The Message of the Engraved Stones of Ica by Javier Cabrera Darquea
http://members.cox.net/icastones/exerpt_index.htm
I understand these artifacts are considered to be a hoax - but as there are more than 10,000 Ica stones, I'm keeping an open mind.
Posted on 11/29/2005 8:24:25 PM PST by SunkenCiv
...As I mentioned before, many Native Americans believe that horse was in America many centuries before Columbus. Pony Boy gives one of such traditional narratives in his book, although, it needs to be noted, he generally tends to support the mainstream academic view of horse history in America.
Here's a picture of a very unusual "Przewalski horse".
This wild horse is still found in Mongolia. It is so different, it has 66 chromosomes as compared to the 64 that we find in all other horses. This is a very primitive kind of horse, the one probably quite similar to what the ancient peoples first domesticated. (Nevertheless, some researchers believe that it represents a whole different species as compared to our domesticated horses.)
(Excerpt) Read more at trends.ca ...
pillbox_girl: Do you also wonder how modern North Americans became master car builders so quickly after the automobile's introduction to America?No, I don't, considering that the original autos were just motorized carriages, the population was literate (and had been for a long while), and surrounded by products of the industrial age. But perhaps that was just a joke.
pillbox_girl: For a resource as revolutionary useful as the horse, two and a half centuries is more than enough time for a people to learn how to fully exploit it and then forget there was ever a time when they didn't have it. Especially when you consider that they preserved their history primarily orally, and the Spaniard's other gift to North America, smallpox, was incredibly effective at wiping out the older generations and their memories just as they were coming into contact with the horse for the first time.250 years is long enough to forget the time before the horse, and just for good measure, the Spanish also introduced smallpox and wiped out the oral link to the past. IOW, there's no evidence that the tribes had the horse (apart from the burial of a horse skull in a 9th century mound) prior to 1540, and there's no evidence that the horse was introduced in 1540.
jimtorr: On the other hand, every tribe on the great plains at that time, I think, had recent memories of acquiring horses and moving onto the plains.So, the tribes didn't have any memory of a time before the horse, according to PBG, or every tribe did have memories of the recent acquisition, according to Jim.
why the Nez Perce, a mountain tribe, and not aboriginals closer to the Pacific coast?Yes, why them, who had no contact with the Spanish? ;') The tribes moved around, though, so it's tough to point to points of origin.
That the Norse explored the North American mainland is a given. We have clear archeologic evidence of their presence in Newfoundland, and written accounts of mainland explorations (grapes do not grow in Newfoundland, but are central to the sagas).The grape problem may not be as bad as it looks, regarding Newfoundland, because the medieval warming was in full swing then. The Scandinavian explosion across Europe (Varangians, Vikings, Normans, the short-lived Viking kingdom in Sicily) was made possible by the warm weather. Medieval farmsteads (now abandoned) existed at higher latitudes and altitudes than are possible today.
The possibility that they might have introduced a stable population of horses that survived them is a lot more dubious. The environment and climate of northeast America at the time was either frozen tundra or heavily forested, neither of which are environs suitable for exploting horses. This is especially true at the beginning of the second millenium when the northern hemisphere was entering a miniature ice age...The "Little Ice Age" didn't kick in until early in the 13th century. IMHO it is indeed what spelled the end of the Greenland colony, and probably led to the evacuation (or absorption, or extinction) of the Vinland colony. Also, with the Norse horse being from Iceland, I don't see a problem with the climate, particularly for a population further down what is now the eastern seaboard, and the temperature being warmer, not colder.
Maine Coon Cat (Straight Dope Mailbag)
Straight Dope Science Advisory Board ^ | 29-Jun-1999 | SDSTAFF Jill
Posted on 08/05/2004 11:19:14 PM PDT by SunkenCiv
One of the oldest breeds of cats in North America is the Maine Coon Cat, and some say 40% of the originals had extra toes. One article said it evolved as a "snowshoe foot" to help these cats walk in the snow. Cute story, but probably [expletive deleted] ...The breed closest to the Maine Coon Cat is the Norwegian Forest Cat which evolved in the same climate and lends credence to one theory that ancestors of the Coon Cat may have even come to the New World onboard Viking ships. I like that theory best.
(Excerpt) Read more at straightdope.com ...
See my post #35 for speculations. Many tribes were expert horse thieves -- a constant complaint in early Western journals -- so horses got around pretty quickly. I suspect the Nez Perce got horses from the Blackfoot, Gros Ventre, Shoshone, Flatheads or other plains Indians.
Recent DNA tests on Appaloosas have revealed that the bloodline is majority Iberian horse (horses brought over by the Spanish) with DNA from Russian horses - the two stallions from Russia (I don't recall the name and can't look it up here at work) and some DNA from German and Belgium horses I believe (that would have have been circus horses brought over to the states in the 1800's)
Just a FWIW :)
Horses were around when the first men reached this hemisphere along with a great deal of interesting megafauna. The Indians ate them until numbers were not sufficient to have a breeding population [and the mastadons and mammoths also suffered the same fate].
"The Ni Mee Poo (Nez Perce) Tribe of the Pacific Northwest has been singled out and erroneously credited with developing the spotted horses found so frequently in the Northwest. The Ni Mee Poo themselves, however deny that they developed this breed, but they did love them and traded to acquire them whenever possible."
There's other interesting info about the Appaloosas and Ghostwinds HERE
Take it for what it's worth.
Cool site, thanks for the link.
The Message of the Engraved Stones of Ica by Javier Cabrera Darquea
http://members.cox.net/icastones/exerpt_index.htm
I understand these artifacts are considered to be a hoax - but as there are more than 10,000 Ica stones, I'm keeping an open mind.
I specifically recall an account of one of the Souix tribal chiefs, after losing the wars, talking to government folks in Washington.
He said that he remembered as a young boy how his grandfather (a flexible term, that, meaning nearly anyone in his family older than his father and uncless) talked about personally riding out onto the plains from the East and taking the territory of tribes that did not have horses.
Since he was now an old chief, and his grandfather had personally seen the move, It couldnpt have happened long before Lewis & Clark made their trek.
The Proto-Sioux (to coin a term) could not have had large numbers of horses long before they crossed the big muddy rivers. East of the river was mostly forest then, and would not support large horse herds.
That's not to say that the tribes did not have ponies for millenia, but just never thought to ride them until they saw the Spanish doing so. After all, they did have the wheel. They just thought of it as a childrens toy.
Whatever. One of us is quoting one line of the report without also mentioning the unsurety of the horse skull's age. It ain't me.
As the anecdotal evidence points to an entirely different mound for the later introduction, there's no chance for the anecdote to have any bearing on it.
Incorrect. At the very least it demonstrates the possibility that the horse skull in question could be a result of a later insertion into the older strata.
No one in the report is accepting anything "based on faith",
Wrong again. There is a direct assumption in the report that because an undated horse skull was found in association with materials properly dated to have pre-columbian origins, then the horse skull itself must also be pre-columbian. This is an invalid assumption and is based on faith, particularly, a faith in the technique and veracity of the original excavators, and a faith that the horse skull's inclusion was not the result of the sort of intrusion described elsewhere in the same report. Until the skull itself is objectively dated, its legitimacy rests on nothing more than the assurances of a Mr. W.C. McKern, and that, quite frankly, is not enough.
I put to you that the remains of the so-called "Piltdown Man" were also discovered among legitimate artifacts with legitimate dates, but that did not make the "Piltdown Man" remnants themselves genuine.
the attitude that the horse was extinct in the Americas until the Coronado expedition reintroduced it -- an event for which there is testimony in firsthand accounts of the expedition, I'm sure -- is nothing but faith.
I hate to say it, but again you are wrong. In the fossil record in North America, there is a very distinct gap before which horse remains are found, and after which horse remains are found, but during which they are non-existent. The only possible exception I have ever heard of is this mustang skull in the Milwaukee Museum which, while it was found in supposed association with materials that have properly been dated as pre-columbian, has not itself been objectively dated and is therefore of very dubious legitimacy. If it ever is carbon dated, and it does prove to be pre-columbian, then it is a very significant find and potentially rewrites the current consensus on horses in America. Until then, though, it cannot be counted as evidence of anything.
Meanwhile, we have a fossil record which, as I mentioned, includes horses up until 11,000 years ago, and then is devoid of horses (apart from the dubious mustang skull you mention which has not yet been objectively dated and is untrustworthy evidence) until halfway through the second millenium when horses suddenly explode back into the fossil record.
What you are asking us to believe is that horses somehow managed to hold on in the background and remain out of the fossil record for eleven millenia. Yet horses were important enough to be included in the mound of one particular pre-columbian population, but haven't been found associated with any other artifacts from that population (or any other). And that the sudden reappearance of fully domesticated horses among the native populations almost immediately after well documented releases of horses into North America is a coincidence. And you base this conclusion on a single horse skull that has not been properly dated.
If the same mound had included a tire from a 1927 Model-T Four Door, would you also assume that automobiles were common in pre-columbian North America?
Heh. <sarcasm>That's only because we've collectively discovered a better survival strategy than building quality products. These days, we get by much better by using our well refined welfare leeching and democrat / union collusion skills. Hillary and company have assured us we can vote ourselves wealthy (and also that we can disarm criminals by disarming the law abiding). Who are we to disagree with such learned authorities?</sarcasm>
I wonder why a tribe that didn't hunt buffalo regularly, being located in a non-buffalo region and being very fearful of the ferocious Blackfoot who dominated buffalo habitat on the western Great Plains, would be so focused on horse-breeding. I wonder how the concept of selective breeding came to them -- it certainly wasn't a common Indian practice to my knowledge.
I guess you could say that's part of my point. The domestic horse is such an amazingly useful animal, and has such a positive effect on any economy wherein it is utilized, that it is possible for groups like the Nez Perce to make a living for themselves through specializing as horse breeders and traders.
It is my position that had such a useful animal existed in North America before the arrival of the Spanish, the locals would have exploited it, and it would have been commonplace. Others on this thread would have us believe the horse was present before Columbus, but that for some reason the native people were incapable of realizing its economic potential until after, through some random coincidence, the arrival of the Spanish.
His defeat was one of the great unnecessary tragedies of Manifest Destiny and a lasting testament to his and his people's resourcefulness.
Just one of the many, many stupidities in the history of this country. Others might call it an evil in our history, but I've learned that true evil is fairly rare (most democrats aren't evil, just stupid - their leaders are a different matter), and most tragedies can best be explained by simple pig headed stupidity. Fortunately for us, it was not our stupidity, and we are not responsible for it any more than for the fools who thought the sun orbits the earth or that any particular race (whatever _that_ is) is the master one. All we are beholden to do is remember the stupidities of the past and learn from them so that we are not so stupid ourselves.
I will repeat: You base your entire arguement on a single horse skull that has itself never been objectively dated. The only "proof" as to the legitmacy of the horse skull is the assurance of its legitimacy by a Mr. W.C. McKern. That is not sufficient for the skull to be taken as credible evidence of pre-columbian horses in North America. I find it highly suspicious that the artifacts associated with the horse skull have all been radio carbon dated, but that the skull itself was omitted from these tests; especially considering the purpose of the radio carbon dating was to establish the age of the horse skull itself.
If this horse skull is ever radio carbon tested or other wise dated by a legitmate objective means and shown to be pre-columbian, then it is a significant and important find indeed. Until then, however, is is not evidence of anything more than Mr. W.C. McKern produced a horse skull that may or may not be pre-columbian in origin, and probably isn't.
and there's no evidence that the horse was introduced in 1540.
Oh please. We have written accounts from the second voyage of Columbus that he released horses into the Virgin Islands in 1493. We have more records of a second release of horses on the mainland in 1519, and further reports from Coronado's expedition. Are you saying these written accounts are falsehoods? Why would the Spaniards make such a thing up?
There are probably other recorded instances of horses being released into North America by the Spaniards that I am unaware of, and almost definitely there were unrecorded releases. It is assumed that Coronado's horses were the genesis of the Native American's stocks, but it is possible they originated fron one of the many other Spanish releases. But that does not mean there was a population of horses in North America that preceded the Spanish re-introduction.
If, as you would have us believe, the horse was present in North America before Columbus, why does legitimate proven fossil evidence of it only appear after Columbus? And why does that evidence appear so suddenly and pervasively in the fossil record and exclusively in association with human artifacts? Coincidence?
There really is no "grape problem". Grapes do not grow in Newfoundland, and fossil pollen counts clearly show they haven't for several thousand years, if ever. However, grapes do grow commonly in coastal New England and in particular a tree climbing variety exactly as described in the sagas. For a people who had sailed across the Atlantic without sextant or compass, the trip from Newfoundland to New England is a short hop (obscure Vinland Saga pun fully intended). From other evidence in the sagas, it is clear that, while the Norse were definately in Newfoundland, Newfoundland was not Vinland. The real location of Vinland is probably somewhere around Pasamaquoddy bay in Maine.
I've read that the Vatican preserves records of a "Bishop of Vinland"
The Vatican hierarchy is full of various empty bishoprics. They were useful to Popes with political ambitions as appointments for their supporters. The Bishop of Gardar was a position held in the Vatican long after the failure of the Greenland colonies. They'd probably have appointed someone to be the Bishop of the Moon if they thought they could get away with it.
supposedly Verrazano's expedition landed at what is now Newport Rhode Island and found the famous (or infamous) Newport Round Tower already standing, referring to it as a "Norman Tower".
The so-called Norse Tower (or Norman Tower) in Rhode Island has been definitely proven to be a late seventeenth century colonial structure. The idea that it is of Norse origin comes from a single hoax runestone "discovered" in 1946. Before then, it was known to have been built by governor of the colony who, incidentally, happened to be the grandfather (or great grandfather) of the infamous Benedict Arnold.
IMHO it is indeed what spelled the end of the Greenland colony, and probably led to the evacuation (or absorption, or extinction) of the Vinland colony.
From the sagas themselves, it is clear the Vinland attempt failed because of contact with the local numerous indigenous population, and not because of the weather. These were the so-called "skraelings", and were natives most likely of the Dorsett or Wabanaki. The Norse didn't have the numbers or the technological advantages of the later Spanish. They were also looking for land, not gold, and didn't have the backing of a well organized and politically ambitious government behind them like the Spaniards.
The issue of the Maine Coon cat you mention is an interesting one. It is known that the Norse kept cats on their ships to reduce the rodent population, and it is highly likely their trips to North America would have included cats. It is also highly likely that these cats would not have remained on board the ships once landfall was made. Forested New England had an environment that was eminently suited to the cat's needs, and therefore the possibility that the Maine Coon cat descended from Norse strays is a plausability. And hopefully someone out there is still reading this thread with access to some Viking Kitties images.
That the Norse would also have brought horses with them to North America and left a population behind is less likely. They would have had little cause to bring horses along with them on what were, essentially, voyages of exploration and not colonization. Space for horses and fodder would have been better used for supplies for humans. And why would the Greenlanders have risked any of their scarce and valuable horses on a journey intended more for research than exploitation? To the best of my knowledge, there has yet to be found any evidence of even cattle at Lancy Meadows, the confirmed Norse site on Newfoundland, much less horses.
Unlike cats, horses would have found the environment of coastal New England very unsuitable. Also unlike cats, the Norse would not have let such a valuable resourse as a horse escape from them, even if they had brought any with them. Escaped Cats are small enough to have avoided the attentions of the local native population, but not horses. The local native population based their transportation on canoes and foot travel, and would have found horses to be useless for anything other than meat. So unlike cats, it is highly unlikely that the Norse could have been a pre-columbian source for the reintroduction of horses into North America. In Greenland, we know the cats survived after the Norse all vanished, but the horses did not.
The nice aspect to this question is, there are living populations of all these horses, such that the nuclear DNA can be examined in an attempt to sort it out.
Several studies of the mitochondrial DNA of modern horses have shown North America's horses to be of modern European and Asian descent. Where possible, purebred Native American stocks have been shown to have descended from Spanish stocks, though admittedly there is a lot of noise in the sample since native breeding programs were concerned with the quality of the horses and not with preserving any particular bloodline.
Most importantly to this discussion, a comparison was made between mitochondrial DNA of modern North American horses and that of Equus lambei (the last species of modern horse found in North America before its extinction 11,000 years ago). It determined that modern domestic horses and Equus lambei are, in fact, genetically the same species. However, it also determined that modern horses are not themselves directly descended from Equus lambei.
I don't know if anyone has bothered to check out the DNA of the cats.
The most sensible theory I've seen blames the extinction of the megafauna on climate change, and not on depredations by humans. There simply weren't enough humans around to kill off all the mammoths etc. The only possible exception was the extinction of the New Zealand mega birds, and that only because of the limited range of New Zealand.
Also, the humans of the time were no more responsible for the changing climate than we are today. The earth's climate is a powerful and complex system, and much bigger than anything we can do. And besides, the temperature of Mars is climbing apace with the earth's? Are we responsible for "Martian Warming"?
Some tragedies of history are definitely the fault of humans (such as the introduction of feral cats into Australia and the invention of warm British beer). The extinction of the megafauna probably isn't one of them.
Reminds me of the story of the chickens. As it is told, chickens were not indigenous to the Americas, and were brought by the Spanish (we always forget about the Portuguese cod fishermen, but let that pass).
At any rate, everywhere the Spanish went, they found chickens, so assumed that chickens were native to the Americas, but in fact, they were stolen and thus disseminated before the Spanish came to the area.
I have no idea whether this is a true story or not.
Origins of Domestic Horse Revealed
BBC News | 16 July 2002 | Helen Briggs
Posted on 07/16/2002 7:03:04 PM PDT by jimtorr
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/717353/posts
"The genetic evidence shows that wild horses were recruited for domestication from different areas of the world," he told BBC News Online. "A single, simple origin of horse domestication can be ruled out." This is surprising because other domestic animals - such as cattle, goats and sheep - show a much more restricted origin... DNA samples were compared with ancient DNA from wild horses living in Sweden and Estonia about 2,000 years ago, and 28,000-year-old horse remains preserved in Alaskan ice.
|
|
|||
Gods |
Just updating the GGG info, not sending a general distribution. |
||
|
· Discover · Nat Geographic · Texas AM Anthro News · Yahoo Anthro & Archaeo · Google · · The Archaeology Channel · Excerpt, or Link only? · cgk's list of ping lists · |
|||
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.