The Pre-Columbian Exchange: Time to Rewrite the History Books

I think even 'alternative history' proponents overlook South America, and Andean civilizations in particular, when looking into ancient advanced civilizations and the like.

Taking all this evidence (genetics, crop trade, etc.) into consideration, plus items like the Fuente Magna (forgery? where's the citation? no one has really even studied it! I saw it myself in Bolivia last year, anyone who's familiar with Bolivia can attest that no Andean farmer in the 50s could forge such a thing) and Orichalcum in the Andes all lead me to believe, as I have said for years, that both Atlantis and even Eden were located in South America...the most fertile land on the planet. The Amazon IS life and even the Mayans had a remnant of the Tree of Life myth.

Tihuanaco is mind blowing. Buried under 6 feet of sediment in less than 1,000 years? The Tihuanaco civilization was the launching point for the Noah story. Viracocha left Titicaca after creating the Inca's (although they just inherited the myth) with his sons over the Pacific Ocean.

The Amazon soil is a complex formula that once a mystery, has just been identified and is only beginning to receive attention. The Aymara language...'La Lengua de Adan', the language of Adam, studied in Umberto Ecco's 'Search for the Perfect Lanuage' is an enigma. Read up on it, it has characteristic found in no other language.

Aymara legend speaks of ancient kings that were giants, upon approaching the coast of Terra Del Fuego in Patagonia Magellan recorded sightings of tribes of giants on the coast. A respected explorer all around, yet this one account is dismissed (a lot like Plato and Atlantis, they're geniuses until they say something crazy...then it's just allegory). The elongated skulls are found primarily (not solely) in the Andes.

Our entire outlook and civilization is based on middle eastern origins. This assumption forces researcher and historians for centuries into perpetual confirmation bias.

Once I've got my 20 posts up, I'm going to post all this...sorry to jump into this thread with my manic ravings!

[edit on 29-7-2009 by El Davicho]


[edit on 29-7-2009 by El Davicho]

reply to post by El Davicho


Thanks for posting, I hope to hear more from you. It would be nice if this thread came back to life.

Here is an interesting site that claims the Irish were the founders of civilization.

www.irishoriginsofcivilization.com...

...the early craftsmanship and constructions from the Old Kingdom are the finest, and the quality of and dimensions of each monument reduces then on throughout the following millennia...there were a number of magnificent monuments that were made during mankind's early megalithic era. These include monuments as diverse as Stonehenge and Avebury in England, Teotihuacan in Mexico, Chou-Chou in Manchuria, Hagar Qim in Malta, Baalbek in Lebanon, Ephyra in Greece, Cuzco in Peru, Giza in Egypt, and the Osireion at Abydos. Despite the geographic diversity of these monuments, they all share some common features - they were built in the prehistoric era; they were all associated with religious centers; they were all made from megalithic architecture; they were mostly exquisitely carved and manufactured (often bafflingly so); and last but certainly not least, all of these monuments were utterly devoid of inscription...The granite megaliths carved into a giant jigsaw puzzle at Cuzco, and the 1,000 tonne bricks that were being used at Baalbek, would stretch any modern stone mason's imagination and skills to their limits....these temples were not dedicated to any one particular monarch, nor to any one particular god. They were, instead, dedicated to the observation and the study of the Universe - Ralph Ellis (Eden in Egypt)

Originally posted by El Davicho
I think even 'alternative history' proponents overlook South America, and Andean civilizations in particular, when looking into ancient advanced civilizations and the like.

Just because I want to give you something to keep you busy...follow this one up:

Mystery of the Paraguayan Vikings www.dark-truth.org...

Have fun...

reply to post by JohnnyCanuck


Very interesting article and site Johnny, thanks for the link.

When you look at a globe, it is not that far to Iceland, and then an even shorter jump to Greenland, and North America. certainly these distances are far shorter than the distances between islands in the Pacific. The Phoenicians were know as great sailors from ancient times. It isn't that far fetched to believe they could have made that leap a long, long time ago.

Originally posted by poet1b
reply to post by JohnnyCanuck

 

Very interesting article and site Johnny, thanks for the link.

I am not attesting to the veracity of this site, nor the circumstances. I merely put it forward as a matter of interest. Observations such as this generate the further interest that is required to come to an informed conclusion...one way or the other.

It might well be hooey...but there were those who doubted L'ans aux Meadows.

reply to post by Maxmars


It is, for one very big reason.

Europeans and their descendants are the ones who wrote all the history we usually read. The reason so many people are surprised by history, is because they expect non-europeans to be primitive savages who eat mud.

It's not just the Europeans - they're just the most recent conquering culture. Every conquerer denigrates and hides the history of the conquered.

Basically when European society started getting interested in history and archaology, it wasn't part of science, it was a facet of nationalism. Archaology was an excercise to prove that your nationa nad culture was the pinnacle, and that all others were backwards prosimian yutzes. There was a vested interest in either ignoring or falsifying early advances, or trying to claim them for yourself (Which leads to odd bumbassery like every people on earth being one of the "lost tribes of Israel" or, my personal amusement, the continuing fantasy that the Egyptians looked exactly like the British...)

However, there's a caveat.

Just because there is actual cover-ups hiding our ancestor's social and scientific advances, that does not mean all the claims that "blow the cover off the conspiracy" are true. The Egyptians did not have lightbulbs. The Maya were not from Atlantis. Tiwanaku never "aligned with the solstices" and the dogon never talked to spacemen.

reply to post by TheWalkingFox


"Europeans and their descendants" only write history in the nations they control, and not even always.

Europeans do not look at the rest of the world as savages who eat mud. This is a blatantly false extreme liberal ideology created by people who wants to blame all the problems of the world on Europeans, and paint Europeans as the root of all evil.

Maybe these alternative views of history are wrong, and maybe the main stream version of history is wrong. When you look at the growing body of evidence, it seems pretty clear that the current main stream version of history that wants to paint Europeans as a bunch of ignorant savages before the introduction of Christianity is seriously flawed.

Originally posted by poet1b
reply to post by TheWalkingFox

 

"Europeans and their descendants" only write history in the nations they control, and not even always.

Europeans do not look at the rest of the world as savages who eat mud. This is a blatantly false extreme liberal ideology created by people who wants to blame all the problems of the world on Europeans, and paint Europeans as the root of all evil.
... the current main stream version of history that wants to paint Europeans as a bunch of ignorant savages before the introduction of Christianity is seriously flawed.

I guess the best comment to add to this debate is that history is written by the victor. In the European case, the victor can also be deemed to be Christianity (for now). However, archaeology, as well as the written word, may be used as a political tool...look at the Middle East, or even in North America...anywhere it is utilised to 'prove entitlement'.

But one does have to admit that the great Moorish and African civilizations are great examples of how the colonial powers minimised the cultures of its 'possessions' in order to justify looting them.

Originally posted by poet1b
reply to post by TheWalkingFox

 

"Europeans and their descendants" only write history in the nations they control, and not even always.

And those are generally the nations that provide the bulk of the world's historians and archaeologists, no? You want to pretend that has no impact on the fields?

Europeans do not look at the rest of the world as savages who eat mud. This is a blatantly false extreme liberal ideology created by people who wants to blame all the problems of the world on Europeans, and paint Europeans as the root of all evil.

Actually, no, that's just you being super defensive.

Eurocentrism distorts history. That's all there is to it. Afrocentrism and sinocentrism are just as bad, but these tend to not play any real roles outside of their particular areas of interest, while Eurocentrism tends to be global.

every day here in the "ancient civilizations" you will find what I call the "Brown People Can't Stack Rocks" version of history. Egyptians, Maya, Inka, Africans, Asians... All of these people's architectural and cultural achievements are always claimed to stem from aliens, or atlantis, or lost tribes from the bible, or the freaking Irish.

Compare to the treatment that European advances get. How 'come Machu Picu has to have been built by aliens, but the Hagia Sofia was the hard work and labor of the Greek Byzantines? How is it the great pyramids of Egypt had to be from the lost continent o Atlantis, but people are going to accept that a big hill in Bosnia is actually an even bigger and older pyramid, built by hard work and labor by the locals?

That's simply Eurocentrism at work there, buddy. Nobody's calling europeans the root of all evil. But nice straw man.

Maybe these alternative views of history are wrong, and maybe the main stream version of history is wrong. When you look at the growing body of evidence, it seems pretty clear that the current main stream version of history that wants to paint Europeans as a bunch of ignorant savages before the introduction of Christianity is seriously flawed.

Very seriously flawed.

[edit on 3-8-2009 by TheWalkingFox]

reply to post by TheWalkingFox


I don't know about historians, but archeologist, yes, probably.

So that automatically makes them guilty of prejudice?

No, it is not me being self defensive, it is me stating the truth.

Just out of curiosity, are you Japanese, or European? Seems that if you are European, you don't seem to have any lack of respect for Japanese culture.

Are you really going to try and tell me that there aren't a great many people of European descent who have a great deal of respect for other cultures? Myself included?

You will notice I didn't attack the people of the third world, only their oppressive leaders, while you seem to be painting with a much larger brush.

By the way, there are many people who speculate that Aliens landed in Europe as well. That all of mankind was created by Aliens, not just brown people.

Histories treatment of ancient Europeans is completely dismissive, and then there are people like you who seem outraged that Europeans should seek out to know more about their ancestors, and GOD forbid Europeans should suggest that their ancestors also contributed to the development of civilization.

There are many who want to exaggerate the contributions of their ancestors as being the most important, and Europeans are hardly the only ones. There are a whole lot of intellectual racists out there pushing their own nasty little strains of virulent concepts about history whose only purpose is to create harm.

The success of Europeans can only be an accident of history, they just happened to be on top at the right time. I once believed this as well, but as I have learned more and more about history, I have came to another conclusion, which is that European success is due to their having always been very democratic in establishing laws.

It is the democratic principles that are deeply engrained in European civilization, from ancient times, that is what has made them so successful. If you ask me, the academics who control history would like to hide this concept more than anything.

It seems to me that the purpose of this thread is to state that ancient civilizations were in fact exchanging information and technology long before current recorded history indicates.

reply to post by JohnnyCanuck


I think that the claims that the colonist did nothing but loot the third world is also very much an exaggeration serving the interests of those who only want to stir up trouble, specifically those who seek to divide and conquer.

Technology created primarily by Europeans has greatly improved the lives of the people around the world, and a great deal of charity is sent to the third world continuously.

I think a very good argument could be made the Europeans gave as much as they got. The Middle East sure has prospered as a result of the Europeans teaching them how to tap their resources.

Originally posted by TheWalkingFox

Originally posted by poet1b
reply to post by TheWalkingFox

 

"Europeans and their descendants" only write history in the nations they control, and not even always.

And those are generally the nations that provide the bulk of the world's historians and archaeologists, no? You want to pretend that has no impact on the fields?

As far as archaeology goes, when one is faced with a lack of written history...or, indeed, a flawed history, as you say, it falls to science to ascertain the truth insofar as it is available. That is the product of advanced education. If you are saying that third world countries offer limited opportunities in that regard, that is true. The biggest danger in the research and dissemination of the cultural attributes of 'others' is appropriation of voice.

However, it was made clear to me by a working archaeologist that in the bad old days, the attitude was "Let me tell you about your culture" Today, it is "Let me work with you to discover more about your culture. I, myself (an avocational), am always delighted to see indigenous people becoming professionals and exploring their past from an emic perspective.

Eurocentrism distorts history. That's all there is to it.

It has, yes. The idea of lesser peoples is necessary to justify economic dominion over them and their resources. Further, history and archaeology are employed as de facto weapons in conflicts such as the middle east. How you gonna change that?

every day here in the "ancient civilizations" you will find what I call the "Brown People Can't Stack Rocks" version of history. Egyptians, Maya, Inka, Africans, Asians... All of these people's architectural and cultural achievements are always claimed to stem from aliens, or atlantis, or lost tribes from the bible, or the freaking Irish...

That's simply Eurocentrism at work there, buddy. Nobody's calling europeans the root of all evil. But nice straw man.

You are reading that on a website that encourages 'out-there' thinking. How many of us on board with an ounce of knowledge in a subject have to fight for our voices to be heard, without being labeled as trolls?

When you look at the growing body of evidence, it seems pretty clear that the current main stream version of history that wants to paint Europeans as a bunch of ignorant savages before the introduction of Christianity is seriously flawed.

Again, I agree, but Europe went through some pretty dark times and much classical knowledge was preserved on the periphery...by the Moors, by Irish monks. Christianity trumped Europe's pagan past, but I am always delighted to see it appear here and there, even today. Jack of the Green guards my deck.

This is a complicated argument, and the truth occupies a large gray area. One is advised to leave the absolutes behind.

S&F thank you for an interesting subject and research !

Of course people travelled all over the place. To hell with ' lack of evidence ' that some cite... people went everywhere because they could, if for no other reason. But, economics and genetic expansion are plenty good reasons.

Some of the most 'primitive ' people ( arctic hunter/gatherers ) have the excellent skin-on-frame boats in which you could travel the world ( if you are motivated to ). This technology ( unproved to some, perhaps ) is likely tens of thousands of years old.

I myself got a wake up call as a boy, regarding the mindset of those who don't know or guess at the truth in all this :

When I was eight, I moved from Newfoundland ( Vinland, Leif Ericson called it ) to Texas. In school, the teacher said , yes, and that's how Columbus discovered America .'
I said, ' Teacher, Teacher !'
' Yes ? '
' My mom and dad and me used to go for picnics at ruins built by Vikings over a thousand years ago where we used to live in Canada ! '
Response ?
' Go stand in the corner, stupid ! '

Thanks for the thread .

Originally posted by poet1b
reply to post by JohnnyCanuck

 

I think that the claims that the colonist did nothing but loot the third world is also very much an exaggeration serving the interests of those who only want to stir up trouble, specifically those who seek to divide and conquer.

Not at all. Exploration and colonization were done for economic gain, and consistantly done at the expense of the indigenous people. Look at South America...it goes on...

Technology created primarily by Europeans has greatly improved the lives of the people around the world, and a great deal of charity is sent to the third world continuously.

The technological advantage is basically a trickle-down effect, and if you investigate the religious charities...well, they do exceeding good, but it is all about their mortal souls, as well. Something which really doesn't respect the integrity of indigenous culture.

I think a very good argument could be made the Europeans gave as much as they got. The Middle East sure has prospered as a result of the Europeans teaching them how to tap their resources.

Show me a prosperous, democratic oil state...one in which the people are not exploited by the ruling class for the benefit of "The Seven Sisters"

Sorry if I sound cynical on this count...and as I said in the previous post there is much gray area, and I should leave my absolutes behind me as well.


self edit to address the post just behind...

' My mom and dad and me used to go for picnics at ruins built by Vikings over a thousand years ago where we used to live in Canada ! '
Response ?
' Go stand in the corner, stupid ! '

I was there a month ago...sublime! Thanks for the addition to the thread...it says it all!

[edit on 4-8-2009 by JohnnyCanuck]

reply to post by JohnnyCanuck


I disagree that colonization was done only for economic gain, or exclusively at the expense of indigenous people. The explorers and economists also brought with them technology, and social organizations that greatly improved the lives of the people in the areas where Europeans established themselves. The proof is shown by the decline of the standards of living of people when the colonists left. Yeah, there were people whose only purpose was economic gain, but there were also a lot people who went to other parts of the world to learn, and help the people in the areas where they went. I think your interpretation ignores all the good that was also done.

Sorry, but the charitable contributions of the first world to the third world nations are not all religious based, or to take advantage, that is total nonsense.

All the oil producing nations have accumulated great wealth. It is not the fault of western nations that those nations who demanded self rule and control failed to share the wealth, and to propose so ignores the realities. Kuwait certainly has shared the wealth, and Kuwait is the nation that has worked the closest with the developed nations.

If Western nations have such a lack of respect for people from third world nations, then why are so many people in third world nations so eager to immigrate to the first world.

There are indeed a lot of gray areas, and a lot of areas where the actions of the people who control these third world nations were very harmful, and lacking in recognition of the rights of the people in third world nations.

It is time for the third world nations to stop blaming the first world nations for their failures.

Originally posted by poet1b
reply to post by JohnnyCanuck

 

I disagree that colonization was done only for economic gain, or exclusively at the expense of indigenous people...It is time for the third world nations to stop blaming the first world nations for their failures.

I am not saying that the so-called First World is fully responsible for all of the woes of the Third, but in other respects it looks like we aren't going to agree so I'll suggest that you revisit this thread in 5 years and let me know if your conclusions remain the same.

reply to post by JohnnyCanuck


I used to think more like you. I was taught the traditional view of history that schools here in the U.S. repeat from grade school through high school. In this version history starts in Egypt, goes to Israel, Greece, Rome, Medieval times, then to Britain, and then to the U.S.. Eventually, I began to consider the whole version a farce, and research has made me more certain of this. Starting as child I began studying the history of other nations, and other cultures.

War and conquest are the nature of man where ever he goes. Warlords and emperors have ruled most of our planet, as far back as we are able to gaze into history, and still do. The current popular claim that whitey succeeded because he is evil and viscous, and stole all his technology from the gentle brown people of the world is an ugly version that all too many people want to embrace, especially liberal elitists who are the biggest hypocrites of all. Have you bothered to consider this?

(Edit)

I think this point needs to be restated, because it is very important. From an earlier post on this page.

It is the democratic principles that are deeply engrained in European civilization, from ancient times, that is what has made them so successful. If you ask me, the academics who control history would like to hide this concept more than anything.

(End Edit)

I think my theory as to why Europeans succeeded when all others failed is well explained, and very solid. It seems that you want to dismiss me without considering that what I am saying, without considering the logic and reason behind what I am saying.

I don't think that anyone, any group, has a legitimate claim to be the founders of civilization, but I don't see anything wrong with the Irish throwing their hat into the ring, being as just about everyone else has.

Here is one for you to ponder through the decades. Do you know why Japan fought WW II, and what omission America demanded from the Japanese Emperor?

The Japanese fought WW II because they thought their emperor was a god, and part of the surrender was a requirement that the Japanese emperor publicly admit that he is not a god. It would be a very, very few people who would claim that the Japanese people are not very talented, intelligent, and capable people. How could such a thing have been?



[edit on 5-8-2009 by poet1b]

[edit on 5-8-2009 by poet1b]

Originally posted by poet1b
reply to post by JohnnyCanuck

 

The current popular claim that whitey succeeded because he is evil and viscous, and stole all his technology from the gentle brown people of the world is an ugly version that all too many people want to embrace, especially liberal elitists who are the biggest hypocrites of all. Have you bothered to consider this?

There are a couple of different discussions going on here...I am merely saying that:
Yes, European history had relevance prior to Christianity, and that the vast majority of exploration/expansion/colonisation by Europe was done for economic reasons, and that the lessening of the 'brown' people was integral to robbing them blind. North America is a prime example.

...and when people sing me a song of the noble savage, I gently remind them that they were also often of a mind to eat each other...

reply to post by JohnnyCanuck


Once again, I disagree, only a small percentage of the people who moved to the colonies were there to loot, and those were the rich and powerful people who had no desire to leave Europe.

Most of the people went to the colonies were looking to start new lives, create a new home. They settled in areas away from the natives, worked the land and created wealth. Once the local began to see what they had done, they wanted to live near the Europeans, and eventually, take what the Europeans had created.

These people who claim exclusive rights are also the same people who wind up abusing their fellow natives once they get power. This whole concept of, our ancestors were here first, so we get to claim all of this land forever is just racist propaganda. They either killed or drove out the people who came to live in peace and prosperity in the same area of the planet as they lived under this guise of "we were wronged". There is no reason why Europeans should not be able to live on other continents where there is plenty of land for all to prosper. Especially when they are the ones who bring the prosperity.

Originally posted by poet1b
reply to post by JohnnyCanuck

 

Once again, I disagree, only a small percentage of the people who moved to the colonies were there to loot, and those were the rich and powerful people who had no desire to leave Europe.

Most of the people went to the colonies were looking to start new lives, create a new home. They settled in areas away from the natives, worked the land and created wealth. Once the local began to see what they had done, they wanted to live near the Europeans, and eventually, take what the Europeans had created.

North America was a land occupied when the settlers got there. While there was the concept of territory, there was no ownership of land. Treaties...if signed at all, pretty well universally screwed the 'savages'. Recall the story of sale of Manhattan for the equivalent of $24.

More to the point, the Europeans brought in a new economy that exploited the natives and also introduced more efficient killing technology as well as liquor and religion. You are promoting a romanticised version of settlement that simply does not exist. I suggest you take a real good look at the literature on the subject...there is ample.