Joined: 31 Dec 2006 {Posts: 12 } Location: Seattle
Posted: Mon 01 Jan 2007 05:54 Post subject: What is an Indian anyway?
Ok, I admit to a weird backgroud, my mother is a geneologist and likes to do DNA studies on our extended family. I majored in history, and had a fabulous Prof. who was Menomenie (yes, I am aware that I have misspelled this--corrections welcomed), and a very interesting teacher. I also was a title searcher, which opened my eyes to the tricks people will indulge in to cheat in selling land--even now.
So, I have been working on not writing an article about racial intermixing in North America in the past. By the time I finished looking things over, I was feeling as if the only thing some scholars agree on is that the others are wrong. I was reading Ancient America Magazine at the time, and they have claims for everyone from China, to Europe to Africa, "discovering" America. I believe from my studies that there have been people here early on from Europe, Polynesia, Japan, the Middle East, Africa and perhaps other places unknown to us. I am not a great supporter of the Chinese explorers discovered most of the America theory, however, as I match the
archeology with Native stories, and there is a dearth of Native stories about the Chinese on the East Coast.
I do have a Point, and it even has something to do with the title of this post.
The Seminoles, among other Native Nations, judged one's membership in the tribe not by blood quantum, but by cultural behavior. If a person spoke Seminole, dressed as a Seminole, lived as a Seminole, believed as a Seminole--they were Seminole, no matter who their parents had been.
It is the BIA that introduced the Blood Quantum rule. It is related to the one-drop rule in this way. It was to the majority society at the time of Jim Crow to make more people Black, to keep them out of their society, and it was to the advantage of the BIA to make fewer people Indian, to get out of paying for lands taken and monies owed. Therefore, modern tribes have been forced into the notion that being Indian has something to do with Blood Quantum. I believe that instead, that tradition in several tribes was to use the culture as the definition of who belonged.
Linde
PS, why don't people speak of someone discovering Europe and Asia? Just a thought.
Joined: 04 May 2005 {Posts: 2021 } Location: santiago, chile
Posted: Mon 01 Jan 2007 13:44 Post subject: Re: What is an Indian anyway?
Linde Knighton wrote:
...
So, I have been working on not writing an article about racial intermixing in North America in the past. By the time I finished looking things over, I was feeling as if the only thing some scholars agree on is that the others are wrong. I was reading Ancient America Magazine at the time, and they have claims for everyone from China, to Europe to Africa, "discovering" America. I believe from my studies that there have been people here early on from Europe, Polynesia, Japan, the Middle East, Africa and perhaps other places unknown to us. I am not a great supporter of the Chinese explorers discovered most of the America theory, however, as I match the
archeology with Native stories, and there is a dearth of Native stories about the Chinese on the East Coast.
I do have a Point, and it even has something to do with the title of this post.
The Seminoles, among other Native Nations, judged one's membership in the tribe not by blood quantum, but by cultural behavior. If a person spoke Seminole, dressed as a Seminole, lived as a Seminole, believed as a Seminole--they were Seminole, no matter who their parents had been.
It is the BIA that introduced the Blood Quantum rule. It is related to the one-drop rule in this way. It was to the majority society at the time of Jim Crow to make more people Black, to keep them out of their society, and it was to the advantage of the BIA to make fewer people Indian, to get out of paying for lands taken and monies owed. Therefore, modern tribes have been forced into the notion that being Indian has something to do with Blood Quantum. I believe that instead, that tradition in several tribes was to use the culture as the definition of who belonged.
Linde
PS, why don't people speak of someone discovering Europe and Asia? Just a thought.
Very interesting topic, indeed, and something that interest me as well. If I can have a look to your article I would appreciate it.
However, there are things you should be aware. Hyperdiffusionism is a racist ideology that have convinced people the Americas were in permanent contact with the old world. That's absolutely false, there is no evidence whatsoever of permanent contact. All professional archaeologists agree that the Americas developed theirs cultures by themselves, alone, completely isolated of the old world. And that is what make the Americas a place so fascinating to study.
Before columbus only three peoples reached the Americas.
(1) The first and more sucessful were the ancestors of the Native Americans who reached the continent crossing the strait of Bering between 20.000 to 15.000 years ago. They are people that genetically are very close to the tribes of Siberia and Mongolia, so the Native American cousins are in East Asia.
(2) A couple of thousands of years ago the Inuits crossed the Bering strait from Siberia once again and started to populate the Artic. They populated all North American artic reaching Greenland (Europe) around the year 1000 A.D., and it is possible they even reached beyond.
(3) The Vikings populated Greenland around 900 A.C. and from there they made expeditions to Newfoundland and another parts of Northern North America. A temporary Viking post was found in Newfoundland. They don't really colonize the place and they leaved the Americas without a trace a time later.
So, for all that matters, in all its history Americans Indians were practically alone. No visits on there. Actually, one of the main causes of mortality in the years of contact came from contaguious deseases for which natives have no protection because they have no biological contact with peoples of the old world before.
After contact the mixing of natives and foreigners were widespread. The main mixing was between Native females and European pioneers, whose children assimilated quickly to the European culture erasing all the traces of Native culture. That's well documented in all the western hemisphere and in Canada but, somehow, the U.S. is still on denial of the mixing between Europeans and Natives in colonial times.
There is a shameful attitude one should realize. Most times, natives hide theirs culture and didn't teach their children in order to assimilate to the white or european society. That happened in the past very often, and people got convinced they were descendents of european only. But genetics tests show otherwise.
Now, for the point of who is discovering Europe, there is a book that talks about it. So hyperdifussionism go both ways. We should take a look:
Joined: 05 Apr 2006 {Posts: 300 } Location: Chatsworth, CA
Posted: Mon 01 Jan 2007 19:51 Post subject:
The percentage of Native ancestry in white identified Americans is small, generally not enough to affect phenotype.
White Americans are not at all in denial about this. It's very common for them to speak about their Native ancestry.
West of the Mississippi, Native ancestry has traditionally been stigmatized as much or more than African ancestry, due to the perception of Native peoples as enemies of American civilization. So in places like the South Dakota, upstate Wisconsin and Minnesota, otherwise liberal white people will readily volunteer as to how much they hate Indians.
The perception of black identified Americans on the white/Native frontier was, oddly enough, somewhat better than that of Natives, as long as the numbers of black Americans were small. The black soldiers who fought the Native resistance alongside whites were clearly considered part of American civilization, whereas Natives were not.
Joined: 31 Dec 2006 {Posts: 12 } Location: Seattle
Posted: Tue 02 Jan 2007 03:17 Post subject: What is an Indian Anyway?
>So, for all that matters, in all its history Americans Indians were >practically alone. No visits on there. Actually, one of the main causes of >mortality in the years of contact came from contaguious deseases for >which natives have no protection because they have no biological contact >with peoples of the old world before.
Actually, the inherited resistance to disease lasts only a generation or so.
I would agree to this point: I think there were several small, isolated groups or individuals reaching the Americas. But not massive migration.
The Celtic presence in New Hampshire and Vermont is hard to ignore, with the Ogham alphabet carved all over the place. But I think they melded so early into the mainstream population, that they had little influence. The occassional Basque or French fisherman was only interested in their catch and keeping their good fishing place a secret.
As great adventurers as the Polynesians were, I personally can't see how they could find every tiny island in the Pacific and miss two huge continents. It is known to the Chinooks at least that Polynesians were among them by as late as Lewis and Clark. And some believe earlier.
The Japanese whalers met the Pacific Northwest tribes often enough that they influenced the armor of the NW tribes.
I guess living on the West Coast gives me a view of the Pacific as our local pond.
BUT, Natives had enough brains to come up with many advanced ideas that Europe and Asia never got to--especially in mathematics and astronomy.
What might be the most fun for those so inclined is to check out claims to an early African presence in the Americas.
Linde
Joined: 04 May 2005 {Posts: 2021 } Location: santiago, chile
Posted: Tue 02 Jan 2007 03:57 Post subject: Re: What is an Indian Anyway?
Linde Knighton wrote:
...
The Celtic presence in New Hampshire and Vermont is hard to ignore, with the Ogham alphabet carved all over the place. But I think they melded so early into the mainstream population, that they had little influence. The occassional Basque or French fisherman was only interested in their catch and keeping their good fishing place a secret.
As great adventurers as the Polynesians were, I personally can't see how they could find every tiny island in the Pacific and miss two huge continents. It is known to the Chinooks at least that Polynesians were among them by as late as Lewis and Clark. And some believe earlier.
The Japanese whalers met the Pacific Northwest tribes often enough that they influenced the armor of the NW tribes.
I guess living on the West Coast gives me a view of the Pacific as our local pond.
BUT, Natives had enough brains to come up with many advanced ideas that Europe and Asia never got to--especially in mathematics and astronomy.
What might be the most fun for those so inclined is to check out claims to an early African presence in the Americas.
Linde
Linde, I believe you are very much in the trap of hyperdiffusionism.
All those runic stones of north america has been proven to be fakes.
Unfortunately, both Eurocentrism and Afrocentrism blind people and prevent them to study and appreciate the real history of the American Indians.
And the indigenous peoples of the Americas had brains indeed. More than many other peoples in the world. Aztecs, Incas, Mayans, Moches, Chavin, Anasazis and hundreds of other cultures and thousands of achievements are a proof of that.
The Americas didn't need Whites or Blacks to be great. Natives had it here, but foreigners invaded the land and destroyed everything. And they are not please with that but what to rewrite history and change reality. There were not Whites or Blacks in the Americas before Columbus. That's the only reality.
Joined: 04 May 2005 {Posts: 2021 } Location: santiago, chile
Posted: Tue 02 Jan 2007 04:11 Post subject:
odocoileus wrote:
The percentage of Native ancestry in white identified Americans is small, generally not enough to affect phenotype.
White Americans are not at all in denial about this. It's very common for them to speak about their Native ancestry.
.
It may be so, but there is no systematic study about intermarryage between Europeans and Amerindians in the United States. It is the only country on the hemisphere that does not care about that.
And about phenotypes, it is not a mystery for anyone that below 50% of Native American ancestry a mixed Euro-Indigenous person looks white.
odocoileus wrote:
West of the Mississippi, Native ancestry has traditionally been stigmatized as much or more than African ancestry, due to the perception of Native peoples as enemies of American civilization. So in places like the South Dakota, upstate Wisconsin and Minnesota, otherwise liberal white people will readily volunteer as to how much they hate Indians.
.
Amerindians never gave up with the white men. They were fighting for theirs land, where you are standing now. That's why many Europeans hated to be remembered they were robbing the lands of other people.
Europeans couldn't stand Indian pride.
Even today, in many Indian languages, the name for the Europeans means robbers.
odocoileus wrote:
The perception of black identified Americans on the white/Native frontier was, oddly enough, somewhat better than that of Natives, as long as the numbers of black Americans were small. The black soldiers who fought the Native resistance alongside whites were clearly considered part of American civilization, whereas Natives were not.
Yes. Blacks were always very cooperative with theirs former masters. And Amerindians in severeal regions didn't like blacks at all for that reason.
But it is also true that although the European hated Natives, intermarriage was more common with that group, and they were more accepted given they forget their culture.
On the other hand, Blacks were always discriminated in all the Americas, and although the Spanish countries the separation between people was never really enforced, discrimination has always existed; even today.
Joined: 31 Dec 2006 {Posts: 12 } Location: Seattle
Posted: Tue 02 Jan 2007 23:17 Post subject: What is an Indian Anyway?
I think the Hyperfusionists are very much into the idea that groups of people from anyplace else populated the Americas to teach the dumb Natives how to have culture.
I don't agree with that, but I do think that various small groups of Euopeans, Asians, Africans and Polynesians found the place and were swallowed up into the mainstream culture--like various small groups of immigrants come to the USA, eventually learn English, fit in with the mainstream society, and two generations later call themselves American.
Now about the culture here--nifty counting systems--which make more sense than the Arabic system we use--they never had to carry the one to the next column. Great calendars, lovely poetry, wonderful myths and folk tales and some fun inventions like asphalt, petroleum jelly, vulcanized rubber, and chocolate. They did have the wheel, but not so cooperative draft animals except where most of the roads were nearly vertical.
I do wish public schools would start the history at the beginning, so that everyone feels a part of the Americas, and leave out the starting our history in Europe history they so like to stick to.
Linde
Joined: 04 May 2005 {Posts: 2021 } Location: santiago, chile
Posted: Wed 03 Jan 2007 00:44 Post subject: Re: What is an Indian Anyway?
Linde Knighton wrote:
I think the Hyperfusionists are very much into the idea that groups of people from anyplace else populated the Americas to teach the dumb Natives how to have culture.
You bet!
Hyperdifussionism is a racist ideology! The true is that everything natives developed in the Americas did by themselves. Most ideas had parallels in other continents (like paper, sails, writing, zero, etc.) but some (like rubber balls, syringes and platinum melting) where only invented in the Americas!
Linde Knighton wrote:
I don't agree with that, but I do think that various small groups of Euopeans, Asians, Africans and Polynesians found the place and were swallowed up into the mainstream culture--like various small groups of immigrants come to the USA, eventually learn English, fit in with the mainstream society, and two generations later call themselves American.
Not much so. Genetic studies had shown Native Americas throught the hemisphere are relatively homogenious, and they probably don't descend of more that one thousand people. Modern Natives are not a good sample of the ancient ones because intermarriage has happened. However, there are still ancient DNA available. There is not proof, so far, of presence of Europeans, Africans, Polynesians or any other group except by relatives of East Asians.
Linde Knighton wrote:
Now about the culture here--nifty counting systems--which make more sense than the Arabic system we use--they never had to carry the one to the next column. Great calendars, lovely poetry, wonderful myths and folk tales and some fun inventions like asphalt, petroleum jelly, vulcanized rubber, and chocolate. They did have the wheel, but not so cooperative draft animals except where most of the roads were nearly vertical.
I do wish public schools would start the history at the beginning, so that everyone feels a part of the Americas, and leave out the starting our history in Europe history they so like to stick to.
Linde
That's what any decent country in the Americas should do. In Hispanic America we start our history in pre-Colombian times, with a large description of the culture and civilization that where here before. Not only that, a person is not considered very educated if he/she does not know about the native past, its legends and traditions.
The Celtic presence in New Hampshire and Vermont is hard to ignore, with the Ogham alphabet carved all over the place. But I think they melded so early into the mainstream population, that they had little influence. The occassional Basque or French fisherman was only interested in their catch and keeping their good fishing place a secret.
You really need to do some reading. Take your pic.
As great adventurers as the Polynesians were, I personally can't see how they could find every tiny island in the Pacific and miss two huge continents. It is known to the Chinooks at least that Polynesians were among them by as late as Lewis and Clark. And some believe earlier.
The Japanese whalers met the Pacific Northwest tribes often enough that they influenced the armor of the NW tribes.
It is known, or purported? Hearsay claims don't mean much without evidence.
Quote:
I guess living on the West Coast gives me a view of the Pacific as our local pond.
BUT, Natives had enough brains to come up with many advanced ideas that Europe and Asia never got to--especially in mathematics and astronomy.
What might be the most fun for those so inclined is to check out claims to an early African presence in the Americas.
Linde
LOL. Afrocentric claims are very entertaining. Sure Native Americans are very creative, and they didn't need the presence of other civilizations to get there. Furthermore. The lack of residue from these supposed visits is what is missing. An occasional shipwreck or crossings at arctic heights by vikings and Inuits, yes, but no evidence of trade or even minor migrations.
When you can explain how Malaria was alread in China more than 5000 years ago, but Native Americans had no immunity or signs of exposure in the genes, then you might have a claim.
http://www.malariasite.com/malaria/history_parasite.htm
The only places that were safe were the very cold places and isolated populations on the islands.
In fact one of the theories of island population relates to fleeing malaria.here
Joined: 04 May 2005 {Posts: 2021 } Location: santiago, chile
Posted: Wed 03 Jan 2007 13:08 Post subject: Malaria
Well, Malaria is a tropical dissease that affected people mainly in the Caribbean, Northern South America, Central America and Florida. Beside, Malaria was treated with quinine, and Amerindian medicine.
There were other disseases more deadly than Malaria. like Chicken Pox, Measels, Smallpox and others and that were quite more deadly for the people that suffered them.
Now, about the mortality produced in those times, things are not quite clear at all. Mortality existed, of course, but not only natives died of that but also europeans and large numbers of africans. I really doubt the modern hypothesis that 80% of people died at contact. Perhaps 30% would be more realistic, and a population in crisis can recover from that in a couple of generations.
How do I know? I got the records of late contacts from the early 20th centuries, and even with the suffering, more people than expected survived.
People forgets that most of the Americas had a very low density at times of contact. That's all.
Joined: 31 Dec 2006 {Posts: 12 } Location: Seattle
Posted: Wed 03 Jan 2007 18:44 Post subject: What is an Indian Anyway?
I read Goodbye Columbus? The Pseudohistory of Who Discovered America by Ronald Fritze
"the Harvard marine biologist and amateur archaeologist Barry Fell has theorized that various ancient Celtic peoples and other groups of Mediterranean people colonized North America in the pre-Christian era. He claims that numerous inscriptions in the ancient Celtic script called Ogam are scattered throughout New England and other regions. He and his supporters are constantly on the lookout for such inscriptions and they claim to have been quite successful. The problem is that Ogam script basically consists of combinations of straight lines. So what Fell and his supporters claim is an ancient Celtic inscription looks like natural scratching and wear on rocks to mainstream archaeologists. Fell's case is further compromised by his regarding such proven archaeological frauds as the Davenport Tablets as a genuine artifact left by his "ancient colonists." Basically Fell and other amateur epigraphers are guilty of seeing what they want to see among the weathered rocks of New England. Their unquestioning belief in the existence of these pseudo-inscriptions has been labeled "inscription mania" by professional archaeologists. "
This is actually pretty funny to anyone who has studied Ogham even casually. The so-called scratches are lines attached to base lines that must run vertically, horizontally or diagonally to be read. The letters must run either above or below the baseline in exact patterns to create letters. Weathering or natural scratches cannot replicate Ogham letters.
I recall the photos in America BC clearly. Much of Fell's work is not scientific, and he does seem to grab at things to reach certain conclusions, but I am convinced that Mystery Hill is Celtic in origin. His work on carvings in West Virginia, however seems to be seeing what he wants to see.
I also can read some of the Mississippian pictographs. This makes it very hard for people to try to re-interpret them to be anything other than what they are. No less a person than Joyce Bear told me that the Muskogee People are descended from local Southeastern tribes, Mayans, Toltecs, Yuchee, and possibly Anasazi (Red Towns descend from a people coming from the West.). No Chinese, despite the efforts of Gavin Menzies, are among the Muskogee ancestors.
Therefore, I can be critical, and am not falling for any charlatan offering a theory. I occupy a
middle ground between the those who believe no one arrived in the Americas before Columbus and those who believe everyone from Cleopatra to space explorers were here. I use a combination of written records, including the Wallum Ollem, oral history, and early colonial or educated Native histories.
So, Pax, my friend. Let us agree to disagree.
Linde
Posted: Wed 03 Jan 2007 19:08 Post subject: Re: Malaria
oevega wrote:
Well, Malaria is a tropical dissease that affected people mainly in the Caribbean, Northern South America, Central America and Florida. Beside, Malaria was treated with quinine, and Amerindian medicine.
There were other disseases more deadly than Malaria. like Chicken Pox, Measels, Smallpox and others and that were quite more deadly for the people that suffered them.
Now, about the mortality produced in those times, things are not quite clear at all. Mortality existed, of course, but not only natives died of that but also europeans and large numbers of africans. I really doubt the modern hypothesis that 80% of people died at contact. Perhaps 30% would be more realistic, and a population in crisis can recover from that in a couple of generations.
How do I know? I got the records of late contacts from the early 20th centuries, and even with the suffering, more people than expected survived.
People forgets that most of the Americas had a very low density at times of contact. That's all.
Omar
Did you have a point? Malaria has the highest record of GENETIC change outcome in global populations. It's presence can be tracked by genetics.
Nore the regions where it is. And yet, when Europeans arrived Malaria was non existent as well as immunity for it.
The Wallam Ollum was shown to have fraudulent aspects from Rafinesque. So I don't give it much credibility.
And Mystery Hill is highly unreliable since Goodwin moved it all around to satisfy his preconceptions.
http://www.bu.edu/bridge/archive/2002/02-01/archaeology.htm
I will wait to see your Ogham tablet with a translation of what is written on it.
Joined: 31 Dec 2006 {Posts: 12 } Location: Seattle
Posted: Wed 03 Jan 2007 20:05 Post subject: What is an Indian Anyway?
Lookee what I found--This is so cool.
http://www.perdidobaytribe.org/New%20Way%20of%20Thinking.htm
Astronomy of the Mississippian Mound Builders
At Ocmulgee National Monument
Recent findings of architect, Richard L. Thornton
As published in his book, Ocmulgee Under Five Suns
Ocmulgee National Monument in Macon, GA is one of our country's most significant archaeological sites. It is one of the very few remnants of a once great Southeastern Mississippian Culture and a contemporary of the well-studied and preserved Cahokia on the Mississippi River. Under the protection of the Department of the Interior, at least a portion of the once vast complex has been saved from farming and urban development, though even today it is under assault by highway planners.
Richard Thornton is a native Georgian, a registered architect and city planner who takes great pride in his Creek/Yuchi heritage. Since childhood, Richard has been on the path of learning all he can about his heritage. Richard decided to use the tools and techniques of his profession to do an independent study of Ocmulgee. And thus began one man's journey into ‘Virtual Reality Archaeology.' We present to you his findings.
Drawing of overall layout of Ocmulgee on the fall line of the Ocmulgee River.
Large Temple Mound and the Main Plaza in Foreground
Center of Government and Religious activities.
Each separate village defined by natural terrain
Had it's own mounds, public buildings and surrounding cultivated areas
Richard located accurate aerial photographs and topography maps of all the major archaeological sites in the vicinity of Ocmulgee that were compatible with his CADD program. When the maps and photos and grids all came together, what his computer screen revealed astonished him. All the structures at Ocmulgee were aligned on either a 0-90 degree or 65-25 degree axis. There were several significant directional relationships – perhaps pointing to where the sun rose or set on the Solstices and Equinoxes; or perhaps constellations on certain days of the year. Ocmulgee's site plan was an enormous observatory!
CADD enables one to measure distances, angles and areas with extreme accuracy. How, he wondered, could a people with Neolithic technology produce such precision? The sort of precision he discovered, over uneven terrain, was not accomplished in our times until the mid-to-late 1800s when the need for precision railroad construction fostered the advancement of surveying and civil engineering. Merely using line of sight and a long string could not have achieved this accuracy. Only some type of optical transit combined with a knowledge of geometry, degrees and math would have made it possible.
Richard's best guess is that the accomplishment of this feat probably involved mirrors, since many large mirrors have been found in Georgia, Tennessee and Alabama. Whatever technology was utilized, there is a clear implication that the people of Ocmulgee also knew the basics of astronomy, had a standard unit of measurement and some graphical means of passing down complex technical knowledge from one generation to the next.
Ocmulgee's Geometric and Spatial Relationships
Radiating out from Mound A were structures placed in straight lines which ran true North-South - Mound B and the McDougal Mound to the North and mile Track and Stubb's Mound ten miles to the south.
There was a line of structures which ran true East-West - Earth Lodges D-1 & D-4.
Other lines of structures were on diagonal lines which aligned with the point were the sun would rise or set on the Winter Solstice, Summer Solstice, Spring Equinox or Fall Equinox.
The McDougal Mound and the Dunlop Mound were both exactly 3,424 feet from Mound A and exactly one-half that distance (1712ft.) apart from each other.
Another line of structures (Mound A, Mound D, Dunlap Mound and Fort Hawkins Hill) seem to have pointed at the setting point of the North Star. A line from Mound A through Earth Lodge D-4 seems to point at the apogee of the North Star.
Mound E and Earth Lodge D-4 are equidistant from mound A.. Earth Lodge D-1 is exactly halfway between Mound E and Earth Lodge D-4 – possibly pointing to some constellation.
Perhaps the most astonishing discovery in the illustration below, is that the center of Mound A, the center of the circular mound at Ochesee, (the Lamar Village site) and a mound on Brown's Mount – a total distance of six miles – were all aligned to define the point where the sun rose at the Winter Solstice.
Mound A
Ichesi
Brown's Mount
For an in-depth look at Ocmulgee National Monument visit: http://www.nps.gov/ocmu/
A New Way of Thinking and Teaching about
CREEK INDIANS OF THE SOUTHEAST
Architect, Richard Thornton's findings at Ocmulgee have given us new food for thought on how we consider the mound builders and their descendants. There is evidence that the ancients knew the basics of astronomy and had a knowledge of geometry, degrees and math. They had a standard unit of measurement and likely, some graphical means of passing down complex technical knowledge from one generation to the next. Technically, they were far more advanced than the historical Creeks. How could this be?
Images of Ocmulgee as it might have looked around 1100 AD.
Question to Ponder:
What if in our present-day world, we suddenly lost all our thinkers – mathematicians, engineers and scientists - keepers of modern technology and ancient wisdom, and most of our accumulated knowledge along with 90 - 95% of our total population?
Could we reorganize to form a functioning society?
Would we have the skills to even survive?
Think about it.
In fact –
This is exactly what happened to the ancestors of the Creek People!
In just a few years, beginning with the DeSoto Expedition in 1540
A holocaust of Spanish Swords and Spanish Diseases
Befell the ancient People of the Southeast
The amazing thing is that these hearty, adaptable, self sufficient People did survive
and
Over the next 100 years or so the People made these great accomplishments
1. They UNITED - They pulled together the scattered remnants of several culturally diverse yet inter - related peoples speaking several languages or dialects into a loose confederation of independent towns and villages. This would later become known as the Creek Confederacy See the story of Altamaha for one example.
2. Created a new form of GOVERNMENT - They adopted an egalitarian form of government far different than the hierarchy of the past which was based on heredity and rank.
3. Preserved TRADITIONS - They carefully preserved & adapted many of their cultural traditions which have carried over as compelling links to the past.
4. Utilized SKILLS & LABOR - Everyone had certain skills to help provide for the family and was expected to use them in a very well defined division of labor.
a. They knew the techniques of farming, and had long been cultivating many
food plants.
b. They knew how, when and where to hunt and fish.
c. They knew what wild plants were used for medicines, food and flavoring.
d. They knew how to make everything they needed from the bounty of the land.
They were self sufficient
5. They had an ordered reckoning of KINSHIP which fostered strong families and community.
6. They had STRICT RULES OF CONDUCT which, when broken were swiftly punished.
Thus, very little crime.
7. COUNCIL OF THE WISE - They had an orderly way of discussing problems and problem solving. (Our leaders today might be wise to take a few notes)
8. They had a deep respect for a HIGHER AUTHORITY which permeated every aspect of their daily lives, requiring them to be pure and to live in harmony with nature and one another.
9. They worked to provide all they needed to live well, yet they had a
PERSONAL FREEDOM AND LEISURE available to only an elite few in Europe.
When the Europeans came again, they could not see the beauty and logic of the Creek Peoples' way of life. The Europeans thought them to be ignorant, lazy, childlike savages - less intelligent and less human than themselves.
Sadly, this way of thinking has not changed considerably even unto the present day.
Linde
Yeah, I do beleive Northern native Americans are not given their just dues for their development. I just have to think of Cahokia and it's enormousness.
Joined: 04 May 2005 {Posts: 2021 } Location: santiago, chile
Posted: Thu 04 Jan 2007 14:44 Post subject: Re: What is an Indian Anyway?
Linde Knighton wrote:
...
Therefore, I can be critical, and am not falling for any charlatan offering a theory. I occupy a
middle ground between the those who believe no one arrived in the Americas before Columbus and those who believe everyone from Cleopatra to space explorers were here. I use a combination of written records, including the Wallum Ollem, oral history, and early colonial or educated Native histories.
So, Pax, my friend. Let us agree to disagree.
Linde
Yes, I can understand what you mean. However, the idea of Celts in pre-contact Americas was a legend spread initially by the white colonizers at the time of the invasion, to justify theirs presence in the New World.
Although one can't discard the arrival of both Inuits and the casual contacts with the Norse (very sporadical indeed, and a failure), there is nothing else that proves an intensive contact between the Americas and the Old World existed at all.
Now, Ancient Celts were Europeans that had a tribal culture, very similar in many respect with the cultures of the Native Americans, and other people around the world, but that does not mean there was a link at all, except in legends.
Joined: 30 Mar 2005 {Posts: 1082 } Location: New Jersey
Posted: Thu 04 Jan 2007 17:47 Post subject:
I can recall having watched programs regarding theories about the earliest Americans. I also remember reading something in National Geographic, although I can't recall the issue or date. I'm doing this from memory, so bear with me.
In short, there apparently are remains of ancient Native Americans that, when examined cranially, don't correspond to the standard "Mongoloid" type. Kennewick Man is one such example, I believe. I'm not sure how much faith I have in these claims, since this sort of science does have flaws, as traits do vary within population groups. (Some have described Kennewick Man as resembling the Ainu. Some Ainu look quite European, but have no European DNA.)
There is also a claim that the ancient Salutrians, from the regions of modern day southern France and northern Spain, were the earliest Americans, having crossed over by hugging the ice shelf in the Atlantic around 16,000 years ago. Supposedly, the spear points found in their region of Europe and dating to their time were also found in the Virginia-North Carolina area and also date to around 15,000-16,000 years ago. What does this mean? I really don't know.
Then we have talk of a certain mtDNA lineage, known as Lineage X. This is supposedly found at relatively low levels in Native North Americans, but not in Asiatic populations. But it is found sporadically in Europeans. My first thought, of course, was that the lineage was introduced into Natives by the European settlers from the 1600's on, since modern-day Natives are known to have mixed with Europeans. But then it was mentioned (in the program I was watching) that this lineage is found only in southern Europeans, Turks, and Finns, who were not amongst the earliest recorded settlers in significant numbers (other than the Spaniards in the southwest). What does this mean? Again, I do not know. Curiously, if memory serves, the Melungeons also have DNA sequences that match those in Turkey and Portugal. This was mentioned in another program.
It should be remembered that no matter what the distant origin of the pre-Columbian Natives, they were all still Native Americans. There is no rule stating that only Asian-descended pre-Columbian Americans can be called Native Americans. If there were early Europeans (and Africans and Polynesians) amongst the Asiatic settlers, they all still were Native Americans.
Last edited by William on Fri 05 Jan 2007 17:35; edited 1 time in total
Joined: 04 May 2005 {Posts: 2021 } Location: santiago, chile
Posted: Thu 04 Jan 2007 19:27 Post subject:
William wrote:
...
It should be remembered that no matter what the distant origin of the pre-Columbian Natives, they were all still Native Americans. There is no rule stating that only Asian-descended pre-Columbian Americans can be called Native Americans. If there were early Europeans (and Africans and Polynesians) amongst the Asiatic settlers, they all still were Native Americans.
That's not the problem at all.
But the presence of the famous X gene in the Native population, even if it is true it is pre-columbian, does not mean anything. It could only mean that the genetic Asian frequencies, in the time of crossing were a lot different than today, and that certain wave of immigrants carried them from Asia. Caucasoid and Australoids peoples existed in some number in East Asia at the time of crossing; that's all.
Another possibility, quite small indeed, is that certain Norse descendents remain in the Americas after they left the New World. That could happened but I really doubt it.
I don't know why Europeans tried so desesperately to prove there were Europeans in the Americas before Columbus, given the genocide of Amerindians they made in North America. That's really disgusting.
Joined: 30 Mar 2005 {Posts: 1082 } Location: New Jersey
Posted: Thu 04 Jan 2007 20:17 Post subject:
Omar wrote:
I don't know why Europeans tried so desesperately to prove there were Europeans in the Americas before Columbus, given the genocide of Amerindians they made in North America. That's really disgusting.
As I said, I don't know what all the above information (genes, etc.) means. I'm merely pointing out what I read or saw. I'm neither for the idea nor against it. If I discover any persuasive evidence either way, I will go along with that. I'm not one of those who thinks Europeans need to have been present for any culture to have developed. Heck, 15,000 years ago, Europeans were no more advanced in any way than anyone else. I'm also not one who is so against the idea that there may have been early Europeans in America that I will forever be blinded to any definitive legitimate information pointing to this, should such information come along. My main point, as I've said, is that Natives were Natives, regardless of their distant origins.
If memory serves, the oldest skulls ever found in America have been described as "Negroid" or "Australoid." I do not now recall where I read this.
'
FAQ
Search
Register
Log in
