Who was the 1st to discover America?

The problem with this theories about pre columbus contact, is that the supporters usually look at their poofs in a very superfitial way, like say the examples already given of sculptures, they may look black to someone that is not very familiarized with racial characteristics of the amerindians, but that's about how far it will go. the same kind of theories also base themselves as superficially on codex, and distorted myths implanted by the Spaniards.

For example in the case of white people amongst the amerindians, diffusionist theorists very often make use of tradition they consider evicence, such as cronicles of the Spanish missionaries claiming Quetzalcoatl was actually St Thomas. (wich have been dismissed as Spanish made up stuff, as we can see a clear progression in the concept in time, as more and more Europeans added their own stuff to the myth)
I've encountered many diffusionists that defend with all passion this white Quetzalcoatl becuse acording to them there's undeniable proof that he must have been from "somewhere else" you will find made up descriptions of the wind God, claiming that he was european based on these guys  interpretation of sculptures and codex...just like the sculptures we saw some pages back.

Anyway I think, that American people's werent isolated from each other, (at least not completely) there's many interesting theories around contact between ameridians, like say Purepechans and Incas, these suppoert themselves on things like the Purepechans being as un-mesoamerican as you could get, using similar clothing to Incas, linguistical similarities, and similar ways of working metal.  Its interesting, but archeologists are still investigating Western Mexico, there's still a lot to be donde before theyc an claim it as true.

You see the problem with diffusionist when it comes to mesoamerica, its that they look for proof to fit their theory, they dont re think the theory to fit the proof, and this is terribly given to wild assumptions, which they are pretty known for.

Lastly as for the sambo thing, its racial, but not in a negative sense (wikipedia isnt that reliable as a source most of the time)  its just to  name a racial mix, just like meztizo or mulato,  nothing wrong with it.


Edited by ehecatzin - 28-May-2008 at 04:29

Well, Mixcoatl. You seem serious about this but isolationists rarely tell others that its not necessary that contact and/or settlements result in transfer of diseases (and becoming endemic) in the new environment to begin with. Norse are a good example of this and they had contact with natives. What is ' intensive ' is subjective and relative ; trading  might be regarded as intensive enough for a possible transmission of some diseases but that does not have to result in becoming endemic.   Even more striking case and more intensive are the Polynesians. Some 3500 years ago , most of their ancestors (malayo polynesian branch within the Austronesian family) sailed from south east asia/eastern asia (not exactly places falling short of contagious diseaseas) to colonize the Polynesian triangle and transmit items. They took a sort of ark of Noah with them that became rooted there ; fruits, plants, animals ( undoubtely with a lot flees etc ) but not certain SEAN/Old World diseases.   Several cases took care of that old canard that every contact, settlement , diffusion etc needs to go hand in hand with the disease transfer as postulated by the isolationists. Anyhow, the post 1492 period (  and the interactions with the indians ) is not some model for how all contacts should have taken place. Various contacts between different societies and transmitting of cultural  items took place differently in the world.

It's true that intensivity is the problem here, but in any case a contact so intensive that the newcomers would start civilizations and get massive heads made of them would be intensive enough to carry deseases.

Polynesians contacts were in any case very limited, and if they ended up in South America island hopping in small groups (like they ended up in Easter Island) makes the possbility that they carried desease with them even smaller.

Correct me if I'm wrong, because I don't know much about biology, but I believe trasmitting deseases is harder in cold climates, because bacteria tend to survive badly outside human bodies in the cold. That could be an explanation for the fact that Vikings (and Na-Dené and Eskimos) didn't carry deseases with them.

Originally posted by Mixcoatl ..It's true that intensivity is the problem here, but in any case a contact so intensive that the newcomers would start civilizations and get massive heads made of them would be intensive enough to carry deseases. Polynesians contacts were in any case very limited, and if they ended up in South America island hopping in small groups (like they ended up in Easter Island) makes the possbility that they carried desease with them even smaller. Correct me if I'm wrong, because I don't know much about biology, but I believe trasmitting deseases is harder in cold climates, because bacteria tend to survive badly outside human bodies in the cold. That could be an explanation for the fact that Vikings (and Na-Dené and Eskimos) didn't carry deseases with them.

Originally posted by Sander ....Some comments about isolationism (the idea/ suggestion of independent parallel evolutiom of complex socities and the similar complex cultural traits) . It serves as theoretical alternative for a widely attested process, diffusion ( the process by which complex culture traits are transferred from one society to another, via migrations, trade, war, or other contacts ).   One of the problems is that this suggested phenemenon ( isolationism ) itself does not parallels itself in the world . A theoretical process is suggested as explanation for America, but when asked for genuine proof, where and when the process is ever attested before , the results are empty hands and theories. ( Some isolationsts might even answer : the Americas . In other words,  the proposed explanation is presented as the evidence for the proposal !  How more circular can it get?!)   When its comes to diffusion as proposed mechanism,  we deal with an existing phenomenon , attested for millenia . Its role in transmission of complex cultural items is also obvious today. Of course, how else can it be said to be universal and fundamental in cultural development if not attested  before and also today continously?   Acknowledging the process itself and the role its plays , is regardless of any specific donor area-reciever suggestion  for a shared trait or complex. In other words, wether or not a cultural item diffused from for China , viceversa, or from else where can be details of historical interest but not important for stating diffusion as the fundamental mechanism.    The socalled independent  parrelel cultural evoltution as explanation had its heyday in the late 1800 s, untill it was challenged by the more empirical minded scholars. The heaviest battles between the isolationist and diffusionist school were fought in the early and mid 1900s (modern studies will often refer to the  classic debates ). But, inspite the idea itself lacked/s demonstrability ( in contrast to the concept of diffusion ) it  has its supporters /believers, but so  have  religions.

Edited by pinguin - 17-Jun-2008 at 05:38

Its the other way around. The process of Diffusion exists . We haven't attested else.   Its the theory of  ' Independent parallel evolution' that is the dogma here. A belief in some process which is never attested nor scientifically demonstrated.

But there are examples of 'independent parallel evolution'. China and Europe for example invented many of the same things independently.

And even if we use a less narrow definition: every invention or introduction could be seen as an 'isolationist development'. Somewhere someplace writing was invented, the people who invented it couldn't possibily have been influeced by other people, simply because there were no other people who used writing yet. And if writing (or agriculture, the wheel, certain patterns of art, etc.) can be invented once, why would it impossible to invent it a second time?

Originally posted by Mixcoatl ... But there are examples of 'independent parallel evolution'. China and Europe for example invented many of the same things independently. And even if we use a less narrow definition: every invention or introduction could be seen as an 'isolationist development'. Somewhere someplace writing was invented, the people who invented it couldn't possibily have been influeced by other people, simply because there were no other people who used writing yet. And if writing (or agriculture, the wheel, certain patterns of art, etc.) can be invented once, why would it impossible to invent it a second time?

Edited by pinguin - 18-Jun-2008 at 01:36

Of course I can prove why the wheel wasn't used in the Americas... Nobody had that idea, except for children toys, and nobody saw foreigners using wheels.... With respect to cheese is easy. Natives didn't have animal milk before the comming of the Europeans.

Originally posted by red clay Where is your proof?  Where are your references?

Originally posted by red clay Of course I can prove why the wheel wasn't used in the Americas... Nobody had that idea, except for children toys, and nobody saw foreigners using wheels.... With respect to cheese is easy. Natives didn't have animal milk before the comming of the Europeans   support this with facts, verifiable peer reviewed would be nice.