I agree with most of what you said, but I have one small question...

Originally posted by Byrd
Another telling point is the absence of plants and domestic animals from Africa. When the Polynesians moved out into the Pacific, they took with them the plants from their gardens and their edible animals (pigs and dogs.) They couldn't guarantee there would be food for them in the new land, so wherever they traveled, their live animals went with them.

Couldn't it be possible that they had to eat the plants and animals before they landed upon unfamiliar shores, for the plain and simple fact, that the voyage was alot longer than they had anticipated?

Originally posted by opensecret1150So all of us, You, Me, George Bush, Ghandi, Jesus, Saddam Hussein came from a common root, but that greatest of all forces TIME has rent us apart.

But, even then, we still see that there are some things shared by all cultures, and this might be because of those 'original' cultures. The point remains, if america was in contact with africa or europe, then there would be evidence of contact in the culture. Consider how devastating the conquistador contact was, the phonecians wouldn't've been any different, at least not anymore different than the pilgrims and whatnot. There would be strong evidenceof it.

Originally posted by Nygdan

Originally posted by opensecret1150So all of us, You, Me, George Bush, Ghandi, Jesus, Saddam Hussein came from a common root, but that greatest of all forces TIME has rent us apart.

But, even then, we still see that there are some things shared by all cultures, and this might be because of those 'original' cultures. The point remains, if america was in contact with africa or europe, then there would be evidence of contact in the culture. Consider how devastating the conquistador contact was, the phonecians wouldn't've been any different, at least not anymore different than the pilgrims and whatnot. There would be strong evidenceof it.

Once again sir, I detect several flaws in your logic. For one thing, a lack of evidence is not evidence of a lack if you follow me. We could not detect X-Rays before the last century, however they do exist. So it is possible that said evidence (as you put it "strong evidence"), is yet to be uncovered. AND, in fact, I among others, HAVE posted evididence to the effect that diffusionism is plausible. Are you ignoring evidence that does not fit your theory?

Perhaps you could put forth the evidence that you would find plausible if it could be obtained.

Originally posted by opensecret1150
We could not detect X-Rays before the last century, however they do exist.

True enough, but anyone stating that they did exist, before there was evidence for it, wasn't basing their statement on fact. They'd've ended up being correct, but it would be meaningless, because they'd've just made some stuff up that happened to be correct. There might very well have been strong contact across the atlantic with, say, south america and west africa. But we need good evidence to support that statement in order for it to mean anything. If, in the future, that evidence is found, then the people who today say that the pyramids in egypt and mexico demonstrate the contact, they'd still be wrong. Because it wouldn't've been the pyramids, that demonstrate it, and they'd've beleived something that ended up being right, but for the wrong reasons entirely.

in fact, I among others, HAVE posted evididence to the effect that diffusionism is plausible. Are you ignoring evidence that does not fit your theory?

Plausible, perhaps, possible, sure, but can we strongly say that yes it did happen? Absolutely not. And it is hardly just me that rejects the idea, the people that study cultural diffusion, and that study the several cultures invovled, generally disagree that the 'evidence' presented is sufficient and disagree that its best explained by trans-atlantic contact.

Originally posted by Nygdan

Originally posted by opensecret1150

in fact, I among others, HAVE posted evididence to the effect that diffusionism is plausible. Are you ignoring evidence that does not fit your theory?

Plausible, perhaps, possible, sure, but can we strongly say that yes it did happen? Absolutely not. And it is hardly just me that rejects the idea, the people that study cultural diffusion, and that study the several cultures invovled, generally disagree that the 'evidence' presented is sufficient and disagree that its best explained by trans-atlantic contact.

I think we fundamentally agree. The idea is pluasible, not proven, and certainly worth more study.

There is overwhelming linguistic, archeological and DNA evidence that suggests that the vast majority of the people living in the Western Hemisphere at the time of Columbian contact were descended from Asians related to people who lived in Siberia around the time of the last Ice Age. In fact, Mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) research on living American Indian populations have consistently shown evidence for only four mtDNA lineages, characterizing over 95 percent of all modern American Indian populations, suggesting a limited number of founding groups - ALL of which originated in Asia into the New World.

A fifth mtDNA lineage, for now named "X", has turned up in both living American Indians and in prehistoric remains for which there does not appear to be an Asian origin. The first variant of X was found in ancient Europeans. Whether finding this mtDNA in the Americas points to an ancient Atlantic crossing or to genes from Europe ttraveling to Eurasia and then via Siberia to North America is an open question.

Right now I'd bet on the Eurasia route -- it fits the archeology and linguistics better - besides fitting many of the excellent posts on this thread. But it would not SHOCK me to be wrong and find that a small tribe of Euros lived in the americas only to be absorbed, culturally, lingusitically and pretty much genetically by waves of Siberians.

It seems to me that all this arguing is useless. According to Graham Hancock (whom I believe is a good theorist) and many other people, the main structures known as 'world wonders' were made 10-12,000 years ago, just after the mantle slip at the end of the last ice age. So everyone in they're position now, could be completly of different blood anyhow.

Read 'Fingerprints of the Gods', it's pretty good.
I realize that some theories are based on other theories...but it does make sense, at least as he tells it.

I saw the Real Eve on TV too and I didn't stop laughing for days. I think it's hilarious that the Grandmaster of the KKK, David Duke, and George W Bush all share a common ancestor... A BLACK WOMAN!!!! LOL Joke's on you racists!

open secret says:

Once again sir, I detect several flaws in your logic. For one thing, a lack of evidence is not evidence of a lack if you follow me.

Absolutely. Lack of evidence is not evidence of lack. Lack of Evidence is .. lack of evidence.

The fact that you lack evidence that the mushrooms in my back yard were were put there by the Little Fairies of the Moonlight is not evidence that the Little Fairies of the Moonlight do not exist.

But until you surpass that "lack of evidence" -- by coming up with sound evidence -- most people won't buy the "Little Fairiees of the Dawn" Theory.

The Roman terracotta head, if placed there by the locals before the advent of the Europeans, is certainly a good piece of evidence of some interaction. But we're not sure that it was placed there prior to the Europeans, so we need more evidence that such an interaction existed.

On a more personal note, I've found that, although I have a strong interest in Mesoamerican archaeology and anthropology (I have been to Museo Nacional de Antropología on three occasions, since it's right near Zona Rosa, and have actually seen the Tecaxic-Calixtlahuaca head) and consider myself fairly well-read and well-traveled in Mesoamerica, I am not the most knowledgeable person here.

I tend to not get into disagreements with my colleague Byrd; it's like bringing a knife to a gunfight. Remember, this is what she does for a job. Someday, before I die, I will catch her in an error, but that time is not yet!

[edit on 11-6-2005 by Off_The_Street]

Ohio Ron says:

Couldn't it be possible that they had to eat the plants and animals before they landed upon unfamiliar shores, for the plain and simple fact, that the voyage was alot longer than they had anticipated?

No doubt at all. But if there were any sort of regular interaction between the locals and interlopers, that implies many visits. Surely, if the first voyage had been longer than anticipated and forced the people to eat their critters, they would've learned and taken more critters on subesequent trips.

Fallen one says:

It seems to me that all this arguing is useless. According to Graham Hancock (whom I believe is a good theorist) and many other people, the main structures known as 'world wonders' were made 10-12,000 years ago, just after the mantle slip at the end of the last ice age. So everyone in they're position now, could be completly of different blood anyhow.

There was no "mantle slip" at the end of the Pleistocene; as a matter of fact, if by that you mean some quick and large movement of the tectonic plates, I have never heard of a "mantle slip" at all, even when Pangaea broke up into Laurasia and Gondwanaland.

Tectonic plate gross movement is slow; the only time you have a quick one is when the pressure on, say a subducting or transform plate builds up and then "pops"; typically, you're talking about a maximum sudden movement of <50 meters.

I never heard of this Graham Hancock, but he certainly isn't a geologist!

[edit on 13-6-2005 by Off_The_Street]

Or as the mighty Carl Sagan once put it... "Absence of proof, is not proof of absence".

Spirited conversation all. So I assume nobody thinks Columbus was the first European to cross the Atlantic?? LMAO