|
Post by glennkoks on Oct 21, 2015 21:23:23 GMT
Sigurdur, Archaeological evidence does not necessarily agree with the oral history. Violence has been a part of our history since we stood upright. This from the link provided: "Human skeletons from as early as the Woodland Period (250 B.C. to A.D. 900) show occasional marks of violence, but conflict intensified during and after the thirteenth century, by which time farmers were well established in the Plains. After 1250, villages were often destroyed by fire, and human skeletons regularly show marks of violence, scalping, and other mutilations. Warfare was most intense along the Missouri River in the present-day Dakotas, where ancestors of the Mandans, Hidatsas, and Arikaras were at war with each other, and towns inhabited by as many as 1,000 people were often fortified with ditch and palisade defenses." plainshumanities.unl.edu/encyclopedia/doc/egp.war.023
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Oct 22, 2015 14:01:29 GMT
Sigurdur, Archaeological evidence does not necessarily agree with the oral history. Violence has been a part of our history since we stood upright. This from the link provided: "Human skeletons from as early as the Woodland Period (250 B.C. to A.D. 900) show occasional marks of violence, but conflict intensified during and after the thirteenth century, by which time farmers were well established in the Plains. After 1250, villages were often destroyed by fire, and human skeletons regularly show marks of violence, scalping, and other mutilations. Warfare was most intense along the Missouri River in the present-day Dakotas, where ancestors of the Mandans, Hidatsas, and Arikaras were at war with each other, and towns inhabited by as many as 1,000 people were often fortified with ditch and palisade defenses." plainshumanities.unl.edu/encyclopedia/doc/egp.war.023Interesting that as the Little Ice Age started violence broke out in the plains.
|
|
|
Post by glennkoks on Oct 22, 2015 14:24:32 GMT
Sigurdur, Archaeological evidence does not necessarily agree with the oral history. Violence has been a part of our history since we stood upright. This from the link provided: "Human skeletons from as early as the Woodland Period (250 B.C. to A.D. 900) show occasional marks of violence, but conflict intensified during and after the thirteenth century, by which time farmers were well established in the Plains. After 1250, villages were often destroyed by fire, and human skeletons regularly show marks of violence, scalping, and other mutilations. Warfare was most intense along the Missouri River in the present-day Dakotas, where ancestors of the Mandans, Hidatsas, and Arikaras were at war with each other, and towns inhabited by as many as 1,000 people were often fortified with ditch and palisade defenses." plainshumanities.unl.edu/encyclopedia/doc/egp.war.023Interesting that as the Little Ice Age started violence broke out in the plains. Nautonnier, Great point
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Oct 22, 2015 14:41:29 GMT
Sigurdur, Archaeological evidence does not necessarily agree with the oral history. Violence has been a part of our history since we stood upright. This from the link provided: "Human skeletons from as early as the Woodland Period (250 B.C. to A.D. 900) show occasional marks of violence, but conflict intensified during and after the thirteenth century, by which time farmers were well established in the Plains. After 1250, villages were often destroyed by fire, and human skeletons regularly show marks of violence, scalping, and other mutilations. Warfare was most intense along the Missouri River in the present-day Dakotas, where ancestors of the Mandans, Hidatsas, and Arikaras were at war with each other, and towns inhabited by as many as 1,000 people were often fortified with ditch and palisade defenses." plainshumanities.unl.edu/encyclopedia/doc/egp.war.023Interesting that as the Little Ice Age started violence broke out in the plains. Yes indeed! The disappearance of a rich indian culture in the southwest during the 14th century, leaving behind many cliff dwellings that survive to this day has probably been most attributed to drought. Cold brings drought. The wars in the plains could have been due to migrants (refugees) from the southwest. So far in California El Nino brought summer rain that is extremely scarce here, but last winter despite the very warm waters we had last winter we got little rain out of it and no relief from the drought that simply has continued to get worse. So with little longterm research into all this the question is if this "super" El Nino is going to bring rain this winter or if because of solar or other ocean changes we are entering into an extended period of drought. p.s. the above should be sufficient evidence to consider the science settled if anybody can figure out how to attribute an athropogenic cause to all this.
|
|
|
Post by walnut on Oct 22, 2015 15:23:41 GMT
Yep, but in the southern plains I've read that it was a somewhat developed nation, large and having trading partners all over the continent. From Wikipedia "The Kincaid Site as it may have looked at its peak"
|
|
|
Post by walnut on Oct 22, 2015 16:16:32 GMT
We have a similar site here in eastern Oklahoma: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spiro_MoundsDecline Spiro’s decline as a population center began about 1250, although it continued to be a ceremonial and mortuary center until 1450.[13] The mound area was abandoned about 1450, although nearby communities persisted until 1600.[4] The cultures following in the wake of Spiro, however, were less complex and hierarchical. ( Little Ice Age victims probably true reason. The Mississipian culture declined.)
|
|
|
Post by walnut on Oct 23, 2015 1:22:23 GMT
Their "nation" if that's what it was, was spread out over many thousands of square miles.
But that is what is interesting about this, isn't it? This is relatively recent history- a few hundred years ago, and yet it is really hard to imagine what things were like here then. Not sure anyone living today really knows for sure.
For that matter, we have only the vaguest idea what was happening with the humans only 12,000 years ago. What about 100,000 years ago? Still not really that long ago.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Oct 23, 2015 2:05:17 GMT
The older one gets the more one realizes that 12,000 years isn't a long time.
|
|
|
Post by walnut on Oct 23, 2015 13:43:54 GMT
I think I had noticed some similarities also when I read about them earlier but had forgotten that.
|
|
|
Post by walnut on Oct 23, 2015 13:55:12 GMT
The older one gets the more one realizes that 12,000 years isn't a long time. I have read that Jericho was already at least 5000 years old when the Israelites attacked it in the Old testament. The deeper they dig, they just keep finding deeper walls and buildings. The city has been around since the end of the Pleistocene.
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Oct 23, 2015 16:55:54 GMT
The older one gets the more one realizes that 12,000 years isn't a long time. I have read that Jericho was already at least 5000 years old when the Israelites attacked it in the Old testament. The deeper they dig, they just keep finding deeper walls and buildings. The city has been around since the end of the Pleistocene. You should read 'Forbidden Archaeology'. Some very interesting points that are like an archaeological version of Climategate
|
|
|
Post by acidohm on Oct 23, 2015 22:09:12 GMT
Ancient Archaeology was a big interest of mine 15 years ago.
There are many unanswerable questions, many misunderstandings and I suspect a dominant authority who won't change their point of view and preach their version incessantly......
I do not think we can adequately describe what happened in our past nor ever will...
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Oct 24, 2015 1:08:38 GMT
Ancient Archaeology was a big interest of mine 15 years ago. There are many unanswerable questions, many misunderstandings and I suspect a dominant authority who won't change their point of view and preach their version incessantly...... I do not think we can adequately describe what happened in our past nor ever will... Forbidden Archaeology takes that further with human tools underneath rock layers laid down well before humans are considered to have been around as tool makers. It seems that there are/were Michael Mann clones in archaeology who get 'facts' adopted by force of debate rather than from observation. Same in nutrition with Ancel Keys. I distrust science now having worked in research with academics. Only trust engineers never scientists.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Oct 25, 2015 3:35:56 GMT
Things continue to get nuttier all the time.
|
|
|
Post by walnut on Oct 25, 2015 4:13:03 GMT
Yep, I agree, as it turns out, the whole thing seems bogus.
|
|