Jump to content

SUBIECTE NOI
« 1 / 5 »
RSS
Suprataxa card energie?!

Cum era nivelul de trai cam din a...

probleme cu ochelarii

Impozite pe proprietati de anul v...
 teava rezistenta panou apa calda

Acces in Curte din Drum National

Sub mobila de bucatarie si sub fr...

Rezultat RMN
 Numar circuite IPAT si prindere t...

Pareri brgimportchina.ro - teapa ...

Lucruri inaintea vremurilor lor

Discuții despre TVR Sport HD.
 Cost abonament clinica privata

Tremura toata, dar nu de la ro...

Renault Android

Recomandare bicicleta e-bike 20&#...
 

Chestiunea precolumbiana

- - - - -
  • Please log in to reply
237 replies to this topic

#37
Punishing

Punishing

    Member

  • Grup: Members
  • Posts: 344
  • Înscris: 06.07.2011

View Postsearcher-star, on 03 octombrie 2013 - 17:59, said:

1Pai ti-am indicat exact pagina, nu?
3Nu contest ideea de mizerie in societatile vechi, contest monopolul pe care-l vad unii cum ca l-ar avea europenii in domeniu.
Curatenia nu era perfecta nicaieri, in societatile premoderne. Nu doar din lipsa de cunostinte sau pretentii ci si din lipsa de resurse logistice, pur si simplu.
Asa vorbesti de parca toata lumea se spala ca acuma, numa' noi ne ungeam cu cacatul in loc sa-l aruncam.
Stii ca chinezii n-au dezvoltat bai cu apa calda pana-n secolul 19? S-a introdus ceva in timpul turanicilor Tang, dar s-a terminat repede.
Sau iti pot spune ce viermi care-ti manca creierul poti lua din orezarii.
Sau iti pot spune ca Ciuma a facut cam tot atatea victime peste tot, comme quoi nu era chiar asa ''cer si pamant" la capitolul igiena & shit.
Asa ca nu erau ele lucrurile in alte parti asa perfecte, si nu eram noi singura pata de cacat pe suprafata planetei, cum le place tuturor, inclusiv unei bune parti din europeni, sa creada.
2Sifilisul vine din America, you genius!
Este ca vrei neaparat sa fie stramosii nostri laboratorul de cultura al tuturor bacteriilor de pe planeta?
4Zic ca specia umana ii dispera.

1. Era vorba de postul inițial, de-aia am și citat ulterior faptul că ai dat pagina și numărul.
2. Corect. Eu știam că nu se descoperiseră dovezi concludente, dar acum văd că da. Greșeala mea.
3. Ce-are Sulla cu prefectura? Comparația era între Europa și America precolumbiană nu China sau restul Lumii Vechi.
4. Specia umană le transmite asta Posted Image

#38
Boshaft_Sylvester

Boshaft_Sylvester

    Senior Member

  • Grup: Senior Members
  • Posts: 5,558
  • Înscris: 01.10.2013

View Postsearcher-star, on 09 septembrie 2013 - 11:24, said:

1) Nu neaparat: Guansii din Canare aveau o arhitectura a platformelor rituale similara celei precolumbiene, deci daca albii respectivi aveau o cultura similara guansilor, nu prea ai distinge-o.
2) Ceea ce vedem ca ruine e faza FINALA a culturii X. Nu prea putem sti prin ce a trecut inainte, mai ales daca oamenii din faza finala au vrut in mod expres sa stearga amintirile fazelor mai vechi.
De exemplu, Ghiselin de Busbecq de care am vorbit in alte ocazii, cand a ajuns la Istambul la mai putin de 100 de ani de la cucerirea otomana, a ramas dezamagit cat de putine repere din vechiul Bizant mai erau de gasit. Nici chiar grecii de acolo nu-si mai aminteau unde a fost cutare chestie.
Pai de ce sa nu fi fost ceva similar si la Mayasi?
Ne inchipuim urmatorul scenariu:
- niste insi similari Guansilor fondeaza cultura respectiva
- o stapanesc cateva secole
- se combina cu populatia locala si apare o rasa metisa; cultura si ea, de-a lungul secolelor, capata un caracter tot mai local
- albii slabesc din diverse motive, metisii se intaresc si resimt tot mai acut statutul lor inferior
- profitand de vreo criza, metisii ii monteaza pe majoritari contra albilor, ii distrug si asimileaza fortat, apoi vireaza spre o "adaptare locala" mai mare a culturii si esteticii, ca sa semnifice departarea de fostii stapani si ca sa castige simpatia majoritatii
- cu timpul metisii accepta tot mai multi majoritari intre ei, mai mor si ei prin razboaie, epidemii etc si cu timpul isi pierd urma
- arheologii gasesc doar cultura asa cum a fost lasata la momentul prabusirii ei adica la cateva secole dupa albi

Posibil. Improbabil.

Oricum, guansii nu erau nici europeni [in sens cultural erau deconecatati de Europa inca din vremea Imperiului roman, cand, se presupune, au existat niste contacte] si nici macar albi.

#39
searcher-star

searcher-star

    Guru Member

  • Grup: Senior Members
  • Posts: 22,274
  • Înscris: 07.01.2009

View PostPunishing, on 03 octombrie 2013 - 18:39, said:

3Ce-are Sulla cu prefectura? Comparația era între Europa și America precolumbiană nu China sau restul Lumii Vechi.
Pai China e cultura non-europeana cea mai bine vazuta. Voiam sa zic ca bube aveau si ei destule.

View PostBoshaft_Sylvester, on 04 octombrie 2013 - 10:02, said:

Oricum, guansii nu erau nici europeni [in sens cultural erau deconecatati de Europa inca din vremea Imperiului roman, cand, se presupune, au existat niste contacte] si nici macar albi.
Ai aflat mai multe despre ei?
Io stiam ca-s in general de tip rasial Borrebid si Faelish - adica Gerhardt Shroeder si respectiv Diane Kruger - desi existau si mediteraneni intre ei. Oricum mediteranenii is albi.
-----------------------------------------
Mai multe despre popularea Quebecului: la barbati 69% din pionierii colonizarii vin de pe litoralul atlantic francez, 18% din Paris si de pe Valea Loirei, si 13% din restul tarii. Femeile sunt aproape toate din zona de la vest de Paris.
Fapt foarte interesant, dar regasibil in buna masura si la popularea anglo-saxona, 66% din barbati si 75% din femei provin din mediul urban. Cei de origine taraneasca provin preponderent din regiuni si familii instarite.
Orasele din care vin acesti oameni sunt Saint‑Malo, Rouen, Nantes, Dieppe, Paris si Bordeaux, insa orasul care a trimis cei mai multi e La Rochelle.
Dpdv social si ocupational, avem de asemenea surprize: 15% sunt nobili si burghezi, 45% sunt mestesugari, 13% sunt muncitori necalificati in artizanat si doar 27% sunt tarani.
Vedem deci si-n Quebec ce s-a vazut la formarea populatiei americane: baza de pionieri din care a iesit majoritatea populatiei actuale provine din familii instarite si calificate.

Edited by searcher-star, 04 October 2013 - 11:57.


#40
criztu

criztu

    Guru Member

  • Grup: Senior Members
  • Posts: 16,298
  • Înscris: 03.09.2002

View Postsearcher-star, on 02 septembrie 2013 - 08:16, said:

Acesta e motivul pentru care deschid acest topic. Era timpul sa abordam si asta.
Adica te crezi la ONU aici, de era timpul sa abordam cestiunea precolumbiana? Le dai despagubiri prin lege la finalu dezbaterilor in parlamentu Softpedia, sau cum?

Edited by criztu, 04 October 2013 - 12:28.


#41
searcher-star

searcher-star

    Guru Member

  • Grup: Senior Members
  • Posts: 22,274
  • Înscris: 07.01.2009
Nu le dau nimic, tocmai.
Ideea e ca is multi dusmani ai civilizatiei vestice si pe aici, si baga la greu chestiunea cu bietii indieni, macelariti cu sutele de miliarde de cateva sute de spanioli, si inlocuiti de borfasi si curve din vest.
Asa ca am zis sa fac un topic, sa am unde trimite pe respectivii sa vada ce tampenii vorbesc.
Acuma, nu ca ar baga ei ceva la cap, observ ca in general nu baga nimic la cap, dar asa, ca idee, se cadea sa existe topicul asta.

Edited by searcher-star, 04 October 2013 - 15:24.


#42
searcher-star

searcher-star

    Guru Member

  • Grup: Senior Members
  • Posts: 22,274
  • Înscris: 07.01.2009
Din amintirile lui Champlain:

New England Abenaki in “Voyages, 1603”
[...] All these Indians from Island Cape [Cape Ann] onwards wear no skins or furs, except very rarely; but their clothes are made from grasses and hemp, and barely cover their bodies, and come down only to the thighs. But the men have their privy parts concealed by a small skin. It is the same also with the women, who wear it a little lower behind than the men; all the rest of the body is naked. When the women came to see us they wore skins open in front. The men cut off the hair on top of their heads like those at Saco river. I saw, among other things, a girl with her hair quite neatly done up by means of a skin dyed red, trimmed on the upper part with little shell beads. Some of her hair hung down behind, while the rest was braided in various ways. These people paint their faces red, black, and yellow. They have almost no beard, and pull it out as fast as it grows.
Maliseet & Passamaquoddy in “Voyages”
The Indians who live there [area around the St. Croix River on the border between New Brunswick and Maine] are few in number. During the winter, when the snow is deepest, they go hunting for moose and other animals, on which they live the greater part of the time. If the snow is not deep, they are scarcely rewarded for their pains, inasmuch as they cannot capture anything except with very great labour, whereby they endure and suffer much. When they do not go hunting, they live on a shellfish called the clam. In winter they clothe themselves with good furs of beaver and moose. The women make all the clothes, but not neatly enough to prevent one seeing the skin under the armpits; for they have not the skill to make them fit better. When they go hunting they make use of certain racquets, twice as large as those of our country, which they attach under their feet, and with these they travel over the snow without sinking, both the women and children as well as the men who hunt for the tracks of animals. Having found these they follow them until they catch sight of the beast, when they shoot at him with their bows, or else kill him with thrusts from swords set in the end of a half-pike. This can be done very easily, because these animals are unable to travel on the snow without sinking in.[…]
Passamaquoddy & Penobscot in “Voyages”
[…]Indian wigwams which were constructed in the same manner as those of the Souriquois [Mi’kmaq], that is, covered with tree-bark. So far as we could judge there are few Indians on this river [Penobscot], and these also are called Etechemins [thought to be Maliseet and Passamaquoddy]. They come there and to the islands only for a few months in summer during the fishing and hunting season, when game is plentiful. They are a people with no fixed abode, from what I have discovered and learned from themselves; for they pass the winter sometimes in one place and sometimes in another, wheresoever they perceive the hunting of wild animals is the best.[…]

Edited by searcher-star, 28 October 2013 - 11:08.


#43
searcher-star

searcher-star

    Guru Member

  • Grup: Senior Members
  • Posts: 22,274
  • Înscris: 07.01.2009
The mid seventeenth century collapse
of Iroquoian Ontario:
examining the last burial place of the Neutral Nation
Mary Jackes
Despre catastrofa anilor 1640-50 in zona Marilor Lacuri.
Cateva elemente interesante:
Fusesera epidemii si inainte dar mortalitatea nu fusese asa de mare.
A fost o perioada de catastrofe cumulative, epidemii, razboaie intertribale crunte si foamete.
Preotii iezuiti prezenti acolo nu sunt capabili sa recunoasca despre ce boli e vorba, desi sunt teoretic boli europene. Ei spun ca "seamana cu variola" dar ca se comporta totusi diferit.
Interesant ca in aceeasi perioada sunt ''vremuri tulburi" peste tot: in toata lumea sunt recolte foarte slabe si clima pacatoasa cu veri reci, in Europa e Razb.de 30 ani, in Turcia sunt tulburarile Celali, foarte grave, in Asia pica din.Ming, iar in Americi epidemiile si razboaiele sunt in floare.
S-ar parea c-au fost multe eruptii vulcanice severe care au dat climatul peste cap, si implicit agricultura.
Toate astea au agravat conflictele intre popoare si clase, si au marit mult virulenta bolilor pe fondul slabiciunii si deplasarilor mai masive si mai haotice de populatii.

#44
alalaltu

alalaltu

    Guru Member

  • Grup: Senior Members
  • Posts: 12,837
  • Înscris: 30.10.2006
La sud de SUA albi mai gasesti eventual in Argentina sau Uruguay. Restul, exceptand urmasii sclavilor africani, sant metisi sau chiar amerindieni 100%. Cand mergi in Brazilia, Mexic sau Chile singurii albi is turistii. Deci nu prea e probabil sa fi fost aia chiar putini. Triburile din nord, ce-i drept, n-au trecut niciodata de epoca de piatra. Sa nu uitam ca nici cai n-au avut inainte de a ajunge europenii.

#45
pro-civilizatie

pro-civilizatie

    Guru Member

  • Grup: Senior Members
  • Posts: 12,012
  • Înscris: 19.02.2011
m-am mirat acum cativa ani,cand studiam religiile pre-columbiene ,cat de multe similitudini au cu sistemele religioase euro-asiatice.
de exemplu organizarea zeilor si atributele lor sunt foarte asemanatoare cu cele eurasiatice
mitologia la fel,epoca uriasilor si eroilor....
sistemul de 4 ere-epoca de aur,de argint,de piatra etc.

#46
searcher-star

searcher-star

    Guru Member

  • Grup: Senior Members
  • Posts: 22,274
  • Înscris: 07.01.2009

View Postalalaltu, on 02 noiembrie 2013 - 13:46, said:

La sud de SUA albi mai gasesti eventual in Argentina sau Uruguay. Restul, exceptand urmasii sclavilor africani, sant metisi sau chiar amerindieni 100%. Cand mergi in Brazilia, Mexic sau Chile singurii albi is turistii. Deci nu prea e probabil sa fi fost aia chiar putini. Triburile din nord, ce-i drept, n-au trecut niciodata de epoca de piatra. Sa nu uitam ca nici cai n-au avut inainte de a ajunge europenii.
In Brazilia is mai mult mulatri nu indieni. Deci urmasi de albi si negri adusi DUPA 1500.
In Mexic, genetic sunt 58% albi. 91% pe linie barbateasca si 25% pe linie feminina. Sunt metisi.
Iar marimea populatiei, nu vrea sa spuna absolut nimic.
La 1500 Franta avea la 16 milioane iar Thailanda sub 2.
Acuma Franta e la 65 la egalitate cu Thailanda. populatiile se inmultesc foarte diferit.
Oricum am zis ca erau niste milioane atat in Mexic cat si-n Peru.

View Postpro-civilizatie, on 02 noiembrie 2013 - 21:22, said:

m-am mirat acum cativa ani,cand studiam religiile pre-columbiene ,cat de multe similitudini au cu sistemele religioase euro-asiatice.
de exemplu organizarea zeilor si atributele lor sunt foarte asemanatoare cu cele eurasiatice
mitologia la fel,epoca uriasilor si eroilor....
sistemul de 4 ere-epoca de aur,de argint,de piatra etc.
Ca sa nu mai vorbim Manitou-Mani-Manu, Wakantanka-Wotan (unele triburi chiar zic Vo-tan), Kukulkan-Cuchulainn etc. Plus atributele blonde/barboase ale multor zei.

Edited by searcher-star, 04 November 2013 - 09:10.


#47
searcher-star

searcher-star

    Guru Member

  • Grup: Senior Members
  • Posts: 22,274
  • Înscris: 07.01.2009
M-am gandit la o chestie.
Nu tocmai precolumbiana dar oricum, are a face cu formarea Americii cum o stim.
Ce-ar fi fost daca Ludovic al 14lea ar fi fost mai putin superficial?
Daca in loc sa vrea neaparat sa-i forteze pe hughenoti la catolicism, sa-i lase sa plece?
...dar in loc sa imbogateasca Anglia, Olanda si Prusia cu prezenta, banii si competentele lor, sa-i trimita in America?
Franta la 1710-20 stapanea din Texas pana in mijlocul Canadei. Indieni erau putini. Pamanturile bune si, cel putin de-a lungul Mississippi, usor de accesat si lucrat. Avea unde-i implanta.
Daca alea cateva sute de mii de oameni s-ar fi inmultit cum s-au inmultit miile din Quebec?
Ar fi fost o sansa reala sa avem o America francofona astazi. Ar fi fost probabil un soi de "Quebec" anglofon si minoritar pe coasta de est a SUA si cam atat.
Sigur, fiind protestanti tot s-ar fi separat de Franta pana la urma. Dar ar fi fost o America de Nord francofona.
Ne putem de asemenea intreba ce evolutie socio-economica si culturala ar fi avut aceasta America.
E greu de zis.
Pe de o parte fiind calvinisti am putea presupune c-ar fi avut o evolutie similara americanilor pe care-i stim.
Pe de alta parte, sunt alte chestii care atarna in balanta:
- nici francezii metropolitani nu erau tampiti, stiau ca risca o secesiune, si sigur incercau sa mareasca numarul de catolici in randul populatiei
- Franta fiind in bune relatii cu irlandezii, e foarte posibil sa incurajeze migratia lor spre America tocmai in acest scop
- anglofonii n-au virat-o majoritar spre calvinism decat de pe la 1830, pana atunci fiind anglicani
- calvinistii francezi nu erau neaparat prieteni cu cei anglofoni
- calvinismul a facut mult pentru capitalism dar Revolutie Industriala a fost doar in Anglia si ulterior in America, cel putin pana la 1820-30; calvinistii unguri de pilda au fost chiar foarte anti-moderni in multe privinte; deci nu-i suficienta o mentalitate, trebuie si un context
- colonizarea franceza s-a facut pe baze foarte traditionaliste, spre deosebire de colonizarea mult mai "freelance" a anglofonilor: adica regele a acordat domenii unor familii nobile, care au pornit un sistem feudal pe teren american; in Quebec existau inclusiv castele si conace ca-n Franta
- nobilimea si marea burghezie era numeroasa in sanul hughenotilor; nu-i vorba ca era numeroasa si-n sanul anglofonilor, dar mentalitatea era cu totul alta si, cum am zis mai sus, si contextul implantarii ei in America ar fi fost cu totul altul
- America avea pamant cacalau si probleme atat cu indienii cat si cu frictiunile intre puterile care voiau teritorii pe acolo sau intre comunitati; prin urmare e foarte usor de imaginat ca nobilimea ar fi putut cultiva acolo un soi de paradis fiziocratic in care sa-si pastreze utilitatea si atributele de arbitru si stabilizator rural pana tarziu
- in atare situatie ar fi fost surprinzator sa prinda vreo Revolutie de tip francez metropolitan pe acolo
- America n-ar fi avut mari provocari de dinafara pana tarziu, datorita izolarii ei fata de restul lumii
Prin urmare oare am fi putut avea o America francofona rurala si feudala, care isi permite luxul de-a cultiva un traditionalism depasit in alte locuri, cam cum facea Japonia? Sau care incearca o combinatie de traditionalism si modernizare ca Germania wilhelmiana? Si ar fi fost oare o putere mare dar nesemnificativa global inclusiv dupa ce se dezvolta, sau una care sa-si afirme voluntar influenta?
Io personal nu cred ca o America francofona ar fi putut fi la fel de influenta ca cea pe care o stim.
Francezii is mai conservatori si mai putin adaptabili.
Mai comozi si mai ritualisti. Mai ales daca isi permit.
N-au individualismul anglosaxon.
America si Anglia au mers cu dezvoltarea in tandem. N-ar fi fost asa daca le separa limba.
E clar ca istoria lumii moderne era cu totul alta.

#48
searcher-star

searcher-star

    Guru Member

  • Grup: Senior Members
  • Posts: 22,274
  • Înscris: 07.01.2009
Doua chestii, una post-columbiana, alta chiar la scurta vreme dupa Columb.
Dar ambele graitoare, zic eu, referitor la imaginea noastra despre trecutul american.

1) O nunta de sclavi la 1838
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:KitchenBall.jpg

2)Din jurnalul lui Cabeza de Vaca

With such efforts we travelled until the day after St. John's Day, when we came in sight of Apalachen, without having been noticed by the Indians of the land. We gave many thanks to God for being so near it, believing what we had been told about the country to be true, and that now our sufferings would come to an end after the long and weary march over bad trails. We had also suffered greatly from hunger, for, although we found corn occasionally, most of the time we marched seven or eight leagues without any. And many there were among us who besides suffering great fatigue and hunger, had their backs covered with wounds from the weight of the armor and other things they had to carry as occasion required. But to find ourselves at last where we wished to be and where we had been assured so much food and gold would be had, made us forget a great deal of our hardships and weariness.
Once in sight of Apalachen, the Governor commanded me to enter the village with nine horsemen and fifty foot. So the inspector and I undertook this. Upon penetrating into the village we found only women and boys. The men were not there at the time, but soon, while we were walking about, they came and began to fight, shooting arrows at us. They killed the inspector's horse, but finally fled and left us. We found there plenty of ripe maize ready to be gathered and much dry corn already housed. We also found many deer skins and among them mantles made of thread and of poor quality, with which the women cover parts of their bodies. They had many vessels for grinding maize. The village contained forty small and low houses, reared in sheltered places, out of fear of the great storms that continuously occur in the country. The buildings are of straw, and they are surrounded by dense timber, tall trees and numerous water-pools, where there were so many fallen trees and of such size as to greatly obstruct and impede circulation.
The country between our landing place and the village and country of Apalachen is mostly level; the soil is sand and earth. All throughout it there are very large trees and open forests containing nut trees, laurels and others of the kind called resinous, cedar, juniper, wateroak, pines, oak and low palmetto, like those of Castilla. Everywhere there are many lagoons, large and small, some very difficult to cross, partly because they are so deep, partly because they are covered with fallen trees. Their bottom is sandy, and in the province of Apalachen the lagoons are much larger than those we found previously. There is much maize in this province and the houses are scattered all over the country as much as those of the Gelves. The animals we saw there were three kinds of deer, rabbits and hares, bears and lions and other wild beasts, among them one that carries its young in a pouch on its belly as long as the young are small, until they are able to look for their sustenance, and even then, when they are out after food and people come, the mother does not move until her little ones are in the pouch again. The country is very cold; it has good pasture for cattle; there are birds of many kinds in large numbers: geese, ducks, wild ducks, muscovy ducks, Ibis, small white herons (Egrets), herons and partridges. We saw many falcons, marsh-hawks, sparrow-hawks, pigeon-hawks and many other birds. Two hours after we arrived at Apalachen the Indians that had fled came back peaceably, begging us to give back to them their women and children, which we did. The Governor, however, kept with him one of their caciques, at which they became so angry as to attack us the following day. They did it so swiftly and with so much audacity as to set fire to the lodges we occupied, but when we sallied forth they fled to the lagoons nearby, on account of which and of the big corn patches, we could not do them any harm beyond killing one Indian. The day after, Indians from a village on the other side came and attacked us in the same manner, escaping in the same way, with the loss of a single man.
We remained at this village for twenty-five days, making three excursions during the time. We found the country very thinly inhabited and difficult to march through, owing to bad places, timber and lagoons. We inquired of the cacique whom we had retained and of the other Indians with us (who were neighbors and enemies of them) about the condition and settlements of the land, the quality of its people, about supplies and everything else. They answered, each one for himself, that Apalachen was the largest town of all; that further in less people were met with, who were very much poorer than those here, and that the country was thinly settled, the inhabitants greatly scattered, and also that further inland big lakes, dense forests, great deserts and wastes were met with.
Then we asked about the land to the south, its villages and resources. They said that in that direction and nine days' march towards the sea was a village called Aute, where the Indians had plenty of corn and also beans and melons, and that, being so near the sea, they obtained fish, and that those were their friends. Seeing how poor the country was, taking into account the unfavorable reports about its population and everything else, and that the Indians made constant war upon us, wounding men and horses whenever they went for water (which they could do from the lagoons where we could not reach them) by shooting arrows at us; that they had killed a chief of Tezcuco called Don Pedro, whom the commissary had taken along with him, we agreed to depart and go in search of the sea, and of the village of Aute, which they had mentioned. And so we left, arriving there five days after. The first day we travelled across lagoons and trails without seeing a single Indian.

Cam dezolanta impresie, nu?
Cam tot textul e asa: natura virgina, ici-colo cate un sat de cateva sute de insi, la zeci de km departare unele de altele... aproape peste tot ia zile sa ajungi de la un sat la altul.

#49
searcher-star

searcher-star

    Guru Member

  • Grup: Senior Members
  • Posts: 22,274
  • Înscris: 07.01.2009
Unfortunatelly, the estimation of the population of the Americas at contact has been the ground of political agendas and pseudo-science.  The people that want to prove masive genocide put estimations as high as they can, while dreamers that believe in missing civilizations in Patagonia or Amazons, also inflates the numbers. The fact is there is no census of people at contact.

My guess is around 15 to 20 million people for the whole Americas. That figure makes sense according to the historical descriptions. However, it doesn't fit those people who are fascinated with the "90% of extinction" urban myth.

This article explains pretty well the problem. Please notice that the estimations seem to be at random. Every expert put the numbers that they wishes. The last estimate for some dreamers is 150 millions. Expect the figure of one billion to be proposed by some "expert" in the near future. As you will see, by looking at the figures, these "experts" would be better to work as clowns in a circus rather than pretending to make science... Confused. Just analize the ridiculous figures on human sacrifices in Mexico, and you'll get the idea.

Pre-Columbian Population:
Pick a number, any number.
Sometimes it seems that this is the way historians decide how many Indians lived in the Americas before the European Contact. As The New York Public Library American History Desk Reference puts it, "Estimates of the Native American population of the Americas, all completely unscientific, range from 15 to 60 million." And even this cynical assessment is wrong. The estimates range from 8 to 145 million.
If you want to study the question of pre-Columbian population and its subsequent decline in detail, two good books to start with are David Henige, Numbers From Nowhere (1998) and Russell Thornton, American Indian Holocaust and Survival (1987).
Population of the Western Hemisphere in 1492 according to various experts:
The problem, of course, is that by the time that the Europeans got around to counting the Indians, there were a lot fewer to count
I've graphed the estimates chronlogically to show that the passage of time and the gathering of more information is still not leading toward a consensus. Over the past 75 years, estimates have bounced around wildly and ended up right back where they started -- around 40 million.
I've also graphed the population of Europe in 1500 because this is magic number to which many of the estimates aspire. Native American history is traditionally treated as marginal -- a handful of primitive kingdoms that were easily overwhelmed by the most dynamic civilization on Earth -- but if it could somehow be proven that the Americas had even more people than Europe, then history would be turned upside down. The European conquest could be treated as the tail wagging the dog, like the Barbarian invasions of Rome, a small fringe of savages decending on the civilized world, wiping out or enslaving the bulk of humanity.
The advocates of large numbers, however, are often their own worst enemies. On page 33 of American Holocaust, David Stannard declares, "
robably about 25,000,000 people, or about seven times the number living in all of England, were residing in and around the great Valley of Mexico at the time of Columbus's arrival in the New World".
Now, I've been to England, and I can vouch that the English have left their mark on the land. You can't throw a brick in England without hitting some relic of the earlier inhabitants -- castles, cathedrals, Roman walls and roads, Stonehenge, etc. -- not to mention books, tools, coins, weapons and all the little pieces of the past that turn up anytime someone plows a field or cleans their attic.
Now go back and read what Stannard has written. I'm sure that the point that he's trying to make is that since there were seven times as many Mexicans as English, truly the Mexicans were seven times more civilized than the English, so if anyone deserved to be called "savages", it's the English. Unfortunately, the point that nags at me is "If there were seven times as many people in Mexico, shouldn't there be seven times as many relics in Mexico?" Yes, I've read the archaeological reports that discuss irrigation systems, and I've seen the big, colorful picture books showing jungle-encrusted ruins of ancient pyramids, but the fact is that seven times the population of England should have left behind a lot more stuff than that.
I find the estimates for Virginia even more awkward because I live here. Stannard estimates the population of Powhatan's Confederation at 100,000, yet there's not a single site in the Virginia Tidewater that remotely hints at the complex infrastructure necessary to support even half this number. There's not one ruin of any permanent building. Artifacts of any kind are rare -- barely even a single burial mound worth pilfering. And it's not like there's some forgotten ghost town deep in the desert or jungle waiting to be discovered. This is Virginia. It's been settled, plowed and excavated for 400 years.
I also find it difficult to believe that the Europeans obliterated all traces of the earlier inhabitants. After all, I've been to Germany too. I've seen that bombed-out cities still have a substantial presence of the past, and I doubt that the conquistadores could be more destructive than a flock of B-17s. [n.3]
In any case, the median of all the estimates charted above is 40 million. It's the type of number that half the experts would consider impossibly big, and the other half would consider impossibly low, so it's probably exactly right.
And then, within a century of the European Contact, the hemispheric population plunged to a fairly well-proven residue of less than 10 million. How many of these deaths count as indictable atrocities?
The Death Toll:
In American Holocaust, Stannard estimates the total cost of the near-extermination of the American Indians as 100,000,000.
The problem here (aside from the question of whether there were even this many people in hemisphere at all) is that Stannard doesn't differentiate between death by massacre and death by disease. He blames the Europeans for bringing new diseases which spread like wildfire -- often faster than than the Europeans themselves -- and depopulated the continent. Since no one disputes the fact that most of the native deaths were caused by alien diseases to which they had never developed immunity, the simple question of categorization is vital.
Traditionally we add death by disease and famine into the total cost of wars and massacres (Anne Frank, after all, died of typhus, not Zyklon-B, but she's still a victim of the Holocaust) so I don't see any problem with doing the same with the American genocides, provided that the deaths occurred after their society had already been disrupted by direct European hostility. If a tribe was enslaved or driven off its lands, the associated increase in deaths by disease would definitely count toward the atrocity (The chain of events which reduced the Indian population of California from 85,000 in 1852 to 18,000 in 1890 certainly counts regardless of the exact agent of death, because by this time, the Indians were being hunted down from one end of California to another.); however, if a tribe was merely sneezed on by the wrong person at first contact, it should not count.
Consider the Powhatans of Virginia. As I mentioned earlier, Stannard cites estimates that the population was 100,000 before contact. In the same paragraph, he states that European depredations and disease had reduced this population to a mere 14,000 by the time the English settled Jamestown in 1607. Now, come on; should we really blame the English for 86,000 deaths that occured before they even arrived? Sure, he hints at pre-Jamestown "depredations", but he doesn't actually list any. As far as I can tell, the handful of European ventures into the Chesapeake region before 1607 were too small to do much depredating, and in what conflicts there were, the Europeans often got the worst of it. [see http://www.mariner.o...ylink/span.html and http://www.nps.gov/fora/roanokerev.htm and http://coastalguide....stcolony01.htm]
Think of it this way: if the Europeans had arrived with the most benign intentions and behaved like perfect guests, or for that matter, if Aztec sailors had been the ones to discover Europe instead of vice versa, then the Indians would still have been exposed to unfamiliar diseases and the population would still have been scythed by massive epidemics, but we'd just lump it into the same category as the Black Death, i.e. bad luck. (Curiously, the Black Death was brought to Europe by the Mongols. Should we blame them for it? And while we're tossing blame around willy-nilly, aren't the Native Americans responsible for introducing tobacco to the world -- and for the 90 million deaths which followed?)
Other Guesses:
◦M. D. Aletheia, The Rationalist's Manual (1897): 30,000,000 Mexicans and Peruvians were slaughtered.
◦David Barrett, World Christian Trends: Conquistadors killed 15M Amerindians
◦Coe, Snow and Benson, Atlas of Ancient America (1986) ◦Total pre-Columbian population: 40M
◦Mexico: Original population of 11M to 25M ("lower figure commands more support") fell to 1.25M (1625)
◦Peru: Pop. fell from 9M (1533) to >500,000 (early 17th C)
◦Brazil: Original population of 2.5M to 5.0M ("recent commentators favoring the higher") fell to 1M
◦Massimo Livi-Bacci, Concise History of World Population History 2d (1996) ◦Mexico: Population fell from 6.3M (1548) to 1.9M (1580) to 1M (1605)
◦Peru: Pop. fell from 1.3M (1572) to 600,000 (1620)
◦Canada: from 300,000 (ca. 1600) to < 100,000 (ca. 1800)
◦USA: from 5M (1500) to 60,000 (ca. 1800) [sic. Probably means 600,000 because he cites Thornton]
◦R.J. Rummel estimates that 13,778,000 American Indians died of democide in the 16th through 19th Centuries: ◦Total dead among native Americans in colonial era: 49.5M out of pre-contact population of 55M ◦Democides in this: 5M
◦Democides among Indians, post-colonial era: 8,763,000
◦Democides in US: 15,000
◦Skidmore & Smith, Modern Latin America (1997) ◦Mexico: Population fell from 25M (1519) to 16.8M (1523) to 1.9M (1580) to 1M (1605)
◦Peru: from 1.3M (1570, forty years after Conquest) to <600,000 (1620)
◦Stannard, American Holocaust (1992): 100,000,000 deaths across the hemisphere across time ◦16th Century death toll: between 60M and 80M ◦Panama, 1514-1530: 2M Indians killed
◦Mexico ◦Central: Population fell from 25.0M (1519) to 1.3M (1595)
◦SE: fell from 1,700,000 to 240,000
◦North: fell from 2,500,000 to 320,000
◦Peru, 16th C.: between 8.5M and 13.5M people destroyed.

◦Fredric Wertham, A Sign For Cain : An Exploration of Human Violence (1966): South American death toll of 15,000,000.
I can't confidently estimate the number of unnatural deaths (i.e. indictable killings, as a result of violence and oppression, both direct [war, murder, execution] and indirect [famine, avoidable disease]) among Amerindians across the centuries, but as a guess, I'd say 20 million, for no reasons other than it's half of the original 40M, and it seems to be near the median of the 4 previous estimates. (Rummel, Barrett, Althea, Stannard)
Not the most solid grounds, I'll grant you.
Specific Events:
◦Caribbean ◦Hispanola (1492-1550) ◦General native population decline ◦Trager, People's Chronology: from 200-300,000 (1492) to 60,000 (1508) to 14,000 (1514) to <500 (1548)
◦Wertham: plummmet from 1,000,000 to 14,000.
◦Stannard: from 8M (1492) to 4M or 5M (1496) to less than 100,000 (1508) to less than 20,000 (1518) to extinction (1535)

◦Jan Rogozinski, A Brief History of the Caribbean (1994): Assessments of the number of Indians throughout the Caribbean in 1492 range from 225,000 to 6M, half in Hispaniola. All gone within a few decades.
◦Aztecs (1375-1419) ◦Estimated Total of human sacrifices among Aztecs: ◦Michael Harner (1977): "In 1946 Sherburne Cook, a demographer specializing in American Indian populations, estimated an over-all annual mean of 15,000 victims in a central Mexican population reckoned at two million [i.e. 1.5M sacrificed per century]. Later, however, he and his colleague Woodrow Borah revised his estimate of the total central Mexican population upward to 25 million. Recently, Borah, possibly the leading authority on the demography of Mexico at the time of the conquest, has also revised the estimated number of persons sacrificed in central Mexico in the fifteenth century to 250,000 per year" [i.e. 25.0M per century] [http://www.latinamer.../sacrifice.htm]
◦William Prescott, History of the Conquest of Mexico (1843): "Scarcely any author pretends to estimate the yearly sacrifices throughout the empire at less than twenty thousand, and some carry the number as high as fifty!" [i.e. 2-5M per century] [http://etext.virgini...c/PreConq.html]
◦Wikipedia, as usual, takes the extreme viewpoint that there was hardly any sacrifice at all, maybe 300 to 600 annually, or 30,000-60,000 per century. [ http://en.wikipedia....n_Aztec_culture (Aug. 2006)]
◦Dedication of a temple of Huitzilopochtli in Tenochtitlan by Aztec king Ahuitzotl (1487) ◦PGtH: 80,000 human sacrifices
◦Mark Cocker, Rivers of Blood, Rivers of Gold (1998): 20,000
◦Harris, Cannibals and Kings (1977): 14,100 est. by Sherburne Cook
◦Skull rack in Xocotlan: >100,000 skulls (Marvin Harris, Cannibals and Kings, citing Spanish eyewitness Bernal Diaz)
◦Skull rack in Tenochtitlan held 136,000 skulls according to Spanish eyewitness Andres de Tapia ◦Harris, Cannibals and Kings, considers that this "could be dismissed as exaggerations were it not for ... methodically racked and hence easily counted rows"
◦Cocker, Rivers of Blood..., considers this an exageration: "double the true figure"
◦Spanish Conquest of Tenochtitlan (1520): 100,000-200,000 Aztecs killed in battle. (PGtH)
◦Misc. ◦The Jivaro of EC & PE killed 25,000 Spaniards in 1599 (Cecil Adams [http://www.straightd...s/a980731.html])
◦see also 19th C. USA and 20th C. Brazil

Edited by searcher-star, 09 December 2013 - 10:28.


#50
searcher-star

searcher-star

    Guru Member

  • Grup: Senior Members
  • Posts: 22,274
  • Înscris: 07.01.2009
Regional trends summarize myriad local experiences, fruitfully documented in the Teotihuacán Valley study. Regional variations show how difficult it was to win the demographic lottery in ancient Mesoamerica. The many "disappearances" of ancient civilizations have provoked much speculation about causes. The pioneering bioarchaeologist Frank Saul suggests that we may be asking the wrong question about the decline of Mesoamerican cities, cultures or peoples. Saul argues that the question should be "not why they declined, but rather, how they managed to survive for so long." The bioarchaeological record reveals that Mesoamerican populations (indeed, most ancient peoples) were fragile, weakened by stress, poor nutrition, and ill-health. The old notion of strong, robust, healthy populations in Mesoamerica—a pre-Columbian paradise—is poorly supported by settlement patterns and the skeletal evidence. Ethnohistorical interpretations highlight success stories, but ethnohistorical sources still await skeptical, demographically informed scrutiny.
Stress, conditions of life and paleodemography
Physical and physiological stress seems ubiquitous in Mesoamerica, although somewhat less so than among most peoples in northern North America. Osteoarthritis (degenerative bone disease), likely due to extreme physical exertion, is present in adult skeletal remains from 5,000 years ago in the Tehuacán Valley. High rates of healed fractures, severe dental wear, and advanced osteophytosis are common in the earliest extant skeletal material. Tuberculosis and treponemal infection, forms of syphilis and yaws, date from 3,000 BP. Also common are coral-like lesions on the crania (porotic hyperostosis and cribra orbitalia), severe physiological responses to acute or chronic anemia resulting from nutritional deficiencies, extreme parasitic infestation, debilitating infection, blood loss or some combination of these. The architectural riches of Chichén Itzá contrast starkly with the physiological poverty of its population, which suffered from hard labor, illness, infection, and severe malnutrition. A tally of 752 adult Mesoamerican skeletons from the Health and Nutrition in the Americas database reveals women with higher rates of facial fractures than men (gender abuse?) and more joint disease of the wrists (repetitive stress from the arduous labor of grinding corn for tortillas?). Spines of adults of both sexes show severe degenerative wear, averaging 40% or more at Jaina, Tlatilco, Cholula and Copán (Honduras). The lesson learned from these skeletons is that where the human body was the principal mechanism for growing food, constructing buildings and moving heavy burdens the biological price was great. Hard, repetitive work exacted severe wear on Mesoamerican bodies of both sexes, particularly joints required for mobility, manipulation of objects, or bearing loads.

From Black Mesa pueblo in the arid northwest to Copán in the humid southeast, the emergence of agriculture reduced dental degeneration caused by wear and tear of consuming foraged foods, but life-threatening caries, abscesses, and tooth loss became more pronounced due to high carbohydrate corn-based diets. As populations became more sedentary, diarrhea, typhus, and region-wide famine probably became more common. With the spread of a monotonous diet of squash, corn and beans, stature declined, at least for males. Shortening stature was an adaptive response to malnutrition, undernutrition and concomitant disease levels, resulting from the adoption of a settled, neolithic way of life. These were the primary causes of regional and temporal differentials in stature. Males in the north, subsisting from hunting and gathering, averaged 165 cm with little decline over time. In the center, average stature for men in the classic period fell to 160 cm. Southward from Oaxaca, the average adult male stood at 155 cm, although along the coasts heights were greater. Female stature, averaging 145-155 cm, is more perplexing because there was little systematic variation in space or time.

Paleodemography corroborates the findings of paleopathology. Extraordinarily low life expectancy was the rule for Mesoamerican populations. Paleodemographers favor life expectancy at birth as the measure of choice, but this indicator should be discounted because only extraordinary burial practices and exceptionally thorough archaeological recovery techniques yield representative samples. At most sites too few skeletons of infants and children are recovered to be credible (Teotihuacán is an important exception), and paleodemographers’ estimates of life expectancy at birth (e0) are thereby greatly inflated. The ethnohistorian Ortiz de Montellano puts life expectancy at birth for the Aztec at 37 years, but the cited source does not, in fact, support this figure. A decidedly somber picture emerges when we examine life expectancies at older ages (see Table 1). At age 15 (e15), Mesoamerican life expectancies were extremely low, ranging from 13 to 29 additional years of life. In other words, for those surviving to age 15, death came around age 28 through 44 on average. Even the most optimistic estimates are almost one-third worse than national figures for Mexico in 1940 (when e15=43 additional years, to 58; in 1980 e15=56, to 71). Indeed the figures for prehistoric populations fall well below the worst conditions in model life tables, such as Coale and Demeny’s Region South level 1, where e15=34 (to age 49) and life expectancy at birth (e0) is only 20 years.

Non-quantitative sources support the interpretation that mortality was extremely high in Mesoamerica. The Nahua (Aztec) sculpted high morbidity in stone and structured high mortality in their language. Consider the vast Nahua pantheon to beg for divine succor from a great diversity of afflictions and illnesses. Nahuatl grammar is obsessed, indeed burdened, with mortality. Why encumber the language with a grammatical suffix indicating whether kin are dead or alive unless mortality is an ever-present concern?

Extrapolating paleodemographic estimates for Mesoamerican populations points to life expectancies at birth of 15-20 years, or annual crude birth rates as high as 67 or as low as 50. Since on the whole these paleopopulations were growing, the upper bound of the crude birth rate should be set a few points higher, at say, 55-70 births per thousand population. Students of modern populations would dismiss the upper range as impossible. Nevertheless, a simple experiment reveals that a stable population with a crude birth rate of 70 and a growth rate of 0.5% per annum corresponds to a total fertility rate of 8.8 children. This is an astonishingly high figure, yet as recently as 1990, Mexican women with no schooling who survived to menopause averaged 7.5 children. This 1990 average was attained even though marriage was delayed to around age 20 and not all women formed stable unions. If we look back into the nineteenth-century we find women attaining this record, or nearly so. 8.5 was the average total fertility rate reported for carefully documented studies of Tzeltal-speakers of Amatenango (Chiapas) and the Euromestizo elite of Mexico City.
High-pressure demographic systems
Even with life expectancy at birth (e0) as low as 16 years, a high-fertility paleopopulation could sustain a growth rate of 0.5% per year. The age structure would be young, with 40% of the population under 15 years of age and 90% under 50. Storey’s paleodemographic reconstruction of a barrio in the Teotihuacan urban complex is close to the high-pressure demographic scenario envisioned here. To reach an 8.8 total fertility rate (Storey places the figure at 6 for Teotihuacan) requires 26.4 years of childbearing with the first birth occurring three years after women became sexually active and birth intervals averaging 36 months. Since menopause sets in around age 40 or 45, girls would have had to marry close to the age of puberty, at say 15 years. This is exactly what we find in the earliest extant documentary evidence for the Aztecs. Child marriage, involving cohabitation, was common in ancient Mexico. A high-pressure demographic regime is consistent with the bioarchaeological and ethnohistorical evidence for central Mexico before the invasion by Hernán Cortes and his Christian comrades in 1519.

The custom of child marriage among the indigenes surprised Europeans. Viceroy Martin Enriquez’s observation, written in 1577, is typical: "being the custom in the time of their paganism to marry almost at birth because no girl reached the age of twelve without marrying." Pictorial life histories in the Codex Mendoza depict marriage occurring at age fifteen and babies being weaned at age three (rationed to one-half tortilla [per meal?], rising to one whole tortilla at age four, and two from age thirteen). In "natural fertility" populations weaning facilitates ovulation and conception—when not actually precipitated by the birth of a second baby to be suckled. In the 1530s and 1540s, for rural Nahuas in Huitzillan and Quauhchichinollan (located in the modern state of Morelos) average age at marriage (defined as co-residing couples) is estimated at 12.7 years for females and 19.4 for males. Data for this population of 2,500 ordinary folk reflect authentically indigenous practices because the Christian spiritual conquest had scarcely begun according to the earliest surviving censuses from this region. Only one Catholic marriage versus almost 800 native unions appears in these remarkable listings written on fig-bark "paper" in Nahuatl by native scribes. These documents display an obsession with fertility, or better infertility, with scribes noting not only the indigeneous names and ages of offspring but also, for each childless couple, the number of years of marriage. The ancient Nahuas were passionate pronatalists. Sterility was a truly deadly sin, leading to the sacrifice of infecund couples, who "‘served only to occupy the world and not increase it.’"

#51
Ghita_Bizonu

Ghita_Bizonu

    Confectionez manusi din pielea clientului

  • Grup: Senior Members
  • Posts: 11,827
  • Înscris: 16.10.2012
Asa in trececere ..
1) pana pe la jumatea sec XIX albii nu pot fi acuzati ca au infestat intentionat indienii .. Accident si basta. Las ca si indienencuele i-ua infestat pe madrii conchistadori cu sifilis .. care inj Eruopa a luat forme f urate ....
2)cel putin in zonele imperiului Incas si in zona mexicana spaniolii nu aveau nici un interes sa extermine pe indieni. Aia erau indios fiedeles care [uteau si erau pusi la munca. epidemiile masive de variola i-au lasat pe spanioli cam la @@@ul gol si i-a facut sa cheltuie bani cu importul de sclavi negri in unele zone. Ma rog in Yucatan au scpat6a mai ieftin - l-eua ramns destui mayasi pe care sa ii puna la munca (dura).
Spaniolii i-ua exterinat ins ape caraibi .... ca acesti caraibi nu prea "intlegegeau" de ce trebuyie s amunceasca ptr spanioli , se mai si revoltau, ucideau samd ... Da find insule au resuist sa ii "rezolve".
Insa pe co0ntinet .. ei ei. Mai erau si indios bravos pe vare spnaiolii i-ar fi exterminat cu placere... Insa nu odata cei care au murit au fots sponaiolii... care au trebuit pana s aurma s ase poarte relativ politicos cu apasii .... iar comansii ... comansii pe care spaniolii ii tarau de moarte ii :tundeau" pe spanili de cate pri ii aveau la indemana!!!! Da ma rog astea erau triburi bravos sau mai preis ci i9ncorect necivilizati. Adica ramsi in stadiul de vanatori culegatori cu ceva agricultura primitiva complet "inutili" coloniastului (incasi, mayasii, aztecii, nu. Erau "civilizati" adica avusesera niste state ale lor ,,, in car eerau clase superioare care erau servite de clasele inferioare. A da. Ultimul urmas oficial a lui Montezuma a murity la Madrid.. era duce, grande de Spania, fots presedinte al Consililului Indiilor de Vest, un ins f respectat ptr nobletea sa - ca deh era descendent din Montezuma care fusese echivalata cu un imparat!!! La curte decendentii lui Cortez trebuyiasu sa ii dea prioritate .... )

Da cum ziceam - in cea mai mare parte mortii prin epidemii nu au fost rezultataul unei actiuni constiente. Ca nu uitati din America  au venit dintai sifilisul si de abia apoi tabacu, tomata, porumbu si cartofu. Si in sec XVI sifilisu devenise o problema gravisima (Francisc I ul - sifilitic, Carol V si Filip sifilitici si ei ... ca sa zic cazurile cele mai grave. Ca sifilisu pe vrremea aia se cam termina cu unu nervos si cand un rege ajungea sisi .... apai lua niste decizii care azi risca sa dea batai de cap istoricilor!!! De ce? Da daca era sisi?! SI el si 4/5 dintre curteni?!)

#52
searcher-star

searcher-star

    Guru Member

  • Grup: Senior Members
  • Posts: 22,274
  • Înscris: 07.01.2009

View PostGhita_Bizonu, on 24 decembrie 2013 - 14:16, said:

A da. Ultimul urmas oficial a lui Montezuma a murity la Madrid.. era duce, grande de Spania, fots presedinte al Consililului Indiilor de Vest, un ins f respectat ptr nobletea sa - ca deh era descendent din Montezuma care fusese echivalata cu un imparat!!! La curte decendentii lui Cortez trebuyiasu sa ii dea prioritate .... )
Corect.
Multe printese aztece si incase s-au maritat cu Granzi de Spania.
Unii precum printul Ixtlilxochitl au fost istorici respectati.
Indienii din Tlaxcala aveau toti grad de Hidalgo.

Edited by searcher-star, 27 December 2013 - 14:37.


#53
searcher-star

searcher-star

    Guru Member

  • Grup: Senior Members
  • Posts: 22,274
  • Înscris: 07.01.2009
http://www.archaeolo...description.pdf
PRECONTACT POPULATION DECLINE AND COALESCENCE IN THE SOUTHERN SOUTHWEST
The Phoenix Basin was the heartland of the Hohokam regional system for nearly a millennium.
Population decline began well before European diseases could have been a causal factor.
The decline is especially dramatic in the southern Southwest (Figure 6). Populations in this region began a decline shortly after 1300, and by 1450 archaeologically visible populations had virtually disappeared from this region.

Deja, n-au fost niciodata mai mult de 150.000 insi in culturile de sate intarite sapate in stanca din Arizona si New Mexico.
Dar apoi, au inceput sa scada numeric dupa anii 1300-1350.
Nu-i sigur ce-a fost acolo.
Exista teorii ca norvegienii au pastrat legaturile cu America de maniera continua de la Leif incolo, si ca de fapt Ciuma ar fi ajuns si ea cu ei acolo in 1350. Ar fi responsabila de pieirea Mound Builders sau a astora din SV SUA.
Exista piatra aia cu text runic din Minessotta, denuntata de unii ca fiind fals ca are un text crestin si e sapata cu un tip de dalta care nu s-a folosit in Norvegia decat dupa 1200.
Dar eu zic ca e ok, daca a fost vorba de niscaiva negustori norvegieni crestini de la 1340-50, de ce nu?
In definitiv sunt si semne templiere destule... si egptene, feniciene, megalitice, ebraice, Greco-romane...

Edited by searcher-star, 04 February 2014 - 10:21.


#54
searcher-star

searcher-star

    Guru Member

  • Grup: Senior Members
  • Posts: 22,274
  • Înscris: 07.01.2009
Pre-Columbian Indians ''Purchased'' Women By War

Analysis of grave sites from pre-Hispanic times in Southwest United States has revealed a disproportionate sex ratio in the favor of women during periods of high violence, pointing how prolonged warfare influences demographics.
This study is the first to research the demographic movement of women in pre-Columbian America.
"Warfare is common in small- and intermediate-scale societies all over the world, now and in prehistory. Capturing women was often either a goal, or a by-product, of such conflict," says archaeologist Tim Kohler (Washington State U.)

Kohler and Kathryn Kramer Turner (U.S. Forest Service) studied 1,353 human remains from ancient grave sites in one of the most renown pre-Columbian sites in North America, belonging to Pueblo culture : the awesome 11th-century ruins in Chaco Canyon, New Mexico, and a related 13th-century site to the north called Aztec (photo).
Meanwhile, the researchers observed that many sites from the same time period in the Mesa Verde region in Southwest Colorado ( just north of the Aztec site) revealed a much lower women ratio than they should.
The imbalanced ratio between women and men could have been provoked by non-coercive movement, like women migrating toward elites or the recruitment of women as specialized guild producing prized stuffs, such as jewelry or pottery.
But this unusual phenomenon is correlated with a time of high young men mortality, pointing towards a war period.
"Given the mirror symmetry of their sex ratios in the 1200s and the elevated death rates among young people in both areas, we suggest that societies in the Totah (which encompasses the Aztec site) obtained these women from Northern San Juan societies to the northwest through raiding and abduction," said Kohler.
Another signs also would indicate that many women were war prisoners or enslaved: some in the Aztec area were not buried in the usual respectful manner and many of the women bones carry signs of an abused life.

Edited by searcher-star, 01 April 2014 - 08:29.


Anunturi

Second Opinion Second Opinion

Folosind serviciul second opinion ne puteți trimite RMN-uri, CT -uri, angiografii, fișiere .pdf, documente medicale.

Astfel vă vom putea da o opinie neurochirurgicală, fără ca aceasta să poată înlocui un consult de specialitate. Răspunsurile vor fi date prin e-mail în cel mai scurt timp posibil (de obicei în mai putin de 24 de ore, dar nu mai mult de 48 de ore). Second opinion – Neurohope este un serviciu gratuit.

www.neurohope.ro

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Forumul Softpedia foloseste "cookies" pentru a imbunatati experienta utilizatorilor Accept
Pentru detalii si optiuni legate de cookies si datele personale, consultati Politica de utilizare cookies si Politica de confidentialitate