Notice: This is the official website of the All Empires History Community (Reg. 10 Feb 2002)

  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

Who was the 1st to discover America?

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 7891011>
Author
Sander View Drop Down
AE Moderator
AE Moderator


Joined: 20-Mar-2007
Location: Netherlands
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 597
  Quote Sander Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: Who was the 1st to discover America?
    Posted: 28-Jun-2008 at 05:01
Originally posted by red clay

 what it would mean for the ' isolationists  if they would accept diffusion without a sort of double standard. In short , per diffusionism , the concept of writing  and many other complex traits diffused to the Americas from outside.
 
 
I know one isolationist for whom it would mean severe colonic spasms, gastric and cerebral distress, compounded by hangnail. Big%20smile
 
 
I admit I am a diffusionist.  I'm a little bit different than many however, in as much as I believe there is a definite bias against ancient indigenous Americans.
 
Why for instance is it that complex concepts were diffused to and not from the Americas.  We have cultures as ancient as any and more complex than most.  We know so little about the oldest of our cultures, some having sculpture depicting animals that went extinct 12,000 years ago,  How can you say writing didn't diffuse from here.
 
And while we are in that neck of the woods,  why is it that the immigrations went one way.
Oh, I forgot, the poor unsophisticated, ignorant and unimaginative Native Americans couldn't build ocean going ships.  They could build cities that rivaled and in some instances surpassed any found in Europe but they couldn't build ships?Confused
 
They had command of advanced math, physics and hydraulics with which they constructed irrigation and canal systems which stood unequaled for 2,000 years, until the Romans.  They had an incredibly advanced knowledge of astronomy. But they couldn't navigate?  Get a grip. 
 
Giving even a conservative dating to sites such as tiahuanco, [which is several thousand years older than the highly questionable " official statement" from the local governments in the Andes.]  puts up major problems upon careful examination of such sites.  The most notable is the unmistakable and incontrovertible evidence of a level of technology unlike any other civilization in prehistory now known.
 
 
 
Red clay, what i say to you is meant for you . if others cannot stop sticking their nose in other ones talk  ,making nonsensical comments, then thats not our problem ok?
 
Anyway ,   I already  stressed that diffusion of complex parallels  is usually multi directional so this implies  that those that were older in America diffused  from the  Americas .  No double standard is taken here. 
 
 


Edited by Sander - 28-Jun-2008 at 15:40
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest
Guest
  Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28-Jun-2008 at 05:35
Originally posted by red clay

 
I admit I am a diffusionist.  I'm a little bit different than many however, in as much as I believe there is a definite bias against ancient indigenous Americans.
 
 
The problem, Red Clay, is that Hyperdiffusionism was invented by Europeans to justify theirs "superior" possition in the earth. Hyperdiffusionism was so much impregnated of European racism in its origins that is hard to distinguish between both. In short, it was an ideology developed to prove "inferior" people invented nothing but just copied.
 
Originally posted by red clay

Why for instance is it that complex concepts were diffused to and not from the Americas.  We have cultures as ancient as any and more complex than most.  We know so little about the oldest of our cultures, some having sculpture depicting animals that went extinct 12,000 years ago,  How can you say writing didn't diffuse from here.
 
Because the inventors of those ideologies are not interested in the achievements of the Americas! They don't know thar the oldest civilization of Peru is only two centuries younger than Egypt! They don't know that Mayans invented cero before East indians! And that Olmecs discovered the magnetic needle before the Chinese! And they don't know the oldest cotton textiles and textiles in general, were discovered in the Americas!
 
Originally posted by red clay

And while we are in that neck of the woods,  why is it that the immigrations went one way.
Oh, I forgot, the poor unsophisticated, ignorant and unimaginative Native Americans couldn't build ocean going ships.  They could build cities that rivaled and in some instances surpassed any found in Europe but they couldn't build ships?Confused
 
Because they are ignorants. And also, because they want to prove the people of the Old World are the carriers of civilization. They are not interested in contacts from Inuits and Amerindians into Europe, for instance. No matter evidences of that kind exist.
 
 
Originally posted by red clay

They had command of advanced math, physics and hydraulics with which they constructed irrigation and canal systems which stood unequaled for 2,000 years, until the Romans.  They had an incredibly advanced knowledge of astronomy. But they couldn't navigate?  Get a grip. 
 
Giving even a conservative dating to sites such as tiahuanco, [which is several thousand years older than the highly questionable " official statement" from the local governments in the Andes.]  puts up major problems upon careful examination of such sites.  The most notable is the unmistakable and incontrovertible evidence of a level of technology unlike any other civilization in prehistory now known.
 
 
Of course they could navigate. We have discussed this before. In the Pacific the balsa rafts with sails made trips from Peru to Central America and Galapagoes as routine. In the Caribbean, giant canoes that could carry 60 people, crossed from Venezuela to Yucatan, Cuba and Miami by paddling and perhaps sails as well. Some North American natives from the West and East coasts have very advanced canoes, too. And pre-eskimos crossed to Greenland as routine, and perhaps beyond.
 
The problem is that most difussionists aren't interested in this fact-
 


Edited by pinguin - 28-Jun-2008 at 05:36
Back to Top
Bernard Woolley View Drop Down
Pretorian
Pretorian


Joined: 11-Jun-2008
Location: Canada
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 154
  Quote Bernard Woolley Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28-Jun-2008 at 08:10

Originally posted by red clay

They had command of advanced math, physics and hydraulics with which they constructed irrigation and canal systems which stood unequaled for 2,000 years, until the Romans. They had an incredibly advanced knowledge of astronomy. But they couldn't navigate? Get a grip.

Giving even a conservative dating to sites such as tiahuanco, [which is several thousand years older than the highly questionable " official statement" from the local governments in the Andes.] puts up major problems upon careful examination of such sites. The most notable is the unmistakable and incontrovertible evidence of a level of technology unlike any other civilization in prehistory now known.

The problem with this is that it's not enough for technology to have existed for it to have been diffused. There has to be some indication of how it travelled, and by what route. There simply isn't anything to indicate that cultural or material goods were sent between Central America (or South America) and any part of the old world. If such exchanges had taken place, we would expect to see examples of these same goods all along the way between the two - which we don't.

Also, were are a limited number of routes available to anyone who wanted to enter or leave the Americas before reliable ocean transport was available, and these routes have been studied extensively already. There's the Southern Pacific route. We know that the Polynesians reached Easter Island around the 14th century, so even if they did reach South America by that route they would have barely beaten the Spanish there. There's the northern route across the Atlantic, which was crossed by the Vikings. Besides also being too late to have any effect on American civilizations, they had the similar problems to the Polynesians - limited by their technology, they had to island-hop, establishing new bases at each island before moving on. This not only slowed them down, but also limited each new expedition to the number of people that could be supported by the last base. So their expeditions were too small to substantially affect history.

The Siberian route is the one for which I would agree that there was extensive and constant cultural interaction. The strait itself is a passable obstacle. The people on each side of the Bering Strait are similar in many ways, there's considerable evidence of their trading relationships and several waves of migration are known to have gone back and forth across the strait. There is disagreement over precisely how much interaction there was between North America and Asia, and over how far down each coast that interaction spread, but it certainly didn't go as far as either Mexico or China and the cultures of this region don't represent a progression between those two - these groups were part of their own cultural sphere, which incidentally also developed long after the civilizational centres of the new and old worlds had coalesced.

Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest
Guest
  Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28-Jun-2008 at 19:36
Interesting idea. The Siberian route was indeed open during centuries, as the recent migrations of the Inuits show. However, how much certain inventions spread is not very clear. Inuits knew iron metalurgy, for instance, but that didn't spread south. Also, it looks like any invention that entered through Siberia to Alaska didn't spread further south. For instance, it don't looks like that any Chinese invention spread to Siberia and then to California or Mexico.
 
What is clear, though, is that the art of the north american North West is similar to alaskan and also reminds the produce of some peoples in Siberia. 
 
Back to Top
Bernard Woolley View Drop Down
Pretorian
Pretorian


Joined: 11-Jun-2008
Location: Canada
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 154
  Quote Bernard Woolley Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29-Jun-2008 at 03:14
I don't think it's strange that trade across the Bering Strait would have had little impact further south, since the people doing the trading would only have been exchanging goods and ideas of use to each other - people living a very specialized culture. The interaction between Inuit and the peoples of the West Coast (Haida, Tlingit et al) is an interesting subject that I don't know nearly as much about as I'd like to. My understanding is that they traded with each other, but I don't know how much cultural influence they had on each other.
 
One thing I know for sure, though, is that it was bizarre for the 2010 Vancouver Winter Olympics to choose an Inukshuk as their symbol when there are such beautiful local artistic traditions to draw on. I fear the Inukshuk is fast becoming this generation's feathered head dress.
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest
Guest
  Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30-Jun-2008 at 00:41

I agree with your conclusion above.

With respect to Vancourver and Inuits, you are right. They should have selected a symbol between local cultures.
Back to Top
Dynbertawe View Drop Down
Knight
Knight
Avatar

Joined: 30-Jun-2008
Location: Cymru
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 49
  Quote Dynbertawe Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30-Jun-2008 at 13:14
Originally posted by Sun Tzu


Amerigo is why America is named America but he never set foot in the Americas.
 
Has anyone heard of Richard Amerike?
 
There is growing credence that America was named after this guy, think about it, what places are named after someone's christian name? Sorry, guys, I hate quoting from Wikipedia.
 

 

Richard Amerike (or Ameryk) pronounced America (c. 14451503) was a wealthy English merchant, Royal customs officer and Sheriff of Welsh descent. He was the principal owner of John Cabot's ship Matthew during his voyage of exploration to North America in 1497. Amerike is chiefly remembered because of old documents rediscovered in 1955, proving the discovery of Newfoundland in 1479 prompting Columbus's voyage of discovery in 1492. It is speculated that "America" is derived from his name, owing to his sponsorship of the voyages to Newfoundland, rather than from Amerigo Vespucci, the map-maker.[ci Biography

Richard Amerike was born in Weston under Penyard, near Ross-on-Wye in England. He was a descendant of the Earls of Gwent, and family name was an English spelling of the Welsh ap Meuric (or ap Meurig), meaning "son of Meurig".

Amerike married a Lucy Wells and settled at West Camel, near Ilchester in Somerset, before deciding to move his family to Bristol. At the time the city was growing in importance as a port, second only to London, and was attracting merchants and adventurers from all over the country. There Amerike became a wealthy and important merchant and dignitary, holding the post of King's Customs Officer three times and becoming the Sheriff of Bristol in 1497.

Theory of the naming of America

Further information: Naming of America

Summary:

  • Amerike funded the earlier voyages of Bristol sailors to Newfoundland, beginning in 1479.
  • Amerike was the chief sponsor of John Cabot's voyage to Newfoundland.
  • In 1955, a letter was found in Spanish archives confirming the discoveries of Bristol sailors in Newfoundland before Columbus.
  • Documents in Westminster Abbey indicate that Columbus knew of the Bristolmen's discoveries.
  • Derivation of "America" from Amerike, the sponsor of the discovery of Newfoundland is etymologically easier than from "Amerigo Vespucci," the map-maker.
  • Two extant versions of the Amerike family's coats of arms include stripes and one, stars and stripes; the older, horizontal, red stripes, and the latter, vertical, blue stripes with a band of stars.

Richard Amerike's connection with the Americas' name surfaced in the 1890s, when the 1497 and 1498 customs rolls, archived in Westminster Abbey, were found to contain his name in connection with the payment of John Cabot's pension.

In 1908 local Bristol antiquarian and butterfly collector Alfred Hudd first proposed the theory that the word America had evolved from Amerike or ap Meryk. Alfred Hudd was a gentleman of some leisure, known as an antiquary who was a member of the Clifton Antiquarian Club of Bristol, founded in 1884 to arrange meetings and excursions for the study of objects of archaeological interest in the west of England and south Wales, and a butterfly-collector and local naturalist and member of the Bristol Naturalists' Society around Bristol.

Hudd proposed that the word "America" was originally applied to a destination across the western ocean, possibly an island or a fishing station in Newfoundland. This would have been before the existence of a continent on the other side of the Atlantic was known to Europeans. However, no maps bearing this name or documents indicating a location of this supposed village are known.

According to Newfoundland and Labrador Heritage,[1] "While it has been difficult to pinpoint the exact time frame of these North Atlantic probes, evidence that they were indeed occurring by the 1490s is found in a report sent by Pedro de Ayala, a Spanish envoy located in London. The year after Cabot's successful transatlantic voyage he wrote Ferdinand and Isabella stating that for the previous seven years the Bristolians had been equipping caravels to look for the islands of Brasile and the Seven Cities. While it is not possible to ascertain whether or not these were large scale ventures and precisely what their motives might have been, Ayala's words seem to supply some proof of westward bound voyages."

There had long been a suspicion that fishing ships in search of cod were regularly crossing the Atlantic from Bristol to Newfoundland before Columbus' first voyage. Bristol merchants bought salt cod from Iceland until 1475, when the King of Denmark stopped the trade. In 1479 four Bristol merchants received a royal charter to find another source of fish. Records discovered in 1955 suggest that from 1480, twelve years before Columbus, English fishermen may have established a facility for processing fish on the Newfoundland coast. In 1960 trading records were discovered that indicated that Richard Amerike was involved in this business. A letter from around 1481 suggests that Amerike shipped salt (for salting fish) to these men at a place they had named Brassyle. The letter also states that they had many names for headlands and harbours. Rodney Broome and others suggest that one of these names may have been "America".

John Cabot (originally Giovanni Caboto, a Venetian seaman) had become a well known mariner in England, and he came to Bristol in 1495 looking for investment in a new project. On March 5, 1496, Cabot received a letter of authority from King Henry VII to make a voyage of discovery and claim lands on behalf of the monarch. It is believed that Amerike may have been one of the principal investors in the building of Cabot's ship, the Matthew.

Cabot is known to have produced maps of the coast from Maine to Newfoundland, though none have survived. He named an island off Newfoundland St. John's. Copies of these maps were sent to Spain by John Day, where Christopher Columbus and Amerigo Vespucci would have seen them. The theory suggests that Cabot may have written the name America (or similar) on his maps, but no extant maps are available to prove this assertion.

Vespucci sailed to South America and the Caribbean with Alonso de Ojeda (Hojeda) in 1499 and Gonçalo Coelho in 1501 and became convinced that these were new lands, not Asia as Columbus believed. Martin Waldseemüller, a German map-maker, published a world map in 1507 using Vespucci's previously published letters. The theory suggests that Waldseemüller assumed that the "America" that Vespucci used was derived from his first name. Waldseemüller provided an explanation of this assumption as an attachment to the map. Vespucci himself never stated that this was the case. There were immediate protests from Columbus' supporters to get the continent renamed for Columbus, but attempts were unsuccessful, since 1,000 copies of the map were already in circulation. On later maps Waldseemüller substituted the words "Terra Incognita," but it was too late; the name America was now firmly associated with the entire northern and southern continent across the Atlantic from Europe.

The above theory of the naming of America is also suggested in The Book of General Ignorance published by Faber and Faber in 2006.

Back to Top
Sander View Drop Down
AE Moderator
AE Moderator


Joined: 20-Mar-2007
Location: Netherlands
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 597
  Quote Sander Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15-Jul-2008 at 02:22
 
Originally posted by Sander

Originally posted by pinguin

 
 
The only one who demonstrates he needs to read some good stuff here is you. Otherwise you would have known that the Indus script aint considered a true script c.q. writing since many years  (Witzel , Sproat and Farmer 2004) .. Unbelievable LOL
 
 
Ha ha ha....
 
So what? Please define me what is a script. I have the impression you have no idea what is and what is not.
 
 
 
I have the impression you cant understand the phrase you quoted " true script c.q. writing '' . It means that 'scripts' in the used context refer to writing systems ( phonetic ) not to sign systems.
 
Originally posted by Pinguin

Inventing signs are a part of human nature as much as speak. Nobody invented speaking and nobody invented signs. Scripts are just organized systems of signs, so the invention of writing is not such a wonderful thing as you pretend, but actually something that flows naturally.
 
 
Part of the very organized and standardized sign sytem, the famous 'Highway 'Script'. Many symbols will often occur in sequences.
 
 
 
Seriously, as any good study explains its pretty nonsensical to equate ( indian )sign sytems with writing systems.
 
We can leave aside here loose definitions of scripts (e.g. ..) that include mnemonic systems like mexican ' picture writing' . Incan Khipu or Iroquois Whampum , or early accounting scripts not tightly coupled to oral language. ( Witzel, Sproat  and Farmer ).
 
Mexican picture writing does not refer to Maya ofcourse.
 
Back to Top
Sander View Drop Down
AE Moderator
AE Moderator


Joined: 20-Mar-2007
Location: Netherlands
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 597
  Quote Sander Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15-Jul-2008 at 02:30
For Bernard
 
Your 14 century date for easter island is late. Even Terry Hunt only suggested 1200 AD. But that is not so important.  Most of the complex traits we are dealing with here were not present among the Polynesians anyhow ( except for things like for example the chicken and some seafaring stuff ).
 
Diffusion of complex traits is not a dogma. Its the standard process and scientifically demonstrable. Cultural Evolution ( isolationism ) which suggests Parellel Invention ( term as understood in the context of the debates ) lacks empirical proof of existence.That is why only the proces of diffusion is accepted by both schools as a real phenomenon. When we speak of both schools (isolationist and diffusionist) we ( unless mentioned else ) of course refer to the modern views of scholars in relevant disciplines, not of the early versions ( early 1900s ) let alone those of amateurs or of nativist organisations.
 
How and by whom some complex parallels were spread are rather historical details . They give us more info on specific connections between groups. Such details , or the lack of it , are not important for accepting diffusion as the underlying mechanism. We often lack evidence of specific contacts between specific groups in specific times in the Old World. Take the spoked wheel chariot ; its attested in the Eurasian steppes around 2000 BC and it appeared later in in egypt, europe and eastern asia. Its generally accepted as a diffused trait, even though we in cases lack details on who were the agents of transmission.
 
Academic isolationists and diffusionists agree more on a crucial issue than the former admitt . Cultural diffusion resulting in complex paralles between societies is such a normal and basic process that both 'schools' accept it as the basis mechanism. They both agree that any ( hypothetical )deviation would be an exception to what is standard. Take this case for example : 100s of societies shared the concept of writing by having distinct writing sytems over the centuries. Now, in more than 99 % of these 'parellels', the isolationists accept diffusion. Only with a few, less than 1% of the total, they reject diffusion. So, even without speaking it out ( some rather eat their shoes ), they acknowledge wat is the standard process.
 
StarStar
 
A few words about transoceanic seafaring. Isolationist scholars have traditionally presented it as un-feasible or at least very difficult for pre- Norse vessels. Ofcourse they never empirically demonstrated the validity of those statements.  Big nonsense. Its already demonstrated that the Americas are rather one of the most easiest targets to hit . Concentrating on Atlantic for now :   Some of the smallest vessels crossed it with only a simple sail. Some just rowed. Dr. Alain Bombard is just one of many that crossed it. In  the 1950s  in a small boat with a simple sail he crossed it in some 65 days ( canaries-caribbean ) . That was the easy part. The more difficult part was that it he did it without taking food or water with him.
 


Edited by Sander - 24-Jul-2008 at 19:21
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest
Guest
  Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15-Jul-2008 at 03:10
Originally posted by Sander

 ... 
Part of the very organized and standardized sign sytem, the famous 'Highway 'Script'. Many symbols will often occur in sequences.
 
 
 
Seriously, as any good study explains its pretty nonsensical to equate ( indian )sign sytems with writing systems.
 
We can leave aside here loose definitions of scripts (e.g. ..) that include mnemonic systems like mexican ' picture writing' . Incan Khipu or Iroquois Whampum , or early accounting scripts not tightly coupled to oral language. ( Witzel, Sproat  and Farmer ).
 
Mexican picture writing does not refer to Maya ofcourse.
 
 
Thanksfully you didn't consider Maya scripts just another "indian sign system" more. Otherwise, I would blew you up.... LOL
 
With respect to Mexican 'picture writing' what you certainly know it is an incomplete nemotecnic system, close to a real script. In fact, it has lots of ideograms but it is not a complete writing and I agree with that. With respect to quipus, there matters are different. The fact is we don´t know as yet. Not long ago some studies showd that certain knots patterns represented cities.
 
The point of all this thread, though was to discount the willd and archaic idea that writing was invented in a single place. Of course, alphabet has a single origin and that can be shown. But ideographic writing was invented several times in history at different times. Even more, it is hard to figure it out when they cross the line from a nemonic system (like Inca or Mexican) to a real ideographic writing (as maya). Every single people on the planet has symbols, anyways.
 
 
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest
Guest
  Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15-Jul-2008 at 03:15
Originally posted by Sander

....
Diffusion of complex traits is not a dogma. Its the standard process and scientifically demonstrable. Cultural Evolution ( isolationism ) which suggests Parellel Invention ( term as understood in the context of the debates ) lacks empirical proof of existence.That is why only the proces of diffusion is accepted by both schools as a real phenomenon. When we speak of both schools (isolationist and diffusionist) we ( unless mentioned else ) of course refer to the modern views of scholars in relevant disciplines, not of the early versions ( early 1900s ) let alone those of amateurs or of nativist organisations.
 ... 
 
Once again, Sanders, you are preaching a dogma. For standard processes and standard mentalities of scientists, even them have dogmas.
 
Try to convince scientists like Carl Sagan or other SETI schollars that green alliens of outter space only live in theirs imagination LOL
 
Parallel inventions exists. The development of the civilizations of the Americas is the most outstanding proof of it. All those dumb ideas to justify "teaching" by Phoenicians, Egyptians, Chinese or other "Selected-ones" have never had the support of physical evidence. In short, there is no proof of contact.
 
And the lack of proof of contact is the main proof of parallel inventions.
 
 
 
 
 
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest
Guest
  Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15-Jul-2008 at 03:20
Originally posted by Sander

 
A few words about transoceanic seafaring. Isolationist scholars have traditionally presented it as un-feasible or at least very difficult for pre- Norse vessels. Ofcourse they never empirically demonstrated the validity of those statements.  Big nonsense. Its already demonstrated that the Americas are rather one of the most easiest targets to hit . Concentrating on Atlantic for now :   Some of the smallest vessels crossed it with only a simple sail. Some just rowed. Dr. Alain Bombard is just one of many that crossed it. In  the 1950s  in a small boat with a simple sail he crossed it in some 65 days ( canaries-caribbean ) . That was the easy part. The more difficult part was that it he did it without taking food or water with him.
 
 
Well Sanders. I challenge you to show material proof of contacts. Show me any scientifically
evidence of Phoenicians or Black Africans reaching the Americas. Show us all I am wrong and quickly. Otherwise, please stop prettending you know better.
 
And, please don't search for Van Sertima or Van Danniken...LOLLOLLOL
 
 


Edited by pinguin - 15-Jul-2008 at 03:22
Back to Top
red clay View Drop Down
Administrator
Administrator
Avatar
Tomato Master Emeritus

Joined: 14-Jan-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 10226
  Quote red clay Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15-Jul-2008 at 04:29
Well Sanders. I challenge you to show material proof of contacts. Show me any scientifically
evidence of Phoenicians or Black Africans reaching the Americas. Show us all I am wrong and quickly. Otherwise, please stop prettending you know better.
 
And, please don't search for Van Sertima or Van Danniken...LOLLOLLOL
 
 
 
He has, he does, and he has many more credible sources[ that is the very few you provide] than you.  As he has many more choices to research from.  All more credible than your 2.
 
I'd suggest you widen your scope of information on this subject.  Diffusion is becoming accepted as a real event.    
"Arguing with someone who hates you or your ideas, is like playing chess with a pigeon. No matter what move you make, your opponent will walk all over the board and scramble the pieces".
Unknown.
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest
Guest
  Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15-Jul-2008 at 04:45
Originally posted by red clay

He has, he does, and he has many more credible sources[ that is the very few you provide] than you.  As he has many more choices to research from.  All more credible than your 2.
 
I'd suggest you widen your scope of information on this subject.  Diffusion is becoming accepted as a real event.    
 
Sure, Red Clay. That's also your personal opinion.
 
I have quite a lot of information about the origin and development of the American civilizations to a degree that you can't imagine. And in all of those decades of research I haven't found a single evidence of those fantasious contact theories. I am just waiting for something to convince me. How do you know? Perhaps he has something real. I'll wait.
 
Back to Top
Tore The Dog View Drop Down
Knight
Knight
Avatar

Joined: 08-Feb-2008
Location: Sweden
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 74
  Quote Tore The Dog Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15-Jul-2008 at 13:04
Wrong Leif just given names this man discoverd America 2 time in year 986.
 
 


Edited by Tore The Dog - 15-Jul-2008 at 13:08
Back to Top
Sander View Drop Down
AE Moderator
AE Moderator


Joined: 20-Mar-2007
Location: Netherlands
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 597
  Quote Sander Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16-Jul-2008 at 05:21
Show you 're wrong Pinguin? Nobody shows that better than you do. 
 
BTW. since you cannot  even spell my name right. Its Sander , not Sanders.  Wink
 
 
Originally posted by pinguin

 
With respect to Mexican 'picture writing' what you certainly know it is an incomplete nemotecnic system, close to a real script. In fact, it has lots of ideograms but it is not a complete writing and I agree with that. With respect to quipus, there matters are different. The fact is we don´t know as yet. Not long ago some studies showd that certain knots patterns represented cities.
 
The point of all this thread, though was to discount the willd and archaic idea that writing was invented in a single place. Of course, alphabet has a single origin and that can be shown. But ideographic writing was invented several times in history at different times. Even more, it is hard to figure it out when they cross the line from a nemonic system (like Inca or Mexican) to a real ideographic writing (as maya). Every single people on the planet has symbols, anyways.
 
 
 
Maya  writing 'real ideographic writing' ?  Priceless ! LOL  Clap  Never heard of logo- syllabic  ?
 
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest
Guest
  Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16-Jul-2008 at 05:54
Originally posted by Sander

Show you 're wrong Pinguin? Nobody shows that better than you do. 
 
BTW. since you cannot  even spell my name right. Its Sander , not Sanders.  Wink
 
Sorry Sander if I write your name incorrectly.... However, I see that you lack the proof.
 
Please, don't use against me cheap rethorical tricks. In particular don't use ad hominem attacks that high school students know, and that is the less serious way to prove an argument.
 
Please show me a proof of contact! Even more, show me a specific invention that was imported from the Old World after the crossing of Bering and before Columbus, and that is part of the heritage of pre-Columbian civilizations of the America.
 
You know, Sander, you won't do it because you can't. You know it. 
 
Originally posted by Sander

 
Maya  writing 'real ideographic writing' ?  Priceless ! LOL  Clap  Never heard of logo- syllabic  ?
 
 
Very funny. However, I explained a while ago as Chocolate was wrote in Maya: Ka-ka-wa, in logo-sylabic. I know maya is a mixture of ideographic and sylabic scripts, in a way similar to Japanese. So, please just show your proof of contact that prove your claim that difussionism rules. Concentrate, Sander, because your credibility is going down...
 
 


Edited by pinguin - 16-Jul-2008 at 05:56
Back to Top
Sander View Drop Down
AE Moderator
AE Moderator


Joined: 20-Mar-2007
Location: Netherlands
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 597
  Quote Sander Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 19-Jul-2008 at 03:19
Time now for some 'Pinguinism'.
 
Originally posted by pinguin

Originally posted by Sander

A few words about transoceanic seafaring. Isolationist scholars have traditionally presented it as un-feasible or at least very difficult for pre- Norse vessels. Ofcourse they never empirically demonstrated the validity of those statements. Big nonsense. Its already demonstrated that the Americas are rather one of the most easiest targets to hit . Concentrating on Atlantic for now : Some of the smallest vessels crossed it with only a simple sail. Some just rowed. Dr. Alain Bombard is just one of many that crossed it. In the 1950s in a small boat with a simple sail he crossed it in some 65 days ( canaries-caribbean ) . That was the easy part. The more difficult part was that it he did it without taking food or water with him.
Well Sanders. I challenge you to show material proof of contacts. Show me any scientifically
evidence of Phoenicians or Black Africans reaching the Americas. Show us all I am wrong and quickly. Otherwise, please stop prettending you know better.
 
And, please don't search for Van Sertima or Van Danniken...LOLLOLLOL
 
Quoting that passage and then whining you dont get evidence for phoenecian and African contacts ? What a joke. You brought them up there, not me. Behold Pinguin's strawman nr. 9.997 or something ( do you get for the bonus ?)
 
Hellooo? You really thought  I see any thing as a challenge  if it comes from you,  an almost  notorious distorter?  You were wrong again ..
 
Get real. You cannot even keep your nonsensical comments with you when others talk seriously. Below a passage to Bernard. Now , look who suddenly jumps in, quotes it and rants about martians blabla ? Hey, its Pinguin.
Originally posted by pinguin

Originally posted by Sander

....
Diffusion of complex traits is not a dogma. Its the standard process and scientifically demonstrable. Cultural Evolution ( isolationism ) which suggests Parellel Invention ( term as understood in the context of the debates ) lacks empirical proof of existence.That is why only the proces of diffusion is accepted by both schools as a real phenomenon. When we speak of both schools (isolationist and diffusionist) we ( unless mentioned else ) of course refer to the modern views of scholars in relevant disciplines, not of the early versions ( early 1900s ) let alone those of amateurs or of nativist organisations.
...
Once again, Sanders, you are preaching a dogma. For standard processes and standard mentalities of scientists, even them have dogmas.
 
Try to convince scientists like Carl Sagan or other SETI schollars that green alliens of outter space only live in theirs imagination LOL
...
 
---
 
Dont cry like some baby about ' attacks' btw. They were rather good for you. And, you better worry about your own credibility ( or rather getting some ).  Seems that your memory is so short that you have forgotton the comments from different mods in this thread alone.One that was not all to flattering for your credibility and another that contains phrases like ' distorting ' etc , all related to you.  Those  golden words Approve
 
StarStarStar
 
So far Pinguin. It was usefull for a while ( to show  some points ) but its now time to elaborate on some interesting things and its useless to waste a serious second on him during that time. Many (short and longer) postings from me to come.


Edited by Sander - 19-Jul-2008 at 05:50
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest
Guest
  Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 19-Jul-2008 at 03:35
Sander. Your hyperdiffusionist ideas don't have support in reality.
 
Period.
Back to Top
Bernard Woolley View Drop Down
Pretorian
Pretorian


Joined: 11-Jun-2008
Location: Canada
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 154
  Quote Bernard Woolley Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21-Jul-2008 at 02:49

I have no problem accepting that diffusion is by far the most common way that peoples gain new knowledge. I'm arguing it's not universal.

Originally posted by Sander

How and by whom some complex parallels were spread are rather historical details . They give us more info on specific connections between groups. Such details , or the lack of it , are not important for accepting diffusion as the underlying mechanism. We often lack evidence of specific contacts between specific groups in specific times in the Old World. Take the spoked wheel chariot ; its attested in the Eurasian steppes around 2000 BC and it appeared later in in egypt, europe and eastern asia. Its generally accepted as a diffused trait, even though we in cases lack details on who were the agents of transmission.

OK. Although we don't know the precise agents of diffusion, it's reasonable to assume based on the similarity between spoked wheels around the world and the timing of their appearance in different places that spoked wheels were diffused from a single source.

But Central American writing systems are a very different case. What would you suggest are their closest relatives among Old World scripts? What similarities do you see between, say, Mayan script and those source scripts that show the one being a development of the other?

Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 7891011>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 9.56a [Free Express Edition]
Copyright ©2001-2009 Web Wiz

This page was generated in 0.156 seconds.