Law of the Iroquois League of Nations is?

Let me ask you how many European governments had checks
and balances before Native Americans demonstrated it to the
Europeans in the American Colonies during the 1600's and the
1700's?

How many European nations had governments concerned with
liberty and individual freedom for the people prior to that
same time period?

How many of *today's* Western governments have 1) not even
begun to realize, or 2) have gone part way, or are 3) totally
aware that Environmental Law and Property Law are not two
separate entities (as they are in US Law), but actually the
same thing? When we finally get there, our system of laws
will be where Native governance was a few thousand years
ago ago!

...
Post by Philip Deitiker
The usage is an evolving definition but is
within the context of what is recognizable by the majority
of the rest of the world. Eskimos are recognized by the US
government as with native tribes, and they have the ability
to create laws within the 'reservation' system; however they
There is no "reservation" system. What are you talking about?
Post by Philip Deitiker
lack many of the provisions of 'state' in which the body of
native americans in some territory is in complete control of
their governance.
Really? You wouldn't just be conveniently selecting
characteristics that you believe one group has while another
hasn't, and then saying "therefore by definition..."?

Yes, you would!
Post by Philip Deitiker
I agree that the eskimoes had governance in the context of
isolated societies; however in the context of dealing with
OK, we've already found that you haven't got the background to
discuss Eskimo governance. Let me point out one last time that
you are wrong, and you won't likely find a recent anthropology
work on Eskimos that will agree with you. You're spouting
racist crap that others have spent the past 30 years apologizing
for given what they'd said prior to that time.

Let's be clear: Eskimos had governance in the context of Nations
over wide areas of geography. They were not isolated, in that
they engaged in trade with their neighbors and their neighbors
neighbors, as well as within their own national boundaries.
They were well aware, hundreds of years before Europe was aware
of them, of people and places at least as far away as southern
California, Moscow, and Japan.

...
Post by Philip Deitiker
To a large degree the governance of native americans has
blended into the american cultural background,
intermarriages of natives and derivative europeans has
resulted in mixed families in which the values of native
americans has gone into the family structure. I come from
San Antonio which has a large mixture of people of native
american descent, not just mexicans but migrant farm workers
who left reservations early on looking for independence from
that system. Many still maintain a few traditions and even
in some catholic families two sets of Icons are kept
separate. If you go into south Texas there is a considerable
amount of admixture and it is not clear in many instances
who came from where. Somewhat similar a harsh climate and
survival govern the modus operenda, enemies become mates and
no-one ask that many questions since survival in the end is
what counts (And fair skinned europeans do very poorly in
many outdoor tasks in South Texas).
I'm always amazed when someone tells me a story like that.
"Many still maintain a few traditions", and "fair skinned",
and I'd guess if we tweaked you this would get downright
racist.

Are you in any position to actually _know_ what kinds of
traditions Native Americans maintain? Clearly not, yet here you
are trying to act as if _you_ can define what is or is not
traditional Native culture. That reminds me of someone else
earlier claiming that Bob Lancaster's statement that MIB529
being an Indian understands what being an Indian is, to be a
racist concept. But here you are demonstrating that it isn't.
It is a fact of life that if we ask MIB529 and Bob Lancaster if
Native people had governments, and if they have only retained a
"few" of their traditions, we might get an accurate response.

But from you we get a Eurocentric fantasy that is downright
embarrassing.
--
Floyd L. Davidson <http://web.newsguy.com/floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) ***@barrow.com
Philip Deitiker
2003-07-29 14:22:45 UTC
Permalink
On 28 Jul 2003 23:02:21 -0800, Floyd Davidson
Post by Floyd Davidson
Regardless, you do realize that England prior to the American
Revolution, and afterwards the United States of America, both
recognized Native governments (all of which pre-existed European
contact), and signed treaties with many of them over a period of
some 200+ years.
They recognize them so much they claimed there territory for
their own and when they ran into a little debt, sold some of
it. They recognized it no more than US government recognizes
a school district or municipal government.

[Rest of emotive rant snipped]
Floyd Davidson
2003-07-29 17:52:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Philip Deitiker
On 28 Jul 2003 23:02:21 -0800, Floyd Davidson
Post by Floyd Davidson
Regardless, you do realize that England prior to the American
Revolution, and afterwards the United States of America, both
recognized Native governments (all of which pre-existed European
contact), and signed treaties with many of them over a period of
some 200+ years.
They recognize them so much they claimed there territory for
their own and when they ran into a little debt, sold some of
it. They recognized it no more than US government recognizes
a school district or municipal government.
Oh, I see... the biggest guns are a measure of who actually
has a *government*! Now that is the most interesting definition
you've come up with yet.

How did England get their "government" status back after the
colonists whipped them in the American Revolution? Oh, wait,
that must have been what the war of 1812 was all about! But
wait again, how did the US get its government status back after
1812, or did they just have no government until the Civil War?

Boy, you've developed a whole new view of history with that one!
Or does that only apply to countries filled with non-White
citizens?
Post by Philip Deitiker
[Rest of emotive rant snipped]
I'll admit a bit of emotion at your responses. I haven't
had so many good laughs in a long time Philip.
--
Floyd L. Davidson <http://web.newsguy.com/floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) ***@barrow.com
Philip Deitiker
2003-07-29 20:14:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Philip Deitiker
On 28 Jul 2003 23:02:21 -0800, Floyd Davidson
Post by Floyd Davidson
Regardless, you do realize that England prior to the American
Revolution, and afterwards the United States of America, both
recognized Native governments (all of which pre-existed European
contact), and signed treaties with many of them over a period of
some 200+ years.
They recognize them so much they claimed there territory for
their own and when they ran into a little debt, sold some of
it. They recognized it no more than US government recognizes
a school district or municipal government.
[Rest of emotive rant snipped]
Not true. Check with a competent historian.
In the meantime: check the treaty provisions in the US Constitution
concerning Indian tribes. Check out the Indian Treaty Room in the
White House.
Now, yes, in up till 1840's, no.
However, check out the various treaty based court cases, or just step
into an Indian casino, and you'll see you are dealing with an entity
with more power than a school district or municipal government. Some
governors found that out the hard way.
Now, yes, 50-100 years ago they would snatch the children
out in order to gringo-lize them.
Floyd Davidson
2003-07-29 22:38:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Philip Deitiker
Post by Philip Deitiker
Post by Floyd Davidson
Regardless, you do realize that England prior to the American
Revolution, and afterwards the United States of America, both
recognized Native governments (all of which pre-existed European
contact), and signed treaties with many of them over a period of
some 200+ years.
They recognize them so much they claimed there territory for
their own and when they ran into a little debt, sold some of
it. They recognized it no more than US government recognizes
a school district or municipal government.
[Rest of emotive rant snipped]
Not true. Check with a competent historian.
In the meantime: check the treaty provisions in the US Constitution
concerning Indian tribes. Check out the Indian Treaty Room in the
White House.
Now, yes, in up till 1840's, no.
You didn't take Bob's excellent advice and check with a
*competent* historian, and as a result you've got it backwards,
and you are off on the date by many decades.

The US Government recognized sovereign Indian nations in the
Constitution as it was originally written and ratified, and that
has never been change. The US negotiated hundreds of treaties
with Indians until 1871, when Congress (essentially because too
much foreign aid was going to Indians, as they saw it) passed an
act forbidding the President to engage in treaties with Indian
Nations.

The treaties that previously existed are like all US treaties
and unless specifically abrogated by Congress are still a part
of US Law and are followed by the courts. In recent times, for
example, in the Pacific Northwest treaties signed in the 1850's
and 1860's with Klamath, Makah, and other tribes have been
invoked in law suits over everything from fish, to water, to
whales and land and gambling.

The United States recognizes some 554 Indian nations today, and
of those there are 226 in Alaska. These nations, each in their
own way and each distinctly different from the others, operate
on a government-to-government basis with the US Federal
government and with the State and local governments as needed.
--
Floyd L. Davidson <http://web.newsguy.com/floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) ***@barrow.com
tkavanagh
2003-07-30 00:18:18 UTC
Permalink
Floyd Davidson wrote:

<snip>
Post by Floyd Davidson
The US negotiated hundreds of treaties
with Indians until 1871, when Congress (essentially because too
much foreign aid was going to Indians, as they saw it) passed an
act forbidding the President to engage in treaties with Indian
Nations.
FWIW, to quote Robert M. Kvasnicka, "United States Indian Treaties and
Agreements", in Vol. 4., _History of Indian-White Relations_ of the
Smithsonian's _Handbook of North American Indians_, p. 197,

"In 1869, Commissioner of Indian Affairs Ely S. Parker, himself a
Seneca, urged that the treaty system be abandoned as it fostered
unrealistic ideas of nationalism among the tribes. He argued that that
the tribes could not be considered sovereign nations on an equal basis
with the United States because they did not have organizations capable
of enforcing compliance with their treaty obligations (Cohen [Handbook
of Federal Indian Law]:17-18). This philosophical change, when combined
with the House of Representatives' growing dissatisfaction at being
excluded from the management of Indian affairs, culminated in the Act of
March 3, 1871 (16 US Stat. 544, 566), forbidding further recognition of
Indian tribes as nations or independent powers and prohibiting the
negotiation of treaties with them. The act did not abrogate exiting
treaties (Cohen (HFIN]:66."

tk
Floyd Davidson
2003-07-30 06:17:59 UTC
Permalink
{top postings repositioned}
That was not a top posted comment. Shame on you.
Post by Daryl Krupa
<snip>
Post by Floyd Davidson
The US negotiated hundreds of treaties
with Indians until 1871, when Congress (essentially because too
much foreign aid was going to Indians, as they saw it) passed an
act forbidding the President to engage in treaties with Indian
Nations.
FWIW, to quote Robert M. Kvasnicka, "United States Indian Treaties and
Agreements", in Vol. 4., _History of Indian-White Relations_ of the
Smithsonian's _Handbook of North American Indians_, p. 197,
Probably not worth much, but it is very interesting.
Your reasons for the 'not worth much' evaluation?
You moved my comments on the reasons, and then ask why!
*Why?*

The interesting part, which you and I appear to agree on,
doesn't pertain to the thread that was being discussed. As a
separate thread, however, yes it is *very* interesting to see
your particular commentary which I happen to highly value.
Post by Daryl Krupa
"In 1869, Commissioner of Indian Affairs Ely S. Parker, himself a
Seneca, urged that the treaty system be abandoned as it fostered
unrealistic ideas of nationalism among the tribes. He argued that that
the tribes could not be considered sovereign nations on an equal basis
with the United States because they did not have organizations capable
of enforcing compliance with their treaty obligations (Cohen [Handbook
of Federal Indian Law]:17-18). This philosophical change, when combined
with the House of Representatives' growing dissatisfaction at being
excluded from the management of Indian affairs, culminated in the Act of
March 3, 1871 (16 US Stat. 544, 566), forbidding further recognition of
Indian tribes as nations or independent powers and prohibiting the
negotiation of treaties with them. The act did not abrogate exiting
treaties (Cohen (HFIN]:66."
It supports the point being made that treaties existed before
1871, that they had the force of law, and that the United States
recognized Indian governments as sovereign both before and after
1871. It also verifies my statement (not included in the
context above) indicating that those treaties remain in effect
unless specifically abrogated by an act of Congress.
Yes. As I said, FWIW.
See, even you agree that the above was related to the "FWIW",
not to the "Ely S. Parker ... urged".

Neither my statement nor your response has much to do with the
material you've positioned directly above it. It has to do with
the original "FWIW", which is why I put it there and not here.
Reformatting has done nothing but increase the proximal distance
between comments that were directed at the part we apparently
both think is interesting.

No doubt that distance is not difficult for you to deal with, as
perhaps you commonly read printed material that is not directed
at a Usenet audience. (That's a subtle way to say your reading
skills are above average here.) But if we put a screen's
distance between statements posted to Usenet, we can *bet* that
it will be misunderstood by many. Actually, just posting an
article longer than one screenful is asking to be misunderstood
on Usenet (and here I am filling up three or four of them before
we even get to the interesting stuff!).
The only contention seems to be that the quote of Ely S. Parker
appears to suggest a different reason than the one I provided
for Congressional action in 1871 to prevent further treaty
negotiations with Indians by the executive branch of the US
Federal government.
My comments were not posted as contention per se, but merely noted the
the immediate antecedent to the HNAI discussion of the Act of March 3,
1871.
Just think, if it hadn't been in contention with what I said,
your whole article would have just be a "yeah, me too". It
wasn't. Why deny it? It's okay if you disagree with me (shit,
we disagree on all kinds of wonderful things).
I don't see that as a point which actually
pertains to the thread, but it is interesting and can be
discussed. In fact, the two descriptions probably describe the
same concept, merely from different angles. I don't think there
is a real conflict.
Nor do I, but there is probably a good legal paper to be found in
examining Parker's views on Indian sovereignty.
Ouch. Obviously I'm less likely to call that a "good" thing.
At least not in today's world, where sovereignty is what many
now see as something to fight to regain. I would be interested
to know, though, exactly what was meant by "they did not have
organizations capable of enforcing compliance with their treaty
obligations". I'm assuming that means they didn't have either
the legal muscle or the military might to insist that the US
honor a treaty, and therefore agreeing to a treaty that was
virtually guaranteed to be abused, was self abuse.

That certainly is a significant point. The military (or even
just police) option was clearly never going to be productive,
and the only two things left were to beg for mercy from the
American public and it's political machine, and/or develop a
legal base that could lobby Congress and followup with court
action.

But here we are, 132 years later, and the legal machinery
necessary to make sovereignty a viable cause is just now
beginning to be felt. Would Native people have been better off
if assimilation had not been brought to the front in 1871? Or
did that actually hasten the day when justice might actually be
the norm? Sounds like a choice between a rock and a hard place
to me...
I personally would not be likely to credit Robert M. Kvasnicka
greatly, but his reference is to Cohen, and Cohen is certainly
an (okay, he is _the_) authoritative source for Indian Law.
OTOH, I do have questions/problems about some of his views. He was a
fairly radical liberal, like Collier, given the times. Somewhere in the
Well, yes. But of course I'm a fairly liberal fellow in my times,
so I really like a lot of what the two of them thought, given the
times in which the were dealing with it. Pretty forward thinking,
IMHO. I just don't think they were able to go far enough.
HFIL is a short paragraph taken from an article by Collier, IIRC, which
decried "factionalism" as detrimental to the development of Indian
political organization. This paragraph pre-supposed that social and
political harmony was the norm in aboriginal Indian societies. While I
do not advocate, in contrast, a Hobbesian "warre" of all against all, I
do believe, and I think I can show in at least Comanche politics in the
last two hundred years, several dimensions of political dispute. The
various studies of 'factionalism' in American anthropology usually take
homeostasis as the norm, and I wonder about that.
I don't see any of that as a high point in American
anthropology... Nor is it a high point in the greatness of the
American political system either.

I often see some of the same sentiments expressed by people that
I consider to be out and out racists. They zero in on almost
any kind of "factionalism" within the tribal and inter-tribal
Alaska Native organizations, insist that if all of them cannot
somehow be in total harmony (and that harmony has to be from
*their* perspective, not the perspective of Native people), then
Natives are not "ready" for whatever it is that sovereignty
would allow them to do that someone wants to deny them the right
to do.

Hence I am very leery of injecting a single quote without the
temporal context into a discussion with someone such as Philip
whatever his name was, who will apply it to today's context,
where it is meaningless or even (as that particular one is)
probably exactly opposed to what I expect the person might have
been inclined to say in today's world.
My comment was based on this particular reference (which
Motivated by Congressional concern over the amount
of foreign aid the President had been agreeing to in
the Indian treaties, independent treaties with
Indians were abolished in 1871. The act specifically
read "No Indian nation or tribe within the territory
of the United Stated shall be acknowledged or
recognized as an independent nation, tribe or power
within whom the United States may contract by
treaty; but no obligation of any treaty lawfully
made...prior to March 3, eighteen hundred and
seventy-one shall be hereby invalidated or impaired
(Washburn, 1971, p. 95).
<http://members.tripod.com/~nezperce/treaties.htm>
The URL is worth reading, as the above conclusion is well
supported by several paragraphs of discussion that preceeds it.
This cited URL does not provide a specific citation for "Washburn 1971";
is this perhaps to _Red Man's Land, White Man's Law_ (Washburn 1971)
[And BTW, I did know Washburn on a passing basis when I worked at the
Handbook, and he was something of a twit. He once fell asleep at an
editorial meeting of the Handbook staff.]
Sheesh, is that bad? ;-)

I was wondering something when I read that, and perhaps you can
answer it for me. Is the reference to Washburn only for the
quote given, or does it cover the entire concept? I was
assuming that only the quote came from Washburn, and that the
concept was not based on his work alone.
--
Floyd L. Davidson <http://web.newsguy.com/floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) ***@barrow.com
tkavanagh
2003-08-01 04:05:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Floyd Davidson
{top postings repositioned}
That was not a top posted comment. Shame on you.
Perhaps 'top posting' was the wrong term; it was late for me, and
mayhaps I misunderstood of the first part of the posting.
Post by Floyd Davidson
Post by Daryl Krupa
<snip>
Post by Floyd Davidson
The US negotiated hundreds of treaties
with Indians until 1871, when Congress (essentially because too
much foreign aid was going to Indians, as they saw it) passed an
act forbidding the President to engage in treaties with Indian
Nations.
FWIW, to quote Robert M. Kvasnicka, "United States Indian Treaties and
Agreements", in Vol. 4., _History of Indian-White Relations_ of the
Smithsonian's _Handbook of North American Indians_, p. 197,
Probably not worth much, but it is very interesting.
Your reasons for the 'not worth much' evaluation?
You moved my comments on the reasons, and then ask why!
*Why?*
As I initially read your reply, you seemed to be casting aspersions on
Kvasnicka, and I wondered why that might be so.
Post by Floyd Davidson
The interesting part, which you and I appear to agree on,
doesn't pertain to the thread that was being discussed. As a
separate thread, however, yes it is *very* interesting to see
your particular commentary which I happen to highly value.
Post by Daryl Krupa
"In 1869, Commissioner of Indian Affairs Ely S. Parker, himself a
Seneca, urged that the treaty system be abandoned as it fostered
unrealistic ideas of nationalism among the tribes. He argued that that
the tribes could not be considered sovereign nations on an equal basis
with the United States because they did not have organizations capable
of enforcing compliance with their treaty obligations (Cohen [Handbook
of Federal Indian Law]:17-18). This philosophical change, when combined
with the House of Representatives' growing dissatisfaction at being
excluded from the management of Indian affairs, culminated in the Act of
March 3, 1871 (16 US Stat. 544, 566), forbidding further recognition of
Indian tribes as nations or independent powers and prohibiting the
negotiation of treaties with them. The act did not abrogate exiting
treaties (Cohen (HFIN]:66."
It supports the point being made that treaties existed before
1871, that they had the force of law, and that the United States
recognized Indian governments as sovereign both before and after
1871. It also verifies my statement (not included in the
context above) indicating that those treaties remain in effect
unless specifically abrogated by an act of Congress.
seemed to fit here rather than with my assumption of a critique of
Kvasnicka. If I was mistaken, my apologies.
Post by Floyd Davidson
Yes. As I said, FWIW.
See, even you agree that the above was related to the "FWIW",
not to the "Ely S. Parker ... urged".
Neither my statement nor your response has much to do with the
material you've positioned directly above it. It has to do with
the original "FWIW", which is why I put it there and not here.
Reformatting has done nothing but increase the proximal distance
between comments that were directed at the part we apparently
both think is interesting.
No doubt that distance is not difficult for you to deal with, as
perhaps you commonly read printed material that is not directed
at a Usenet audience. (That's a subtle way to say your reading
skills are above average here.) But if we put a screen's
distance between statements posted to Usenet, we can *bet* that
it will be misunderstood by many. Actually, just posting an
article longer than one screenful is asking to be misunderstood
on Usenet (and here I am filling up three or four of them before
we even get to the interesting stuff!).
The only contention seems to be that the quote of Ely S. Parker
appears to suggest a different reason than the one I provided
for Congressional action in 1871 to prevent further treaty
negotiations with Indians by the executive branch of the US
Federal government.
My comments were not posted as contention per se, but merely noted the
the immediate antecedent to the HNAI discussion of the Act of March 3,
1871.
Just think, if it hadn't been in contention with what I said,
your whole article would have just be a "yeah, me too". It
wasn't. Why deny it? It's okay if you disagree with me (shit,
we disagree on all kinds of wonderful things).
Again, the above quote from me refers to the ELP citation; for the rest,
I should have stated something to the effect that here is a specific
secondary source, from which one might trace a primary source ;-) for
the cessation of treaty-making authority in 1871.
Post by Floyd Davidson
I don't see that as a point which actually
pertains to the thread, but it is interesting and can be
discussed. In fact, the two descriptions probably describe the
same concept, merely from different angles. I don't think there
is a real conflict.
Nor do I, but there is probably a good legal paper to be found in
examining Parker's views on Indian sovereignty.
Ouch. Obviously I'm less likely to call that a "good" thing.
Good in the historical/scholarly sense, not necessarily in the
contemporary political sense. ;-)
Post by Floyd Davidson
At least not in today's world, where sovereignty is what many
now see as something to fight to regain. I would be interested
to know, though, exactly what was meant by "they did not have
organizations capable of enforcing compliance with their treaty
obligations". I'm assuming that means they didn't have either
the legal muscle or the military might to insist that the US
honor a treaty, and therefore agreeing to a treaty that was
virtually guaranteed to be abused, was self abuse.
That certainly is a significant point. The military (or even
just police) option was clearly never going to be productive,
and the only two things left were to beg for mercy from the
American public and it's political machine, and/or develop a
legal base that could lobby Congress and followup with court
action.
In re the Parker quote, I believe that he was *not* referring to a lack
of "legal muscle or the military might to insist that the US honor a
treaty," although there are many statements in the historical record of
appeals to what may be called the "moral duty" of the US to honor its
own treaty commitments; rather I think it is from the other way: it
refers to the general lack of public *police* powers, in the
Euro-/Western sense, amongst the Nations. That is, as with the Comanche,
as I understand them historically, there was a distinction between the
private and domestic arena, in which some disputes were left to the
families to resolve, and the ore public and political arena, and were
subject to public discussion and resolution. But traditionally, while
there were cultural practices for dealing with the domestic disputes
(including nose-cutting and wife-killing), there were few such remedies
for dealing with the more public and political disputes (as when the
parties in a wife-abduction case refused compensation, resulting in
feud; hunt police), and particularly international disputes. And there
was often a conflict between other cultural institutions, as when social
status was based on a war record, but the chiefs have promised to try to
stop raiding.
Post by Floyd Davidson
But here we are, 132 years later, and the legal machinery
necessary to make sovereignty a viable cause is just now
beginning to be felt. Would Native people have been better off
if assimilation had not been brought to the front in 1871? Or
did that actually hasten the day when justice might actually be
the norm? Sounds like a choice between a rock and a hard place
to me...
I personally would not be likely to credit Robert M. Kvasnicka
greatly,
He was my source at hand. But again, any reason for not crediting him?
Post by Floyd Davidson
but his reference is to Cohen, and Cohen is certainly
an (okay, he is _the_) authoritative source for Indian Law.
OTOH, I do have questions/problems about some of his views. He was a
fairly radical liberal, like Collier, given the times. Somewhere in the
Well, yes. But of course I'm a fairly liberal fellow in my times,
so I really like a lot of what the two of them thought, given the
times in which the were dealing with it. Pretty forward thinking,
IMHO. I just don't think they were able to go far enough.
HFIL is a short paragraph taken from an article by Collier, IIRC, which
decried "factionalism" as detrimental to the development of Indian
political organization. This paragraph pre-supposed that social and
political harmony was the norm in aboriginal Indian societies. While I
do not advocate, in contrast, a Hobbesian "warre" of all against all, I
do believe, and I think I can show in at least Comanche politics in the
last two hundred years, several dimensions of political dispute. The
various studies of 'factionalism' in American anthropology usually take
homeostasis as the norm, and I wonder about that.
I don't see any of that as a high point in American
anthropology... Nor is it a high point in the greatness of the
American political system either.
Well, perhaps a mid-point in American political anthropology (sorta like
the studies of acculturation).
Post by Floyd Davidson
I often see some of the same sentiments expressed by people that
I consider to be out and out racists. They zero in on almost
any kind of "factionalism" within the tribal and inter-tribal
Alaska Native organizations, insist that if all of them cannot
somehow be in total harmony (and that harmony has to be from
*their* perspective, not the perspective of Native people), then
Natives are not "ready" for whatever it is that sovereignty
would allow them to do that someone wants to deny them the right
to do.
Well, that is what I have been trying to investigate among the
Comanches: what is the basis/source of the continuing political
disputes; my question include, what is the historical trajectory of
those disputes; do the anthropological "factionalism" theories of the
1960s contribute anything to the understanding of those disputes? etc.
etc.
Post by Floyd Davidson
Hence I am very leery of injecting a single quote without the
temporal context into a discussion with someone such as Philip
whatever his name was, who will apply it to today's context,
where it is meaningless or even (as that particular one is)
probably exactly opposed to what I expect the person might have
been inclined to say in today's world.
My comment was based on this particular reference (which
Motivated by Congressional concern over the amount
of foreign aid the President had been agreeing to in
the Indian treaties, independent treaties with
Indians were abolished in 1871. The act specifically
read "No Indian nation or tribe within the territory
of the United Stated shall be acknowledged or
recognized as an independent nation, tribe or power
within whom the United States may contract by
treaty; but no obligation of any treaty lawfully
made...prior to March 3, eighteen hundred and
seventy-one shall be hereby invalidated or impaired
(Washburn, 1971, p. 95).
<http://members.tripod.com/~nezperce/treaties.htm>
The URL is worth reading, as the above conclusion is well
supported by several paragraphs of discussion that preceeds it.
This cited URL does not provide a specific citation for "Washburn 1971";
is this perhaps to _Red Man's Land, White Man's Law_ (Washburn 1971)
[And BTW, I did know Washburn on a passing basis when I worked at the
Handbook, and he was something of a twit. He once fell asleep at an
editorial meeting of the Handbook staff.]
Sheesh, is that bad? ;-)
When the meeting about the contents of the History volume of the HNAI,
yes.
Post by Floyd Davidson
I was wondering something when I read that, and perhaps you can
answer it for me. Is the reference to Washburn only for the
quote given, or does it cover the entire concept? I was
assuming that only the quote came from Washburn, and that the
concept was not based on his work alone.
Don't know. I will check

tk
Floyd Davidson
2003-08-02 05:51:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by tkavanagh
Post by Floyd Davidson
That was not a top posted comment. Shame on you.
Perhaps 'top posting' was the wrong term; it was late for me, and
mayhaps I misunderstood of the first part of the posting.
I'm just razzing you. It probably should have been made
clearer exactly what I was referencing there, and then you
wouldn't have moved it.
Post by tkavanagh
As I initially read your reply, you seemed to be casting aspersions on
Kvasnicka, and I wondered why that might be so.
Well, put it this way... If you tell me he is a good source,
I'm willing to accept that based solely on _your_ integrity. I
don't know him and probably am not going to do the research
necessary to overcome my automatic skepticism (about anyone who
publishes about Native Americans).
Post by tkavanagh
Post by Floyd Davidson
Just think, if it hadn't been in contention with what I said,
your whole article would have just be a "yeah, me too". It
wasn't. Why deny it? It's okay if you disagree with me (shit,
we disagree on all kinds of wonderful things).
Again, the above quote from me refers to the ELP citation; for the rest,
I should have stated something to the effect that here is a specific
secondary source, from which one might trace a primary source ;-) for
the cessation of treaty-making authority in 1871.
There are no doubt many. I would think researching the
Congressional records would be necessary if someone wanted to
write the definitive thesis based on original sources.

I'm just writing Usenet articles though. :-)

So I think referencing a document that discusses it, rather than
period quotes about it by what we might or might not assume are
significant players, is probably better. Not that what you
posted was not significantly interesting as an addition to the
conversation. I was really happy to see that posted. I just
don't think it is more conclusive or definitive than what I
posted, and may be less so. It's just an interesting point,
worth knowing about.
Post by tkavanagh
Post by Floyd Davidson
Nor do I, but there is probably a good legal paper to be found in
examining Parker's views on Indian sovereignty.
Ouch. Obviously I'm less likely to call that a "good" thing.
Good in the historical/scholarly sense, not necessarily in the
contemporary political sense. ;-)
Yes. I've come to realize that on many things I see you write
where I differ with you, the difference is often centered
around exactly that point. You are, after all, a professional
scholar! I am most certainly not, and I am generally most
interested in history as it relates to current politics.
Post by tkavanagh
Post by Floyd Davidson
At least not in today's world, where sovereignty is what many
now see as something to fight to regain. I would be interested
to know, though, exactly what was meant by "they did not have
organizations capable of enforcing compliance with their treaty
obligations". I'm assuming that means they didn't have either
the legal muscle or the military might to insist that the US
honor a treaty, and therefore agreeing to a treaty that was
virtually guaranteed to be abused, was self abuse.
That certainly is a significant point. The military (or even
just police) option was clearly never going to be productive,
and the only two things left were to beg for mercy from the
American public and it's political machine, and/or develop a
legal base that could lobby Congress and followup with court
action.
In re the Parker quote, I believe that he was *not* referring to a lack
of "legal muscle or the military might to insist that the US honor a
treaty," although there are many statements in the historical record of
appeals to what may be called the "moral duty" of the US to honor its
own treaty commitments; rather I think it is from the other way: it
refers to the general lack of public *police* powers, in the
Euro-/Western sense, amongst the Nations.
You think he felt then that the reason Indian treaties were
regularly violated by the US was because Indians did not follow
them close enough? Or at least that in the case of his
particular people, that might be true?

I would certainly buy that from anyone early in the 1800's or
from a man whose education was local to his tribe, and had
little "white" education or background in the history of the US.
I'm not sure what exposure Parker had, so I'm not really in any
position to defend one view or the other.
Post by tkavanagh
That is, as with the Comanche,
as I understand them historically, there was a distinction between the
private and domestic arena, in which some disputes were left to the
families to resolve, and the ore public and political arena, and were
subject to public discussion and resolution. But traditionally, while
there were cultural practices for dealing with the domestic disputes
(including nose-cutting and wife-killing), there were few such remedies
for dealing with the more public and political disputes (as when the
parties in a wife-abduction case refused compensation, resulting in
feud; hunt police), and particularly international disputes. And there
was often a conflict between other cultural institutions, as when social
status was based on a war record, but the chiefs have promised to try to
stop raiding.
And I'd agree that with that background, he might well have been
thinking as you say. He also might have been, by that time, well
aware that no Indian nation had ever found that a treaty with the
US saved them or anything they owned if it became the target of
the American public's desire (for land, gold, or whatever).

We'd need to know more about what else he might have said.
Post by tkavanagh
Post by Floyd Davidson
But here we are, 132 years later, and the legal machinery
necessary to make sovereignty a viable cause is just now
beginning to be felt. Would Native people have been better off
if assimilation had not been brought to the front in 1871? Or
did that actually hasten the day when justice might actually be
the norm? Sounds like a choice between a rock and a hard place
to me...
I personally would not be likely to credit Robert M. Kvasnicka
greatly,
He was my source at hand. But again, any reason for not crediting him?
I'm just not as aware of the credentials of various scholars as
you are. And I have long ago learned to be exceedingly
skeptical.
Post by tkavanagh
Post by Floyd Davidson
I often see some of the same sentiments expressed by people that
I consider to be out and out racists. They zero in on almost
any kind of "factionalism" within the tribal and inter-tribal
Alaska Native organizations, insist that if all of them cannot
somehow be in total harmony (and that harmony has to be from
*their* perspective, not the perspective of Native people), then
Natives are not "ready" for whatever it is that sovereignty
would allow them to do that someone wants to deny them the right
to do.
Well, that is what I have been trying to investigate among the
Comanches: what is the basis/source of the continuing political
disputes; my question include, what is the historical trajectory of
those disputes; do the anthropological "factionalism" theories of the
1960s contribute anything to the understanding of those disputes? etc.
etc.
An interesting subject to study, though maybe also a very
sensitive one?

The educational system of the 50's and 60's was of course the
ultimate development of the school system as a tool for
assimilation, and it wasn't totally ineffective. What I've
witnessed here in Alaska as the infra-structure mandated by
ANCSA has developed, suggests that, in my opinion, there was
initially a lot of "the right way is the way I was taught" and
now there is a lot of "the right way is the way that makes
money", both of which are based on success in Western culture.

Originally there was friction about that based almost totally on
no understanding of what the difference was between Western and
traditional cultures, or what effect it would have, but only on
"my way is the right way" for both sides. Since then many of
the traditionalists have become formally educated and are
applying Western science to the study of traditional culture
looking for ways to both retain it in the infrastructure, and to
teach it to coming generations. If they succeed, that is a very
productive mixing of the two. But that success is still not
apparent.

And on the other hand, Alaska Natives were the last of all
Native American cultures to be exposed to significant Western
influence (that is particularly true of Inupiat and Yupik Eskimo
cultures). Just how able they will be, over say 500 years, to
maintain their culture is still far far down the road. When
compared, for example, to the Pueblo people who have literally
had exposure for 500 years and yet do maintain a traditional
culture, we just don't yet know how any of the Alaska people who
fare.

Thank you for the interesting commentary.
--
Floyd L. Davidson <http://web.newsguy.com/floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) ***@barrow.com
tkavanagh
2003-08-04 01:57:27 UTC
Permalink
Floyd Davidson wrote:
<snip>
Post by Floyd Davidson
Post by tkavanagh
Well, that is what I have been trying to investigate among the
Comanches: what is the basis/source of the continuing political
disputes; my question include, what is the historical trajectory of
those disputes; do the anthropological "factionalism" theories of the
1960s contribute anything to the understanding of those disputes? etc.
etc.
An interesting subject to study, though maybe also a very
sensitive one?
Very much so, indeed; but it is one that I was *asked* to investigate by
a group of Comanche elders who thought that my then focus on the pow-wow
was superficial to their needs.

But they could not provide funding for the research, and I did not
have/do not have/ institutional funding for the research (all of my
doctoral archival research was essentially funded by my mother from her
pension, all of the latter by my own funds) so it has stretched out, for
20+ years, and is still barely begun; I have done the pre-reservation
period, but the reservation, and post-reservation periods remain
incomplete.
Post by Floyd Davidson
Thank you for the interesting commentary.
You are most welcome.

tk
Seppo Renfors
2003-08-02 01:37:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Daryl Krupa
<snip>
Post by Floyd Davidson
The US negotiated hundreds of treaties
with Indians until 1871, when Congress (essentially because too
much foreign aid was going to Indians, as they saw it) passed an
act forbidding the President to engage in treaties with Indian
Nations.
FWIW, to quote Robert M. Kvasnicka, "United States Indian Treaties and
Agreements", in Vol. 4., _History of Indian-White Relations_ of the
Smithsonian's _Handbook of North American Indians_, p. 197,
"In 1869, Commissioner of Indian Affairs Ely S. Parker, himself a
Seneca, urged that the treaty system be abandoned as it fostered
unrealistic ideas of nationalism among the tribes. He argued that that
the tribes could not be considered sovereign nations on an equal basis
with the United States because they did not have organizations capable
of enforcing compliance with their treaty obligations (Cohen [Handbook
of Federal Indian Law]:17-18). This philosophical change, when combined
with the House of Representatives' growing dissatisfaction at being
excluded from the management of Indian affairs, culminated in the Act of
March 3, 1871 (16 US Stat. 544, 566), forbidding further recognition of
Indian tribes as nations or independent powers and prohibiting the
negotiation of treaties with them. The act did not abrogate exiting
treaties (Cohen (HFIN]:66."
What a poor choice of words used "nationalism among the tribes" - it
should be better as "nationhood among the tribes". That IS what the
actual intent was at the time. The treaties did provide areas
recognising Indian Nations - not only sovereignty but actual radical
title to the land. No "act" of parliament of what amounts to a
"foreign nation" can actually alter such status. I know the Yank
government are (and always have been) rather big headed and think that
something "declared" by the US parliament has LEGAL effect outside the
USA - Yeah right.... - like as if the US could say "Canada isn't to be
recognised as an independent power" and bingo - it is US territory...
Alas, that IS exactly what the Yanks did with the Indian Nations. The
legality or otherwise was of NO interest to the Yank government - not
much has changes since then either.

However illegal as it was, it has now been changed by usage - and
"conquest" to have removed radical title from Indian nations. WHEN
that occurred is much later than most would believe.
--
SIR - Philosopher unauthorised
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The one who is educated from the wrong books is not educated, he is
misled.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Floyd Davidson
2003-08-02 03:54:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Seppo Renfors
However illegal as it was, it has now been changed by usage - and
"conquest" to have removed radical title from Indian nations. WHEN
that occurred is much later than most would believe.
Most of them today don't seem to think it has happened yet.

And if it was illegal, then it didn't.
--
Floyd L. Davidson <http://web.newsguy.com/floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) ***@barrow.com
Seppo Renfors
2003-08-03 06:22:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Floyd Davidson
Post by Seppo Renfors
However illegal as it was, it has now been changed by usage - and
"conquest" to have removed radical title from Indian nations. WHEN
that occurred is much later than most would believe.
Most of them today don't seem to think it has happened yet.
To whom are you referring to as "them"?
Post by Floyd Davidson
And if it was illegal, then it didn't.
Oh yes it did.
--
SIR - Philosopher unauthorised
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The one who is educated from the wrong books is not educated, he is
misled.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Seppo Renfors
2003-08-02 00:19:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Floyd Davidson
Post by Philip Deitiker
On 28 Jul 2003 15:49:30 -0800, Floyd Davidson
From the point of veiw to
the evolvers and refiners of governments, unless you make a
public written declaration that you are a government, you
don't exist.
That is an absurd statement which is absolutely not true, unless
of course you are willing to accept that in fact *every*
government that takes on *any* duty of a government, has by
doing so inherently made exactly that kind of a declaration.
(I'm sure what *you* actually meant was that they need to apply
to the appropriate Western authorities for approval. What a
ridiculous concept that is!)
Regardless, you do realize that England prior to the American
Revolution, and afterwards the United States of America, both
recognized Native governments (all of which pre-existed European
contact), and signed treaties with many of them over a period of
some 200+ years. Alaska Native people were not part of that
only because neither England nor the United States had any
significant dealings with Alaska Native people prior to 1867, by
which time the US had chosen not to engage in further treaties
with Native nations.
The Russian government recognized, and dealt with many Alaska
Native governments; though since the Eskimos had a system that
the Russians could not even see, the Russians were unaware of
actually dealing on government to government basis (which they
wanted to, and in fact actually did unawares). The Russians
stayed away from Eskimo people because they were unable to
figure out _who_ was the government. (See the writings of
Lt. Zagoskin.) (Like you, they had specific expectations about
government, and failing to see a "head man" with an army at his
side, they simply couldn't see a "government". It never
occurred to them that governance did not mean forced
governance.)
Hence, given the history of the United States, England, and
Russia dealing directly with and recognizing the very
governments that you say didn't exist by definition, we have an
appropriate perspective on your confused claims.
Your definitions are bogus.
So are yours! Alaska was Russian territory and the government to "deal
with" was the RUSSIAN government. Seward bought the place from the
Russians in 1867 for 7.2 million (about two cents an acre). There was
no "treaties" to be made with any other government - IF such existed.
I note, you have been expending a lot of hot air claiming "native
government", but never said what it was or how it worked, who were the
leaders... etc. etc. The treaty can be read here:

http://www.bartleby.com/43/43.html

(Note, the opening comment in [] is a lot of BULL)

The statement "neither England nor the United States had any
significant dealings with Alaska Native people prior to 1867" is
facetious. OF COURSE NOT, as it belonged to the RUSSIANS and it was
none of their business till after the purchase.

Your further statement "by which time the US had chosen not to engage
in further treaties with Native nations." - is an obvious fiction.
Just take a look at Alaska and how the land was divided among the
Native people into Corporations. I refer you to the Alaska Native
Claims Settlement Act of 1971. It created twelve Native owned regional
corporations, granted 962 million US dollars in seed money, and
authorized the Native corporations to select 44 million acres of the
104 million acres of federal lands Alaska was allowed to select for
its economic base in 1952 when it was granted Statehood. You don't
think the ANCSA came to be without the Natives pushing for it do you,
hmmm?

Oh and for Native Governments see these:
http://thorpe.ou.edu/constitution/huslia/index.html
http://thorpe.ou.edu/constitution/koyukuk/index.html
http://www.ou.edu/okgov/NAL/Const/Cheyenne-Arapaho.html

There is quite an amount of these around.

But there are older treaties as well eg, Treaty with the APACHE,
CHEYENNE, and ARAPAHO, Ratified May 22, 1866, Proclaimed May 26, 1866.

I have also seen a reference to an Apache Nations treaty that was made
in 1867, but I cannot find the reference any longer. But there is
more...

The Chippewa Indians Treaty Made October 31, 1923
The Mississauga Indians Treaty Made November 15, 1923

...just to name some.
Post by Floyd Davidson
Post by Philip Deitiker
In canada, bout a year ago, yes.
Do a little research and learn ......
....seems like good advise to take!



[..]
--
SIR - Philosopher unauthorised
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The one who is educated from the wrong books is not educated, he is
misled.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Floyd Davidson
2003-08-02 03:33:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Seppo Renfors
Post by Floyd Davidson
Your definitions are bogus.
So are yours! Alaska was Russian territory and the government to "deal
The Russian government recognized the definitions that I'm
using, so it appears your entire statement here is based on
total ignorance of history in Alaska. As we proceed through
your entire response it becomes apparent that you have almost
no understanding of either the previous discussion or of the
facts and history that affect it.

I'm going to give you this one response, and unless your
scholarship improves or you cease making false statements and
start asking good questions, there will not be any further
effort made to respond to whatever continued foolishness you
wish to post.
Post by Seppo Renfors
with" was the RUSSIAN government. Seward bought the place from the
If the only government to deal with was Russia, what about the
Hudson's Bay post at Fort Yukon? What about the little problems
that the Russians had trying to buy land on the Kuskokwim in the
1840's? (They basically left, because nobody would sell them any
land.) What about the wars that the Russians engaged the
Tlingit people in around 1800 in efforts to force the Tlingit
government to authorize sale of land to the Russians? The
*Russians* were dealing with governments in Alaska (including
the US and the British governments, but also with Native
governments). In fact, the Russians dealt with Native
governments all around Alaska, and given their insistence on
legal purchase of land, authorized by the local government, the
mere existence of more than 30 permanent Russian outposts in
Alaska in the 1700's and 1800's is in itself a demonstration
that they did indeed deal with a number of other governments.

And apparently so did the US and the British traders that also
entered Alaska in smaller numbers. (Maybe the numbers should be
kept in mind too. There were never more than 700 Russians in
Alaska at any single time between 1740 and 1867.)
Post by Seppo Renfors
Russians in 1867 for 7.2 million (about two cents an acre). There was
no "treaties" to be made with any other government - IF such existed.
I note, you have been expending a lot of hot air claiming "native
government", but never said what it was or how it worked, who were the
leaders... etc. etc.
Westerners don't keep non-Western history, so of course while we
have dozens of books filled with the names of Zagaskin,
Kolmokov, Cook, Bell, Murray, Davis, Ball and Wickersham.

My guess is you've heard of Cook and have no idea who the others
might even be, so if I also named the likes of (using the
English names that the US Government agencies knew them by)
Alexander, Thomas, Evan, William, Williams, and Charlie, you
know doubt won't know who they are.

In fact, Wickersham, as the agent of the Unites States Federal
government, dealt with all of them on a government to government
basis. Today their governments have even formed a union and
deal with the US daily, as the Tanana Chief's Conference, on a
government to government basis.

If you simply want names to verify that these government existed
and had real people leading them, read Bancroft for those who
dealt with the Russians and Mitchell for those who dealt with
Americans. (See below for references to Bancroft and Mitchell.)

As to how those government worked, you are asking me to provide
you with not just a book, but with hundreds of books. Many of
them have been studied to at least some degree. I would suggest
reading Ann Fienup-Riordan for some wonderful incites into
governance that is very different that westerners know.
Post by Seppo Renfors
http://www.bartleby.com/43/43.html
(Note, the opening comment in [] is a lot of BULL)
How is that "BULL"? It is a *very accurate* assessment.

"[The risk of encroachment by Russia had been one of the causes
which induced President Monroe to give official utterance to
the "Monroe Doctrine." After his statement, Russia ceased from
attempts to increase her influence on the Pacific coast, and
became willing to dispose of Alaska, regarding it as a
possession difficult to defend and of little value. The
territory was formally transferred on Oct. 18, 1867.]:"

That is precisely true. Jeeze, read *any* history book.
Govolin to the Czar that the US was about to take over Alaska,
in roughly 1821. The Czar forbid the US to trade in Alaska,
and Monroe responded with the Monroe Doctrine. In 1824 the
Russians signed agreements with both Britain and the US to
allow access.

What part don't you understand?
Post by Seppo Renfors
The statement "neither England nor the United States had any
significant dealings with Alaska Native people prior to 1867" is
facetious. OF COURSE NOT, as it belonged to the RUSSIANS and it was
none of their business till after the purchase.
You will find, if you ever read any history (I would *highly*
recommend reading Bancroft's "History of Alaska") that there
were a large number of "insignificant", in the context that I
was discussing, interactions. While they were insignificant to
that discussion, the Russians at the time hardly considered them
to be insignificant. But ultimately the Russians came to the
conclusion that they were unprepared to defend their own
sovereignty in Alaska, and that was a major reason to sell what
they owned... before it was just taken away by force.

Regardless, you will find that the Russian actions in Alaska and
on the West coast as far south as Fort Ross in California were
greatly influenced by British and American trading, which the
Russians ineffectively attempted to ban from Alaska, which as
noted above was one of the main reasons for the Monroe Doctrine,
and indeed the Russians backed off immediately.
Post by Seppo Renfors
Your further statement "by which time the US had chosen not to engage
in further treaties with Native nations." - is an obvious fiction.
It was an act passed by Congress in 1871. What is it about
history that prevents you from learning about it?

The purchase was in 1867. There was no civil government
provided by the United States in Alaska for 17 years after the
purchase, and the military presence, which was the only
government, on occasion dwindled down to virtually nothing
(1877). In fact, in 1879 the residents of Sitka request and
receive assistance from a British war ship to restore local
order!

In 1871 Congress passed the act forbidding the President from
treating with Native nations, and you will not find a single US
Treaty with any Native nation after that date.

Hence, your objection to my statement is ludicrous.
Post by Seppo Renfors
Just take a look at Alaska and how the land was divided among the
Native people into Corporations. I refer you to the Alaska Native
Claims Settlement Act of 1971. It created twelve Native owned regional
corporations, granted 962 million US dollars in seed money, and
authorized the Native corporations to select 44 million acres of the
104 million acres of federal lands Alaska was allowed to select for
its economic base in 1952 when it was granted Statehood. You don't
think the ANCSA came to be without the Natives pushing for it do you,
hmmm?
That is not a treaty. Certainly Natives were "pushing", but the
facts are that they had no authority to turn it down either. It
was not an "agreement" between two parties.

It was payment for land taken previously, as was ruled necessary
by the US Supreme Court back in the 1920's. See "Sold American:
The Story of Alaska Natives and Their Land 1867-1959" by Donald
Craig Mitchell, or "Alaska Natives and American Laws" by David
S. Case. (Mitchell and Case are the two attorneys most connected
with the Native lobbying for ANCSA at the time.
Post by Seppo Renfors
http://thorpe.ou.edu/constitution/huslia/index.html
http://thorpe.ou.edu/constitution/koyukuk/index.html
http://www.ou.edu/okgov/NAL/Const/Cheyenne-Arapaho.html
There is quite an amount of these around.
However, you've missed the entire point of the whole discussion,
as those are *western* forms of government (there are 226
recognized tribal governments in Alaska based on the Indian
Reorganization Act), while the discussion was about what if any
government preceded western governance and definitions.
Post by Seppo Renfors
But there are older treaties as well eg, Treaty with the APACHE,
CHEYENNE, and ARAPAHO, Ratified May 22, 1866, Proclaimed May 26, 1866.
Yes exactly. There are only *older* treaties. You claim that
my statement was "obvious fiction", and then post nothing but
evidence that supports exactly what I said. Please don't try
to lecture on Alaska history until you do some serious study.
Post by Seppo Renfors
I have also seen a reference to an Apache Nations treaty that was made
in 1867, but I cannot find the reference any longer. But there is
more...
The Chippewa Indians Treaty Made October 31, 1923
Between His Majesty the King of England and the Chippewa Indians.
What has that got to due with treaties by the United States?
Post by Seppo Renfors
The Mississauga Indians Treaty Made November 15, 1923
See above, same problem.
Post by Seppo Renfors
...just to name some.
Post by Floyd Davidson
Post by Philip Deitiker
In canada, bout a year ago, yes.
Do a little research and learn ......
....seems like good advise to take!
You are in far worse condition to be discussing this than even
Philip Deitiker, though I'll compliment you on there not being a
single inference of racial bias or Western centricity in your
entire collection of fiction.

--
Floyd L. Davidson <http://web.newsguy.com/floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) ***@barrow.com
Seppo Renfors
2003-08-02 15:33:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Floyd Davidson
Post by Seppo Renfors
Post by Floyd Davidson
Your definitions are bogus.
So are yours! Alaska was Russian territory and the government to "deal
The Russian government recognized the definitions that I'm
using, so it appears your entire statement here is based on
total ignorance of history in Alaska. As we proceed through
your entire response it becomes apparent that you have almost
no understanding of either the previous discussion or of the
facts and history that affect it.
We are using English to communicate with - therefor the "definitions"
of words are those of the language - not those by a nation that
doesn't even use the language. There is one more reality you need to
cope with. All the Native people in North America have lost the "wars"
- be it in a fight, or by doing nothing at all. So whatever control
they have over their own people isn't a as a government of a Nation.
They are ALWAYS subordinate to the national government. All
entitlements to land are now "at the pleasure of the government" - the
National Government that is.
Post by Floyd Davidson
I'm going to give you this one response, and unless your
scholarship improves or you cease making false statements and
start asking good questions, there will not be any further
effort made to respond to whatever continued foolishness you
wish to post.
Oh dear..... citing established facts is "making false statements" -
well if that is indeed so, then there is a vast amount of bias and
prejudice in your views, and "one response" is most likely more than
required if such notions are to be pushed.
Post by Floyd Davidson
Post by Seppo Renfors
with" was the RUSSIAN government. Seward bought the place from the
If the only government to deal with was Russia, what about the
Hudson's Bay post at Fort Yukon? What about the little problems
that the Russians had trying to buy land on the Kuskokwim in the
1840's?
Psssstttt.... that is part of Alaska you know.
Post by Floyd Davidson
(They basically left, because nobody would sell them any
land.) What about the wars that the Russians engaged the
Tlingit people in around 1800 in efforts to force the Tlingit
government to authorize sale of land to the Russians?
Well you are not correct. The Russians had a presence from the latest
1790 in the area - and didn't NEED to purchase any land. In 1794 some
Russian Orthodox monks arrive on Kodiak Island.

1802 Indians massacre Russians at Old Sitka, only a few survived. In
1804 Tlingit attacked the settlement of Sitka, but were forced to flee
after defeating the Russians. In 1805 Tlingit slaughtered all the
Russian residents of Yakutat. But that was it - the end of the Indian
wars. Sure at times the Native people got rather pissed off with the
way they were being treated and and showed their dissatisfaction in no
uncertain manner at times - eg the attack on Fort Nulato on the Yukon
in 1851 that nearly wiped out the inhabitants there.

The Russians didn't stay away. The same year, 1805, Yurii Lisianski
sailed direct to Canton with the first Russian cargo of furs from
Alaska. In 1830 the Russians set up a trading post on the Kuskokwim to
trade for furs. From about 1832 Akulmiut traded beaver furs for seal
skin/oil directly with the Russian traders and did so through to 1844.
The trading post was burned in 1838 to stem a smallpox outbreak, but
was rebuilt in 1840 again. In 1861 some Russian Orthodox Priests come
to visit Akulmiut villages and the Russians sold Alaska in 1867. So
they didn't leave at all as you claim.

Now if you note the deal struck in the purchase of Alaska as pointed
to previously by me at:
http://www.bartleby.com/43/43.html

You will note that the land deal dividing up that part of North
America was done between the British and the Russians in 1825 - the
Yanks were not involved.
Post by Floyd Davidson
The
*Russians* were dealing with governments in Alaska (including
the US and the British governments, but also with Native
governments). In fact, the Russians dealt with Native
governments all around Alaska, and given their insistence on
legal purchase of land, authorized by the local government, the
mere existence of more than 30 permanent Russian outposts in
Alaska in the 1700's and 1800's is in itself a demonstration
that they did indeed deal with a number of other governments.
When you refer to "Russia" - you refer to the Nation - no, there was
no such dealings. When you refer to "Russians" you refer merely to
people of a nationality - ie traders. These may well have talked to
local tribal chiefs, and councils and the like - their "government" if
you like. This doesn't make it a Russian - Native Government summit of
any kind. By that stage the Natives had lost the war already. The
proper comparison is that of a National company talking to a Shire
Council - it isn't a Head of state to Head of state, as the Natives
had lost any "statehood" they had by then. All the people there were
now servants to His Majesty the Emperor of all the Russias, like it or
not. That is another undeniable reality.
Post by Floyd Davidson
And apparently so did the US and the British traders that also
entered Alaska in smaller numbers. (Maybe the numbers should be
kept in mind too. There were never more than 700 Russians in
Alaska at any single time between 1740 and 1867.)
Akulmiut population, that most of the contact was with, numbered only
336 in 1880 - so there weren't that many others there either. Don't
forget the Spanish were sniffing around there too from around 1774. A
Juan Perez explored west coast then and discovered Prince of Wales
Island. Can't forget Captain Cook either, who wrecked his ship there
and was stuck while it was being repaired.
Post by Floyd Davidson
Post by Seppo Renfors
Russians in 1867 for 7.2 million (about two cents an acre). There was
no "treaties" to be made with any other government - IF such existed.
I note, you have been expending a lot of hot air claiming "native
government", but never said what it was or how it worked, who were the
leaders... etc. etc.
Westerners don't keep non-Western history,
I find statements like that pathetic. History is history, simple as
that. Now if you can point me to a source telling of the war where the
Eskimo's that beat the crap out of the Russians, and sent them
packing... and then did the same to the Yanks... I'll listen to the
stories of the "government". But till then I'll stick with the
winners.

The point being here that whatever "government" may have existed was
INEFFECTUAL and could NOT prevent their territory (and them) being
taken over by others. Once that has occurred they cease to be/have an
independent "government".

[..]
Post by Floyd Davidson
Post by Seppo Renfors
http://www.bartleby.com/43/43.html
(Note, the opening comment in [] is a lot of BULL)
How is that "BULL"? It is a *very accurate* assessment.
That too is BULL! The stuff reads just like any bit of "Reds under the
Beds" propaganda of the cold war - ONLY WORSE! It presumes an
"ownership" of the Americas by the US - something that simply was NOT
TRUE at the time, or now.
Post by Floyd Davidson
"[The risk of encroachment by Russia had been one of the causes
which induced President Monroe to give official utterance to
the "Monroe Doctrine." After his statement, Russia ceased from
attempts to increase her influence on the Pacific coast, and
became willing to dispose of Alaska, regarding it as a
possession difficult to defend and of little value. The
territory was formally transferred on Oct. 18, 1867.]:"
That is precisely true.
The hell it is! NOTE: "..Russia ceased... attempts to increase her
influence on the Pacific coast" and then refer to "..Alaska" - as they
already OWNED Alaska, it is BOGUS to claim they were "attempting"
anything - *IF* they refer to Alaska - it wasn't "attempting", it had
"been achieved". Not that the US had any say in the matter AT ALL. If
Russian traders were sniffing around other parts of the America's
Pacific coast, it isn't "Russia" the Nation, but individuals doing so.
Therefor no matter which way it might be the author intended it - it
is BOGUS!

But it is wrong from another aspect as well - the "Monroe Doctrine"
refers to 1823 and NOT 1867. In 1823, Secretary Adams informed the
Russian minister that the United States "should contest the right of
Russia to any territorial establishment on this continent, and that we
should assume distinctly the principle that the American continents
are no longer subjects for any new European colonial establishments."
The "Monroe Doctrine" arose from there. The USA has always had designs
on taking over all of the Americas - this "doctrine" basically forbade
European Nations from having an interest in the Americas - something
outside the powers of the US to do. Of course the Russians didn't
listen to some upstart colony on the other side of the globe and
promptly ignored them. They dealt with the British instead.
Post by Floyd Davidson
Jeeze, read *any* history book.
Govolin to the Czar that the US was about to take over Alaska,
in roughly 1821.
...which is HARDLY 1867, is it!
Post by Floyd Davidson
The Czar forbid the US to trade in Alaska,
and Monroe responded with the Monroe Doctrine. In 1824 the
Russians signed agreements with both Britain and the US to
allow access.
NOTE: There are NO US signatories to the deal! The US was NOT INVITED.
No doubt the Yanks got their nose out of joint with the Poms, as they
didn't sign a treaty with them over Canadian and Alaskan territory
until April 21, 1906!!
Post by Floyd Davidson
What part don't you understand?
YOU have described "encroachment" by the Poms and the Yanks - NOT the
Russkis - therefor even YOU agree that it is BULL as I stated. As per
usual the Russian were skint and needed money. The Crimean Wars had
seen to that. It was costing them more than they gained from Alaska at
the time anyway - so they sold it.
Post by Floyd Davidson
Post by Seppo Renfors
The statement "neither England nor the United States had any
significant dealings with Alaska Native people prior to 1867" is
facetious. OF COURSE NOT, as it belonged to the RUSSIANS and it was
none of their business till after the purchase.
You will find, if you ever read any history (I would *highly*
recommend reading Bancroft's "History of Alaska") that there
were a large number of "insignificant", in the context that I
was discussing, interactions.
The point was your specific claims. The US or the British had no
standing in Alaska at the time. The territory belonged to Russia, and
the deals were with Russia - we are talking nation to nation
interaction, as per your claims.

[..]
Post by Floyd Davidson
Post by Seppo Renfors
Just take a look at Alaska and how the land was divided among the
Native people into Corporations. I refer you to the Alaska Native
Claims Settlement Act of 1971. It created twelve Native owned regional
corporations, granted 962 million US dollars in seed money, and
authorized the Native corporations to select 44 million acres of the
104 million acres of federal lands Alaska was allowed to select for
its economic base in 1952 when it was granted Statehood. You don't
think the ANCSA came to be without the Natives pushing for it do you,
hmmm?
That is not a treaty.
Call it what you like, but it had that effect - and a damn sight more
effective than any treaties that were broken at the drop of a hat.
Post by Floyd Davidson
Certainly Natives were "pushing", but the
facts are that they had no authority to turn it down either. It
was not an "agreement" between two parties.
It was payment for land taken previously, as was ruled necessary
by the US Supreme Court back in the 1920's.
The LAND was already "taken" by the Russians in a deal with the
British (who must have had some interest in it at one time). The
ownership (native title) that sits on top of radical title probably
survived and did so even after the purchase of the land from Russia.
If the payment was "compensation" for land dispossessed from the
natives, it was for the 60 million acres not handed to them.

In British Law, land acquired by means other than conquest, the land
is owned by the nation acquiring it and governed by Parliament, but
any local ownership by individuals remains "at the pleasure of the
government". On the other hand land that is conquered, the land is
then owned by the King personally. To simplify it - purchased (and
claimed) land retains Native Title - conquered land doesn't.
Post by Floyd Davidson
The Story of Alaska Natives and Their Land 1867-1959" by Donald
Craig Mitchell, or "Alaska Natives and American Laws" by David
S. Case. (Mitchell and Case are the two attorneys most connected
with the Native lobbying for ANCSA at the time.
I would want to see the court reasoning in their judgement from the
various Judges - it would make the best sense. Is this available
somewhere?
Post by Floyd Davidson
Post by Seppo Renfors
http://thorpe.ou.edu/constitution/huslia/index.html
http://thorpe.ou.edu/constitution/koyukuk/index.html
http://www.ou.edu/okgov/NAL/Const/Cheyenne-Arapaho.html
There is quite an amount of these around.
However, you've missed the entire point of the whole discussion,
as those are *western* forms of government (there are 226
recognized tribal governments in Alaska based on the Indian
Reorganization Act), while the discussion was about what if any
government preceded western governance and definitions.
What is a "government"? It rather depends on what you talk about - it
is rather context dependent. A government can be the head of the
family - and you have heard of "petticoat government", no doubt. It
can be the head of a small community, village, city, county, state.
ALL of those come under a National government of a Nation. But in
discussion you have to compare like with like. It is completely WRONG
to imply a parallel between the British or US government and that of
the "Eskimo" in Alaska, when the territory was Russian owned. It fails
the like for like requirement.
Post by Floyd Davidson
Post by Seppo Renfors
But there are older treaties as well eg, Treaty with the APACHE,
CHEYENNE, and ARAPAHO, Ratified May 22, 1866, Proclaimed May 26, 1866.
Yes exactly. There are only *older* treaties. You claim that
my statement was "obvious fiction", and then post nothing but
evidence that supports exactly what I said. Please don't try
to lecture on Alaska history until you do some serious study.
Post by Seppo Renfors
I have also seen a reference to an Apache Nations treaty that was made
in 1867, but I cannot find the reference any longer. But there is
more...
The Chippewa Indians Treaty Made October 31, 1923
Between His Majesty the King of England and the Chippewa Indians.
What has that got to due with treaties by the United States?
Your claim included these words: "...neither England nor the United
States..." so you were talking about BOTH nations - the US is not the
be-all and end-all of this world you know.
Post by Floyd Davidson
Post by Seppo Renfors
The Mississauga Indians Treaty Made November 15, 1923
See above, same problem.
Ditto!
Post by Floyd Davidson
Post by Seppo Renfors
...just to name some.
Post by Floyd Davidson
Post by Philip Deitiker
In canada, bout a year ago, yes.
Do a little research and learn ......
....seems like good advise to take!
You are in far worse condition to be discussing this than even
Philip Deitiker, though I'll compliment you on there not being a
single inference of racial bias or Western centricity in your
entire collection of fiction.
...unlike seen above you mean, where you belittle and poo-poo views
based on an ethnic ("race") basis?
--
SIR - Philosopher unauthorised
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The one who is educated from the wrong books is not educated, he is
misled.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Joe Jefferson
2003-07-29 02:38:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Floyd Davidson
And you just landed on another of my itemized list of points
Why do you call Mr. Deitiker an anthropologist? The only thing I've seen
him claim to be is a geneticist.
--
Joe of Castle Jefferson
http://www.mindspring.com/~jjstrshp
Site Updated November 25th, 2001

"Defend the cause of the weak and fatherless; maintain the rights of the
poor and oppressed. Rescue the weak and needy; deliver them from the
hand of the wicked." - Psalm 82:3-4
Floyd Davidson
2003-07-29 04:52:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Joe Jefferson
Post by Floyd Davidson
And you just landed on another of my itemized list of points
Why do you call Mr. Deitiker an anthropologist? The only thing I've seen
him claim to be is a geneticist.
Where did I call him an anthropologist?
--
Floyd L. Davidson <http://web.newsguy.com/floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) ***@barrow.com
Eric Stevens
2003-07-29 09:07:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Floyd Davidson
Post by Joe Jefferson
Post by Floyd Davidson
And you just landed on another of my itemized list of points
Why do you call Mr. Deitiker an anthropologist? The only thing I've seen
him claim to be is a geneticist.
Where did I call him an anthropologist?
I don't know, but he certainly needs one .... :=)



Eric Stevens
Joe Jefferson
2003-07-29 16:46:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Floyd Davidson
Post by Joe Jefferson
Post by Floyd Davidson
And you just landed on another of my itemized list of points
Why do you call Mr. Deitiker an anthropologist? The only thing I've seen
him claim to be is a geneticist.
Where did I call him an anthropologist?
In the part of your message that I quoted. You put him on your itemized
list of points demonstrating bias by anthropologists.
--
Joe of Castle Jefferson
http://www.mindspring.com/~jjstrshp
Site Updated November 25th, 2001

"Defend the cause of the weak and fatherless; maintain the rights of the
poor and oppressed. Rescue the weak and needy; deliver them from the
hand of the wicked." - Psalm 82:3-4
Floyd Davidson
2003-07-29 17:38:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Joe Jefferson
Post by Floyd Davidson
Post by Joe Jefferson
Post by Floyd Davidson
And you just landed on another of my itemized list of points
Why do you call Mr. Deitiker an anthropologist? The only thing I've seen
him claim to be is a geneticist.
Where did I call him an anthropologist?
In the part of your message that I quoted. You put him on your itemized
list of points demonstrating bias by anthropologists.
I said he "landed on" one of those points. He made the same
claim. He said the same thing. He did it.

None of which suggests that he is an anthropologist. It does
suggest that his sense of anthropology is biased though, doesn't
it!

Here, let me outline this a little better:

Cows have tails. Anthropologist are biased (see item 4).
Spot has a tail. Deitiker is biased (see item 4).

Therefore, Spot Therefore, Deitiker
(my pet dog) is a cow? (or pet geneticist) is an
anthropologist.

The logical fallacy is a common predicate.

You missed the point. I did not say he was an anthropologist,
I said he was biased about anthropology.
--
Floyd L. Davidson <http://web.newsguy.com/floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) ***@barrow.com
Floyd Davidson
2003-07-29 07:11:46 UTC
Permalink
Philip Deitiker ...
... claims he has never read a book but relies on peer reviewed papers
but somehow I think that in the field of anthropology he may not have
got beyond the Saturday comics.
--- snip ----
Eric Stevens
I do believe you have explained the situation rather well..
That most certainly fits the confused load of hilarious trash
he's been responding to me with.
--
Floyd L. Davidson <http://web.newsguy.com/floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) ***@barrow.com
MIB529
2003-07-30 01:25:03 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 29 Jul 2003 09:19:08 -0500, Philip Deitiker
On 28 Jul 2003 23:11:46 -0800, Floyd Davidson
Philip Deitiker ...
... claims he has never read a book but relies on peer reviewed papers
but somehow I think that in the field of anthropology he may not have
got beyond the Saturday comics.
I read papers that are sent to me as being explanatory.
Sorry, I also don't read the local newspaper for the same
reason I don't read books for the same reason you are
plonked.
Enjoy the company of Eric, Inger, MIB
<plonk>
At this rate Philip will end up talking to himself. :-)
Ten little Indians
Explaining why he's wrong
Philip plonks them all
And now he's all alone
James Savage
2003-07-29 20:25:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Philip Deitiker
On 27 Jul 2003 23:46:27 -0800, Floyd Davidson
Post by Floyd Davidson
1) Eskimos have no government,
They do now, Inuvet, lol.
Inuvet? No. Its Nunavut - which means "our land" in Inuktituk.
Philip Deitiker
2003-07-29 21:05:06 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 29 Jul 2003 16:25:19 -0400, "James Savage"
Post by James Savage
Post by Philip Deitiker
On 27 Jul 2003 23:46:27 -0800, Floyd Davidson
Post by Floyd Davidson
1) Eskimos have no government,
They do now, Inuvet, lol.
Inuvet? No. Its Nunavut - which means "our land" in Inuktituk.
In who?

"
One of the first things a newcomer might notice is that a
single word may be spelled many different ways. A white
person is qallunaaq, kabloona - words that are spelled
differently but sound roughly the same. The differences have
come about because of our language's oral history. When a
writing system was introduced for the first time more than
100 years ago, the words were written phonetically, and
those phonetic versions varied from region to region. Today,
Inuktitut is written in syllabics in the Baffin and Kivalliq
regions, and in the eastern part of the Kitikmeot Region. In
the western part of the Kitikmeot, it's written in roman
orthography. Since the mid-1970s, Inuit have made efforts to
standardize Inuktitut so that the language becomes
consistent throughout the circumpolar world. The "new
orthography," the result of the standardization process, is
gradually being used more, but the move to standardize
Inuktitut is still ongoing.
"

Probably don't have the spelling right, but then again, I
don't care. A since there is probably three different
versions of the spelling, I am not likely to get it right in
someone's eyes. lol. But basically since I don't really care
what anal retentive Languages obsessors or native wannabees
think . . . . .
Wayne George
2003-07-29 14:14:59 UTC
Permalink
Keep up the good work..all...this stuff I read here of late has made many
smiles come to my face...
This "thread" of posts is some great material...I'm sure should make some
"Educational Material" somewhere......
Perhaps on Turtle Island....
I see where in canada(a stolen country),some school authorities are allowing
First Nations to write their own curriculum...
Me thinks more than "Anthropology & Archaeology" can be learned from these
posts....
Heck I always learning things I never knew before....
Now where did I put that "english dictionary" ?

Wayne George
First Nations Artist
~~tsc~~

~~~~~~~~~~~~
Post by Floyd Davidson
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.
Surely that is an "OOOOpppsss"! If MIB's arguments are correct or
otherwise have absolutely NOTHING to do with MIB being a "Native
American". Quite frankly you have yourself fallen into the trap of
using a racist argument, as you base your whole argument on the basis
of an ethnicity or "race" - the "...because he is X race/ethnicity he
knows..". THAT is RACISM!
That statement is just silly.
Well sometimes one must state the obvious.
Post by Floyd Davidson
The claim that MIB knows Indians because MIB is an Indian isn't
racist at all. It's common sense that he knows the back of own
hand...
He isn't talking about the back of his hand, you know - it is totally
IRRELEVANT if he is the man from the moon or a bloody hottentot. What
IS relevant is his argument NOT his ethnicity - it is otherwise a
"race" based argument, ie "racism". It is the ARGUMENT that has to
stand up on its merits - there is NO ADDED merit to be drawn from the
ethnicity of the teller - as it is completely irrelevant.
Post by Floyd Davidson
(2) The field of Anthropology is necessarily tainted by the racism,
conscious or otherwise, of anthropologists.
That has to also be eliminated as there is absolutely NO NEED to
resort to racism for anthropology. To believe so is to MISUNDERSTAND
what racism is - or in the alternative a support thereof and a
"justification" for it.
More silliness.
You are correct that racism is not necessary to anthropology.
So what? That has *nothing* to do with whether it exists or not.
Had you not surreptitiously deleted my reply to, and point 1, you
would have noted that I had already mentioned it does exist. You will
also have noted that I countered the claim that "racism is necessary"
by Bob Lancaster - something you agree with too.
[..]
--
SIR - Philosopher unauthorised
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The one who is educated from the wrong books is not educated, he is
misled.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Thomas McDonald
2003-07-30 00:57:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Wayne George
Keep up the good work..all...this stuff I read here of late has made many
smiles come to my face...
This "thread" of posts is some great material...I'm sure should make some
"Educational Material" somewhere......
Perhaps on Turtle Island....
I see where in canada(a stolen country),some school authorities are allowing
First Nations to write their own curriculum...
Me thinks more than "Anthropology & Archaeology" can be learned from these
posts....
Heck I always learning things I never knew before....
Now where did I put that "english dictionary" ?
Wayne,

It's on the box near your computer. That big honkin' dealie.

Tom McDonald

<snip>
deowll
2003-08-03 03:49:11 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
-Robert G. Lancaster, Ph.D
Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma
Yeah, I guess it is a shame the body was studied. It is even more of shame
the core of engineers ruined the site where it was found. You have a lot of
good reasons to feel the way you do but preventing people from studying the
past because you might have been related to somebody that lived near the end
of the last ice age isn't a great point. I agree that if there is some
reason that you can actually hook some individual into a tribal group then
they have a claim. This was more akin to me claiming to be kin to some stone
age guy found in a cave in Wales. It might be true but the connection needs
to be worked on.
deowll
2003-08-04 00:59:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by deowll
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.
-Robert G. Lancaster, Ph.D
Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma
Yeah, I guess it is a shame the body was studied. It is even more of shame
the core of engineers ruined the site where it was found. You have a lot of
good reasons to feel the way you do but preventing people from studying the
past because you might have been related to somebody that lived near the end
of the last ice age isn't a great point. I agree that if there is some
reason that you can actually hook some individual into a tribal group then
they have a claim. This was more akin to me claiming to be kin to some stone
age guy found in a cave in Wales. It might be true but the connection needs
to be worked on.
"... they have a claim." You have to leave off all the if's,
the but's, the only's etc etc that you've included to allow you
or someone else to disregard that claim at will.
I have claim on the saxon throne of England. Anyone that respects it needs
help.
Here's an interesting URL. It pretty much demonstrates a
different occasion where the same basic set of circumstances
occurred except that in this case the _right_ approach was
taken. First there was a body discovered along a beach, where
it would soon be destroyed by natural forces. The exact nature
of this body was undetermined at first (though in this case
somewhat expected because of a previous incident where it had
not been expected), and hence everyone concerned was called in
(for a second time) to form plan of action and establish a set
of protocols for further action.
If you do a little checking it is fairly common for 9,000 year old remains
to get turned over to people that aren't always trained to play this game
and whose first jobs are to decide cause of death and try and stick a name
on the body. By the time the right data has been worked out you normally
have people running around acting in an insane manner in the good old U. S.
of A for what might be called personal reasons or because they are trying to
score points which is still personal reasons.
<http://www.mnh.si.edu/arctic/html/dear_young_girl.html>
What isn't explained in the article is what preceded and what
followed the particular episode described. Prior to the
discovery of that particular body, others had washed out of the
same bank. The first body seen was lost to the ocean due to the
severe storm that had washed away the bank along the shore in
the first place. When it became obvious that other bodies
existed and were also about to be washed away, the same plan as
that described in the above web page was put into action, and
the bodies were recovered. The immediate area was properly
excavated by professional archaeologists, but no attempt was
made to dig past what was required to recover the known bodies.
At a later date, the body described above was seen, and it too
was recovered.
My openion is that when bodies are being washed out you need to check the
site out better than this.
It is *absolutely forbidden* to take any action that might
damage or in any way affect any other bodies or artifacts that
may possibly still exist in that same area. By the same token,
virtually every tourist that comes to Barrow is allowed to walk
right over that exact area and has the significance of what they
are standing on explained to them. No snow machines, no 4-wheel
ATV's, no trucks, or any other machinery are allowed on that
site in summer or winter. (This has the effect of what the
Corps of Engineers did at the site where Kenniwick Man was
found.)
My understanding is the Lords of Distruction completely trashed the site so
that the numerous parties giving them a pain the butt would go away and
leave them alone. This is more or less in line with that of private property
owners to evidence of Indians found on their land. If nobody knows its there
you are better off.
The first set of bodies that were removed happened to be at a
time when a new community cemetery plot had just been
designated. Those bodies were the first members of the Barrow
community to be buried there. Later, the body of the little
girl described in that article was placed along side the
original monument.
One of the things you have to understand about a community is
that it does not necessarily mean everyone or even anyone is
directly related. If I happen to cross over tomorrow they will
bury *me* right next to those ancient members of *my* community.
Using your agrument the remains of the the stone age people found in Europe
should get stuck in the local graveyard. They lived in the same region so
they are members of the same community. The fact that some of them may well
be no more related to the local moderns by biology or culture than to the
local moderns of China isn't a point with you.

You are going to end up sticking people in the ground side by side that in
real life might well have killed each other on sight, holding hands and
singing we are brothers. If you want to do this because it gives you a warm
and cozy feeling then you can but if you tell me this is showing respect for
the dead I will say it, like all burial practices is done to make the living
happy and to Hades with what the dead may have thought about this.
That, if you can understand it, is why all the if's and but's and
except's have to be removed from the "they have a claim."
It makes you happy to lie?
And trust me, if a 10,000 year old Paleo-Indian skeleton washes
out next, that person *will* be treated exactly the same (as my
body would be treated, as the little girl's body was treated, or
as the body of a local Native elder would be treated, even
though DNA would only relate half of us).
Like I said, you are acting to make the living happy. Be very happy that the
ghosts of the dead can not show up to tell you what they think.
--
Floyd L. Davidson <http://web.newsguy.com/floyd_davidson>
Floyd Davidson
2003-08-04 01:30:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by deowll
If you do a little checking it is fairly common for 9,000 year old remains
to get turned over to people that aren't always trained to play this game
You enjoy making up things to support your ideas, don't you.
Finding 9000 year old remains is rare, and being dumb enough to
give them to the wrong people is even more rare.
Post by deowll
the bodies were recovered. The immediate area was properly
excavated by professional archaeologists, but no attempt was
made to dig past what was required to recover the known bodies.
At a later date, the body described above was seen, and it too
was recovered.
My openion is that when bodies are being washed out you need to check the
site out better than this.
Your opinion is that of a totally ignorant person willing to
make stupid decisions. The rest of us should try hard to avoid
allowing that to happen. Did I mention how many *years* went by
between the first set of bodies and the discovery of the little
girl? Or did I mention by any chance extent of the bank erosion
in that area over that period of time? Did you know *anything*
about what you were saying before you opened your yap????

No, on all counts.
Post by deowll
site in summer or winter. (This has the effect of what the
Corps of Engineers did at the site where Kenniwick Man was
found.)
My understanding is the Lords of Distruction completely trashed the site so
that the numerous parties giving them a pain the butt would go away and
leave them alone. This is more or less in line with that of private property
owners to evidence of Indians found on their land. If nobody knows its there
you are better off.
You don't understand a lot of this...
Post by deowll
One of the things you have to understand about a community is
that it does not necessarily mean everyone or even anyone is
directly related. If I happen to cross over tomorrow they will
bury *me* right next to those ancient members of *my* community.
Using your agrument the remains of the the stone age people found in Europe
should get stuck in the local graveyard.
See what I mean about not understanding. Where have I said
*anything* which supports your statement about using my
argument? I haven't, but that doesn't stop you from going off
half cocked.

Using *my* arguments, it is up to the local community to
determine what manner of treatment any such remains should
receive. I have no idea what folks in Europe want done with
"stone age people" found there. Hence you cannot claim I've
said they should be "stuck in the local graveyard".
Post by deowll
They lived in the same region so
they are members of the same community. The fact that some of them may well
be no more related to the local moderns by biology or culture than to the
local moderns of China isn't a point with you.
Only in your mind.
Post by deowll
You are going to end up sticking people in the ground side by side that in
real life might well have killed each other on sight, holding hands and
singing we are brothers. If you want to do this because it gives you a warm
and cozy feeling then you can but if you tell me this is showing respect for
the dead I will say it, like all burial practices is done to make the living
happy and to Hades with what the dead may have thought about this.
Well, for once you aren't far off. It is indeed something done for
the living, not for the dead.
Post by deowll
That, if you can understand it, is why all the if's and but's and
except's have to be removed from the "they have a claim."
It makes you happy to lie?
You are the one fabricating the majority of what you post. Tell us
if it does, inquiring minds want to know!
Post by deowll
And trust me, if a 10,000 year old Paleo-Indian skeleton washes
out next, that person *will* be treated exactly the same (as my
body would be treated, as the little girl's body was treated, or
as the body of a local Native elder would be treated, even
though DNA would only relate half of us).
Like I said, you are acting to make the living happy. Be very happy that the
ghosts of the dead can not show up to tell you what they think.
Is there something wrong with that?

Whatever, there seems little point in carrying on a discussion with
someone who fabricates the majority of the "facts" they present, and
has such a narrow view of other cultures as to be unable to understand
that what they don't know is of value.

End of conversation.
--
Floyd L. Davidson <http://web.newsguy.com/floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) ***@barrow.com
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.
Diarmid Logan
2003-07-28 14:08:00 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.
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,
Saying "I'm not racist" doesn't absolve you of racism.
Are you on some kind of medication that I should know about?
MIB529
2003-07-28 18:35:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Diarmid Logan
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.
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,
Saying "I'm not racist" doesn't absolve you of racism.
Are you on some kind of medication that I should know about?
No, just reminding you just who's in the "We're not racist" crowd.
thomas
2003-07-28 21:43:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Diarmid Logan
Just because you don't agree with the findings of the researchers does
not mean that these scientists were racists.
There would seem to be a cultural disconnect in this thread. You have
one group of posters who object to the entire project of anthropology as
racist, due to past research that is now discredited by contemporary mores
and findings. This group of posters also disparage contemporary research as
racist when they disagree with the findings or speculations. Posters in
this group seem to exhibit a postmodernist epistemological orientation,
being more interested in the authorship of the research than in the
veracity of the findings.

The second group of posters distinguishes between research findings
and researchers' identities, distinguishes between outdated research
and contemporary work, and is more positivist than pomo in orientation.

Posters in both groups agree that there were and are racist
athros, and that much outdated work was biased due to the
anthro's ethnocentricity. These observations are relevant to
historians of science, but are trivially true for people engaged
in contemporary research.

Relevant today is the question of how current research is being biased
by researchers' ethnocentricity. Posters in the first group have
been less than effective in making this case. The fact that
scientists and Indians are on different sides of a court
battle over who controls remains does not by itself prove that
the findings of those scientists are biased by ethnocentrism. The
fact that some Indians feel that the project of anthropology is
tainted does not prove any specific contemporary instance
of research bias.

Given this apparent cultural disconnect between pomo critics of
anthropology on the one hand, and positivists on the other, is
there a possibility of productive communication? I doubt it.
I'm beginning to wonder why people who have so little use for
anthropology bother to read and post to a positivist anthro list
in the first place.
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
Philip Deitiker
2003-07-30 15:57:11 UTC
Permalink
You Clovis fans need to get your stories straight.
What makes a person a clovis fan?
Just confusing us
poor ignurint injuns this way. Not too long ago one of yer fellow
Clovis fans, posting from W Alaska (the US part :-) ) was on a
X-posted thread claiming the first paleo-Indians in current W. Alaska
were 12-12.5 ky BP. A group of folks 13+ ky BP kinda refutes that.
There is a small amount of evidence supporting a 13+ age
(very small + on the thirteen) more recent evidence has
redated a site in siberia and claims there is now little
evidence of siberians befor 15 kya.
In any case, lets assume the Clovis theory to be correct, for a
minute, just for laughs.
Lets see, the first Home Sapiens Sapiens leave Africa around 40 ky BP
Wrong, use current estimates.
arriving in Austrailia (by boat) about 60 ky BP (WOW! That was FAST!).
There is no proof they occupied australia before 55 ky bp.
Granted they probably did.
It takes about 22 ky give or take a few millenia to get to Chukchi.
(Getting us to about 18 ky BP).
Chuckchi appear to have been a late comer to the west
pacific rim.

You are using klienistic numbers. The dates of LiuJiang are
from 68 kya to 150 kya with highest probability at 113 kya
for southern china. Evidence for human occupation in the
middle east may date to as early as 130 kya. Paabo's
estimate for 52 kya africa exodous is flawed in many ways.
1. He assumes one exodous
2. Undersampling, sampling in australia, indonesia and
andaman islands has already proven this wrong.
3. He uses a C/H LCA of 5 million years which is now dubious
based on more recent evidence, its earlier, and this is the
dates which all are anchroed by.
I would put an early date for african exodous at about 140
kya and a late date of 80 kya. Australia is probably 75 kya,
and the extremed southern Japan around 45kya and central
Japan about 35 kya, Northern Japan 25 kya.
It then takes 1-6 ky to cross
Beringia.
Actually with good water craft, a strong current and good
winds it might take 1 month from kurils to Canada.
At that point, all the paleo-Indians hunker down by the
glaciers, like Boomers in Oklahoma in 1889, waiting for the ice to
melt. (Glaciation would prevent the Sooners, wouldn't it?).
Dubious impact on maritime travelers.
About 12 ky BP, the ice melts, and the paleo-Boomers run across the
Canadian Rockies. Somehow, they get all the way to Clovis, NM, by
11.5 ky BP -- by far the fastest non-forced land migration the world
has seen to this point. Despite the fact that Clovis seems to be a
pleasant place, some of them keep on running, all the way to Monte
Verde, Chile. Again, migrating orders of magnitude *faster* than in
Asia.
No wonder Jim Thorpe was so fast.
More than likely they traveled down the coast of canada and
moved inland from there. I would suspect that the west
pacific rim folks could tolerate cold 15 kya but they sure
prefered the warm climate.
OOPS! Now it seems there *were* some paleo-Sooners after all. In
fact, some of the sites seem to go back 20-30 ky BP. Well, the Clovis
fans stomp their feet and claim that the radio-dating techniques that
were valid at Clovis aren't valid some of these other places, or that
Mark Fuhrman switched the evidence at the labs, or something like
that.
No the south american site is held as valid, there are other
reasons to believe there was a prewave; however it is
dubious that wave came across beringia. More than likely it
was a maritime wave that came with opportunistic currents
and winds from kuril/hokkaido region.
Of course, if there were paleo-Sooners, there are only two
possibilites. The Clovis theory is wrong, or the secret Mayan time
machine the Spanish destroyed.
Must've been that time machine.
No its called flame baiting with paper tigers, which is what
you are doing to the argument. If yuo want to lay out these
hideous claims at least try to get 1 or 2 of your dates
correct.
Bob Lancaster
2003-08-01 01:55:05 UTC
Permalink
Further argument is pointless. There is little we really disagree
with, and those things we disagree with are not likely to be proven
one way or the other in the next few days. :-)

I have no problems with a Beringa-Clovis migration. I do believe
there were earlier inhabitants. A Beringa-Clovis migration on top of
previous migrations would sufficiently change the gene pool, so that a
18 ky BP time limit would no longer be valid. (The time limit was the
original point of the thread.) Taking the most extreme estimates as
to the first human habitation of the Americas, say 30 ky BP, or even
earlier, a very large migration about 12-13 ky BP would change the
gene pool sufficiently to render the 18 ky BP 'limit' useless. In
fact, there are reasons to believe there were post-Clovis migrations.
I think a plane landed from Aisa somewhere in the Americas within the
past few hours :-)

To put it another way, discussing the point at which two populations
branched off becomes a different story discussing multiple, rather
than a single, migration. I have felt for a long time that there is
evidence suggesting far more contact between the hemispheres than had
previously been suggested.

This was my frustration with the original NY Times article. A piece
of data consistent with multiple theories was presented as 'proof' of
one of the theories and 'disproof' of another.

On the other hand, I have found from experience, and from what I have
heard from others, that the NY Times is not always the most reliable
source of information.

-Bob, leaving this thread completely.
Insistence that pre-Clovis sites in the US or points south cannot be
correctly dated, and that the FIRST humans came to North America
during the Wisconsonian ice age. (Actually, I live a couple of mile
from the terminal morain on that one, on the icy side. One friend of
mine has the morain just past his back yard.)
Belief in a significant pre-Clovis wave disqualifies one as a Clovis
fan.
Post by Philip Deitiker
There is a small amount of evidence supporting a 13+ age
(very small + on the thirteen) more recent evidence has
redated a site in siberia and claims there is now little
evidence of siberians befor 15 kya.
Despite various sites which greatly pre-date 13+ ky BP.
Some of the earlies sites are questionable. C-14 dating is
getting a bad reputation for dating things earlier than 30
kya for a number of reasons, the signal to noise ratio is
lousy and requires the utmost 'uncontaminated' samples to
give good dating.
What's 5 ky among friends? :-) (I think we both agree this isn't a
major point)
Post by Philip Deitiker
I would put an early date for african exodous at about 140
kya and a late date of 80 kya. Australia is probably 75 kya,
and the extremed southern Japan around 45kya and central
Japan about 35 kya, Northern Japan 25 kya.
I like these numbers better, at least for the earliest African exodus.
In that case, it takes 100 ky, +/- 20 or so ky to get from Africa to
Siberia. A *very* slow migration.
The migrations between africa and melanesia is so fast it is
difficult to resolve molecularly points in which humans
stopped. In fact the MRCA in andaman islands appears to be
as old if not older than the MRCA in India or middle east.
That would require a travel of 6000 miles in less than a few
thousand years.
Post by Philip Deitiker
It then takes 1-6 ky to cross
Beringia.
Actually with good water craft, a strong current and good
winds it might take 1 month from kurils to Canada.
Agreed.
Post by Philip Deitiker
At that point, all the paleo-Indians hunker down by the
glaciers, like Boomers in Oklahoma in 1889, waiting for the ice to
melt. (Glaciation would prevent the Sooners, wouldn't it?).
Dubious impact on maritime travelers.
Agreed.
Post by Philip Deitiker
About 12 ky BP, the ice melts, and the paleo-Boomers run across the
Canadian Rockies. Somehow, they get all the way to Clovis, NM, by
11.5 ky BP -- by far the fastest non-forced land migration the world
has seen to this point. Despite the fact that Clovis seems to be a
pleasant place, some of them keep on running, all the way to Monte
Verde, Chile. Again, migrating orders of magnitude *faster* than in
Asia.
No wonder Jim Thorpe was so fast.
More than likely they traveled down the coast of canada and
moved inland from there. I would suspect that the west
pacific rim folks could tolerate cold 15 kya but they sure
prefered the warm climate.
Even so, this is orders of magnitude *faster* than in Asia.
Would you say its easier to go down a selective gradient
than up one? Particularly in east asia there were prehuman
competitors, in the americas there were none.
When one considers both going down a selective gradient and
lack of like-kind competitors traveling 100s. There is no
precedence for the settling of the new world in the old
world.
Which is why I was making fun of the Clovis theory. Unless there was
migration in previous ice ages. In the time period from about 100 or
so ky BP to now, the water level has often been rather low.
You can make fun of Beringia and you will probably get many
agreements, but clovis represents an marked change in the
culture of native americans, the population differential
before clovis and after clovis was probably 1 to 2
magnitudes.
Flame baiting, perhaps. Paper tigers, no. Every date I gave, except
the date of the initial migration from Africa, came from internet
posts from a Clovis fan claiming to be a practicing archeologist or
physical paelo-antrhopoloigst (I don't know exactly where the border
between these two fields lies. From my experience with other
sciences, the border is probably fuzzy at best). I admit now the
dates I used were from talk.origins, so perhaps there are no Clovis
fans on soc.anthropology.paleo or sci.archeology.
Archaeologist are not the best source of information on when
humans left africa. The molecular posited that they left
earlier and the evidence for that leaving is now,
mysteriously aligning with the prediction. Archaeologist are
biased because, frankly. they do not understand statistics,
and they are unable to confidence what each new find brings
to the tables, as a result they tend to create minimal
ranges, and usually are detecting the presence of a random
appearance (frequency) function based on 1/(populations size
* time) since they cannot estimate both at simultaneously
they have no idea how long individuals are in a region for
how long. Throw in the fact that tool technologies change
and that they typically measure cultural artifacts instead
of bonafida human remains, one has a three parameter
function that has to be randomized, then invert the whole
thing using binomial probability distribution and you can
predict what range of time would be required with what rate
of growth of population to arrive at the probable first
find.
Post by Philip Deitiker
You Clovis fans need to get your stories straight.
That still stands.
When you guys agree on the dates, then you can criticize
non-anthopologists who use 'incorrect' dates.
Actually, the Clovis fan on talk.origins would howl at your mention of
seagoing migration. His problem, not mine.
Any discussion you have with anyone on talk.origins has to
be taken with a grain of salt. Talk.origin regs are more
howler monkeys than they are knowledgable, and constantly
misrepresent the facts.
While you dates are less objectionable than Clovis dates, there is
still the problem of migration rates. The migration rates using your
dates still show the rates of migration in the Americas to be 1-2
orders of magnitudes faster than in Asia. While weather conditions
can explain part of it, but why would it take 20 ky to get from S.
Japan to Hokaido, but only about 2 ky to get from Clovis to Chile?
First off, traveling a coastline with the currents does not
require much. When lewis & clark returned from the pacific
coast, how far did they travel along the missouri river in
how many days? Archaeology is at best +/-300 years with the
earliest site. With favorable currents, traveling down a
selective gradient, humans could have traveled around the
pacific rim 100 times in 300 years.
I can just give you some of my experiance as a boater.
Currents are often between as walk and a run at times,
Depending on winds, tides geographic location one does not
even need a sail, with a sail, even a very crude sail one
can make easily 20 miles per day. When you have 300 years to
play with the few 1000 or so miles between western canada
and ecuador is nothing, and if there was a preference to
search for more agreeable weather, there is no reason why
they would not. Traveling by boat is easier, faster than
just about anyother form of travel, watching the current and
the weather being perils.
Especially considering (a) the Ismusth of Panama should tend to hinder
migration and (b) south of the equator migration is toward a colder
climate. Either there have to be unique barriers to migration in
Asia, or something is very wrong with the picture.
Paper Tiger, the preclovis site is close to the equator.
Paper Tiger, the ismuth of Panama would not hinder
migration. If they made it to panama in a few hundreds
are small barrier would mean very little.
Paper Tiger, there were two selective barriers
1. Presence of erectoids.
2. Traveling up a negatively selective gradient for a
tropic dwelling negroid/melanesian people.
If there were much earlier migrations, that problem wouldn't exist.
The Asian migration rates would have to speed up, and the American
migration rates would slow down.
There could be much earlier migrations, however the prime
opportunity for those migrations really are from 23 kya to
15 kya. In fact one has the consider the infiltration of
protoJomon as a potential 'push' for initial migrants,
trapped by a better tooled people they may have fled in
small groups in front of the pJomon. Such small numbers of
people would grow astronomically but with a shell/pebble
based culture the growth might be spotty under the best of
circumstances until regional populations swelled to a degree
that cultural feedback lead to region specific and general
advances that allowed further expansion inland. The small
numbers and primative culture of first migrants could be a
reason why clovis spread quickly AND similarly a reason why
preclovis people would rapidly intermix and adopt clovis
culture, hence it gave both clovis and preclovis advantage.
Doug Weller
2003-07-30 16:37:56 UTC
Permalink
On 30 Jul 2003 08:27:48 -0700, in sci.anthropology.paleo, Bob Lancaster
wrote:
[SNIP]
In any case, lets assume the Clovis theory to be correct, for a
minute, just for laughs.
Why? I wonder how many people in this discussion accept the hypothesis of
no one in the Americas before Clovis?
Lets see, the first Home Sapiens Sapiens leave Africa around 40 ky BP,
Why? That's far too late. The latest dates are between 154 000 and 160
000 BP, in Ethiopia, - more backing for the hypothesis of a move out of
Ethiopia through India.

[SNIP]

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
pete
2003-08-01 02:37:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Daryl Krupa
<snip>
You Clovis fans need to get your stories straight.
<snip>
I am not a "Clovis fan".
I do not believe that the Clovis culture represents the first human
inhabitants of North America.
I thought I was a Clovis fan,
but I believe that Clovis culture started in Florida
and really has very little to do with who was migrating when,
except that first migration has to be before oldest Clovis.
--
pete
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
res6l2wx
2003-07-26 19:19:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Doug Weller
On Sat, 26 Jul 2003 02:24:14 -0500, in sci.archaeology, Thomas McDonald
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.
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
Bias of an author is always interesting and choice of words does reveal
bias. One could equally well say, "Cortes promptly violated the laws of
hospitality by kidnapping Moctezuma." We cannot too much admire the choice
of "placing him under arrest", for high crimes and misdemeanours, no doubt.
Cheers
John GW
Doug Weller
2003-07-26 19:44:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by res6l2wx
Post by Doug Weller
On Sat, 26 Jul 2003 02:24:14 -0500, in sci.archaeology, Thomas McDonald
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.
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
Bias of an author is always interesting and choice of words does reveal
bias. One could equally well say, "Cortes promptly violated the laws of
hospitality by kidnapping Moctezuma." We cannot too much admire the choice
of "placing him under arrest", for high crimes and misdemeanours, no doubt.
I've also seen 'held him hostage' which is much closer to what happened.

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
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
Doug Weller
2003-07-26 18:57:30 UTC
Permalink
On 26 Jul 2003 11:43:38 -0700, in sci.anthropology.paleo, Duncan Craig
Post by Duncan Craig
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.
No, he'd report them back for his sake.

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
Thomas McDonald
2003-07-26 19:42:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Duncan Craig
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
Post by Duncan Craig
Post by Gisele Horvat
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.
Duncan,

I don't pretend to know a lot about this issue, but I do know that
Cortes was a contentious man, a self-promoter, willing to break many rules
to get what he wanted, and interested in getting as much personal power as
he could in the New World. While the question as to whether he'd report
deliberate lies to his king is open in my mind, it would not be out of
character for Cortes to distort the truth and to claim for himself things
that were not, strictly speaking, his. This in addition of course to the
natural misreadings of another, wildly different, culture; which misreadings
I submit Cortes might well have shaded for his own benefit.
Post by Duncan Craig
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.
1. My reference to the AVM stone was directed to Eric, and I'm sure he
fully understood my meaning;

2. Watergate is an example of excellent and thorough verification of the
evidence, at least as regards the New York Times' WoodStein's coverage. The
AVM's initial coverage was a fiasco at the start, and was only a non-fiasco
after the forgers/pranksters themselves came forward.

Tom McDonald
tkavanagh
2003-07-26 21:44:49 UTC
Permalink
Thomas McDonald wrote:
<snip>
Post by Thomas McDonald
the New York Times' WoodStein's coverage.
Woodward and Bernstein wrote (and Bob Woodward still does) for the
Washington Post. :-)

tk
Thomas McDonald
2003-07-26 22:00:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Daryl Krupa
<snip>
Post by Thomas McDonald
the New York Times' WoodStein's coverage.
Woodward and Bernstein wrote (and Bob Woodward still does) for the
Washington Post. :-)
tk
tk,

Yup. I caught the error myself, right after you pointed it out to me
:-).

Tom McDonald
Duncan Craig
2003-07-27 00:59:12 UTC
Permalink
"Thomas McDonald" <***@wwt
snipped
Post by Thomas McDonald
Duncan,
I don't pretend to know a lot about this issue, but I do know that
Cortes was a contentious man, a self-promoter, willing to break many rules
to get what he wanted, and interested in getting as much personal power as
he could in the New World. While the question as to whether he'd report
deliberate lies to his king is open in my mind, it would not be out of
character for Cortes to distort the truth and to claim for himself things
that were not, strictly speaking, his. This in addition of course to the
natural misreadings of another, wildly different, culture; which misreadings
I submit Cortes might well have shaded for his own benefit.
Yes, that's true.
Post by Thomas McDonald
Post by Duncan Craig
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.
1. My reference to the AVM stone was directed to Eric, and I'm sure he
fully understood my meaning;
2. Watergate is an example of excellent and thorough verification of the
evidence, at least as regards the New York Times' WoodStein's coverage. The
AVM's initial coverage was a fiasco at the start, and was only a non-fiasco
after the forgers/pranksters themselves came forward.
Tom McDonald
I apologize for my caustic defensiveness, Thomas.

Duncan
Thomas McDonald
2003-07-27 03:41:31 UTC
Permalink
news:<bortiz-yering of myth in 999ad?
snip
You mean Tula not Teotihuacan, right?
No, Teotihuacan.
Post by Eric Stevens
Duncan Craig
Duncan,

Reference, please. The dates you refer to seem very late for Teotihuacan
as anything other than a place of pilgrimage; Tula would have been more
relevant for most purposes.

Tom McDonald
Duncan Craig
2003-07-27 12:25:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Thomas McDonald
news:<bortiz-yering of myth in 999ad?
snip
You mean Tula not Teotihuacan, right?
No, Teotihuacan.
Post by Eric Stevens
Duncan Craig
Duncan,
Reference, please. The dates you refer to seem very late for Teotihuacan
as anything other than a place of pilgrimage; Tula would have been more
relevant for most purposes.
Tom McDonald
Which date do you mean? I mentioned three dates. ..478, 999, and 1519.
My references would be
Skyglobe software,
Distant Suns fourth edition astronomy software,
Avenis,"Empires of Time",
David Pankeniers essay, The Cosmo-political Significance of the
Mandate of Heaven"
These three dates marked the coming of Quetzalcoatls and are called
four-sky-serpent, Kan-Ka'an-chan homonyms in yucatec. Use an
archaeo-astronomy program and the alignment of the visible planets
occurs on these dates. Thats my reference, Thomas, the night sky. The
four planet alignment forms the four jade bead glyph that means
rulership. Do you believe it was simply lucky that Cortes
landed on the One Reed year? Luckier still that he landed when the
four-sky-serpent occurred. He wouldn't know anything about the
mesoamerican calendar, would he? Mmmm. But he did land on Maudy
thursday before Good friday., how fortuitous that he landed on the
only Christian holiday that is based on the luner calendar...and could
be synchronized with other calendars. Also lucky that he went to
Salmanaca University where the teacher was a fellow by the name of
Abraham Zacutas whos special achievement was the charting of a Venus
calendar. He wasn't merely lucky landing on a One Reed year. He hit
the jackpot by landing on the culmination of the venus greatcycle,
once every 519 years. Is it any wonder that Montezuma was nervous? The
planets lining up and bearded strangers landing at Panuco. But what
the hell do I know? Pull up the sky for the morning ofjanuary
10, 478 ad. It's not new age, or astrology, or mystical...it is,
however, a comprehensively designed social structure based on the
movements of heavenly bodies. References? No, I don't have much.

Duncan Craig
Bernard Ortiz de Montellano
2003-07-28 16:03:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Duncan Craig
Post by Thomas McDonald
news:<bortiz-yering of myth in 999ad?
snip
You mean Tula not Teotihuacan, right?
No, Teotihuacan.
Post by Eric Stevens
Duncan Craig
Duncan,
Reference, please. The dates you refer to seem very late for Teotihuacan
as anything other than a place of pilgrimage; Tula would have been more
relevant for most purposes.
Tom McDonald
Which date do you mean? I mentioned three dates. ..478, 999, and 1519.
My references would be
Skyglobe software,
Distant Suns fourth edition astronomy software,
Avenis,"Empires of Time",
David Pankeniers essay, The Cosmo-political Significance of the
Mandate of Heaven"
These three dates marked the coming of Quetzalcoatls and are called
four-sky-serpent, Kan-Ka'an-chan homonyms in yucatec. Use an
archaeo-astronomy program and the alignment of the visible planets
occurs on these dates. Thats my reference, Thomas, the night sky. The
four planet alignment forms the four jade bead glyph that means
rulership. Do you believe it was simply lucky that Cortes
landed on the One Reed year? Luckier still that he landed when the
four-sky-serpent occurred. He wouldn't know anything about the
mesoamerican calendar, would he? Mmmm. But he did land on Maudy
thursday before Good friday., how fortuitous that he landed on the
only Christian holiday that is based on the luner calendar...and could
be synchronized with other calendars. Also lucky that he went to
Salmanaca University where the teacher was a fellow by the name of
Abraham Zacutas whos special achievement was the charting of a Venus
calendar. He wasn't merely lucky landing on a One Reed year. He hit
the jackpot by landing on the culmination of the venus greatcycle,
once every 519 years. Is it any wonder that Montezuma was nervous? The
planets lining up and bearded strangers landing at Panuco. But what
the hell do I know? Pull up the sky for the morning ofjanuary
10, 478 ad. It's not new age, or astrology, or mystical...it is,
however, a comprehensively designed social structure based on the
movements of heavenly bodies. References? No, I don't have much.
Duncan Craig
come on, the Aztecs did not have any such knowledge of astronomy. Aveni,
who would know , did not say this -- reference please.
Bernard
--
Bernard Ortiz de Montellano
Duncan Craig
2003-07-29 02:20:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Thomas McDonald
news:<bortiz-yering of myth in 999ad?
Post by Duncan Craig
Post by Thomas McDonald
snip
You mean Tula not Teotihuacan, right?
No, Teotihuacan.
Post by Eric Stevens
Duncan Craig
Duncan,
Reference, please. The dates you refer to seem very late for Teotihuacan
as anything other than a place of pilgrimage; Tula would have been more
relevant for most purposes.
Tom McDonald
Which date do you mean? I mentioned three dates. ..478, 999, and 1519.
My references would be
Skyglobe software,
Distant Suns fourth edition astronomy software,
Avenis,"Empires of Time",
David Pankeniers essay, The Cosmo-political Significance of the
Mandate of Heaven"
These three dates marked the coming of Quetzalcoatls and are called
four-sky-serpent, Kan-Ka'an-chan homonyms in yucatec. Use an
archaeo-astronomy program and the alignment of the visible planets
occurs on these dates. Thats my reference, Thomas, the night sky. The
four planet alignment forms the four jade bead glyph that means
rulership. Do you believe it was simply lucky that Cortes
landed on the One Reed year? Luckier still that he landed when the
four-sky-serpent occurred. He wouldn't know anything about the
mesoamerican calendar, would he? Mmmm. But he did land on Maudy
thursday before Good friday., how fortuitous that he landed on the
only Christian holiday that is based on the luner calendar...and could
be synchronized with other calendars. Also lucky that he went to
Salmanaca University where the teacher was a fellow by the name of
Abraham Zacutas whos special achievement was the charting of a Venus
calendar. He wasn't merely lucky landing on a One Reed year. He hit
the jackpot by landing on the culmination of the venus greatcycle,
once every 519 years. Is it any wonder that Montezuma was nervous? The
planets lining up and bearded strangers landing at Panuco. But what
the hell do I know? Pull up the sky for the morning ofjanuary
10, 478 ad. It's not new age, or astrology, or mystical...it is,
however, a comprehensively designed social structure based on the
movements of heavenly bodies. References? No, I don't have much.
Duncan Craig
come on, the Aztecs did not have any such knowledge of astronomy. Aveni,
who would know , did not say this -- reference please.
Bernard
Aveni, Empires of Time: Calendars, Clocks & Cultures Kodansha America,
Inc. New York 1995 P. 253-277.

Duncan
Bernard Ortiz de Montellano
2003-07-30 02:11:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Duncan Craig
Post by Thomas McDonald
news:<bortiz-yering of myth in 999ad?
Post by Duncan Craig
Post by Thomas McDonald
snip
You mean Tula not Teotihuacan, right?
No, Teotihuacan.
Post by Eric Stevens
Duncan Craig
Duncan,
Reference, please. The dates you refer to seem very late for
Teotihuacan
as anything other than a place of pilgrimage; Tula would have been more
relevant for most purposes.
Tom McDonald
Which date do you mean? I mentioned three dates. ..478, 999, and 1519.
My references would be
Skyglobe software,
Distant Suns fourth edition astronomy software,
Avenis,"Empires of Time",
David Pankeniers essay, The Cosmo-political Significance of the
Mandate of Heaven"
These three dates marked the coming of Quetzalcoatls and are called
four-sky-serpent, Kan-Ka'an-chan homonyms in yucatec. Use an
archaeo-astronomy program and the alignment of the visible planets
occurs on these dates. Thats my reference, Thomas, the night sky. The
four planet alignment forms the four jade bead glyph that means
rulership. Do you believe it was simply lucky that Cortes
landed on the One Reed year? Luckier still that he landed when the
four-sky-serpent occurred. He wouldn't know anything about the
mesoamerican calendar, would he? Mmmm. But he did land on Maudy
thursday before Good friday., how fortuitous that he landed on the
only Christian holiday that is based on the luner calendar...and could
be synchronized with other calendars. Also lucky that he went to
Salmanaca University where the teacher was a fellow by the name of
Abraham Zacutas whos special achievement was the charting of a Venus
calendar. He wasn't merely lucky landing on a One Reed year. He hit
the jackpot by landing on the culmination of the venus greatcycle,
once every 519 years. Is it any wonder that Montezuma was nervous? The
planets lining up and bearded strangers landing at Panuco. But what
the hell do I know? Pull up the sky for the morning ofjanuary
10, 478 ad. It's not new age, or astrology, or mystical...it is,
however, a comprehensively designed social structure based on the
movements of heavenly bodies. References? No, I don't have much.
Duncan Craig
come on, the Aztecs did not have any such knowledge of astronomy. Aveni,
who would know , did not say this -- reference please.
Bernard
Aveni, Empires of Time: Calendars, Clocks & Cultures Kodansha America,
Inc. New York 1995 P. 253-277.
Duncan
I just looked at that chapter in Aveni. As I suspected he does not
support your claims.

on P. 255 Aveni says, "There is no evidence that the Aztecs ever kept a
long count." This menas that it was imposible for them to keep track of
the Venus cycles needed to justify your claim as follows.

" He wasn't merely lucky landing on a One Reed year. He hit
Post by Duncan Craig
Post by Thomas McDonald
Post by Duncan Craig
the jackpot by landing on the culmination of the venus greatcycle,
once every 519 years. Is it any wonder that Montezuma was nervous?"
Motecuhzoma had no idea whatever about a Venus cycle of 584 days much
less 519 years.
Bernard
--
Bernard Ortiz de Montellano
Bernard Ortiz de Montellano
2003-07-28 16:11:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Thomas McDonald
news:<bortiz-yering of myth in 999ad?
snip
You mean Tula not Teotihuacan, right?
No, Teotihuacan.
Where exactly is the myth of Quetzalcoatl leading Teotihucan to a period
of great prosperity written?
I would appreciatea reference
Bernard
I'd be happy to give you references and explain my reasoning. But I'd
Your article, "Robbing Native American Cultures: Van Sertima's
Afrocentricity and the Olmecs" published in Current Anthropology,
included a review or comment by Michael Coe in support of your
position.
"As someone who has worked many decades with the pre-classic or
formative cultures of Mesoamerica and spent three field seasons
excavating the great Olmec culture of San Lorenzo, I would like to
state unequivically that there is nothing in these Olmec sites that
looks African, Chinese, European or Near Eastern."
I asked if there was some other criteria he was using to make that
dogmatic statement, because if it was an aesthetic one, it was
untenable in light of the work of Paul Chou, Miguel Corravubias,
Constance Irwin, Gordon Eckholm, Hugh Honour and anyone who has seen
Olmec art. Persons with no background in art or archaeology will often
comment that the Olmec heads 'look' just like OJ Simpson, or the Olmec
baby figures 'look' Chinese. Are we to suppose that the bearded figure
commonly called 'Uncle Sam' bears no resemblence to a European?
Am I to assume that the dean of Mesoamerican archaeology is
emphatically and "unequivically" denying any outside influence upon
the Olmec? That seems to be
Coes and your position. Unequivically. But how do I reconcile this
with Coe's statement made in the fifth edition of "The Maya", made
just ten years earlier when discussing Tolstoys exaustive study of
bark paper manufacturing around the Pacific basin.
"It is his well-founded conclusion that this technology, known
in ancient China, Southeast Asia and Indonesia, as well as
Mesoamerica, was diffused from eastern Indonesia to Mesoamerica at a
very early date. The main use of such paper in Mesoamerica was in the
production of screen fold books to record ritual, calendrical, and
astronomical information. It is not unreasonable to suppose that it
was through the medium of such books, which are still in use by
Indonesian people like the Batak, that an intellectual exchange took
place. This by no means implies that the Maya-or any other
Mesoamerican civilization-were merely derivitive from Old World
prototypes. What it does suggest is that at a few times in their early
history, the Maya may have been receptive to some important ideas
originating in the Eastern Hemisphere." Page 47.
So did Coe change and harden his opinion in the past ten years? Or
is he engaging in a bit of sophistry? Nothing "looks" Chinese, but
some important ideas came from Asia.
And finally, Bernard,... what good are any references I could show to
track the development of my ideas, when the top scholars in the field
are filled with such ambiguities?
Duncan Craig
Post by Thomas McDonald
Post by Eric Stevens
Duncan Craig
1) you are changing the subject.
2) I'm not asking you for someone's opinon abut the Quetzalcoatl legend,
I want some primary source-- Sahagun, or the Codice Chimalpopoca- that
states that they (the Aztecs) believed that Quetzalcoatl ruled
Teotihuacan and led itto greatness.

3) If you have problems with Coe, write him direct. His e-mail can be
obtained through Yale university. But, the remark you quote refers to
the Maya=- It in no way contradicts Coe's ideas about the Olmec.
Bernard
--
Bernard Ortiz de Montellano
Duncan Craig
2003-07-29 02:32:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bernard Ortiz de Montellano
Post by Thomas McDonald
news:<bortiz-yering of myth in 999ad?
snip
You mean Tula not Teotihuacan, right?
No, Teotihuacan.
Where exactly is the myth of Quetzalcoatl leading Teotihucan to a period
of great prosperity written?
I would appreciatea reference
Bernard
I'd be happy to give you references and explain my reasoning. But I'd
Your article, "Robbing Native American Cultures: Van Sertima's
Afrocentricity and the Olmecs" published in Current Anthropology,
included a review or comment by Michael Coe in support of your
position.
"As someone who has worked many decades with the pre-classic or
formative cultures of Mesoamerica and spent three field seasons
excavating the great Olmec culture of San Lorenzo, I would like to
state unequivically that there is nothing in these Olmec sites that
looks African, Chinese, European or Near Eastern."
I asked if there was some other criteria he was using to make that
dogmatic statement, because if it was an aesthetic one, it was
untenable in light of the work of Paul Chou, Miguel Corravubias,
Constance Irwin, Gordon Eckholm, Hugh Honour and anyone who has seen
Olmec art. Persons with no background in art or archaeology will often
comment that the Olmec heads 'look' just like OJ Simpson, or the Olmec
baby figures 'look' Chinese. Are we to suppose that the bearded figure
commonly called 'Uncle Sam' bears no resemblence to a European?
Am I to assume that the dean of Mesoamerican archaeology is
emphatically and "unequivically" denying any outside influence upon
the Olmec? That seems to be
Coes and your position. Unequivically. But how do I reconcile this
with Coe's statement made in the fifth edition of "The Maya", made
just ten years earlier when discussing Tolstoys exaustive study of
bark paper manufacturing around the Pacific basin.
"It is his well-founded conclusion that this technology, known
in ancient China, Southeast Asia and Indonesia, as well as
Mesoamerica, was diffused from eastern Indonesia to Mesoamerica at a
very early date. The main use of such paper in Mesoamerica was in the
production of screen fold books to record ritual, calendrical, and
astronomical information. It is not unreasonable to suppose that it
was through the medium of such books, which are still in use by
Indonesian people like the Batak, that an intellectual exchange took
place. This by no means implies that the Maya-or any other
Mesoamerican civilization-were merely derivitive from Old World
prototypes. What it does suggest is that at a few times in their early
history, the Maya may have been receptive to some important ideas
originating in the Eastern Hemisphere." Page 47.
So did Coe change and harden his opinion in the past ten years? Or
is he engaging in a bit of sophistry? Nothing "looks" Chinese, but
some important ideas came from Asia.
And finally, Bernard,... what good are any references I could show to
track the development of my ideas, when the top scholars in the field
are filled with such ambiguities?
Duncan Craig
Post by Thomas McDonald
Post by Eric Stevens
Duncan Craig
1) you are changing the subject.
No, I asked you a question that you ignored the first time. I believe
that it is you that changed the subject.
Post by Bernard Ortiz de Montellano
2) I'm not asking you for someone's opinon abut the Quetzalcoatl legend,
I want some primary source-- Sahagun, or the Codice Chimalpopoca- that
states that they (the Aztecs) believed that Quetzalcoatl ruled
Teotihuacan and led itto greatness.
I never said that the Aztecs believed Q ruled Teotihuacan and led it
to greatness. That opinion is my own which as you stated, doesn't
interest you.
Post by Bernard Ortiz de Montellano
3) If you have problems with Coe, write him direct. His e-mail can be
obtained through Yale university. But,
I will.


the remark you quote refers to
Post by Bernard Ortiz de Montellano
the Maya=- It in no way contradicts Coe's ideas about the Olmec.
And one of things I'll ask him is when he believes these "important
ideas from the Eastern hemisphere" entered into Maya culture. I'd be
interested in what the ideas were that weren't present in the Olmec
cosmology.

Duncan
Post by Bernard Ortiz de Montellano
Bernard
Seppo Renfors
2003-07-28 13:16:21 UTC
Permalink
[..]
Post by Gisele Horvat
Post by Eric Stevens
Post by Duncan Craig
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.
As I have heard the story, Duncan's version stand up well indeed. I do
think his statement on Cortes is quite believable. He is far from
alone in those views - and quite frankly, I though they were normal
mainstream views! I'm surprised to see you poo-pooing them.

http://www.encyclopedia.com/html/T/Tezcatli.asp
Post by Gisele Horvat
Best remember the AVM fiasco, and verify before you get too excited.
...and remember the KRS... don't reject things out of hand because you
don't like the story.
--
SIR - Philosopher unauthorised
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The one who is educated from the wrong books is not educated, he is
misled.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Thomas McDonald
2003-07-28 18:10:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Seppo Renfors
[..]
Post by Gisele Horvat
Post by Eric Stevens
Post by Duncan Craig
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
Post by Seppo Renfors
Post by Gisele Horvat
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.
As I have heard the story, Duncan's version stand up well indeed. I do
think his statement on Cortes is quite believable. He is far from
alone in those views - and quite frankly, I though they were normal
mainstream views! I'm surprised to see you poo-pooing them.
Seppo,

Not poo-pooing them; merely suggesting that Eric not get ahead of
himself.

The references regarding Mixtec mythology and history vary greatly in
quality, and over time. For instance, one reference I have, Frances F.
Berdan, _The Aztecs of Central Mexico: An Imperial Society_, 1982, ISBN #
0-03-055736-4, says that their creator gods were Ometecutli (male) and
Omecihuatl; whose four sons were:

the Red Tezcatlipoca (Xipe Totec);

the Black Tezcatlipoca (Tezcatlipoca):

Quetzalcoatl ("presumably the White Tezcatlipoca");

and the Blue Tezcatlipoca (Huitzilopochtli, or Hummingbird on the Left).

As you can see, there is an opportunity for confusion here as to which
"Tezcatlipoca" one is referring to; although I'd imagine that the name,
without modifier, would probably relate to the Black Tezcatlipoca. This is
most likely a later addition to Mixtec mythology; Huitzilopochtli seems to
have been their main god before and during their migration.

As Duncan noted, Q as a god was confused, conflated or associated with
at least one mortal man, Q. Topiltzin of Tula (capitol of the Toltecs, ca.
900-1200 AD). In another post, however, Duncan said that there was a key
association with Teotihuacan (fl. ca. 100 BC-700 AD), and speicifically
_not_ Tula. I am also not sure how he arrived at 999 AD as the accession
date for Q. Topiltzin. Duncan associates that year with an alignment
prominently including Venus, which was associated with Q; but I don't know
if there is written evidence of this. Duncan also associates another human
bearer of the Q name with Venus, and says that he outlawed human sacrifice
in 478 AD. Again, I haven't seen the evidence that supports that specific
year, other than the planetary alignments; and would like to before I accept
it as fact.

I only really took specific issue with Duncan's statement that Cortes
wouldn't concoct a story to his King; and that was based on my understanding
of Cortes' history and character, not specific knowledge of the letter in
question.
Post by Seppo Renfors
http://www.encyclopedia.com/html/T/Tezcatli.asp
Post by Gisele Horvat
Best remember the AVM fiasco, and verify before you get too excited.
...and remember the KRS... don't reject things out of hand because you
don't like the story.
Not sure what you mean here. Of course it's not proper to reject things
because you don't like the story. I haven't WRT KRS; and I haven't WRT
Duncan's post. My only purpose in posting what I did was to caution Eric
against taking what Duncan wrote as gospel without checking it out for
himself. I assume you'd agree with that?

Tom McDonald
Post by Seppo Renfors
--
SIR - Philosopher unauthorised
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The one who is educated from the wrong books is not educated, he is
misled.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Stevens
2003-07-28 20:31:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Thomas McDonald
Seppo,
Not poo-pooing them; merely suggesting that Eric not get ahead of
himself.
Me?

I'm not 'getting' anywhere. I've been on the outside of this, reading,
for some time. I find the whole thing fascinating.



Eric Stevens
Seppo Renfors
2003-07-29 14:42:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Duncan Craig
Post by Seppo Renfors
[..]
Post by Gisele Horvat
Post by Eric Stevens
Post by Duncan Craig
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
Post by Seppo Renfors
Post by Gisele Horvat
Post by Eric Stevens
Post by Duncan Craig
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
Post by Seppo Renfors
Post by Gisele Horvat
Post by Eric Stevens
Post by Duncan Craig
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
Post by Seppo Renfors
Post by Gisele Horvat
Post by Eric Stevens
Post by Duncan Craig
items associated with the different aspects to see which Cortes
chose.
Post by Seppo Renfors
Post by Gisele Horvat
Post by Eric Stevens
Post by Duncan Craig
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,
Post by Seppo Renfors
Post by Gisele Horvat
Post by Eric Stevens
Post by Duncan Craig
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
Post by Seppo Renfors
Post by Gisele Horvat
Post by Eric Stevens
Post by Duncan Craig
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
Post by Seppo Renfors
Post by Gisele Horvat
the left". The main Aztec god from their early days, and a great lover
of
Post by Seppo Renfors
Post by Gisele Horvat
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
Post by Seppo Renfors
Post by Gisele Horvat
says Cortes sent to the Spanish king; that "[i]t is not the letter of
one
Post by Seppo Renfors
Post by Gisele Horvat
who concoted (sic) the whole story". I don't think a sober look at
Cortes'
Post by Seppo Renfors
Post by Gisele Horvat
life would support the contention that he was a keen and disinterested
observer of things that had the potential to be useful to him.
As I have heard the story, Duncan's version stand up well indeed. I do
think his statement on Cortes is quite believable. He is far from
alone in those views - and quite frankly, I though they were normal
mainstream views! I'm surprised to see you poo-pooing them.
Seppo,
Not poo-pooing them; merely suggesting that Eric not get ahead of
himself.
The references regarding Mixtec mythology and history vary greatly in
quality, and over time. For instance, one reference I have, Frances F.
Berdan, _The Aztecs of Central Mexico: An Imperial Society_, 1982, ISBN #
0-03-055736-4, says that their creator gods were Ometecutli (male) and
the Red Tezcatlipoca (Xipe Totec);
Quetzalcoatl ("presumably the White Tezcatlipoca");
and the Blue Tezcatlipoca (Huitzilopochtli, or Hummingbird on the Left).
As you can see, there is an opportunity for confusion here as to which
"Tezcatlipoca" one is referring to; although I'd imagine that the name,
without modifier, would probably relate to the Black Tezcatlipoca. This is
most likely a later addition to Mixtec mythology; Huitzilopochtli seems to
have been their main god before and during their migration.
I'm aware of there being a number of different views on the various
gods and their places in the scheme of things. This is no different
from the ancient times from Mesopotamia - Egypt through to Greece. I
haven't found that odd at all - only to be expected really.
Post by Duncan Craig
As Duncan noted, Q as a god was confused, conflated or associated with
at least one mortal man, Q. Topiltzin of Tula (capitol of the Toltecs, ca.
900-1200 AD). In another post, however, Duncan said that there was a key
association with Teotihuacan (fl. ca. 100 BC-700 AD), and speicifically
_not_ Tula. I am also not sure how he arrived at 999 AD as the accession
date for Q. Topiltzin. Duncan associates that year with an alignment
prominently including Venus, which was associated with Q; but I don't know
if there is written evidence of this.
There is evidence in the form of software (about their location in
years past) - or a planetarium where you can dial up any particular
year and look at the stars. The year 560 something keep bobbing around
in my head for some reason. If that is accurate I'm not sure, but it
had to do with constellations lining up with something and that was
evidence of an event. I'm being vague, because this was from a TV
program that I did tape - but taped over it again by accident with
something else... Grrrr.... so have to rely on memory.
Post by Duncan Craig
Duncan also associates another human
bearer of the Q name with Venus, and says that he outlawed human sacrifice
in 478 AD. Again, I haven't seen the evidence that supports that specific
year, other than the planetary alignments; and would like to before I accept
it as fact.
I have heard similar before to what Duncan has been telling - only
memory isn't all that clear on the specific details. I can't recall
the dates well, but this IS where the bearded God story comes into
being. It is this bearded god of people who don't grow beards that was
indeed very intriguing.
Post by Duncan Craig
I only really took specific issue with Duncan's statement that Cortes
wouldn't concoct a story to his King; and that was based on my understanding
of Cortes' history and character, not specific knowledge of the letter in
question.
I am aware of the same story being posed by others as well as by
Duncan, it isn't new.

The letter are available on the net:
http://www.mexica.ws/CORTES%20IN%20HIS%20OWN%20WORDS.htm
http://www.joh.cam.ac.uk/Library/special%20collections/Pix/Cortes.html
http://college.hmco.com/history/west/mosaic/chapter9/source245.html
Post by Duncan Craig
Post by Seppo Renfors
http://www.encyclopedia.com/html/T/Tezcatli.asp
Post by Gisele Horvat
Best remember the AVM fiasco, and verify before you get too excited.
...and remember the KRS... don't reject things out of hand because you
don't like the story.
Not sure what you mean here. Of course it's not proper to reject things
because you don't like the story. I haven't WRT KRS; and I haven't WRT
Duncan's post. My only purpose in posting what I did was to caution Eric
against taking what Duncan wrote as gospel without checking it out for
himself. I assume you'd agree with that?
Basically I would - though I pointed to it already being a fairly well
accepted version of what did happen.
--
SIR - Philosopher unauthorised
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The one who is educated from the wrong books is not educated, he is
misled.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Seppo Renfors
2003-07-28 13:07:11 UTC
Permalink
[..]
Post by Duncan Craig
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?
Much of this is as I have heard the story. They were masters at
astronomy and partly that is was said to be the cause of Montezuma not
doing more to drive off the Spanish.

The Year 560 something has some bearing on this story, being the
beginning, I think - as does precession. The milky way has to rise in
a certain place as that is the bridge between the living and the dead
- the path to the Gods. It has a cycle of some 800 years IIRC. It was
known for some time that this alignment would to be broken at a
particular time - Montezuma's time. It was supposed to signal the end
of their civilization. There is an American who has done extensive
work on the ancient legends, and pieced together the story - found the
connections to the stars, etc. I can't recall his name.

I do recall seeing a series on this on TV - this had an ancient rock
carving of a man with a beard as the "original" god/person that
brought peace to the various nations - that had been at war for many
hundreds of years previously - 800 years to be precise - or so it was
said. I have a mental picture of this carving being quite enormous on
a vertical cliff face. I cannot recall where it was, not what they
called the being depicted. It was posed as evidence of someone from
the old world having had contact, and that was because of the beard
and physical features of the carved impression.
--
SIR - Philosopher unauthorised
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The one who is educated from the wrong books is not educated, he is
misled.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
pete
2003-07-28 05:29:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by MIB529
Post by MIB529
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.
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.
The conjecture that they were gods, was Mexican in origin.
They had prophecies of bearded gods.
The whites never claimed to be gods.
When Cortez destroyed the idols and
fixed up the alters catholic style,
he made it very plain that if the Mexicans were going to worship
anything, it would only be through either Jesus or Mary.

All of that is according to Bernal Diaz, who was there at the time.
--
pete
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.
deowll
2003-08-03 03:21:47 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?
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.
I don't remember insulting any Indians. My great grandfather married one. It
was his second wife and no relation but so what? My view is that the classic
Clovis tool kit and way of life is native to North America. That is not an
insult. If you think it is you need to be more careful what you sniff.
deowll
2003-08-04 02:06:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by deowll
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?
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.
I don't remember insulting any Indians. My great grandfather married one. It
was his second wife and no relation but so what? My view is that the classic
Clovis tool kit and way of life is native to North America. That is not an
insult. If you think it is you need to be more careful what you sniff.
Clovis is likely native to North America. But it was NOT likely first,
the way this thread implies. (Never mind that molecular clocks are
calibrated based on the time someone believes a split occurred. Or
that ANY selective factor, even non-random mating, can screw up
molecular clocks.)
BTW, "My great-grandfather married one"...To quote Shania Twain, "That
don't impress me much."
It didn't impress my father either. He said she was MEAN. Of course Grandma
had let the kids run wild.

What evidence I'm aware of shows bone or ivory points showing up across
North America long before Clovis though some stone points that are preclovis
have shown up. The selection of bone and ivory as point material along with
a not overly impressive stone culture may be one reason they were so easy to
ignore. Early cultures are named by the stone points they made and bone and
ivory points decay.
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.
John Wilkins
2003-08-01 01:31:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by MIB529
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.)
As an amateur and dilletante, I thought there was some evidence of
dispersal from the Alaskan corridor at least three times.
Post by MIB529
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.
Sorry for the delay replying - I've been away.

Interesting answer (and one I can live with happily, BTW). From where? I
know there are claims that some South Americans might have come from
Australia or the Pacific Islands. What evidence is there?

This is a serious question - I have no opinion worth dust (red or any
other colour) on the topic.
--
John Wilkins
B'dies, Brutius
deowll
2003-08-03 03:30:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Wilkins
Post by MIB529
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.)
As an amateur and dilletante, I thought there was some evidence of
dispersal from the Alaskan corridor at least three times.
Post by MIB529
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.
Sorry for the delay replying - I've been away.
Interesting answer (and one I can live with happily, BTW). From where? I
know there are claims that some South Americans might have come from
Australia or the Pacific Islands. What evidence is there?
They looked like Australians. They may have gotten here by being sea hunters
and working their way North and then back South.
Post by John Wilkins
This is a serious question - I have no opinion worth dust (red or any
other colour) on the topic.
--
John Wilkins
B'dies, Brutius
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/
Diarmid Logan
2003-07-29 13:09:50 UTC
Permalink
***@yahoo.com (Diarmid Logan) wrote in message news:<***@posting.google.com>...

[SNIP]


http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3086777.stm

Anyone with a subscription to the "American Journal of Human Genetics"
should check out the papers below:

http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/AJHG/journal/issues/v73n3/34872/34872.text.html

http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/AJHG/journal/issues/v73n3/34871/34871.text.html

Abstract:
"To scrutinize the male ancestry of extant Native American
populations, we examined eight biallelic and six microsatellite
polymorphisms from the nonrecombining portion of the Y chromosome, in
438 individuals from 24 Native American populations (1 Na Dené and 23
South Amerinds) and in 404 Mongolians. One of the biallelic markers
typed is a recently identified mutation (M242) characterizing a novel
founder Native American haplogroup. The distribution, relatedness, and
diversity of Y lineages in Native Americans indicate a differentiated
male ancestry for populations from North and South America, strongly
supporting a diverse demographic history for populations from these
areas. These data are consistent with the occurrence of two major male
migrations from southern/central Siberia to the Americas (with the
second migration being restricted to North America) and a shared
ancestry in central Asia for some of the initial migrants to Europe
and the Americas. The microsatellite diversity and distribution of a Y
lineage specific to South America (Q-M19) indicates that certain
Amerind populations have been isolated since the initial colonization
of the region, suggesting an early onset for tribalization of Native
Americans. Age estimates based on Y-chromosome microsatellite
diversity place the initial settlement of the American continent at
14,000 years ago, in relative agreement with the age of
well-established archaeological evidence."


http://diarmidlogan.blogspot.com/
Wayne George
2003-07-29 14:16:53 UTC
Permalink
Reads like "mythology" to me...

Wayne George
First Nations Artist
~~tsc~~

~~~~~~~~~~~~
[SNIP]
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3086777.stm
Anyone with a subscription to the "American Journal of Human Genetics"
http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/AJHG/journal/issues/v73n3/34872/34872.text.
html
http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/AJHG/journal/issues/v73n3/34871/34871.text.
html
"To scrutinize the male ancestry of extant Native American
populations, we examined eight biallelic and six microsatellite
polymorphisms from the nonrecombining portion of the Y chromosome, in
438 individuals from 24 Native American populations (1 Na Dené and 23
South Amerinds) and in 404 Mongolians. One of the biallelic markers
typed is a recently identified mutation (M242) characterizing a novel
founder Native American haplogroup. The distribution, relatedness, and
diversity of Y lineages in Native Americans indicate a differentiated
male ancestry for populations from North and South America, strongly
supporting a diverse demographic history for populations from these
areas. These data are consistent with the occurrence of two major male
migrations from southern/central Siberia to the Americas (with the
second migration being restricted to North America) and a shared
ancestry in central Asia for some of the initial migrants to Europe
and the Americas. The microsatellite diversity and distribution of a Y
lineage specific to South America (Q-M19) indicates that certain
Amerind populations have been isolated since the initial colonization
of the region, suggesting an early onset for tribalization of Native
Americans. Age estimates based on Y-chromosome microsatellite
diversity place the initial settlement of the American continent at
14,000 years ago, in relative agreement with the age of
well-established archaeological evidence."
http://diarmidlogan.blogspot.com/
Philip Deitiker
2003-07-29 15:04:14 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 29 Jul 2003 07:16:53 -0700, "Wayne George"
Post by Wayne George
Reads like "mythology" to me...
Wayne George
First Nations Artist
I guess we can't expect any better than this when we have
,soc.history.ancient,soc.culture.usa,soc.culture.native in
the NG line, Diarmid if you wanna talk sci don't Xpost to
these groups because whatever sci you have to offer these
emotive ________ don't really give. So its better not to
feed them into sci. groups.

<plonk>
Wayne George
2003-07-30 04:47:20 UTC
Permalink
Gosh!!.........thanks Phil................i think?

Wayne George
First Nations Artist
~~tsc~~

~~~~~~~~~~~~
Post by Philip Deitiker
On Tue, 29 Jul 2003 07:16:53 -0700, "Wayne George"
Post by Wayne George
Reads like "mythology" to me...
Wayne George
First Nations Artist
I guess we can't expect any better than this when we have
,soc.history.ancient,soc.culture.usa,soc.culture.native in
the NG line, Diarmid if you wanna talk sci don't Xpost to
these groups because whatever sci you have to offer these
emotive ________ don't really give. So its better not to
feed them into sci. groups.
<plonk>
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...