Quickly, here...I'm still in search of the aforementioned copper citation. I think on most counts we actually agree...but I will take issue with the
above statement on the basis that we have well-defined cultural imports from Mexico...most notably maize culture and the development of the 'Three
Sisters', or MesoAmerican Agricultural Complex. IMHO, mound culture, climaxing in the Missisippean, is another Mexican import, and it made it up to
Serpent Mounds, in Ontario.
Thanks, I'd like to see that citation. I also think we agree about most stuff as well.
You're right, of course, about Mexican imports, but I was talking about a material find, such as a sculpture from Mexico.
I was also thinking of something that indicates a face-to-face meeting rather than a cultural import that could have been passed from group of people
to group of people without contact with the original source. A sculpture or material artifact could have traveled in this way to North America, but I
feel there's more of a chance for actual contact if it were a material object (think Mississippian long nosed god artifact found in that Central
American cenote). Sorry, I should have been more clear.
I disagree that mound culture is a Central American import. There's no doubt that Central America influenced North American monumental architecture,
but there's also the theory that Watson Brake and the culture that built those mounds may have influenced the Olmec. The age of Watson Brake is
amazing, then there's Poverty Point and the complexity of that culture. Who knows. I think my main concern is placing the full weight of achievement
and culture on Mexico/Central America, which would be incorrect in my opinion. Note that I don't believe this was your intention.
As for maize and the 'Three Sisters' which didn't make their appearance until after 200 A.D. in most places in N.A. By then, the Hopewell were in
decline. There's more evidence that much of the cultures in question developed, more or less, on their own.
Any Mexican influence may have been carried to the Ohio Valley via the massive trade network that existed in North America at this time, but the
'seat' of power and influence was in Ohio and Indiana as evidenced by the massive amount of precious burial goods found there (especially Newark).
Then there's the things in the Hopewell world that don't exist anywhere else, including Central America.
I feel, for the most part, they were their own people. They were probably influenced by outside sources but their culture was strong enough to keep an
identity. I agree that the Mississippians were influenced by Mexico--a conglomeration of Ancient Hopewell customs, Mexican influences and the dynamic
cultures of the Southeast (like the Buzzard Cult).
Really interesting stuff, at least to me.
--
As for the Runestone, I still feel that it's a fake. I'm going by the majority of expert opinion (the clincher was the overwhelming consensus of
Scandinavian linguists) and the fact that there was ample motivation for a nineteenth century trickster to plant it. Then there was the deathbed
confession of a fraud that may or may not have taken place...
In the end, the find can't be placed in context which is a big red flag and the last nail for me.
[edit on 6-9-2007 by Dr_Seto_Hut]
[edit on 6-9-2007 by Dr_Seto_Hut]