QuoteReplyTopic: Jared Diamond North-South axis thesis Posted: 02-Jun-2009 at 05:09
Originally posted by gcle2003
[The Americas were slow and late in developing.
False. It wasn't slow. Only started late. If you knew in detail what the civilizations of the Americas achieved in 2.500 years, like in Mesoamerica, you wouldn't make such a wild claim.
It started late? That's true. And that's the only reason I found valid for the differences in technology between Aztecs, Incas and Iberians.
There is a big difference, though, while Iberians arrived with a borrowed science and technology (from China, Greece, etc.), natives invented everything by themselves.
...A fourth reason to question this simplified "latecommer thesis" is that other parts of the world, namely Australia and Sub-Saharan Africa, as well as the Americas had a rather different story from "Eurasia" (perhaps excluding some parts but including parts of Northafrica). Africa may be the first populated continent and Australia has been for tens of millenia as far as I know.
Africa was never fully isolated from the external world so the comparison with the Americas doesn't apply. Most of theirs culture was imported, from zebus to banana trees and from xylophones to goats, they were brough from Eurasia. Probably iron as well. Why was relatively backwards, I don't know, but in Eurasia itself, nomads of Central Asia or the hunter gatherer of the India jungles weren't so advanced either.
With respect to Australia, isolation and the environment of course were deterministic in preserving people "frozen in time" in a hunter gatherer lifestyle.
The Americas is a different history. In here you have a magnificent continent with all the resources available to found civilizations, and they appeared. But they appeared in absolute isolation from the rest of the world. That's why everything here is different: Llamas carrying cargo, maize intead of wheat or rice, advanced astronomy but not wheels, hydraulic toys but no machinery, etc.
When one study the Nazca networks of chanels, or the Andean techniques for melting metals with automatic wind furnaces, one realize these guys have developed wonderful inventions.
Were they slow motion societies? Absolutely not. You could see the works of Nezahualcoyotl in Tenochtilan. Were they retarded people? If you read the works of Pachacutec you will convinced otherwise.
The civilization of the Americas are different from everything else because they developed in parallel and isolated from Eurasia. The world saw two experiments with civilization: one in Eurasia and the other in the Americas. Unfortunally for the later, Eurasia started first and impossed its conditions. That's all.
...So why do you think civilisation was so late appearing in the Americas, compared to the Fertile Crescent or China?
Do you know that all Amerindians descend from no more than a couple thousand people.
They peopled the Americas starting at 12000 BC. At that time the only that you find, and very rearly, are small bands going around all the continent.
Not before 7000 BC the first people start to settle, or at least be stable in a place for a while. Agriculture and the domestication of animals happened a lot latter.
It took a long time to exist enough people to make a civilization, to start with.
Remember that Eurasia was settled since 60.000 years ago, and Europe and China probably have modern humans since 35.000 years ago. So they have a lead of tens of thousand of years. A lead that was never surpassed in the Americas.
However, isn't it wonderful that with all its late start, the Americas were the first to discover things such as the magnetic needle, rubber, the number zero and the air presure toys?
...So why do you think civilisation was so late appearing in the Americas, compared to the Fertile Crescent or China?
Do you know that all Amerindians descend from no more than a couple thousand people.
They peopled the Americas starting at 12000 BC. At that time the only that you find, and very rearly, are small bands going around all the continent.
Remember that Eurasia was settled since 60.000 years ago, and Europe and China probably have modern humans since 35.000 years ago. So they have a lead of tens of thousand of years. A lead that was never surpassed in the Americas.
Your argument about the few initial immigrants to the Americas may have some point but are not as convincing as You see it, even not if there initially were far fewer. The most important objection is there is no reason to believe that these (probably few) newcommers
were not on "level"(were fully as capable hunterers, toolmakers or knew as much) with most of mankind at that time. Some of them even may have had advanced ways to exploit the food resources of surrounding waters.
Africa was never fully isolated from the external world so the comparison with the Americas doesn't apply. Most of theirs culture was imported, from zebus to banana trees and from xylophones to goats, they were brough from Eurasia. Probably iron as well. Why was relatively backwards, I don't know, but in Eurasia itself, nomads of Central Asia or the hunter gatherer of the India jungles weren't so advanced either.
Originally posted by pinguin
With respect to Australia, isolation and the environment of course were deterministic in preserving people "frozen in time" in a hunter gatherer lifestyle.
So You fully agree that environmental conditions may be very important!
Originally posted by pinguin
The Americas is a different history. In here you have a magnificent continent with all the resources available to found civilizations, and they appeared. But they appeared in absolute isolation from the rest of the world. That's why everything here is different: Llamas carrying cargo, maize intead of wheat or rice, advanced astronomy but not wheels, hydraulic toys but no machinery, etc.
Or You may say the rest was isolated from the Americas, since the later is a very large part of all inhabited land. Then perhaps it may have been so that the different parts of the americas too were more "isolated", though not as much as both were from the rest. After all the distance between "mainland" Northamerica and "mainland" Southamerica seems much wider than the distances between "mainland Eurasia" and "Mainland Africa"(this distance sis rather small throughout most of the Meditteranean and the Red Sea).
[/QUOTE] It seems for me You in some cases fully accept "Geographical" arguments, but in other cases strongly opposes them!
Well, I only opposite to the conclusion that writting didn't spread because the "shape of continents".... That conclusion seems to be absurd.
Isolation played a role, but I don't think it was such important. The main was the lack of large empires that gave enough surplus for trade. The Americas were right at the time were closer contacts were established between Mesoamerica, the Caribbean, Colombia and the Inca Empire. Who knows what would happened if Aztecs and Incas started to trade in larger scale?
We will never know. The Americas was invaded and re-engineered, and thousand of years of preparations were gone in a decade.
The isolation argument (concerning all part of americas relative to rest of the world, not its internal divisions) deserves a comment, I think.
Those of us who are somewhat sceptic to all sorts of unsupported claims of precolombian transoceanic contacts tend to accept an isolation argument(Americas were hermetically closed from the rest before the 1500´s except initial few invaders, perhaps a few norse whithout any influence) without further reflections. We should not ignore the possibility there could have been a lot more contect between Siberian and Northern parts of Northamerica than recognised by now. This does not seems to be that unlikely after all, because; first the coastlines have varried much(different levels of oceans) and there may have been landbridges of very different shapes during the millenia. Perhaps there may even be disappeared navigable ancient rivers between the continents, sunken islands?
secondly: Parts of this large area may have had a much milder and more hospitable climate? At least the postglacial era has changed much here in northern Europe between milder(substanc´tially milder than now) and colder climates, so this seems likely there too.
Perhaps much more research, especially on the siberian side (and underwater), may reveal some (surprising?) insigths.
Well, that's true. Perhaps the Americas wasn't completely hermetically closed but it was very near to that. What is clear is that all the local inventions of Native Americans, from lacquer to metalurgy and from patolli to the burning mirrors, were invented in the Americas independently.
That provide historians with a wonderful parallel experience to the Old World to test theirs thesis about the development of civilizations.
What is striking considering the long time of isolation is the similarities between the peoples in the Old and New Worlds. Even if separated by oceans fo many millenia people still invent similar things and many times their cultures and behaviour are strikingly similar. That proves that we humans are the same even if some of us happens to live separated for some millennia.
The inventions are similar but obtained in different conditions. For instance, when making air presure toys, Greeks used bronze while natives used pottery. In sculptures, Greeks used stones and natives pottery once again. In books, Eurasians developed first the rolls and afterwards the codex; in the new world the books where folded as a publicity leaf. Those parallels and differencies are something I found fascinating.
The inventions are similar but obtained in different conditions. For instance, when making air presure toys, Greeks used bronze while natives used pottery. In sculptures, Greeks used stones and natives pottery once again. In books, Eurasians developed first the rolls and afterwards the codex; in the new world the books where folded as a publicity leaf. Those parallels and differencies are something I found fascinating.
Also inside the Old World such things could vary a lot, for example staues could also be in clay (as in the famous Terra Cotta Army outside the tomb of Qin Shi Huangdi in China, also in Greece they made clay sculptures and statues) or in bronze (Greece, China).
In China early books could be made of ribs of bamboo and in India of palm leafs. In Egypt books could be made of Papyrus and so on. Also the technique to bind books have varied a lot geographically and chronologically.
And in the Americas sculpture and statues could also be made of stone.
Fascinating is also that such a crucial invention as pottery was invented independently in the New and the Old World. Probably even in the Old World it could have been invented separately in different places. For example the West African invention of pottery for more than 11 000 years ago can have been a separate one.
By the way, do you have any good reference on the air pressure toys from America? It seems really a fascinating invention. It seems that both Greeks and Native Americans in some way missed the real importance of, and the oportunities raised by, such an invention.
Department of Physics, UCLA, Los Angeles, California 90024
Museum of Cultural History, UCLA, Los Angeles, California 90024
Measurements were made of the frequency and sound pressure level from 73 ceramic whistling bottles blown by compressed air. The bottles represent nine pre-Columbian civilizations which inhabited the north and central coasts and highlands of Peru during a 2000-year time span from 500 B.C. to A.D. 1550. We have found that Peruvian whistling bottles group acoustically by culture. The bottles are generally regarded by anthropologists as utilitarian liquid containers with the whistle providing an amusing method of venting. We are suggesting an alternative interpretation of the bottles as having been specifically produced as whistles. We base this interpretation on the clustering of frequencies by individual cultures, the fact that the frequencies fall in the region of the ear's greatest sensitivity, and the high sound pressure levels produced by the bottles when blown orally.
Introduction
Ceramic whistling bottles were produced on the north and central coasts and highlands of Peru for two thousand years beginning ca. 500 B.C. and continuing until shortly after the Spanish conquest of Peru in 1532. Anthropologists generally regard the bottles as utilitarian containers with the whistle providing an amusing vent to facilitate the passage of air when pouring and filling with liquid.1-5 It has also been suggested that these bottles were used as whistles, possibly in a ritual context.3, 6-8 The specimens tested in this study were found at gravesites by huaqueros (graverobbers) and there is nothing in the Spanish Chronicles of the New World or in the pre-Columbian Peruvian iconography that suggest their original use.
We have collected data on the harmonic structure of the sounds from 73 whistling bottles. The 73 bottles represent nine cultures from the north and central coasts and highlands of Peru, encompassing a time span from ca. 500 B.C. to A.D. 1550.
I. Sample
One of us (D.K.S.) assembled 73 whistling bottles from private collections, the Los Angeles County Museum of Natural History, and UCLA's Museum of Cultural History. All but three bottles were identified on the basis of physical appearance by Christopher B. Donnan, Director of UCLA's Museum of Cultural History, as belonging to one of the nine cultures listed in Table I. (Table I and Figures 1 - 3, 6 - 7 will eventually be included). Three bottles could not be assigned to a specific culture without ambiguity and four bottles had been restored. The integrity of the orginial acoutical signatures of the four restored bottles could not be assured and these were not included in the sample. Of the 69 bottles included in the sample, 53 were double chambered (Figs. 1 and 2), 14 were single chambered (Fig.3), one was four chambered, and one was six chambered (Fig.3). The four bottles not included in the sample because of restoration were all double chambered.
II. Description
All of the whistling bottles tested were made of ceramic. The physical dimensions are 15-30 cm high, 20-30 cm long, and 10-20 cm wide. The bottles are comprised of one or more chamber(s) connected by an upper bridge handle, often containing the whistle, and a lower pottery tube that enables liquid or air to flow from one chamber to the other (Fig. 4 and Fig. 5). The lower tube is the sole connection between the chambers through which liquid or air can flow. The single chambered bottles are surmounted by a tubular spout connected to an effigy by a bridge handle (Fig.3). When the bridge handle contains the actual whistle (hereafter referred to as the "exposed-type"), the whistle is "sounded" by means of an air stream which exits the effigy chamber through a small aperture in that chamber (Fig. 4). In the case of the "enclosed-type" whistle, the whistle cavity is contained within the effigy itself (Fig. 5).
The dimensions of the whistle cavities of seven Chimú bottles were measured by filling the cavities with water from a syringe to determine their volume. The effective diameter and length of their orifices were measured with a steel rule. Since the whistles were in some cases partially obscured by other features of the bottles and their orifices did not always have circular cross sections, uncertainties in measuring the diameters and/or lengths were occasionally as high as 30%. The Helmholtz frequencies fhof the seven bottles were calculated from the following expression, with an effective lengthl' with a correction which is a compromise between that for a flanged and unflanged tube.
fh= (c/2 pi)(S/l' V)1/2,
where S = 1/4 pi d2, d is the average diameter of the orifice, V is the volume of whistle cavity, l' = l + 0.7d, and c is the speed of sound in air. Cavity volumes were typically 0.6 to 1.0 cm3; orifice diameters were 3.5 - 4.5 mm, and orifice lengths, determinded by the thickness of the ceramic, ranged from 1 - 3 mm. Averaged over the seven bottles, the deviation of the calculated frequencies from the measured frequencies was less than 7%. This is excellent agreement in consideration of the uncertainties in measuring the small physical dimensions of the whistle cavities.
With respect to the multiple chambered bottles, the traditional explanation for the whistle's function is that it acts as an air vent to permit the flow of liquid from one chamber to the other. In the case of the single chambered bottles, the function of the whistle is again that of an amusing way to vent the vessel. When a bottle containing liquid is returned to an upright position after a portion of its liquid is poured from the tubular spout, the remaining liquid, seeking its own level, displaces the air in the effigy chamber. This produces an air stream which is directed across the whistle's orifice.
The current interpretation is that whistling bottles were "sounded" in this manner by means of a displacement of air by liquid. However, when a bottle is "sounded" in this way, the tone produced is barely audible, not at all the intense sound created when a bottle is blown orally through the tubular spout. When a whistle is "sounded" orally the chamber(s) act as a surge tank to reduce wavering in the tone which may occur because of slight short-term variations in pressure at the spout.
III. Methods
The bottles were placed in an anechoic chamber and pressurized air was used to produce the tones (Fig. 6). A Brüel & Kjær 2203 sound-level meter was suspended inside the chamber approximately 10 cm from the whistle in a position close to where a person's ear would be if the vessel had been blown orally. The air flow was then adjusted to give the maximum wide-band sound pressure level as indicated on the sound-level meter. We chose the maximum sound pressure level as the place to measure the frequency of the bottles for two reasons. The first being that it was always a unique point for each bottle. The volume flow rate of air or the blowing pressure varied from bottle to bottle and depended on physical properties of each bottle that were irrelevant to the actual whistle. The excess static pressure at the spout necessary to achieve the maximum sound varied from 1 - 3 kilopascals above ambient pressure, 10 - 3- cm of water as measured by a water filled U-tube. The necessary pressure was the same whether the bottle was blown orally or by compressed air. The second reason was that the blowing pressure necessary to achieve maximum sound pressure level was always low enough so that a person could sustain this maximum level for 15 - 20 sec. The maximum sound pressure level for each bottle was recorded and the average sound pressure level for all bottles from a single culture is reported in Table I under L. "Delta" L is the standard deviation of the sound pressure levels for each culture.
The output of the sound level meter was connected to a Hewlett-Packard model 3580-A Spectrum Analyzer with its bandwidth set at 10 Hz. The frequencies and relative sound pressure levels of the fundamental and partials for each bottle was recorded. The sound pressure level of the fundamental for each bottle is plotted against its frequency in Fig. 7. The average frequency of the fundamental for all bottles in a single culture is listed under f in Table I and the standard deviation of the fundamentals from that culture is listed under "delta" f. In the case of double-noted whistles, the frequency of the partial with the highest sound pressure level was chosen for calculating the averages in Table I and plotting the frequencies of the bottles in Fig. 7.
The partials were harmonics of the fundamental and typically decreased monotonically with increasing frequency. The fundamental was typically 60 dB above the noise level which was produced by the sound of the air rushing out of the bottle. In some cases as many as seven partials were distinguishable.
IV. Discussion and Conclusion
An examination of the frequency data in Table I and Fig. 7 strongly suggests that the nine cultures represented produced whistles in a frequency range specific to the particular culture which produced the bottles. The standard deviation for any one culture is significantly less than the standard deviation for the entire sample. The average frequency is not the sole distinguishing cultural characteristic of the bottles. In 20 of the 69 bottles in the sample, the whistle was contained within the effigy chamber. All 14 bottles from the Gallinazo, Vicus, Moche, and Huari cultures spanning a time period from 400 B. C. to A. D. 700 were of this "enclosed-type." In addition two of the four bottles not included in the sample because of restoration were "enclosed-type" whistles and both of these were from the Vicus culture as well. Of the remaining six "enclosed-type" whistles two were unspecified culturally, three were Chimú, and one was an Inca whistle.
Fourteen whistles produced two distinct tones depending on the blowing pressure applied at the spout. A lower frequency tone, with a frequency 0.65±0.1 times the higher frequency tone, is produced when the blowing pressure is reduced by 1/3 to 1/2 of the pressure necessary to produce the tone of maximum sound pressure level. The wide-band sound pressure level of the lower frequency tone is typically 4 - 16 dB less than the tone of maximum sound pressure level for these double-noted whistles.
Thirteen of the 14 double-noted whistles were of the "enclosed-type," and one was of the "exposed-type." The single "exposed-type" double-noted whistle was from the Inca culture. Nine of the 14 double-noted whistles belonged to the Gallinazo, Vicus, Moche, or Huari cultures. Additionally, the two restored Vicus whistles not included in the sample were also double-noted "enclosed-type" whistles. Of the remaining five double-noted whistles, one was Chimú, two were Inca, and two were unspecified culturally.
Only one of 50 examples where the whistle was of the "exposed-type" produced a double note and this was the Inca example mentioned above. All three examples from the Recuay culture, spanning a time period of A. D. 100 through A. D. 500 were single-noted "exposed-type" whistles. All but three of 48 examples of Chancay, Chimú, and Inca cultures spanning a time period of A. D. 700 through A. D. 1550, produced a single tone irrespective of the air pressure, and all but four of the 48 were of the "exposed-type." The four which were of the "enclosed-type" were three Chimú, and one Inca. One of the "enclosed" Chimú and the Inca "enclosed" were double-noted. Two "enclosed" Chimú were single-noted, and one "exposed-type" Inca was double-noted as mentioned above.
The average frequency of the Gallinazo, Vicus, Moche, and Huari whistling bottles is 1320 Hz while the average frequency for the Recuay bottles is 2000 Hz. The average frequency for the Chancay, Chimú, and Inca bottles is 2670 Hz. It is apparent that the earlier cultures tended to produce double-noted, low-frequency, "enclosed-type" whistles while the later cultures generally produced single-noted, high-frequency, "exposed-type" whistles. In that the frequency is determined by the whistle cavity and not the pottery style, the frequency would be an additional method for determining cultural origins of whistling bottles.
On the basis of these data we suggest the possibility of using the frequency and type of whistle (enclosed vs exposed) as an additional means for determining cultural origins of Peruvian whistling bottles.
Reconsideration of Table I and Fig. 7 show that the frequencies of the bottles produced by a single culture tend on the average to be within ± 14% of the average frequency for that individual culture. On the basis of the small fraction of an octave spanned by the frequencies of all bottles in any single culture we are reasonably certain that the bottles were not used as musical instruments. However, when two or more bottles from a given culture are played simultaneously the perception of a wavering low frequency tone is very distinguishable. The clustering of frequencies by individual culture, the position of the frequencies in the region of the ear's greatest sensitivity (1 - 4 kHz), and the high sound levels produced by the bottles when blown orally, strongly suggest that the Peruvians produced whistling bottles as whistles - as contrasted to the traditional interpretation of them as utilitarian liquid containers.
Acknowledgments
We would like to thank Professor Isadore Rudnick for the use of his laboratory and many stimulating suggestions. We wish to thank also, Dr. Charles Rozaire for making available the collections of the Los Angeles County Museum of Natural History, and Professor Christopher B. Donnan for helping to identify the sample and for making available the collections of UCLA's Museum of Cultural History. We also gratefully acknowledge the graphics by Patrick Finnerty, the photographs by Jas. Abbott, and the help of Gary Olsen and Scott Adams during the collection of the acoustical data. Finally, we thank Dr. R. W. Young for his helpful comments during the revision of the manuscript.
At least some similarities in many cultures may rather exist because they are obvious, especially use of simple forms in all kind of tools and symbols. I would bet there is a lot of such similarities even to any other intelligent species in the universe. Sometimes there is few obvious and simple alternatives.
...So why do you think civilisation was so late appearing in the Americas, compared to the Fertile Crescent or China?
Do you know that all Amerindians descend from no more than a couple thousand people.
The whole of humanity descends from less than a couple of thousand people.
They peopled the Americas starting at 12000 BC. At that time the only that you find, and very rearly, are small bands going around all the continent.
As Fantasus pointed out, they didn't evolve in the Americas. They weren't new-born either. The first immigrants into America had many thousands of years of development behind them before they set foot there.
Moreover there are a lot of archaeological finds that put pre-Clovis cultures in the Americas between 35,000 and 50,000 years ago.
Either way though, take the case of the Siberians who did not cross over. They ALSO developed slowly, in fact more slowly than many of the Amerindians did. Then consider WHY and WHERE Amerindian cultures developed more quickly in some places than in other places. And do some thinking about it rather than just re-acting as if all this was some kind of attack on Amerindians and their cultures.
Moreover there are a lot of archaeological finds that put pre-Clovis cultures in the Americas between 35,000 and 50,000 years ago.
There is no real concensus about some of these claims. Some researchers think that maybe Monte Verde in Chile is most old with a dating to about 14000 years. Since it must have taken a while for the proto indians to reach South America many researchers think that the crossing of the Bering strait occured about 16 000 years ago.
Moreover there are a lot of archaeological finds that put pre-Clovis cultures in the Americas between 35,000 and 50,000 years ago.
That's a new!
Please, show me that evidence that comes from 50.000 years ago.
Originally posted by gcle2003
Either way though, take the case of the Siberians who did not cross over. They ALSO developed slowly, in fact more slowly than many of the Amerindians did. Then consider WHY and WHERE Amerindian cultures developed more quickly in some places than in other places. And do some thinking about it rather than just re-acting as if all this was some kind of attack on Amerindians and their cultures.
Why the first advanced cultures were fishermen, do you mean? I have no idea.
Though as I pointed out, it doesn't make any difference since the migrants into the Americas weren't new-born creations but had many thousands of years of cultural development behind them.
They also weren't dim or stupid. What they were was handicapped by their geography.
Originally posted by gcle2003
Either way though, take the case of the Siberians who did not cross over. They ALSO developed slowly, in fact more slowly than many of the Amerindians did. Then consider WHY and WHERE Amerindian cultures developed more quickly in some places than in other places. And do some thinking about it rather than just re-acting as if all this was some kind of attack on Amerindians and their cultures.
Why the first advanced cultures were fishermen, do you mean? I have no idea.
That's why I asked you to think about it. Also think about why the first migrants in to the Americas might have lost what agricultural skills they already possessed when they arrived.
It says 16.000 to 20.000 BP (Before present) and not 35.000 or 50.000 BP. Which is a big difference in chronology. Even though, the first realiable remains are not older than 12.000 BP.
Originally posted by gcle2003
Though as I pointed out, it doesn't make any difference since the migrants into the Americas weren't new-born creations but had many thousands of years of cultural development behind them.
They also weren't dim or stupid. What they were was handicapped by their geography.
Nobody has said so. However, we know very well what they knew and they didn't know from the archeological remains in Peru and northern Chile.
Originally posted by gcle2003
That's why I asked you to think about it. Also think about why the first migrants in to the Americas might have lost what agricultural skills they already possessed when they arrived.
That's curious as well. It seems they were mostly hunter gatherers. However, at least a plant seems to came to the Americas will the first settlers: the gourd.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
Share Topic
Printable Version
Google
Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Windows Live
Yahoo Bookmarks
reddit
Facebook
MySpace
Newsvine
Furl
Topic Search 
Topic Options
Quote 
Topic: Jared Diamond North-South axis thesis
