November 19th, 2011, 03:36 PM
In North America, before white people came to screw everything up, there were indigenous tribes. Seminole tribe was not one of these- was a community of persons of various races and tribes brought together by circumstances, runaway slaves and indentured servants, outcasts from other tribes, survivors of vanishing ethnic groups, etc.
So are Seminoles truly "Native American"?
Seminole - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The wiki article doesn't agree with you contention. It counters it in some ways, like the claim that they have a unique language, related to other native American languages--a pretty strong indicator that they were a native American separate tribe.
Wiki says TWO languages. Plus Black Seminoles. Point being that tribe owed its separate existence to disruptions caused or aided by Spanish interlopers.
Black Seminoles - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
And how would that make them not native?
If ancient tribes from asia would have come in several waves, would the first wave be considered the true natives, and the other waves neo-natives, and if tribes of the truly native americans mixed with the new comers, what % of lineage would be required for someone to be a true fist native as opposed to a new native? Then let say a third wave occurs but stays in the north and vikings visit and theres one mixed fist-second-third wave native that is 20%first native+ 30%neo-native+50%later-native has 3 kids with a viking, and one of these kids grows up to have a child with someone that has 50% first wave ancestors and 50% third wave but the second mix-native+viking child grows up to marry someone with only 10% first wave ancestor? Then how do you differenciate the decendants of these two kids in terms of native-ness?
( insert circus music)
Last edited by icewendigo; November 22nd, 2011 at 02:24 PM.
Why bother?Originally Posted by icewendigo
If ancient tribes from asia would have come in several waves, would the first wave be considered the true natives, and the other waves neo-natives, and if tribes of the truly native americans mixed with the new comers, what % of lineage would be required for someone to be a true fist native as opposed to a new native? Then let say a third wave occurs but stays in the north and vikings visit and theres one mixed fist-second-third wave native that is 20%first native+ 30%neo-native+50%later-native has 3 kids with a viking, and one of these kids grows up to have a child with someone that has 50% first wave ancestors and 50% third wave but the second mix-native+viking child grows up to marry someone with only 10% first wave ancestor? Then how do you differenciate the decendants of these two kids in terms of native-ness?
( insert circus music)
Is muddled, this race business. Furthermore persons who would have denied Native American heritage a few decades ago now are more willing to claim it. Is it ancestry or culture which is more important?
Things to ponder...
http://www.amazon.com/One-Drop-Blood.../dp/0374240795
Ancestry-ism is racism. Think about it. What is the one thing that is always true about racial claims? Answer: People from a race that is different from yours clearly descended (at least in part) from different ancestors than you. That's the only thing you can reliably say in all these race discussions.
Gathering into racial groups and hating each other is just gathering in to (very) extended family groups and having family feuds. .... And sometimes forgetting that in the end we're all from the same family.
"Is it ancestry or culture which is more important?"
imo ancestry has to be taken with a grain of salt(or placed into perspective, which was the aim of the fun-poking comment) and in a normal and sane environment not all that important in day to day activities. Imo culture is more important, but organic and fluid, it evolves mixes splits and changes, the important aspect imo is to keep those changes gradual and voluntary so that culture is allowed to evolve alongside other cultures and express itself in new or alternate ways(generally speaking, diversity is good) instead of being snuffed out and crushed by another(by immigration overload[of culturally incompatible people], invasion/colonization, etc).
I think it has been well established that "white" people and their decedents have been in the Americas, and coming to the Americas, for thousands and thousands of years. Contrary to your statement that "white" people messed everything up, they are credited by most pre-Columbus American Tribes as being the peoples who taught them just about everything they knew and know (farming, mathematics, astrology, civilization, building/engineering, religion, etc..).
The Americas (pre-Columbus) had been visit and/or populated to one degree or another by the peoples of every other continent at one point or another. The Americas have contained within them the lands of the people of the world, and the term "native" as applied and understood, concerning the Americas, is fundamentally wrong IMO.
A tribe or peoples in America made up of multiple decedents from different ancestries and/or cultures, so be it pre-Columbus or post-Columbus, IMO, have just as much right by ancestry to be called or considered "Native" to the Americas as any other tribe or peoples.
Did you make this up yourself or did someone else do it for you?I think it has been well established that "white" people and their decedents have been in the Americas, and coming to the Americas, for thousands and thousands of years. Contrary to your statement that "white" people messed everything up, they are credited by most pre-Columbus American Tribes as being the peoples who taught them just about everything they knew and know (farming, mathematics, astrology, civilization, building/engineering, religion, etc..).
The Americas (pre-Columbus) had been visit and/or populated to one degree or another by the peoples of every other continent at one point or another. The Americas have contained within them the lands of the people of the world, and the term "native" as applied and understood, concerning the Americas, is fundamentally wrong IMO.
A tribe or peoples in America made up of multiple decedents from different ancestries and/or cultures, so be it pre-Columbus or post-Columbus, IMO, have just as much right by ancestry to be called or considered "Native" to the Americas as any other tribe or peoples.
There was a legend of a white bearded dude who had shown up a long time ago. It's not really as unlikely as some people make it out to be. European (or North African) trade guilds would have protected the knowledge of such a trade route in order to assure their own dominance over it.
Pre-Columbian natives didn't have knowledge of iron working, so right there you've got a trade good you can give them in exchange for whatever you would like them to give you in return, and even better since the iron will rust and they'll be needing more items. But other European tech might have been valuable also (and Iron weighs a lot so.... maybe not the best thing to ship I guess.)
Also, enough highly sea-faring Mediterranean cultures or nations, such as the Phoenicians or the Minoans were destroyed over those time frames that the knowledge could easily be lost as well.
Has any of the iron ever been found in pre-Columbian sites? (I checked Google and as far as I could find, the answer is no). If not, then the idea of such trade is highly unlikely.There was a legend of a white bearded dude who had shown up a long time ago. It's not really as unlikely as some people make it out to be. European (or North African) trade guilds would have protected the knowledge of such a trade route in order to assure their own dominance over it.
Pre-Columbian natives didn't have knowledge of iron working, so right there you've got a trade good you can give them in exchange for whatever you would like them to give you in return, and even better since the iron will rust and they'll be needing more items. But other European tech might have been valuable also (and Iron weighs a lot so.... maybe not the best thing to ship I guess.)
Also, enough highly sea-faring Mediterranean cultures or nations, such as the Phoenicians or the Minoans were destroyed over those time frames that the knowledge could easily be lost as well.
I don't think iron is commonly found even in old Europe digs. Its tendency to rust means all that usually gets found is a pile of something that could *maybe* have been a sword or a spear tip. I guess there'd be references to it or something if the indigenous people had it, though. ---- Oh wait, their records were all destroyed. I guess no records. We'd have to find an actual artifact or two.
When you think about it, the only reason we even know anything about the Viking settlement in Greenland is because it was a settlement. If they'd have just been sailing back and forth and trading stuff, the footprint on history would have been too small for us to even notice. And yet the Vikings clearly forgot about it, at least enough to quit going there. Probably any other groups that had started trading relations ultimately forgot too, or gave up on it later, just like the Vikings did.
Winds change. A profitable trade route in one time frame might be totally not worth trying to navigate in another time frame, or if the locals decide not to be friendly to the traders anymore, or the latest expedition gets wiped out by an unexpected disease.
You have to have someone to trade with. The Vikings of Greenland starved to death when the climate turned against them. As best we can tell all the ships were built in Europe, so presumably one last ship found the dead colony afterwhich point there was no reason to return.
Is there any evidence of iron smelting in pre-Columbian sites? Even Labrador where the vikings had a colony for a few years?
For the Pre-Inca and Inca people their leader/god was Viracocha.. Viracocha was a white man they called the creator of everything. Quetzalcoatl was the ruler of the Toltec people, again a white man. Kukulcan, Bochia, Hyustus, etc., all white men (some believe that some of the white people/gods of the Americas were one in the same.. Others believe they were different people).
In Florida, the Windover Bog People.
In Northern America, the Vikings.
The evidence for an African influence and presence in ancient America is there as well.
It is very hard to find smelting sites, even when pre-Columbian mines have been located and sheets and sheet rolls of processed and refined metals are located. I have read (more than a few times) about some 500,000 tons of copper mined out of North America (modern day Michigan if I recall correctly) starting at about 3000 BC, and there is (at least last time I checked) very few artifacts (nothing really significant) left by the people who mined the 500,000 tons of copper. The only thing I believe they are sure of is that the overwhelming majority of the 500,000 tons of copper is unaccounted for.
In the time period under discussion, the teaching would have been in the other direction as well.Contrary to your statement that "white" people messed everything up, they are credited by most pre-Columbus American Tribes as being the peoples who taught them just about everything they knew and know (farming, mathematics, astrology, civilization, building/engineering, religion, etc..).
The calenders, arithmetic, astrology, farming, and several other aspects of civilization, were better developed in the Americas than they were in the white people's regions of the time. If there was significant trade, the failure of any trace of it to have benefited white people's Europe as well as the Americas is hard to explain. No trace of pre-Columbian NA copper, even, has been found anywhere in Europe - let alone NA gemstones, beaver fur, gold or silver, corn or potatoes or peppers or chocolate, the far superior American chestnut, feathers from hummingbirds or other ornamentals, nothing. Two continents' worth of unique biological and mineral trade goods, and not a single example anywhere outside those two continents until after Columbus.
The most likelihood of pre-Columbian white person's contact we have is probably from the fishing grounds off the NE coast, near the lands of what came to be the Iroquois Nation.
There is massive amounts of evidence and proof that pre-Columbian trade took place from the old world to the new world and from the new world to the old world. Cashew, Pineapple, peanut, chili peppers, coca, sunflower, potato, sweet potato, tobacco, lima bean, kidney bean, corn maize and on and on....
Concerning white peoples in the Americas, pre-Columbian, the best evidence we have (for the oldest dates, IMO) is ancient traditions, ancient artifacts, ancient remains and ancient DNA (such as the Windover Bog People of Florida).
Well you're going to need a LOT more evidence than a link that doesn't work.
It works for me.. Perhaps it might give others trouble as well as yourself because it is a PDF page?
It is a paper titled: "Scientific Evidence For Pre-Columbian Transoceanic Voyages"
Here is a different link to the paper
Here is evidence and studies supporting the paper
Nothing in there with any direct relevance to white people - the connections proposed are with India, China, Polynesia, etc. (the postulated locations in India and China are the farthest and least accessible agriculturally inhabited spots on the planet, for a voyager starting from or to the MesoAmerican locations proposed by the authors).
They are pretty remarkable, in their implications (including the obvious question of what happened to all that transoceanic capability and distributed stuff, so that by the time anyone was writing histories and planting crops in Europe or around the Mediterranean it had vanished without a trace), but the notion of white people teaching the Amerindians everything they knew about farming, civilization, astrology, and so forth, via trade routes over the ocean, is not supported in the slightest.
There is no evidence for white people teaching the Amerindians everything they know if you want to ignore the fact that most Amerindians said and say that white people are the creators of everything they have and everything they know. They do not claim they did it, in fact, they do not claim that any other peoples of the world had a hand in doing it but for white people. Ironically enough, I keep mentioning the white Windover Bog People discovered in Florida, and this reality conveniently keeps being ignored.Nothing in there with any direct relevance to white people - the connections proposed are with India, China, Polynesia, etc. (the postulated locations in India and China are the farthest and least accessible agriculturally inhabited spots on the planet, for a voyager starting from or to the MesoAmerican locations proposed by the authors).
They are pretty remarkable, in their implications (including the obvious question of what happened to all that transoceanic capability and distributed stuff, so that by the time anyone was writing histories and planting crops in Europe or around the Mediterranean it had vanished without a trace), but the notion of white people teaching the Amerindians everything they knew about farming, civilization, astrology, and so forth, via trade routes over the ocean, is not supported in the slightest.
It is also well established that white tribes have lived in, controlled and maintained trade routes and lands in China (at least from 4,000 years ago) and from Europe to Iran, Afgan, India, etc (perhaps longer than any other peoples) .. Europe is just one region in which white tribes lived in and controlled, it is not the only region.
There might be (well, OK, there is) a small amount of truth in that; however, the web site you link has so little credibility that I would assume it was totally untrue if I didn't already have some knowledge of the area.
There were, not surprisingly, traders from all parts of Europe and Asia living and working along the Silk Road and other trade routes. "White people" had no special position. For example, the lingua franca along the Silk Road was Sogdian, which originated from what is modern Uzbekistan and Tajikistan.
Gonzalez I looked the paper, and did a bit of research on some of their claims. The hook worms for example; While there seemed at least some evidence of pre-Columbian introduction of those parasites, I was disappointed the flurry of disputed papers one way or the other over the past twenty years (look them on Google scholar) wasn't mentioned. I only checked some of the claims but couldn't confirm the claims of plants and animals leaving the America's and going to Asia, India (like horny Goat weed...lol) etc. I'm not dismissing the work because it's Morman with a vested interest linked to their faith, but wasn't terribly surprised to find a rather strong bias in the presentation either.
These White Peoples of China had been at this location at least 2,000 years before the Chinese and the "Silk Road". The Sogdian followed the Bactrian peoples (Iranians) but, again, you are referring to a time period for the Sogdian of 500 AD to 700 AD.There might be (well, OK, there is) a small amount of truth in that; however, the web site you link has so little credibility that I would assume it was totally untrue if I didn't already have some knowledge of the area.
There were, not surprisingly, traders from all parts of Europe and Asia living and working along the Silk Road and other trade routes. "White people" had no special position. For example, the lingua franca along the Silk Road was Sogdian, which originated from what is modern Uzbekistan and Tajikistan.
The Mummies of Urumchi - White Peoples - China - at least 2000 BC
loulanmummy2.jpg loulanmummy.jpg
Bactrian / Irianian / Tocharian Peoples - Painting 500 AD - White People - China
chevaliers_kyzyl.jpg
Sogdian Trade - Silk Road - 500 AD to 700 AD
This is the time period you are starting at and you are, at best, ignoring everything prior to this brief moment in time. The Sogdians have also, and always, been considered the apprentices of the Bactrain/Tocharian/Iranian Peoples. Regardless though, White people were in this region of China, living and trading, at least 2000 years before anyone else.
If you have evidence that supports your claim that the Sogdians were on the silk road in or around 2000 BC then I would and will gladly change my own thoughts and agree with you.
As "white people" (I assume you mean primarily Indo-European speakers, from your scatter-gun and rather vague references) originated in the Middle East, this is hardly surprising. I'm not sure what your point is. People are scattered across the continent. Wow.
Obviously, if I had made any such claim then I would have evidence for it.If you have evidence that supports your claim that the Sogdians were on the silk road in or around 2000 BC then I would and will gladly change my own thoughts and agree with you.
One of the Authors of the work: Dr. Carl Johannessen
I will let you and others decide for themselves if Dr. Carl Johannessen is qualified and/or if he is strongly bias.
I had also put a link below his work.. Indologist and Ethnobotanist Shakti M Gupta confirms Dr. Carl Johannessen's work. Perhaps it was missed...?
The claim was made on this thread by another poster (summarizing) that even if there was pre-columbian trade between the old world and the new world the evidence suggests trade with India and China, and White Peoples are void and irrelevant due to trade pointing to India and China.As "white people" (I assume you mean primarily Indo-European speakers, from your scatter-gun and rather vague references) originated in the Middle East, this is hardly surprising. I'm not sure what your point is. People are scattered across the continent. Wow.
Obviously, if I had made any such claim then I would have evidence for it.If you have evidence that supports your claim that the Sogdians were on the silk road in or around 2000 BC then I would and will gladly change my own thoughts and agree with you.
Thus my post.. Thus my point.
And no, we are not talking about Language. Not yet anyways.
My references and what I have referred to have been far from scatter gunned and/or vague. My post are clear, short and on point in their responses... In contrast, you stop by, mention the Sogdian (whom have no relevance to what is being discussed) and then turn right back around and ask me what my point is. If I may, I would suggest reading the thread from the first post down, and then that might help you.
I will not even attempt to claim any understanding at all concerning the worms, diseases, bacteria and virus aspects in the study. There are other papers and works on these things but, I have no clue what they are talking (writing) about. lol..
What I can wrap my mind around and understand is the tree, plant and grass evidence/studies. That evidence is cemented in my mind as factual right now.
I'll give you an example of the hook worm:
"
[h=1]Hookworm: not a pre-Columbian pathogen.[/h]Fuller K.
[h=3]Source[/h]Department of Anthropology, University of Kansas, Lawrence 66045, USA.
[h=3]Abstract[/h]It has been asserted that evidence of pre-Columbian hookworm has been found in the Americas, specifically in Peru, Brazil, and Tennessee. However, based on an analysis of the life cycle and morphology of hookworm, the paleopathologic indications for the presence of hookworm infestation in the Americas prior to 1492 are suspect. It is concluded that the material found in the Peruvian mummy is probably pinworms, that the Brazilian and Tennessee materials are probably not hookworm, and, therefore, that hookworm was one of many pathogens brought to the Americas after contact in 1492."
Hookworm: not a pre-Columbian pathogen. [Med Anthropol. 1997] - PubMed - NCBI
---
Your source sets it, giving the impression that it is irrefutable evidence but when I did a quick search the topic is still hotly debated in the literature. So it made me wonder right off the bat, whether the paper was a balanced representation of the studies, or more a position piece cherry picking through the research to support something consistent with their religious views.
They also make other kinds of assumptions such as: "Can these findings be said to establish conclusively that early human voyagers crossed the ocean to the Americas?" There's another alternative pretty well published of sea people making relatively fast transits along the coast by kayak or large dug out canoes that doesn't require any ocean crossing.
No one can expects us to be experts, but there's enough information to be a bit more skeptical about research and do a bit of independent examination of bias or credibility of the source.That evidence is cemented in my mind as factual right now.
Perhaps we can just take a sampling of a few of these claims? Like one that they say started in the America and traveled back to Asia.
The Hookworms are unimportant to me. Again, it is the trees, plants and grasses that show trade.
Could the Amerindian peoples come to the old world with these things? Without a doubt, they could have. Could I ask you something though? If there was a discovery of an Amerindian settlement in Europe or Eurasia that was dated to have been there 8 thousand years ago (It just proves that Amerindians were in Europe and/or Eurasia), and European tradition as well as the Europeans themselves claimed it was/is their Amerindian leaders and Amerindian Gods who created them, taught them and took care of them, what would you say? What would be your response to that? Lets say trees, plants and grasses with origins in and on the different continents were brought to other continents by someone, what would you say to that?
We know there was a tribe of white peoples in the Americas some 8,000 years ago (proves they were there). We know that the Amerindians had white leaders and white gods. We know that Amerindians said that these white leaders and white gods created everything for them. We know that there are trees, plants and grasses that are native to the old world and new world that have traveled to different continents. We know that from at least 4000 years ago that white peoples lived on and controlled what would later (2000 years later) be called the "silk road" in China. We know the same applies to modern day Iran and India.
You see, I do not care who the peoples are or were. They just happen to be white peoples and I have no problem stating that.
Ok, which ones?The Hookworms are unimportant to me. Again, it is the trees, plants and grasses that show trade.
You make a bunch of "we know" claims. Ok show us! I know almost all arctive native Amerindians ARE WHITE, not because they came from anywhere else, but because their skin adapted to living at Northern latitudes. (I think skin color is a rather stupid way of dividing up people--but want to play along).
Last edited by Lynx_Fox; January 19th, 2012 at 06:18 PM.
That is never a good position to be in.
If you take the big picture, the only truly indigenous people were the early African hominids, one species of which [ homo sapiens ] went on to populate the planet. So in a way almost all human beings are migrants or descended from migrants. In Britian, when the Romans invaded, ther was a bunch of pagan tribes descended from whomsoever it was who wandered here across the [ then extant ] land connections from europe when the sea level was far lower - we are all mongrels.
This opinion does not sit too well with the various right wing racist zoonie organisations pushing white supremacy - I couldn't care less about that.
? Bullshit.
How come the white people forgot it all, by the time they figured out how to read and write?
Here's some pictures of statues from one of the earliest of farming, citydwelling, civilizations in the Americas - this is the one that taught the Mayans (who came along later), the one that seems to have been the source for a lot of the cultural and technological advances of subsequent peoples in more northern places in the Americas: South American Pictures Olmec photo collection page 1,
Screams "white people" at you, does it?
There appears to have been discovered traces of both Cocaine and Tobacco in some Egyptian mummies.
Were the Pharoahs junkies
Pre-Columbian trans-oceanic contact - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
So, it could be that contact between Europe and the Americas happened a very, very, very long time ago, and didn't last into the classical ages. A lot of Egypt's technology and science also didn't make it over to Europe, so no surprise there if we don't see the same knowledge of astronomy... etc.Traces of coca and nicotine found in some Egyptian mummies have led some to speculate that Ancient Egyptians may have traveled to the New World. The initial discovery was made by a Germantoxicologist, Svetlana Balabanova, after examining the mummy of a female priestess called Henut Taui. Follow-up tests of the hair shaft, performed to rule out contamination, gave the same results.[18]The significance of these finds lies in the fact that both coca and tobacco plants are indigenous to the Americas and thought not to have existed in Africa until sometime after the voyages of Columbus.[19][20] Subsequent examination of numerous Sudanese mummies undertaken by Balabanova mirrored what was found in the mummy of Henut Taui.[21] Balabanova suggested that the tobacco may be accounted for since it may have also been known in China and Europe, as indicated by analysis run on human remains from those respective regions. Balabanova proposed that such plants native to the general area may have developed independently, but have since gone extinct.[21] Other explanations include fraud, though curator Alfred Grimm of the Egyptian Museum in Munichdisputes this.[21] Skeptical of Balabanova's findings, Rosalie David Keeper of Egyptology at the Manchester Museum had similar tests performed on samples taken from the Manchester mummy collection and reported that two of the tissue samples and one hair sample did test positive for nicotine.[21] Sources of nicotine other than tobacco and sources of cocaine in the Old World are discussed by the British biologist Duncan Edlin.[22] Mainstream scholars remain skeptical, and do not see this as proof of ancient contact between Africa and the Americas, especially as there may be possible Old World sources.[23][24] Two attempts to replicate Balbanova finds of cocaine failed, suggesting "that either Balabanova and her associates are misinterpreting their results or that the samples of mummies tested by them have been mysteriously exposed to cocaine."
Perhaps the Aztecs' equivalent of The Great Library of Alexandria wasn't burnt down by Christian zealots. Or well..... not until Cortez arrived anyway, lol.
Last edited by kojax; January 21st, 2012 at 05:10 PM.
If so - and it's pretty vehemently disputed - we still don't have any involvement of white people.There appears to have been discovered traces of both Cocaine and Tobacco in some Egyptian mummies.
The stuff Columbus brought back caused an economic and agrarian revolution in Europe. There was nothing like it before, and it made very significant changes almost immediately.
Well, think of the spice trade with India (what motivated Columbus in the first place). A similar trade with the New World to get tobacco and Cocaine (probably for the exclusive consumption of the upper class - the sort of folk who eventually become mummies.), would have all the same motivations behind it. The last thing the traders would want is for the product to begin to be grown locally.
Columbus on the other hand, was desperate to bring back anything, anything at all, that would justify the expense to which he had put his sponsors. He had hoped to land in the spice islands, but what he did find was just an ordinary place with natives in it.
.. had to correct myself about not finding (or thinking himself to have found) gold. Here's his letter back.
http://www.ushistory.org/documents/columbus.htm
Last edited by kojax; January 22nd, 2012 at 10:06 AM.
The same considerations would not apply to technologies such as weaving, or to diseases and parasites, or to gene flow between populations of traders. There are no traces of such exchange in Europe or North America.Well, think of the spice trade with India (what motivated Columbus in the first place). A similar trade with the New World to get tobacco and Cocaine (probably for the exclusive consumption of the upper class - the sort of folk who eventually become mummies.), would have all the same motivations behind it. The last thing the traders would want is for the product to begin to be grown locally.
The Americas were significantly depopulated by European respiratory infections, for example, and there were no populations of reds with genetic resources for combating them. So these traders were not only one way - since the boat tech never made it to NA, for some reason - but quite unusually chaste as well as healthy?
No bird feathers or endemic precious stones, no corn or chiles or other plants that cannot be normally traded without trading the seeds, not a trace of anything at all that can be nailed to its source and time, in Europe or the Americas. Highly unusual trading practices, those must have been.
Your quite right about that:
Here's a pretty good run down of the testing and old world plants with similar chemicals that could have been available to the Egyptians.
"To summarise there are a number of explanations which may account for the identification of cocaine, THC and nicotine in Egyptian mummies. The identification of THC is not considered unusual due to the local prevalence of C. sativa in the Middle East. In addition we know that the Egyptians utilised hemp to make ropes and THC can also be produced by reactions that occur when burning incense.
The presence of nicotine can be accounted for, as nicotine is present in small amounts in many plants commonly used as food. It is therefore fairly common for human remains to contain residual amounts of nicotine. The use of tobacco based insecticide sprays during the nineteenth century may account for the discovery of tobacco leaves in the mummy of Ramses II as well as for the identification of higher levels of nicotine in mummies that have been kept in museums over long periods of time. Amongst the resins and plant oils used by Ancient Egyptian embalmers there may have been plants, which contained significant amounts of nicotine. This contention is supported by Balabanova's discovery that the proportion of cotinine to nicotine in artificially mummified Egyptian remains is significantly less (3.4% vs 40.3%) than in naturally mummified remains. [29]
The discovery of cocaine in Egyptian mummies is however not so easy to account for as no direct evidence unequivocally supports any particular contention. Although it is possible that experimental error or modern fake mummies could account for these results both of these explanations are highly unlikely. The authenticity of the mummies has been confirmed by independent experts, the methods employed by Balabanova are reliable and are also used by forensic departments around the world. In addition Balabanova's results were confirmed by GC/MS at four different laboratories.
However, there is no reason to suppose that the cocaine identified by Balabanova in Egyptian mummies originated in South America because there are cocaine producing Erythroxylum species, which are indigenous to regions of Africa, India and Asia. The hypothesis that trade routes existed between Egypt and South America simply cannot be substantiated with any corroborative evidence and it would be incredibly unlikely that if links had existed that trade would have been restricted to plants that could be used as drugs. Furthermore, the use of such drugs by indigenous cultures is often associated with their religious beliefs and drugs are often revered as gifts from the gods. It would therefore be unusual for a culture to use particular drugs and to not make reference to their effects in their texts and legends.
Although Thor Heyerdahl established it is theoretically possible that Egyptian reed boats could survive a single trans-Atlantic journey, it beggars belief that such an exhaustive journey would be repeated over thousands of years without mention in any surviving Egyptian texts. Additionally, Mesoamerican scholars have thoroughly refuted pre-Columbian African "influences" on New World cultures. [50]
It is certainly feasible that plants containing cocaine were present in Ancient Egypt as there are examples of flora known to have grown there which subsequently became extinct, although some have been reintroduced. These include: both the blue and white water lilies, the "Ished" Tree (modern persea); a sacred tree on whose leaves the name of Pharaoh was inscribed to guarantee him a long life, the carob (Ceratonia siliqua), the Christ's Thorn (Ziziphus spina) and the Stone Pine (Pinus pinea). If the heraldic flower of the South was a real plant (and some believe that it was invented), the most likely candidate is the so-called Madonna lily (Lilium candidum).
Cocaine containing plants, such as E. monogynum, which is present in India, could have been acquired by the ancient Egyptians or in neighbouring areas which the Egyptians traded with.
Hall of Maat - The Stoned Age?
--
So this bit of evidence crumbles as well and altogether not very convincing.
Another problem is that Cocaine mostly grows in areas around Peru and Columbia, and there was no Panama Canal back then, so I'm not sure an Atlantic voyage would have allowed them to trade for it. A Pacific voyage would be a nearly insane undertaking.
However, the problem I have with all of these alternative explanations for the chemical content is they only allow doubt. They don't prove anything themselves nor offer a significantly stronger hypothesis. Well, unless the possibility of New World trade is already assumed to be so dubious that any possibility that avoids it is automatically better.
I don't think we're discussing the same kind of event. There wouldn't have been "populations" of traders. More likely a handful of people in total would ever have made the voyage.
Spain's goal in the New World was a very different goal than the goal of people who participated in trades such as the Spice Trade with India. Spain was sending colonists over, to participate in a full, and complete, large scale exchange. Of course the best way to recruit colonists is to show them nifty stuff like feathers and gems. A trading guild operating out of Carthage or Egypt would not operate that way. It would be small scale, and done for profit, without trying to spread their fame far and wide by drawing attention to their source for the goods (not trying to invite competition).The Americas were significantly depopulated by European respiratory infections, for example, and there were no populations of reds with genetic resources for combating them. So these traders were not only one way - since the boat tech never made it to NA, for some reason - but quite unusually chaste as well as healthy?
No bird feathers or endemic precious stones, no corn or chiles or other plants that cannot be normally traded without trading the seeds, not a trace of anything at all that can be nailed to its source and time, in Europe or the Americas. Highly unusual trading practices, those must have been.
Phoenicians were famous sea traders in their time. I don't know for sure how good at it they were by Medieval standards. Also there were the "Sea Peoples" who invaded the Mediterranean around 1200 BC. Nobody even knows for sure who they were.
Sea Peoples - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Egyptians and Carthaginians won't do. We need European white people, to "teach them everything they know" as specified above.
Whatever you have going, if it's across the Atlantic Ocean it's not profitable at a small scale. Nor is it physically reasonable to crew a transAtlantic trader with a handful of people.
The Egyptians knew quite a lot, like..... oh..... how to build pyramids. A lot of their knowledge was later lost, so there's no clear way to say exactly how much they knew or didn't know.Egyptians and Carthaginians won't do. We need European white people, to "teach them everything they know" as specified above.
And yet, the spice trade with India was profitable on a small scale. If you could get a single boatload of spices back, you made some serious bank. It says quite a lot that people even bothered with the voyage when you consider just how far a ship would have to sail to get there, and how many ships didn't come back.Whatever you have going, if it's across the Atlantic Ocean it's not profitable at a small scale. Nor is it physically reasonable to crew a transAtlantic trader with a handful of people.
You don't think Cocaine and Tobacco would have enough trade value to justify a similarly dangerous trip? The Atlantic voyage would require better navigation skills, but definitely a shorter distance than going to India from Europe.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spice_trade
It wasnt' as far as you might think. The Egyptians not only had a pretty well developed shipping industry from the Red Sea, but also an elaborate system of canals to get cargo from the Red Sea to the Med.
It's true there was always something akin to a Suez Canal, or at least a short land route through Egypt, but some people still went to the trouble to take the long way around the Southern tip of Africa.
The trade was transformed by the European Age of Discovery,[4] during which the spice trade, particularly in black pepper, became an influential activity for European traders.[5] The route from Europe to the Indian Ocean via the Cape of Good Hope was pioneered by the Portuguese explorer navigator Vasco da Gama in 1498, resulting in new maritime routes for trade.
Going back to this:
It is certainly feasible that plants containing cocaine were present in Ancient Egypt as there are examples of flora known to have grown there which subsequently became extinct, although some have been reintroduced. These include: both the blue and white water lilies, the "Ished" Tree (modern persea); a sacred tree on whose leaves the name of Pharaoh was inscribed to guarantee him a long life, the carob (Ceratonia siliqua), the Christ's Thorn (Ziziphus spina) and the Stone Pine (Pinus pinea). If the heraldic flower of the South was a real plant (and some believe that it was invented), the most likely candidate is the so-called Madonna lily (Lilium candidum).
One has to ask themself why these plants would be allowed to go extinct if the Egyptians knew how to extract cocaine from them.
The burning of the Great Library of Alexandria is a start. Fortunately Christian zealots didn't make it over to the New World until Columbus (at which point the book burning took off with a vengeance.)? Bullshit.
How come the white people forgot it all, by the time they figured out how to read and write?
Probably they were carved a lot later by people who didn't know what the original dude had looked like. No photographs back then, and their painting ability wasn't exactly at the renaissance level.Here's some pictures of statues from one of the earliest of farming, citydwelling, civilizations in the Americas - this is the one that taught the Mayans (who came along later), the one that seems to have been the source for a lot of the cultural and technological advances of subsequent peoples in more northern places in the Americas: South American Pictures Olmec photo collection page 1,
Screams "white people" at you, does it?
How would we know about the Viking settlement in Greenland if we hadn't found the ruins ourselves? Did the Vikings keep record of it?Nothing in there with any direct relevance to white people - the connections proposed are with India, China, Polynesia, etc. (the postulated locations in India and China are the farthest and least accessible agriculturally inhabited spots on the planet, for a voyager starting from or to the MesoAmerican locations proposed by the authors).
They are pretty remarkable, in their implications (including the obvious question of what happened to all that transoceanic capability and distributed stuff, so that by the time anyone was writing histories and planting crops in Europe or around the Mediterranean it had vanished without a trace), but the notion of white people teaching the Amerindians everything they knew about farming, civilization, astrology, and so forth, via trade routes over the ocean, is not supported in the slightest.
I want to congratulate you on your points concerning the Vikings. The fact is that the scientific community mocked any and all Viking traditions concerning voyages to America as the silly imaginative nature of European fools. When to many Viking artifacts and settlements surfaced in America the Scientific Community could no longer continue to call these finds fake, and so begrudgingly the Scientific Community conceded the debate.
It is the same thing we find today concerning the Florida Bog People, The White Mummies of China, the Aryan City of Dwarka and so on and so on......
So let me get this right..... It is African hominids who created one modern human species and it was that species who left out of Africa and went on to populate the world? English people also derive from a bunch of pagans (savage animals?) who wandered (as lucky imbeciles?) to England by land? And last but not least, anyone who does not like these (your) opinions are right wing racists pushing white supremacy?
I would suggest that Hominids from Africa, Europe and Asia all contributed to the creation of modern humans. I would also suggest that "pagans" and/or "white peoples" are not savage imbeciles who just happened to foolishly or luckily wander onto or into things.
That is what all the evidence shows.
Evidence?I would suggest that Hominids from Africa, Europe and Asia all contributed to the creation of modern humans.
The Evidence does not show what you are claiming it does.That is what all the evidence shows.
Evidence?I would suggest that Hominids from Africa, Europe and Asia all contributed to the creation of modern humans.
DNA evidence shows that Europeans and Asians have DNA from Hominids that are not African (mainly Neandertal and Denisovan). Archaeology shows that Hominids have been in Europe, Eurasia and Asia for well over a million years. In fact, the richest hominid discovery in the world comes from Spain. At least 50% of HLA genes within all modern humans comes from our Neandertal and Denisovan ancestors.
In fact, the only DNA evidence we have comparing hominids to modern humans shows that these HLA genes flowed from Asia and Europe to the rest of the world.
Now these are facts.. This is real evidence that proves hominids from outside of Africa contributed to the evolution of modern humans.
Last edited by gonzales56; January 29th, 2012 at 06:52 PM.
Well, gosh. How very surprising. It turns out that the human family tree is not simple. Duh.
Human species have apparently been interbreeding ever since they arose in ... where was it now ... oh yes, Africa. Where do you think the ancestors of the Neanderthals came from? Well, the last common ancestor of H. sapiens and H. neanderthalensis appears to be H. rhodesiensis - there is a clue in the name there.
Also, the amount of interbreeding is pretty small although the significance isn't fully understood. I am not aware of any dramatic changes in H. sapiens caused by mixing with other (sub)species.
Or are you saying that the "White People Who Saved the World" are actually Neanderthals?
Yes, in some unknown but probably minor way the earlier migrants out of Africa play a role.This is real evidence that proves hominids from outside of Africa contributed to the evolution of modern humans.
Sorry, what was your point again? I seem to have lost it with all the goalpost moving.
Egyptians don't count. We need white people, lots of them, regularly trading across the Atlantic for generations and then forgetting how to do that and everything they had learned, for the thesis that white people taught the reds in the Americas "everything they knew".
No it wasn't. It was run on a quite significant scale, starting with land caravans and gradually incorporating hundreds of the largest ships afloat - as well as huge warehouses, some of the biggest buildings in European and British cities.They had been trading overland for generations - they knew where they were going, and what to expect, and how much the voyage was worth. They had maps. Unlike with the Americas, we have artifacts and trade goods traceable to India and China all over Europe, and vice versa, from these trade routes.- - - . It says quite a lot that people even bothered with the voyage when you consider just how far a ship would have to sail to get there, and how many ships didn't come back.
The biggest investments were in the warehouses and marketing infrastructures, anyway - ship loss was a cost of business, warehouse fires were disasters. They had rules like no candles in the buildings - doing the books and inventory by daylight, this in England with like five hours of foggy sunlight a winter's day.
There is very little to no evidence in Africa that points to h sapiens developing in Africa alone. There are a lot of misguided and/or bias theories claiming such African origins but, the evidence for the evolution of common hominids and h sapiens points to Europe, Eurasia and Asia with hominids and h sapiens moving into Africa by moving south into Africa (from Spain and Eurasia). H Rhodesiensis is not a common ancestor of h sapiens and Neandertals but, H Rhodesiensis or H Rhodesiensis' ancestor did migrate out of Europe into parts of Africa.
Concerning the skin color of hominids it is widely understood and believed that our ancestors, just as our cousins the chimps, had/have white skin and darker skin color evolved from white skin. This is unimportant though.... However, you mentioned the Neandertals skin color and the DNA evidence shows that they were just like all our other ancestors are thought to be, light skinned and light haired.
I think some of you are getting stuck on your biases and/or hatreds and not looking at the evidence. Race is unimportant. It is irrelevant. Biases and hatreds should be set aside and the evidence should be the only thing we look at. Perhaps then we could focus solely on the evidence and have an honest discussion or debate.
I am sure someone taught you that Egyptians have always been everything and anything but white people but, that belief is false. Again, if we cannot get past these type of biased and/or hate filled claims and beliefs, we will not get anywhere concerning this thread.
I am not sure if you contempt is directed towards the fact that it is the Amerindians who flat out said and say that it is white peoples/gods who took them from nothing to something, who taught them everything, or if your contempt is just found in the fact that these peoples were white?
Again, not only did and do the Amerindians testify to this proudly, the ancient Aryan peoples of India had and clearly traded in foods that came from the Americas, and those things can be found throughout the old world and some of them are found displayed on Vedic temples.
Last edited by gonzales56; February 2nd, 2012 at 10:14 PM.
O-kaaaay;I am sure someone taught you that Egyptians have always been everything and anything but white people but, - - - it is the Amerindians who flat out said and say that it is white peoples/gods who took them from nothing to something, who taught them everything, - - - -
Again, not only did and do the Amerindians testify to this proudly, the ancient Aryan peoples of India had and clearly traded in foods that came from the Americas,
Things are coming into focus.
How about we combine this thread with the "modern Nazi" one, and do all the Aryan superiority stuff under one roof?
Oh good grief. Do some research instead of reading whatever religious/racist/pseudoscience it is you normally read.
This is an article new piece of research I just read yesterday. Ignore the linguistics part, look at the first part about genetic analysis.
Language Log » Phonemic SFE disconfirmed
No I didn't. If this is a demonstration of your reading comprehension skills then this might explain your problem.However, you mentioned the Neandertals skin color
No, that will be you.I think some of you are getting stuck on your biases and/or hatreds
The why do you keep going on about White People bringing enlightenment to poor ignorant (dark) foreigners?Race is unimportant.
And how many peer reviewed papers ahve you referenced to support your case? Oh yes, none. Instead you have linked to websites full of fake and fantasy history.Biases and hatreds should be set aside and the evidence should be the only thing we look at.
So, come one, bring on the evidence. I can hardly wait.
Probably it was run on both scales at different times in history. However I was thinking mostly of the individual ship owners who made enough money voyaging around the Southern tip of Africa to justify the incredible amount of time involved, and the risk of losing their ship. Clearly spices commanded a very high market price, and where there exists a very high market price per unit, just about anything is possible.Egyptians don't count. We need white people, lots of them, regularly trading across the Atlantic for generations and then forgetting how to do that and everything they had learned, for the thesis that white people taught the reds in the Americas "everything they knew".
No it wasn't. It was run on a quite significant scale, starting with land caravans and gradually incorporating hundreds of the largest ships afloat - as well as huge warehouses, some of the biggest buildings in European and British cities.They had been trading overland for generations - they knew where they were going, and what to expect, and how much the voyage was worth. They had maps. Unlike with the Americas, we have artifacts and trade goods traceable to India and China all over Europe, and vice versa, from these trade routes.- - - . It says quite a lot that people even bothered with the voyage when you consider just how far a ship would have to sail to get there, and how many ships didn't come back.
Also, Vasco de Gamma didn't discover the route around Africa until 1498, 6 years after Columbus had left Spain to find the Americas.
Spice trade - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
As long as the price per unit of tobacco and cocaine was high enough, people would certainly have been willing to make the voyage, and both of those substances have a clear advantage over spices, in that they are both addictive and one of them is mind altering to boot. The kind of stuff a high ranking Egyptian priest might be willing to pay a lot of money to get.The trade was transformed by the European Age of Discovery,[4] during which the spice trade, particularly in black pepper, became an influential activity for European traders.[5] The route from Europe to the Indian Ocean via the Cape of Good Hope was pioneered by the Portuguese explorer navigator Vasco da Gama in 1498, resulting in new maritime routes for trade
I find it highly unlikely that white skin came first. Generally, the recessive gene is the one that is the least well established because it hasn't been part of the gene pool as long, and so given that white skin is a recessive gene, it probably came about more recently than dark skin.
When people buy stuff like spice (or maybe cocaine in this case) what they're buying is not the product, but the status that comes with it. The rarer the better. The price per unit will go down, if anything, should the supply become large enough to fill demand.
The Biology of Skin Color
I do apologize about not providing a link to the statement I made concerning white skin being first in humans but, there is one for you. It is pretty much universal in belief that humans and hominids had white skin and that black skin evolved from white skinned humans and hominids due to UV exposure (after hair-loss) in desert like (open and very hot) regions.
Ironically enough there is an entire thread dedicated to when hominids first lost their hair and if cloths, fire etc. was before or after hair-loss. Due to black skin developing in the ancestors of black Africans because they lost their hair and were exposed to UV, it at least answers the question of what came first for their ancestors concerning hair-loss or cloths.
For European, Eurasian and Asian ancestors however, they would have had to develop cloths first due to the climate.
I am no expert in healthy skin color genetics but, I do not believe it is a dominate/recessive relationship in humans. I could be wrong but, I believe skin color is just a matter of a "melanin knob" turning the melanin up (darker) or down (lighter) and ones genes dictate where the "knob" will be set and its range.... At least that is how I understand it in its most simplistic form.
Last edited by gonzales56; February 8th, 2012 at 12:56 AM.
I have posted and/or referenced many studies and papers. The fact that Neandertal and modern humans split from each other about 270,000 to 400,000 years ago and Neandertals and Denisovans split from each other about the same time while modern humans and Denisovans split about a Million years ago makes it impossible that modern human evolution is all "out of Africa".
This new genetic evidence suggests that humans evolved in Neandertal Territories with the ancestors of modern humans in Europe and Eurasia, the ancestors of Denisovans in Asia and the Ancestors of Neandertals in Europe, Eurasia and Asia.
One has to keep in mind that roughly 1 million years ago there were no modern humans, there were no Neandertals and there were no Denisovans, there was only the one ancestor of all three. Now understand this as well.... At the core of this ancestor population of ours the Neandertals had to have developed/evolved in the center of this ancestor population because they remained related to both the ancestors of modern humans and the ancestors of the Denisovans for another 700,000 years or so while the outer fringes of this one ancestor population frayed at opposite ends into two different populations about 1 million years ago and became the Ancestors of modern humans and Denisovans respectfully.
I have read that article. Could you quote the exact part that shows that early humans had white skin, as I can't see it.
Please bear in mind your comment that "roughly 1 million years ago there were no modern humans".
Early hominids had pale skin. But they were also covered in hair. I don't see you extolling the virtues of Hairy people who provided enlightenment to the primitive bald people in the rest of the world.
But perhaps you just want to adjust your definition of human to suit your argument.
And why are you so obsessed with the superiority of White People?
Here you go and I could post a million different sites if need be. It is a common knowledge thing and I posted the first site I saw.I have read that article. Could you quote the exact part that shows that early humans had white skin, as I can't see it.
Please bear in mind your comment that "roughly 1 million years ago there were no modern humans".
Early hominids had pale skin. But they were also covered in hair. I don't see you extolling the virtues of Hairy people who provided enlightenment to the primitive bald people in the rest of the world.
But perhaps you just want to adjust your definition of human to suit your argument.
And why are you so obsessed with the superiority of White People?
By ancestors they mean "Human"."California Academy of Sciences, begins by assuming that our earliest ancestors had fair skin"
Our common ancestor population with Neandertals clearly were not fur covered humans. Again, the evidence strongly suggest that about 300,000 years ago or so some of our relatives (which were also some of the Neandertals relatives too) were in Europe and Eurasia and some of them spread south into the African plains and developed darker skin at some point in time.
I could careless if our ancestors were green or blue. Simply pointing out some white peoples contributions to the Americas and a bit about evolution seems to anger a few people though. Look, I would like to stick to simply posting the available evidence and posting opinions or theories concerning the topics at hand.
"California Academy of Sciences, begins by assuming that our earliest ancestors had fair skin"
Oh, I see. It is an assumption.
On the one hand, you claim that the first humans had pale skin (even though this is millions of years before modern humans) but on the other hand you claim that humans didn't originate from Africa because Neanderthals and Denisovan appear to have evolved in other parts of the world (despite the fact that this was millions of years after early hominids developed in Africa). This seems a rather contradictory position.
It might help (or not) to note that nearly all people, prior to racial comparison as in colonialism, favoured paler skin. And when people say "white" they don't mean white - they mean relatively pale within the range they're familiar with.
Dark skin does not develop Millions of years before modern humans and "fair" skin does not disappear in humans millions of years before modern humans.
What they are suggesting (just about every scientist suggests the same thing) is that our relative hominids (humans) were "fair" skinned. For millions of years they remained fair skinned. In Europe they remained fair skinned.. In Asia they remained fair skinned.
Concerning Africa, it is not until sometime after 300,000 years or so some of our distant relatives traveled into the deserts and plains of Africa and slowly developed darker and darker skin.
You keep mentioning hominid/humans from Africa from millions of years ago and it could very well be the case that some of them contributed to our genetic make up (and they are important) but, I am talking about our recent ancestors (300,000 years to 1,000,000 roughly). It is that Ancestor Population and the common Ancestors in that population that tie Us to Europe, Eurasia and Asia. From this ancestor, from these common ancestors came modern humans, Neandertals and the Denisovans.
One cannot (that I am aware of) put this common ancestor population in Africa. I am suggesting that it is impossible to do so due to the population splits and known location and development/evolution for the Neandertals and Denisovans. One just cannot have an "out of africa" only theory with a Neandertal ancestral population that included what would become modern humans and Denisovans in it while modern human and Denisovan ancestors were pushed out at opposite ends and stopped being related to each other 700,000 years before they split with the Neandertal ancestral population.
In discussions about evolution, coming first doesn't make you superior. Quite the opposite.
The out of Africa theory is the one that has been influenced by racism, because people wanted a way to justify treating black slaves as sub human, so they decided to insert them somewhere between hominid and (white) homo-sapien. If black people came later than white people, that makes them a more recent (and therefore possibly more advanced) genetic group. It might be nice to see the pendulum of scientific bias swing that way for a change.
Yeah. It implied that you were nobility, because you didn't have to work outside all day like the peasants. Getting out of work used to considered a noble pursuit. It meant you were a member of the warrior elite.
You hinted at why it won't, all the genetic evidence points towards Africa because it's got the largest range of genetic diversity. African origin in the most parsimonious hypothesis by a long shot.In discussions about evolution, coming first doesn't make you superior. Quite the opposite.
The out of Africa theory is the one that has been influenced by racism, because people wanted a way to justify treating black slaves as sub human, so they decided to insert them somewhere between hominid and (white) homo-sapien. If black people came later than white people, that makes them a more recent (and therefore possibly more advanced) genetic group. It might be nice to see the pendulum of scientific bias swing that way for a change.
You came latest idea got me to thinking though..since "white" wouldn't have the advantage there anyhow--they are almost certainly not the most recent ethnic group.
Yeah. It implied that you were nobility, because you didn't have to work outside all day like the peasants. Getting out of work used to considered a noble pursuit. It meant you were a member of the warrior elite.[/QUOTE]
| « Did Elizabeth I Have Alternate Personalities? | Are German French? » |
| Bookmarks |
Bookmarks |
1Likes
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
