Originally posted by Sphota
They were a mound building civilization on the Mississippi, wouldn't be a stretch that they were in Georgia. Unfortunately, because most American Pré-Colombian civilizations had no written records or permanent structures, so it's hard to know where specific civilizations started out before reaching their "final destinations" upon European arrival.
We know, for example, that the Mexica (the Aztecs) had mythology of their people coming from the North before settling in the Central Valley of Mexico. We can infer some basis of truth to this as the majority of languages related to Nahuatl, the language of the Aztecs, exist in Northern Mexico, Arizona and Utah.
We also know that not long before the arrival of the Spanish to the Southwest, the Navajo had arrived from Alaska and Yukon Territory.
What we don't know is how long it took them to get there and what fomented the move.
It wouldn't surprise me if a sophisticated civilization started on the Mississippi and died out due to some cataclysm. Maybe the arrival of the Vikings started the true spread of Eurasian disease epidemics and Columbus and friends gave a final blow.
Originally posted by randyvs
Originally posted by Bilk22
You can watch the full episode here.
Right on Bilk I knew some one would have my back.edit on 22-12-2012 by randyvs because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by randyvs
I did do a search, found nadda .
Is evidence of a Mayan Site in Georgia being suppressed by the academic community? Scott Walter is our host in this exciting new series on the History channel. I'm watching it now and it has my attention enough to post . Spiral mounds are just the beginning of what looks to be a very informative series, about everything in America's own back yard
I know some ATS Slaya's I mean playa's that should be stoked. Check this puppy out coming out on the twenty first indeed. Very cool.
What do you all think of this first show ?
If you look at all the Indigenous cultures of the Americas, the Mesoamerican and Andes cultures were far more advanced. This includes the Aztes, Mayans and Incas. They used aquaculture and agriculture, they built urban societies, many of which were permanent settlements. Some of these societies even had written records and built monuments. Cultures across North America didn't build permanent settlements, farm, have irrigation systems or have written records. They passed on their history orally through legends. The farther north you go from the Central America region, the lesser advanced the civilizations became. Wouldn't it be the other way around if the Native Americans migrated from the land bridge rather than from the south.
Originally posted by Rezlooper
reply to post by punkinworks10
Thanks for the history lesson, that's why I asked. Not sure if I'm buying it though. There is another thread trending right now about the Mayan connection to Chinese and Indians through games, or possible connection I should say, that if true would require a different explanation.
edit on 23-12-2012 by Rezlooper because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by JrSkeptic
Great what-if or alternate history story.
An archeologist who dug at Saltville, an old friend of mine, would have needed much more evidence. Artifacts and such.
I'd ask her directly about this but she passed away last year from cancer at 83. I had a chance to interview her. One of only a handful of Native American Indian archeologist.
I do believe the Mayan were seafarers, explorers to some extent, they populated numerous islands along the coast line.
Originally posted by Sphota
reply to post by Rezlooper
Well, I suppose the best argument that maintains the land/ice bridge theories (the pré-Clovis Bering and the one with Europe that would have been ice, not land) and still allows for Mesoamerican cultural genesis is that the environment of that region accommodates human life more readily. So, in Montana your whole, but short, summer would be spent on hunting, fishing and foraging so that enough food could be stored for the winters, which are harsh.
However, Central America does not have such drastic variability from season to season. There might be wet and dry periods, and naturally such things might effect crop growth. Nevertheless, the actual abundance of food that can be hunted or foraged would have been relatively constant:
-all the fruits/plants that we take for granted that ONLY grew wild back then in the Central American and Caribbean coastal areas, like tomatoes, avocado, chili/bell peppers, cacao/chocolate, cashews, soursop/custard apple, carambola/star fruit, jackfruit, mangoes, malanga, manioc/yuca, corn, beans of several types, squashes/melons, etc.
-abundant animals and fisheries all year.
So, when you don't have to work as hard for food, you can do more contemplating and tinkering, which eventually lead to "civilization". I feel that sea voyages were much later and itinerant, if anything, but you never know...more research may show that that type of travel was feasible and happened earlier on than once thought.
Originally posted by punkinworks10
reply to post by Sphota
I once read a paper by a paeleobotonist, and he charcterized north America as the land of berries and ferns, those two groups being the most diversified in north America.
Of your examples,plantains, rhubarb, passionfruit are not native to north America.
Osage Orange is not edible, but does make good bows evidently.
Juniper berries don't have much caloric value, but were used by some tribes as an appetite supressant and a female contraceptive, although some species were used as a foodstuff by some tribes.
Although suguaro is native, its range is so limited and growth so slow it isn't suitable for cultivation.
Other than nuts which some tribes did utilize in a decidedly horticultural way, there are no plants suitable for a staple food crop.