Notice: This is the official website of the All Empires History Community (Reg. 10 Feb 2002)
What if China found Mexico first? |
Post Reply 
|
Page <1 34567 8> |
| Author |
 Share Topic Printable Version Google Delicious Digg StumbleUpon Windows Live Yahoo Bookmarks reddit Facebook MySpace Newsvine Furl Topic Search  Topic Options
|
|
Guests 
Guest 
|
 Quote Reply
 Topic: What if China found Mexico first?Posted: 07-Apr-2007 at 00:56 |
|
|
Those words are not Spanish in origin, but they were incorporated to the Spanish language quite early. Now, it is known that many Spanish words spread to the Polynesia.
I am not rejecting your studies. I found they are not conclusive, though. Even scientists have feel victims of hyperdiffusionism, so I will wait to take a stand on this topic.
With regards to openmindedness I follow Carl Sagan advice: We have to be open minded, but not too much, to avoid the brain fall to the ground
 .Perhaps you are right and there was some contact. I am not convinced as yet. I don't discart the possibility but I won't rush to accept it up to the time archaelogical evidence of contact with polynesians surface. If it ever happens.
Pinguin
Edited by pinguin - 07-Apr-2007 at 00:57 |
||
 |
||
|
Jams
Consul 
Suspended Joined: 06-Sep-2006 Online Status: Offline Posts: 365 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 07-Apr-2007 at 15:05 |
|
|
If they found American artefact, or in this case, plants, in Polynesia, it doesn't prove anything at all. In fact, one could just as easily argue that they were brought to Polynesia by lost boats from America, rather than by Polynesians themselves.
Maybe there really were contact, but if, then it must have been really sporadic and inconsequential.
And the timeframe is completely unknown, so it may very well have happened even post Columbus!!! (if at all)
|
||
|
||
|
Guests
Guest
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 07-Apr-2007 at 15:09 |
|
|
You bet. In any case the colonization of the Pacific was done in recent times. Easter Island was reached only in the 8th Century AC. So, if contact happened the time frame is between 900 AC and 1900 AC. I don't see how botanic could help to discriminate the spreading of Sweet Potato in such a short timeframe, from the point of view of the evolution of vegetables. If Sweet potato spread between 900 AC to 1500 AC then the carriers were Polynesians, but from 1500 AC to 1900 AC the carriers would have been Europeans. We are talking about a period of 600 years agains other of 400 years Pinguin
Edited by pinguin - 07-Apr-2007 at 15:10 |
||
|
||
|
Sander
AE Moderator 
Joined: 20-Mar-2007 Location: Netherlands Online Status: Offline Posts: 597 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 07-Apr-2007 at 17:30 |
|
exactly. if there was contact, it was sporadic.
But this are known facts :
1. the sweet potato is native to south america
2. the oceanic cultivation is scientifically established to be pre columbian
Thats why post columbian transfer is ruled out
Edited by Sander - 08-Apr-2007 at 00:05 |
||
|
||
|
Sander
AE Moderator
Joined: 20-Mar-2007 Location: Netherlands Online Status: Offline Posts: 597 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 07-Apr-2007 at 17:36 |
|
|
edit : Double post Edited by Sander - 07-Apr-2007 at 18:06 |
||
|
||
|
Guests
Guest
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 07-Apr-2007 at 22:18 |
|
Just one point to clarify. The potato is not the same plant that the sweet potato. Potato is native to the Andes countries of South America, probably Peru. The Sweet potato that exist in the Polynesia it seem to be of the Central American variety, and not of the Amazonian variety.
In any case, potato is a plant a lot more interesting for nutrition that sweet potato.
Pinguin
|
||
|
||
|
Sander
AE Moderator
Joined: 20-Mar-2007 Location: Netherlands Online Status: Offline Posts: 597 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 07-Apr-2007 at 23:25 |
|
After mentiong 100 times sweet potato and kumara etc and all the talk about it it obvious that sweet potato is meant . Some mutual understanding in a talk would be nice. Lets not ague for aguing alone. thnx
 Edited by Sander - 07-Apr-2007 at 23:27 |
||
|
||
|
Guests
Guest
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 07-Apr-2007 at 23:34 |
|
|
Well, in that case there is nothing more to argue.
|
||
|
||
|
Sander
AE Moderator
Joined: 20-Mar-2007 Location: Netherlands Online Status: Offline Posts: 597 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 08-Apr-2007 at 19:35 |
|
Wel.. we can always argue for 'not completely impossible' theories. In theory old Eqyptians or south European ships could have drifted(or sailed ) to the golf of Mexico One can always argue 'not 100 % impossible" . Edited by Sander - 08-Apr-2007 at 19:40 |
||
|
||
|
Guests
Guest
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 08-Apr-2007 at 21:00 |
|
|
Yes, yes. A casual contact could have happened. What is difficult is to prove it. Don't blame me for being skeptic after so many funny theories comming year after year. You could realize it took me years to accept the proof of the Viking contact in Newfoundland it was not another scandinavian "conspiration" more
.
In any case, what it really make me explode are those theories of the African professors of the Olmecs, of the Atlantis in Tiahuanaco, of the Lost Tribe of Israel in the Americas, or the green martians that helped to build the Moais.
For Polynesians I feel a great respect for theirs achievement. They colonized half the world by themselves. That's the size of the Pacific Ocean.
Pinguin
|
||
|
||
|
Sander
AE Moderator
Joined: 20-Mar-2007 Location: Netherlands Online Status: Offline Posts: 597 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 09-Apr-2007 at 01:35 |
|
Hit the spot there. Not many others would require that time to accept that
Anyhow, Pinguin. Its pointless to argue with me on this. We are simply using different methodology. You use own opinions and ideas and no studies, while mine are more based on scientific studies. Big diffrence.
Most of time I had to correct many wrong statements you posted btw
Here the latest example of how correcting would be needed.
Mixing up things. Does not makes much sense at all.
sweet potato Ipomoea batatas is a species and varieties were spread in the americas very long ago ( see for example Yen , Hather and Kirch ) Besides, when talking about varieties, it was better you named them specifically and use references to scientific studies
when all trees, plants and fruits, were generalized , I had to make clear that generalizing does not work because they have all different qualities/limitations.
when natural dispersall theories were suggested I had to made clear that its about a humanly propagated plant with certain limitations.
When you were coming up with post columbian cultivation, I showed this is very outdated . I gave references to the scientific studies that its pre columbian in pacific. Proven by same scienftific methodes used to detremine that its native to south america . Also showed some links to institutions, just to get an idea that this point is generally accepted in the field. Well, if people cannot even change views,on this point alone, is useless to go on .
list of wrong statements goes on but anyhow, its clear that I was more bizzy with correcting them.
Luckily there many other subjects to talk about
Regards
Yen, D. 1974. The Sweet Potato in Oceania: An Essay in Ethnobotany. Honolulu:Bishop Museum Press. Edited by Sander - 09-Apr-2007 at 02:09 |
||
|
||
|
Jams
Consul
Suspended Joined: 06-Sep-2006 Online Status: Offline Posts: 365 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 09-Apr-2007 at 05:41 |
|
There's a big difference here - what I wrote is a possible scenario explaining the facts, not a random idea. It may be less likely than other explanations, but it is possible.
Not that I believe it anyway, but you have some differen't theories explaining the phenomenon, some more likely than others.
Such explanations must take everything into account, not just a subset of the evidence, focusing on a single fact.
If we ONLY look at the potato evidence, one would be inclined to just presume that the Polynesians had contact, and brought the potato to the islands, but if we look at other facts, such as no other evidence supporting this idea, we must come up with alternative explanations, that could just as well have happened.
The potato only need to have existed on one island for the Polynesians to spread the plant.
If the potato plant on the island is determined to be very old, it's obvious it was there before the Polynesians themselves.
We must agree then, that we don't really know for sure.
Untill more evidence is produced. Edited by Jams - 09-Apr-2007 at 11:37 |
||
|
||
|
Guests
Guest
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 09-Apr-2007 at 10:07 |
|
Oh yeah! Big difference.
Your scientific studies about the sweet potato prove without any doubt there was pre-colombian contact of Polynesians to the Americas. Really? It looks like we are going back to Middle Ages scholastic times when authorities impossed theirs authorities
.I am not an expert in sweet potatoes, you know it and I know it. However, what I do know it is that, so far, pre-colombian contact with Polynesians is not accepted as definitive. It is only a working hypothesis.
In short, you need more than the sweet potato "evidence" to build a case.
Pinguin
|
||
|
||
|
Jams
Consul
Suspended Joined: 06-Sep-2006 Online Status: Offline Posts: 365 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 09-Apr-2007 at 11:36 |
|
|
Exactly. It is evidence, but it's somewhat ambiguous evidence - for now.
|
||
|
||
|
Sander
AE Moderator
Joined: 20-Mar-2007 Location: Netherlands Online Status: Offline Posts: 597 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 10-Apr-2007 at 00:53 |
|
In theory it aint 100 % impossible, but its considered as very unrealistic. In practice, a lost vessel from america coast runs against innummerable natural problems to make a long westward drift. The socalled prevailing westward current is rather happening on macro level. The vessel itself is subject to far more things. In fact , the first of many eddies ( large" rivers" cutting trough prevailing currents due to underwater topography) is enough to end westward journey. I m not even mentioning the many other factors here.
Anyhow, its considered as most unlikely. Other scenarios are viewed as far more plausible.
There might be more evidence than we discuss right now btw but before discussing that its good to see where we stand on certain points(at least for now).
We are all not conclusive wether polynesians reach the coast or not , but we can be clear where we stand on certain points. That will make the talk more clear and we can rule out some scenarios and make some progress to look at other possibilities and evidence).
Let check this point : the pre columbian cultivation in oceania . Based on the scientific studies and the generally accepted view about it this is clear for me ( no matter how it came there in first place) . Do we have the same view here ?
Edited by Sander - 10-Apr-2007 at 01:08 |
||
|
||
|
Guests
Guest
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 10-Apr-2007 at 01:21 |
|
|
Well, I have a "plant" question for you.
It is known the Chilean Palm Tree and the Easter Island Palm Tree were close relatives (I say "were" because the Easter Island Palm is extinct; Easters extincted it). These are some quite strange species because they aren't tropical palms but addapted to mediterranean and austral wheather.
Tell me, how the palm tree reached Easter Island from the Americas or viceversa? It is necessary to claim people carried it? Because if so, why Easter people didn't get new palms from South America went it become exinct in Easter Island?
Pinguin
|
||
|
||
|
pekau
Caliph 
Atlantean Prophet Joined: 08-Oct-2006 Location: Korea, South Online Status: Offline Posts: 3335 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 17-Apr-2007 at 19:12 |
|
|
More Chinese restaurants in Mexico. The joy...
|
||
Join us. |
||
|
||
|
Guests
Guest
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 18-Apr-2007 at 22:14 |
|
Hey, what about more Mexican restaurants in China, Korea and Japan
|
||
|
||
|
pekau
Caliph
Atlantean Prophet Joined: 08-Oct-2006 Location: Korea, South Online Status: Offline Posts: 3335 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 19-Apr-2007 at 19:03 |
|
Like what? Taco bell...?
|
||
|
Join us. |
||
|
||
|
Guests
Guest
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 19-Apr-2007 at 19:09 |
|
|
Jesus! I don't mean American imitations :)
Don't you like Mexican food once in a while?
Pinguin
|
||
|
||
|
Post Reply
|
Page <1 34567 8> |
| Forum Jump | Forum Permissions 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 |
Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 9.56a [Free Express Edition]
Copyright ©2001-2009 Web Wiz
This page was generated in 0.129 seconds.
Copyright ©2001-2009 Web Wiz
This page was generated in 0.129 seconds.
