Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [Precolumbian_Inscriptions] Re: maya in ga?

Expand Messages
  • aumsparky@earthlink.net
    cayce gave a clue on dating mexican sites, by saying blood sacrifice began circa 3000 bce. those having no sign of this could be before that date, while those
    Message 1 of 15 , Dec 30, 2011
    • 0 Attachment
       
         cayce gave a clue on dating mexican sites, by saying blood sacrifice began circa 3000 bce.  those having no sign of this could be before that date, while those with signs are likely after.  it would seem there are sites there dating near 50,000 bce.  based on the accepted dates, our lads have no reliable dating method.  the pyramid of the giants at cholula is far older than thought, imho.  some of the idols, and faces of deities found south on the isthmus, are identical to those of the maya, but older.  even the dates read on stela can be dead wrong, if a different start of long-count was intended. 
         dr tshudi made it very clear that extreme dolichocephalic skulls were the natural anatomy of man near 10,000 bce and before.  dating murals with such features to 600 ce seems very much in error.  it seems unlikely the ruling class could maintain racial purity that long without major defects. 
         the experts say the giant round heads from vera cruz are olmec, and also the figurines on the plateau with extreme elongated skulls.  that seems unlikely, confusing two different races and eras.  the olmec were likely from the lemurian stock, but those relics may be widely separated in time.  the lemurians, as seen on the pacific basin, are of brown and black race, large lips, and wide nose.  like the aymara, they seem to have had elongated skulls, but that skull anatomy wasnt noted at angkor wat, but there were the other features.  its easier to get to angkor wat now, than it was when i went there, and the cost is lower.  i may go back, so much more to see.  i better do it soon, while i can still get around ok.  there is a 4star hotel near the ruins that is a bargain that i want to try for a week.  travel is a wonderful thing that all should do.  its not that costly to lots of interesting places. 
       
      mike
       
       
       
      ----- Original Message -----
      Sent: Friday, December 30, 2011 6:30 AM
      Subject: Re: [Precolumbian_Inscriptions] Re: maya in ga?

       

       
         mexico and peru had a dense population for long ages.  we should expect that these high cultures had explored and perhaps settled in portions that are now usa.  they both had a passion for conquest and expansion.  they likely knew of the superior copper long ago.  trade must have brought contact throughout both continents.  there was no ocean to cross.  mexico and peru share many similarities, basic quichua was spoken in both, the armor, etc.  look how close mexico is to the mouth of the mississippi.  the first man would have explored it. 
         cayce said peruvians settled yucatan circa 3000 bce, actually added to the mixture.  he places inca in ohio, circa 10,000 bce, and maybe 3000 bce, with the atlanteans.  each can give that as much weight as seems fair. 
         voyagers brought bamboo into the carolinas.  there are two varieties in the americas, in peru and in mexico.  one must have made a colony.  the usa was easily explored from mexico, coastal along the gulf, the miss. to the arkansas, ohio, and the missouri - would cover lots of territory.  trade would been easy by river.  produce in missouri could float to verz cruz with little effort.  our ancient farmers no doubt sold food to mexico, or in trade.  maybe even sold some bison. 
         since the codices were burned, we must use common sense, then what others teach.  it would be more strange if they made no such contact. 
         it seems like the inca expansion caused many tribes to leave peru.  this may have happened thousands of years earlier than our lads declare.  i believe the inca rocca was a giant, as were those before him, and he even led armies into amazonia.  most would conquer those contiguous, before going into the jungle by boats, to fight headhunters with poison darts.  that may have been nearer 7000 bce.  the logistics of feeding an army on the river would be difficult. 
         the aztec sacrificed people, which may have sent people fleeing north.  it seems our lads mix-up aztec, maya, and toltec.  now they report that it was the maya culture at teotihuacan.  it may be better to think the maya were the masses in each age, and themselves a mixture of earlier nations.  are we certain there is a difference in the masses in each age, even though the rulers were of a different race.  are not the religion and language basically the same? 
         just my two cents ...
       
      mike
       
       

    • JohnR
      Years ago--about 76--our class in Arky traveled through MS, GA, AR visiting mounds, etc. Poverty Point and the Natchez mounds were part of our itinerary. As
      Message 2 of 15 , Dec 30, 2011
      • 0 Attachment
        Years ago--about '76--our class in Arky traveled through MS, GA, AR visiting mounds, etc. Poverty Point and the Natchez mounds were part of our itinerary. As I remember, through a smokey veil of time, a nearby French settlement wiped out the Natchez villages, killing and burning, and the people who survived were believed to have joined other native americans in the area, though some were captured by the French and sold into slavery and sent to the Caribbean. Turtle

        --- In Precolumbian_Inscriptions@yahoogroups.com, "bigalemc2" <sgtti@...> wrote:
        >
        > The Frenchman's name was du Pratz, not du Prez. Sorry!
        >
        >
        > --- In Precolumbian_Inscriptions@yahoogroups.com, "bigalemc2"
        > <sgtti@> wrote:
        > >
        > > I agree wholeheartedly. Cool item.
        > >
        > > Something vague in my head from reading of Cayce and the mound
        > builders
        > > a good while back is that some the peoples of the Yucatan moved up did
        > > move to SE the U.S. I may be wrong on that, so I will look it up if I
        > > can. What the timing was, I can't recall, but I will find it out.
        > >
        > > I was happy to see the mention of the Natchez in the article. A
        > Natchez
        > > chief in the 1700s told a French fur trader, du Prez I think his name
        > > was, that the Natchez came up from the Sierra Madre Oriental mountains
        > > in E/NE Mexico, around northern Veracruz or Tamaulipas (also mentioned
        > > in the article), where they had gotten tired of defending themselves
        > > for a long time against the Aztecs/Teohtihuacans. Again, the timing I
        > > will have to look up, but I am virtually certain it was right in that
        > > time period or very close.
        > >
        > > The Natchez settled around Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama in and
        > > around the waterways, up to Arkansas - kind of close to northern
        > Georgia
        > > but not quite. And the Natchez were almost certainly Huastecans, not
        > > Mayans.
        > >
        > > I do think the Natchez princes were referred to as "Great Suns," which
        > > is mentioned in the article, too.
        > >
        > > I am also encouraged that the archeologists discuss the abandonment of
        > > the Mayan cities, too. Just speculating, but it seems they may have
        > > been hassled by the Teotihuacans, too, and may have left for the same
        > > reason the Natchez did. Being as their cities had no fortifications
        > > (not that I know of), they would have been very vulnerable. At least
        > > the Natchez had the mountains, so they used them to fight off the
        > > invaders from their SW. The Mayans didn't have any natural defenses.
        > >
        > > Yeah, this is a really good development!
        > >
        > > Steve Garcia
        > >
        > > P.S. Do also read the sequel at Mayas in the U.S. controversy - You
        > be
        > > the juror
        > >
        > <http://www.examiner.com/architecture-design-in-national/mayas-the-usa-c\
        > \
        > > ontroversy-you-be-the-juror?cid=PROD-redesign-right-next> . I threw
        > my
        > > two cents in!
        > >
        > >
        > > --- In Precolumbian_Inscriptions@yahoogroups.com, "dcampbell75479"
        > > fred-dobbs@ wrote:
        > > >
        > > > That's a fascinating article, Mike. I ran across it yesterday at
        > > another list. About a year ago I corresponded with Richard Thornton on
        > a
        > > project of mine. He has a whole slew of similar articles on the
        > Examiner
        > > which I suggest you check out.
        > > >
        > > > --- In Precolumbian_Inscriptions@yahoogroups.com, aumsparky@ wrote:
        > > > >
        > > > >
        > > > > mayan ruins near blairsville, ga
        > > > >
        > > > >
        > >
        > http://www.examiner.com/architecture-design-in-national/massive-1-100-ye\
        > \
        > > ar-old-maya-site-discovered-georgia-s-mountains
        > > > >
        > > > > mike
        > > > >
        > > >
        > >
        >
      • bigalemc2
        Glad you appreciated the bits about the Natchez. It had been something I d never thought about, but Ed Grondine had the full text of du Pratz s account in his
        Message 3 of 15 , Dec 30, 2011
        • 0 Attachment
          Glad you appreciated the bits about the Natchez.  It had been something I'd never thought about, but Ed Grondine had the full text of du Pratz's account in his book "Man and Impact in the Americas", and I thought it made a lot of sense.

          At the same time, when you first think about it, it seems counter intuitive that migrations would be out of Mesoamerica northward, since the original migration into the Americas was out of the northwest, southward.  Paleo-Indians coming down from Beringia would not likely set out across to the east, because staying along the coast afforded them fish and reasonable hunting.  Eastward were mountains and - if they got far inland enough - desert and scablands.  It would not have been the most enticing direction.  (In the 1800s, if Lewis & Clark and then the Gold Rush had not given people a reasonable goal on the far side of the Great Plains,  would anyone have ever set out across it?)

          The farther south the trans-Beringians trekked the better then climate became, if they stayed along the coast.  By the time they reached Mexico, the lands eastward were not so imposing.  The mountains were less intimidating, and the climate inland is some of the best in the world.  There are scores and scores of indigenous peoples in current-day Mexico, suggesting that groups of people decided to just stay where they were, while others continued southward.  Panama - if it was anything like today - would have presented more or less a stopping point for most who still had wanted to explore farther southward.

          But as someone who has spent a decent amount of time in central Mexico and along the Pacific coast, I'd say that Mesoamerica was definitely the place to stop and put down roots.  For any of you who (like I used to) think that Mexico is a big hot, dusty desert until you get to the hot, steamy jungle of the Yucatan, nothing can be further from the truth.  The climate of the Central Valley of Mexico is a close second to the climate of Hawaii.  It is as close to heaven on Earth as is possible to get, climate-wise.  With its volcanic soils, it is also exceedingly fecund.

          It makes perfect sense to me that some of the most developed cities on Earth 1,000 years ago were in Mexico.  Populations would increase where agriculture was most successful.  Along the coasts north of Mexico there was only a thin strip of good land between the Pacific and the desert, except perhaps inland from San Fransisco bay along the Russian River.  But Mexico offered a much greater agricultural upside than anyplace else.

          At the same time, it also makes sense that, over time, there would be trouble in paradise, and that some would find reason to leave for other shores.  Putting myself in their shoes, what would I have done, if the neighboring cities became too aggressive?

          The Natchez account shows that some just took off in search of a less threatening place to call home.  The Huastecans in NE Mexico, with the Aztecs/Teotihuacans dominating the center and south, the obvious direction to migrate would be northward.   That may seem to be counter-intuitive, that migratinos would be to the north, when the main migration was FROM the north.  But this was several thousand years later.  It might also be the BEST route to the eastern part of North America.  It was not so likely that many would endure the Rocky Mountains and the Great American Desert which was the Great Plains.  It may have taken a few millennia, but going around to the south makes some sense. 

          (Yes, there is evidence of hunters in Clovis, NM and other areas of the Great Plains.  But at the same time, agriculture was not possible, not without trekking another thousand miles to the east from Clovis - and how many would have made that journey willingly?  A few did, because we have sites in PA and VA.  And those might have populated those areas - but evidently that didn't happen.  Population centers didn't happen until the Olmecs, thousand miles to the south and thousands of years later.)

          For the Mayans, with Panama being again a bit of a barrier, and with the Aztecs/Teotihuacans to the west and north on the mainland, their evacuation choices would have seemed limited.  Going north on the mainland would have taken them right into the Huastecan areas then being invaded and harrassed - right into the teeth of it, in fact - so that direction was not available.  And if they did have the large boats on the coast of the Yucatan spoken of in the article, I am sure the captains of the ships would have experience of Cuba (only 75 miles from the mainland) and - very likely even knowledge of a large land beyond Cuba.  It would have been no great sailing feat to take a seaworthy boat to Florida for refugees seeking an escape from the aggressors to their west.  

          Once there, Florida would have fairly closely fit the climate of those who lived in the Yucatan very nicely.   People looking for a new place would most likely try to find a land with a climate that approximates that in the land they came from; they would have brought seeds of crops and they would need a similar climate for those crops.   Certainly it is possible that some would have remained in Cuba, eventually to populate the other Caribbean islands.  The Taino that Columbus found surely must have come originally from the mainland, either of South America or the Yucatan.  Those who stayed the course northward would have found a land as inviting as the one they'd come from.  The elevated area in and around the Great Smokies has a climate much milder than the Yucatan, Florida or the eastern coastal plains of Georgia and the Carolinas.  I can see why the journey would end there for those who eventually built Etowah and Yupaha/Brasstown Bald.  Even if it was too cold for their Yucatan crops, they would have found good hunting and other domesticatable plants.  At the same time, the terraces at Brasstown Bald suggest grains that need flat terrain, and perhaps they were able to adapt their plants well enough.

          Nothing of what I just wrote is backed up by a whole lot except my imagination.  But as far as migrations go, that one wouldn't have been one of the more difficult ones.

          Steve
          --- In Precolumbian_Inscriptions@yahoogroups.com, "dcampbell75479" <fred-dobbs@...> wrote:
          >
          > Interesting comments on the Natchez and Huastecans. A few years back a friend on another list sent me a book containing many Indian origin traditions and the Natchez were treated at some length. This was the first time I remember reading anything conclusive about Mesoamerican migrations, though I had always strongly suspected contact based upon artifacts and motifs. In reviewing some very vintage copies of the Texas Archeological Bulletins, I found that the Mesoamerican/Southeast Temple Mound Builders connection was being made back in the early '30's. I think such contact is now accepted by many, though not to the extent that this article suggests. The modification of existing stone formations makes more sense than outright megalithic architecture. The Mayas did much the same throughout thier heartland which was full of limestone hills and caverns. Architectural modification of similar features in North America dates back to Paleoindian times.
          >
          > --- In Precolumbian_Inscriptions@yahoogroups.com, "bigalemc2" sgtti@ wrote:
          > >
          > > I agree wholeheartedly. Cool item.
          > >
          > > Something vague in my head from reading of Cayce and the mound builders
          > > a good while back is that some the peoples of the Yucatan moved up did
          > > move to SE the U.S. I may be wrong on that, so I will look it up if I
          > > can. What the timing was, I can't recall, but I will find it out.
          > >
          > > I was happy to see the mention of the Natchez in the article. A Natchez
          > > chief in the 1700s told a French fur trader, du Prez I think his name
          > > was, that the Natchez came up from the Sierra Madre Oriental mountains
          > > in E/NE Mexico, around northern Veracruz or Tamaulipas (also mentioned
          > > in the article), where they had gotten tired of defending themselves
          > > for a long time against the Aztecs/Teohtihuacans. Again, the timing I
          > > will have to look up, but I am virtually certain it was right in that
          > > time period or very close.
          > >
          > > The Natchez settled around Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama in and
          > > around the waterways, up to Arkansas - kind of close to northern Georgia
          > > but not quite. And the Natchez were almost certainly Huastecans, not
          > > Mayans.
          > >
          > > I do think the Natchez princes were referred to as "Great Suns," which
          > > is mentioned in the article, too.
          > >
          > > I am also encouraged that the archeologists discuss the abandonment of
          > > the Mayan cities, too. Just speculating, but it seems they may have
          > > been hassled by the Teotihuacans, too, and may have left for the same
          > > reason the Natchez did. Being as their cities had no fortifications
          > > (not that I know of), they would have been very vulnerable. At least
          > > the Natchez had the mountains, so they used them to fight off the
          > > invaders from their SW. The Mayans didn't have any natural defenses.
          > >
          > > Yeah, this is a really good development!
          > >
          > > Steve Garcia
          > >
          > > P.S. Do also read the sequel at Mayas in the U.S. controversy - You be
          > > the juror
          > > <http://www.examiner.com/architecture-design-in-national/mayas-the-usa-c\
          > > ontroversy-you-be-the-juror?cid=PROD-redesign-right-next> . I threw my
          > > two cents in!
          > >
          > >
          > > --- In Precolumbian_Inscriptions@yahoogroups.com, "dcampbell75479"
          > > <fred-dobbs@> wrote:
          > > >
          > > > That's a fascinating article, Mike. I ran across it yesterday at
          > > another list. About a year ago I corresponded with Richard Thornton on a
          > > project of mine. He has a whole slew of similar articles on the Examiner
          > > which I suggest you check out.
          > > >
          > > > --- In Precolumbian_Inscriptions@yahoogroups.com, aumsparky@ wrote:
          > > > >
          > > > >
          > > > > mayan ruins near blairsville, ga
          > > > >
          > > > >
          > > http://www.examiner.com/architecture-design-in-national/massive-1-100-ye\
          > > ar-old-maya-site-discovered-georgia-s-mountains
          > > > >
          > > > > mike
          > > > >
          > > >
          > >
          >
        • bigalemc2
          Mike - All good points for discussion. Certainly the Superior copper mines are an important factor. Don t forget how close Mexico was to the mouth of the
          Message 4 of 15 , Dec 30, 2011
          • 0 Attachment
            Mike -

            All good points for discussion.

            Certainly the Superior copper mines are an important factor.

            Don't forget how close Mexico "was" to the mouth of the Mississippi
            before the Mexican-American war. In pre-Columbian times where did
            Mesoamerica end?

            As to food being sold TO Mexico, if anything I'd think it was the other
            way around. Mexico feeds itself quite well, and I suppose that has been
            true since the first people settled there. I have a good deal of
            experience visiting there, and I was amazed at both the climate and the
            amount of land under cultivation. And I would want to inquire if food
            was a major trade item when foods had to last the entire journey without
            spoilage.

            You are right, it was not the Mayans at Teotihuacan. The Natchez
            account does not call them Aztecs, but mentions the pyramids there, so I
            interpret them to be the Aztec/Teotihuacans. And even that isn't
            correct, as I recall, becaue the pyramids at Teotihuacan were supposed
            to have been built by others who preceded the Aztecs, weren't they?
            Still, the ongoing aggression at that time by the ones from that
            direction leaves little doubt in my mind that the Natchez were referring
            to the Aztecs.

            As to the Mayans being the Joe Main Streets of their age, as you say, it
            is your two cents - especially how they had little in common with the
            chiefs. It does seem, however, that the people of the Mayan region of
            SE Mexico, Guatemala, and Belize have definite facial features that are
            pretty striking and unlike features in areas to the west, if not also
            north.

            ...my two cents...

            Steve Garcia

            P.S. FYI, in spite of my last name, I am only about 25% hispanic and
            was raised in the midwest, at a time before the big influx. I learned
            what Spanish I know in high school (not much) and what I picked up (much
            more), and cannot claim to be good at it - yet.



            --- In Precolumbian_Inscriptions@yahoogroups.com, <aumsparky@...> wrote:
            >
            >
            > mexico and peru had a dense population for long ages. we should
            expect that these high cultures had explored and perhaps settled in
            portions that are now usa. they both had a passion for conquest and
            expansion. they likely knew of the superior copper long ago. trade
            must have brought contact throughout both continents. there was no
            ocean to cross. mexico and peru share many similarities, basic quichua
            was spoken in both, the armor, etc. look how close mexico is to the
            mouth of the mississippi. the first man would have explored it.
            > cayce said peruvians settled yucatan circa 3000 bce, actually added
            to the mixture. he places inca in ohio, circa 10,000 bce, and maybe
            3000 bce, with the atlanteans. each can give that as much weight as
            seems fair.
            > voyagers brought bamboo into the carolinas. there are two
            varieties in the americas, in peru and in mexico. one must have made a
            colony. the usa was easily explored from mexico, coastal along the
            gulf, the miss. to the arkansas, ohio, and the missouri - would cover
            lots of territory. trade would been easy by river. produce in missouri
            could float to verz cruz with little effort. our ancient farmers no
            doubt sold food to mexico, or in trade. maybe even sold some bison.
            > since the codices were burned, we must use common sense, then what
            others teach. it would be more strange if they made no such contact.
            > it seems like the inca expansion caused many tribes to leave peru.
            this may have happened thousands of years earlier than our lads declare.
            i believe the inca rocca was a giant, as were those before him, and he
            even led armies into amazonia. most would conquer those contiguous,
            before going into the jungle by boats, to fight headhunters with poison
            darts. that may have been nearer 7000 bce. the logistics of feeding an
            army on the river would be difficult.
            > the aztec sacrificed people, which may have sent people fleeing
            north. it seems our lads mix-up aztec, maya, and toltec. now they
            report that it was the maya culture at teotihuacan. it may be better to
            think the maya were the masses in each age, and themselves a mixture of
            earlier nations. are we certain there is a difference in the masses in
            each age, even though the rulers were of a different race. are not the
            religion and language basically the same?
            > just my two cents ...
            >
            > mike
            >
          • aumsparky@earthlink.net
            each to their own opinion. many have discarded the beringian walk theory from asia, since the oldest sites of man were in our southeast, and in south america.
            Message 5 of 15 , Dec 30, 2011
            • 0 Attachment
               
                 each to their own opinion.  many have discarded the beringian walk theory from asia, since the oldest sites of man were in our southeast, and in south america.  no older sites have been found in alaska or siberia.  how many of our tribes are of the yellow race?  none grew rice or made silk.  i dont see any clovis sites in the lower midwest. 
               
              http://images.search.yahoo.com/images/view?back=http%3A%2F%2Fsearch.yahoo.com%2Fsearch%3Fei%3DUTF-8%26p%3Dclovis%2Bsites%2Bmap&w=142&h=160&imgurl=www.bing.com%2Fimages%2Fsearch%3Fq%3Dclovis%2Bsites%2Bmap%23focal%3D7cc2d263bfe5728d744f01776b25ff28%26furl%3Dhttp%253a%252f%252fwww.archaeology.org%252fonline%252ffeatures%252fclovis%252fjpegs%252fmap2.gif&size=&name=search&rcurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.bing.com%2Fimages%2Fsearch%3Fq%3Dclovis%2Bsites%2Bmap%23focal%3D7cc2d263bfe5728d744f01776b25ff28%26furl%3Dhttp%253a%252f%252fwww.archaeology.org%252fonline%252ffeatures%252fclovis%252fjpegs%252fmap2.gif&rurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.bing.com%2Fimages%2Fsearch%3Fq%3Dclovis%2Bsites%2Bmap%23focal%3D7cc2d263bfe5728d744f01776b25ff28%26furl%3Dhttp%253a%252f%252fwww.archaeology.org%252fonline%252ffeatures%252fclovis%252fjpegs%252fmap2.gif&p=clovis+sites+map&type=&no=4&tt=115&oid=http%3A%2F%2Fts2.mm.bing.net%2Fimages%2Fthumbnail.aspx%3Fq%3D1515710055577%26id%3D9fd24020b9912eae1dd905feeab78b7a&tit=until+1997+no+site+was+widely+accepted+as+pre+dating+the+clovis+...&sigr=15ha3bel4&sigi=15adm2uv6&sigb=11q7t5du9&fr=b1ie7
               
                 i saw people in taos nm that looked much like the aymara of bolivia.  our plain indians could have come up from mexico or peru, the change in diet to bison might change features fairly fast.  if man were slow to adapt, he could not have survived thru the changes the earth has undergone.  
               
              mike
               
               
               
              ----- Original Message -----
              From: bigalemc2
              Sent: Friday, December 30, 2011 5:55 PM
              Subject: [Precolumbian_Inscriptions] Re: maya in ga?

               

              Glad you appreciated the bits about the Natchez.  It had been something I'd never thought about, but Ed Grondine had the full text of du Pratz's account in his book "Man and Impact in the Americas", and I thought it made a lot of sense.

              At the same time, when you first think about it, it seems counter intuitive that migrations would be out of Mesoamerica northward, since the original migration into the Americas was out of the northwest, southward.  Paleo-Indians coming down from Beringia would not likely set out across to the east, because staying along the coast afforded them fish and reasonable hunting.  Eastward were mountains and - if they got far inland enough - desert and scablands.  It would not have been the most enticing direction.  (In the 1800s, if Lewis & Clark and then the Gold Rush had not given people a reasonable goal on the far side of the Great Plains,  would anyone have ever set out across it?)

              The farther south the trans-Beringians trekked the better then climate became, if they stayed along the coast.  By the time they reached Mexico, the lands eastward were not so imposing.  The mountains were less intimidating, and the climate inland is some of the best in the world.  There are scores and scores of indigenous peoples in current-day Mexico, suggesting that groups of people decided to just stay where they were, while others continued southward.  Panama - if it was anything like today - would have presented more or less a stopping point for most who still had wanted to explore farther southward.

              But as someone who has spent a decent amount of time in central Mexico and along the Pacific coast, I'd say that Mesoamerica was definitely the place to stop and put down roots.  For any of you who (like I used to) think that Mexico is a big hot, dusty desert until you get to the hot, steamy jungle of the Yucatan, nothing can be further from the truth.  The climate of the Central Valley of Mexico is a close second to the climate of Hawaii.  It is as close to heaven on Earth as is possible to get, climate-wise.  With its volcanic soils, it is also exceedingly fecund.

              It makes perfect sense to me that some of the most developed cities on Earth 1,000 years ago were in Mexico.  Populations would increase where agriculture was most successful.  Along the coasts north of Mexico there was only a thin strip of good land between the Pacific and the desert, except perhaps inland from San Fransisco bay along the Russian River.  But Mexico offered a much greater agricultural upside than anyplace else.

              At the same time, it also makes sense that, over time, there would be trouble in paradise, and that some would find reason to leave for other shores.  Putting myself in their shoes, what would I have done, if the neighboring cities became too aggressive?

              The Natchez account shows that some just took off in search of a less threatening place to call home.  The Huastecans in NE Mexico, with the Aztecs/Teotihuacans dominating the center and south, the obvious direction to migrate would be northward.   That may seem to be counter-intuitive, that migratinos would be to the north, when the main migration was FROM the north.  But this was several thousand years later.  It might also be the BEST route to the eastern part of North America.  It was not so likely that many would endure the Rocky Mountains and the Great American Desert which was the Great Plains.  It may have taken a few millennia, but going around to the south makes some sense. 

              (Yes, there is evidence of hunters in Clovis, NM and other areas of the Great Plains.  But at the same time, agriculture was not possible, not without trekking another thousand miles to the east from Clovis - and how many would have made that journey willingly?  A few did, because we have sites in PA and VA.  And those might have populated those areas - but evidently that didn't happen.  Population centers didn't happen until the Olmecs, thousand miles to the south and thousands of years later.)

              For the Mayans, with Panama being again a bit of a barrier, and with the Aztecs/Teotihuacans to the west and north on the mainland, their evacuation choices would have seemed limited.  Going north on the mainland would have taken them right into the Huastecan areas then being invaded and harrassed - right into the teeth of it, in fact - so that direction was not available.  And if they did have the large boats on the coast of the Yucatan spoken of in the article, I am sure the captains of the ships would have experience of Cuba (only 75 miles from the mainland) and - very likely even knowledge of a large land beyond Cuba.  It would have been no great sailing feat to take a seaworthy boat to Florida for refugees seeking an escape from the aggressors to their west.  

              Once there, Florida would have fairly closely fit the climate of those who lived in the Yucatan very nicely.   People looking for a new place would most likely try to find a land with a climate that approximates that in the land they came from; they would have brought seeds of crops and they would need a similar climate for those crops.   Certainly it is possible that some would have remained in Cuba, eventually to populate the other Caribbean islands.  The Taino that Columbus found surely must have come originally from the mainland, either of South America or the Yucatan.  Those who stayed the course northward would have found a land as inviting as the one they'd come from.  The elevated area in and around the Great Smokies has a climate much milder than the Yucatan, Florida or the eastern coastal plains of Georgia and the Carolinas.  I can see why the journey would end there for those who eventually built Etowah and Yupaha/Brasstown Bald.  Even if it was too cold for their Yucatan crops, they would have found good hunting and other domesticatable plants.  At the same time, the terraces at Brasstown Bald suggest grains that need flat terrain, and perhaps they were able to adapt their plants well enough.

              Nothing of what I just wrote is backed up by a whole lot except my imagination.  But as far as migrations go, that one wouldn't have been one of the more difficult ones.

              Steve
              --- In Precolumbian_Inscriptions@yahoogroups.com, "dcampbell75479" <fred-dobbs@...> wrote:
              >
              > Interesting comments on the Natchez and Huastecans. A few years back a friend on another list sent me a book containing many Indian origin traditions and the Natchez were treated at some length. This was the first time I remember reading anything conclusive about Mesoamerican migrations, though I had always strongly suspected contact based upon artifacts and motifs. In reviewing some very vintage copies of the Texas Archeological Bulletins, I found that the Mesoamerican/Southeast Temple Mound Builders connection was being made back in the early '30's. I think such contact is now accepted by many, though not to the extent that this article suggests. The modification of existing stone formations makes more sense than outright megalithic architecture. The Mayas did much the same throughout thier heartland which was full of limestone hills and caverns. Architectural modification of similar features in North America dates back to Paleoindian times.
              >
              > --- In Precolumbian_Inscriptions@yahoogroups.com, "bigalemc2" sgtti@ wrote:
              > >
              > > I agree wholeheartedly. Cool item.
              > >
              > > Something vague in my head from reading of Cayce and the mound builders
              > > a good while back is that some the peoples of the Yucatan moved up did
              > > move to SE the U.S. I may be wrong on that, so I will look it up if I
              > > can. What the timing was, I can't recall, but I will find it out.
              > >
              > > I was happy to see the mention of the Natchez in the article. A Natchez
              > > chief in the 1700s told a French fur trader, du Prez I think his name
              > > was, that the Natchez came up from the Sierra Madre Oriental mountains
              > > in E/NE Mexico, around northern Veracruz or Tamaulipas (also mentioned
              > > in the article), where they had gotten tired of defending themselves
              > > for a long time against the Aztecs/Teohtihuacans. Again, the timing I
              > > will have to look up, but I am virtually certain it was right in that
              > > time period or very close.
              > >
              > > The Natchez settled around Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama in and
              > > around the waterways, up to Arkansas - kind of close to northern Georgia
              > > but not quite. And the Natchez were almost certainly Huastecans, not
              > > Mayans.
              > >
              > > I do think the Natchez princes were referred to as "Great Suns," which
              > > is mentioned in the article, too.
              > >
              > > I am also encouraged that the archeologists discuss the abandonment of
              > > the Mayan cities, too. Just speculating, but it seems they may have
              > > been hassled by the Teotihuacans, too, and may have left for the same
              > > reason the Natchez did. Being as their cities had no fortifications
              > > (not that I know of), they would have been very vulnerable. At least
              > > the Natchez had the mountains, so they used them to fight off the
              > > invaders from their SW. The Mayans didn't have any natural defenses.
              > >
              > > Yeah, this is a really good development!
              > >
              > > Steve Garcia
              > >
              > > P.S. Do also read the sequel at Mayas in the U.S. controversy - You be
              > > the juror
              > > <http://www.examiner.com/architecture-design-in-national/mayas-the-usa-c\
              > > ontroversy-you-be-the-juror?cid=PROD-redesign-right-next> . I threw my
              > > two cents in!
              > >
              > >
              > > --- In Precolumbian_Inscriptions@yahoogroups.com, "dcampbell75479"
              > > <fred-dobbs@> wrote:
              > > >
              > > > That's a fascinating article, Mike. I ran across it yesterday at
              > > another list. About a year ago I corresponded with Richard Thornton on a
              > > project of mine. He has a whole slew of similar articles on the Examiner
              > > which I suggest you check out.
              > > >
              > > > --- In Precolumbian_Inscriptions@yahoogroups.com, aumsparky@ wrote:
              > > > >
              > > > >
              > > > > mayan ruins near blairsville, ga
              > > > >
              > > > >
              > > http://www.examiner.com/architecture-design-in-national/massive-1-100-ye\
              > > ar-old-maya-site-discovered-georgia-s-mountains
              > > > >
              > > > > mike
              > > > >
              > > >
              > >
              >

            • aumsparky@earthlink.net
              below tells of the topper site along the savanah river in sc. our lads examine campsites of hunter-gatherers when they look for the oldest sites. some of the
              Message 6 of 15 , Dec 30, 2011
              • 0 Attachment
                 
                   below tells of the topper site along the savanah river in sc.  our lads examine campsites of hunter-gatherers when they look for the oldest sites.  some of the lithics are thought to be from 50,000 bce.
                   we have been aware of ancient cultures in that region since bartram passed thru circa 1620.  in fact he reported much pottery washing out of the riverbanks.  pottery wasnt used by clovis or other hunter-gatherers, this more likely was an ancient village.  we still await the experts to find the sites spoken of by bartram. 
                 
                 
                mike
                 
                 
                 
                ----- Original Message -----
                Sent: Friday, December 30, 2011 9:27 PM
                Subject: Re: [Precolumbian_Inscriptions] Re: maya in ga?

                 

                 
                   each to their own opinion.  many have discarded the beringian walk theory from asia, since the oldest sites of man were in our southeast, and in south america.  no older sites have been found in alaska or siberia.  how many of our tribes are of the yellow race?  none grew rice or made silk.  i dont see any clovis sites in the lower midwest. 
                 
                http://images.search.yahoo.com/images/view?back=http%3A%2F%2Fsearch.yahoo.com%2Fsearch%3Fei%3DUTF-8%26p%3Dclovis%2Bsites%2Bmap&w=142&h=160&imgurl=www.bing.com%2Fimages%2Fsearch%3Fq%3Dclovis%2Bsites%2Bmap%23focal%3D7cc2d263bfe5728d744f01776b25ff28%26furl%3Dhttp%253a%252f%252fwww.archaeology.org%252fonline%252ffeatures%252fclovis%252fjpegs%252fmap2.gif&size=&name=search&rcurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.bing.com%2Fimages%2Fsearch%3Fq%3Dclovis%2Bsites%2Bmap%23focal%3D7cc2d263bfe5728d744f01776b25ff28%26furl%3Dhttp%253a%252f%252fwww.archaeology.org%252fonline%252ffeatures%252fclovis%252fjpegs%252fmap2.gif&rurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.bing.com%2Fimages%2Fsearch%3Fq%3Dclovis%2Bsites%2Bmap%23focal%3D7cc2d263bfe5728d744f01776b25ff28%26furl%3Dhttp%253a%252f%252fwww.archaeology.org%252fonline%252ffeatures%252fclovis%252fjpegs%252fmap2.gif&p=clovis+sites+map&type=&no=4&tt=115&oid=http%3A%2F%2Fts2.mm.bing.net%2Fimages%2Fthumbnail.aspx%3Fq%3D1515710055577%26id%3D9fd24020b9912eae1dd905feeab78b7a&tit=until+1997+no+site+was+widely+accepted+as+pre+dating+the+clovis+...&sigr=15ha3bel4&sigi=15adm2uv6&sigb=11q7t5du9&fr=b1ie7
                 
                   i saw people in taos nm that looked much like the aymara of bolivia.  our plain indians could have come up from mexico or peru, the change in diet to bison might change features fairly fast.  if man were slow to adapt, he could not have survived thru the changes the earth has undergone.  
                 
                mike
                 
                 
                 
                ----- Original Message -----
                From: bigalemc2
                Sent: Friday, December 30, 2011 5:55 PM
                Subject: [Precolumbian_Inscriptions] Re: maya in ga?

                 

                Glad you appreciated the bits about the Natchez.  It had been something I'd never thought about, but Ed Grondine had the full text of du Pratz's account in his book "Man and Impact in the Americas", and I thought it made a lot of sense.

                At the same time, when you first think about it, it seems counter intuitive that migrations would be out of Mesoamerica northward, since the original migration into the Americas was out of the northwest, southward.  Paleo-Indians coming down from Beringia would not likely set out across to the east, because staying along the coast afforded them fish and reasonable hunting.  Eastward were mountains and - if they got far inland enough - desert and scablands.  It would not have been the most enticing direction.  (In the 1800s, if Lewis & Clark and then the Gold Rush had not given people a reasonable goal on the far side of the Great Plains,  would anyone have ever set out across it?)

                The farther south the trans-Beringians trekked the better then climate became, if they stayed along the coast.  By the time they reached Mexico, the lands eastward were not so imposing.  The mountains were less intimidating, and the climate inland is some of the best in the world.  There are scores and scores of indigenous peoples in current-day Mexico, suggesting that groups of people decided to just stay where they were, while others continued southward.  Panama - if it was anything like today - would have presented more or less a stopping point for most who still had wanted to explore farther southward.

                But as someone who has spent a decent amount of time in central Mexico and along the Pacific coast, I'd say that Mesoamerica was definitely the place to stop and put down roots.  For any of you who (like I used to) think that Mexico is a big hot, dusty desert until you get to the hot, steamy jungle of the Yucatan, nothing can be further from the truth.  The climate of the Central Valley of Mexico is a close second to the climate of Hawaii.  It is as close to heaven on Earth as is possible to get, climate-wise.  With its volcanic soils, it is also exceedingly fecund.

                It makes perfect sense to me that some of the most developed cities on Earth 1,000 years ago were in Mexico.  Populations would increase where agriculture was most successful.  Along the coasts north of Mexico there was only a thin strip of good land between the Pacific and the desert, except perhaps inland from San Fransisco bay along the Russian River.  But Mexico offered a much greater agricultural upside than anyplace else.

                At the same time, it also makes sense that, over time, there would be trouble in paradise, and that some would find reason to leave for other shores.  Putting myself in their shoes, what would I have done, if the neighboring cities became too aggressive?

                The Natchez account shows that some just took off in search of a less threatening place to call home.  The Huastecans in NE Mexico, with the Aztecs/Teotihuacans dominating the center and south, the obvious direction to migrate would be northward.   That may seem to be counter-intuitive, that migratinos would be to the north, when the main migration was FROM the north.  But this was several thousand years later.  It might also be the BEST route to the eastern part of North America.  It was not so likely that many would endure the Rocky Mountains and the Great American Desert which was the Great Plains.  It may have taken a few millennia, but going around to the south makes some sense. 

                (Yes, there is evidence of hunters in Clovis, NM and other areas of the Great Plains.  But at the same time, agriculture was not possible, not without trekking another thousand miles to the east from Clovis - and how many would have made that journey willingly?  A few did, because we have sites in PA and VA.  And those might have populated those areas - but evidently that didn't happen.  Population centers didn't happen until the Olmecs, thousand miles to the south and thousands of years later.)

                For the Mayans, with Panama being again a bit of a barrier, and with the Aztecs/Teotihuacans to the west and north on the mainland, their evacuation choices would have seemed limited.  Going north on the mainland would have taken them right into the Huastecan areas then being invaded and harrassed - right into the teeth of it, in fact - so that direction was not available.  And if they did have the large boats on the coast of the Yucatan spoken of in the article, I am sure the captains of the ships would have experience of Cuba (only 75 miles from the mainland) and - very likely even knowledge of a large land beyond Cuba.  It would have been no great sailing feat to take a seaworthy boat to Florida for refugees seeking an escape from the aggressors to their west.  

                Once there, Florida would have fairly closely fit the climate of those who lived in the Yucatan very nicely.   People looking for a new place would most likely try to find a land with a climate that approximates that in the land they came from; they would have brought seeds of crops and they would need a similar climate for those crops.   Certainly it is possible that some would have remained in Cuba, eventually to populate the other Caribbean islands.  The Taino that Columbus found surely must have come originally from the mainland, either of South America or the Yucatan.  Those who stayed the course northward would have found a land as inviting as the one they'd come from.  The elevated area in and around the Great Smokies has a climate much milder than the Yucatan, Florida or the eastern coastal plains of Georgia and the Carolinas.  I can see why the journey would end there for those who eventually built Etowah and Yupaha/Brasstown Bald.  Even if it was too cold for their Yucatan crops, they would have found good hunting and other domesticatable plants.  At the same time, the terraces at Brasstown Bald suggest grains that need flat terrain, and perhaps they were able to adapt their plants well enough.

                Nothing of what I just wrote is backed up by a whole lot except my imagination.  But as far as migrations go, that one wouldn't have been one of the more difficult ones.

                Steve
                --- In Precolumbian_Inscriptions@yahoogroups.com, "dcampbell75479" <fred-dobbs@...> wrote:
                >
                > Interesting comments on the Natchez and Huastecans. A few years back a friend on another list sent me a book containing many Indian origin traditions and the Natchez were treated at some length. This was the first time I remember reading anything conclusive about Mesoamerican migrations, though I had always strongly suspected contact based upon artifacts and motifs. In reviewing some very vintage copies of the Texas Archeological Bulletins, I found that the Mesoamerican/Southeast Temple Mound Builders connection was being made back in the early '30's. I think such contact is now accepted by many, though not to the extent that this article suggests. The modification of existing stone formations makes more sense than outright megalithic architecture. The Mayas did much the same throughout thier heartland which was full of limestone hills and caverns. Architectural modification of similar features in North America dates back to Paleoindian times.
                >
                > --- In Precolumbian_Inscriptions@yahoogroups.com, "bigalemc2" sgtti@ wrote:
                > >
                > > I agree wholeheartedly. Cool item.
                > >
                > > Something vague in my head from reading of Cayce and the mound builders
                > > a good while back is that some the peoples of the Yucatan moved up did
                > > move to SE the U.S. I may be wrong on that, so I will look it up if I
                > > can. What the timing was, I can't recall, but I will find it out.
                > >
                > > I was happy to see the mention of the Natchez in the article. A Natchez
                > > chief in the 1700s told a French fur trader, du Prez I think his name
                > > was, that the Natchez came up from the Sierra Madre Oriental mountains
                > > in E/NE Mexico, around northern Veracruz or Tamaulipas (also mentioned
                > > in the article), where they had gotten tired of defending themselves
                > > for a long time against the Aztecs/Teohtihuacans. Again, the timing I
                > > will have to look up, but I am virtually certain it was right in that
                > > time period or very close.
                > >
                > > The Natchez settled around Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama in and
                > > around the waterways, up to Arkansas - kind of close to northern Georgia
                > > but not quite. And the Natchez were almost certainly Huastecans, not
                > > Mayans.
                > >
                > > I do think the Natchez princes were referred to as "Great Suns," which
                > > is mentioned in the article, too.
                > >
                > > I am also encouraged that the archeologists discuss the abandonment of
                > > the Mayan cities, too. Just speculating, but it seems they may have
                > > been hassled by the Teotihuacans, too, and may have left for the same
                > > reason the Natchez did. Being as their cities had no fortifications
                > > (not that I know of), they would have been very vulnerable. At least
                > > the Natchez had the mountains, so they used them to fight off the
                > > invaders from their SW. The Mayans didn't have any natural defenses.
                > >
                > > Yeah, this is a really good development!
                > >
                > > Steve Garcia
                > >
                > > P.S. Do also read the sequel at Mayas in the U.S. controversy - You be
                > > the juror
                > > <http://www.examiner.com/architecture-design-in-national/mayas-the-usa-c\
                > > ontroversy-you-be-the-juror?cid=PROD-redesign-right-next> . I threw my
                > > two cents in!
                > >
                > >
                > > --- In Precolumbian_Inscriptions@yahoogroups.com, "dcampbell75479"
                > > <fred-dobbs@> wrote:
                > > >
                > > > That's a fascinating article, Mike. I ran across it yesterday at
                > > another list. About a year ago I corresponded with Richard Thornton on a
                > > project of mine. He has a whole slew of similar articles on the Examiner
                > > which I suggest you check out.
                > > >
                > > > --- In Precolumbian_Inscriptions@yahoogroups.com, aumsparky@ wrote:
                > > > >
                > > > >
                > > > > mayan ruins near blairsville, ga
                > > > >
                > > > >
                > > http://www.examiner.com/architecture-design-in-national/massive-1-100-ye\
                > > ar-old-maya-site-discovered-georgia-s-mountains
                > > > >
                > > > > mike
                > > > >
                > > >
                > >
                >

              • bigalemc2
                Mike - Good point about Tulum. One has to think that - whether they planned it or not - they would quickly have seen that from the top of the pyramids they
                Message 7 of 15 , Jan 11, 2012
                • 0 Attachment
                  Mike -

                  Good point about Tulum.

                  One has to think that - whether they planned it or not - they would
                  quickly have seen that from the top of the pyramids they could see a
                  long way. And no society that has enemies could not see the advantage
                  of having a high perspective.

                  This strongly suggests that one of the primary reasons for pyramids was
                  as a vantage point, a crow's nest on land. And like in The Lord of The
                  Rings, using them for signal fires could not be long in coming. I have
                  no idea if there is evidence for fires atop pyramids with flat tops. I
                  kind of doubt the evidence was there or someone would have mentioned it.
                  All we hear about is rituals.

                  But as vantage points, fires weren't necessary, but I won't drop the
                  idea until I have proven it wrong to my satisfaction.

                  Having the tops be above the trees not only gives the perspective of
                  looking down like gods, but it also allows seeing long ways across the
                  Yucatan, over the trees. Yet, there is not much to see except trees -
                  and other pyramids - and perhaps the smoke from fires of anyone camping
                  anywhere nearby.

                  As an ancient version of the Pony Express or the telegraph, you couldn't
                  do any better. It would even justify building them.

                  I would not be mentioning this, except I have never heard of any thought
                  put into this, so I thought I'd put it out there.

                  If we consider the ancient peoples as practical in the slightest, we
                  have to consider what WE would do with certain structures that we find.
                  Yes, the Christian white guys who started archeology decided that the
                  ancients were all mumbo-jumbo fearing numb nuts. But we here don't.
                  So, if we had something taller than the trees, what would we utilize it
                  for? Just because the 19th century arkies had no imagination doesn't
                  mean we can't. And just because archeology is - amazingly - still stuck
                  in the thinking of those religious dummies, well, that isn't our doing.

                  My vote goes to them using them for signalling between complexes. Once
                  they were up there, they could NOT have not seen that potential.
                  SOMEBODY had to have seen the potential.


                  Steve Garcia


                  --- In Precolumbian_Inscriptions@yahoogroups.com, <aumsparky@...> wrote:
                  >
                  >
                  > hi david, all
                  >
                  > i reposted the link that was put on ancient-mysteries. brasstown
                  bald and blairsville are probably within 30 miles from my home at
                  franklin, nc. unfortunately, my legs are no longer up to the rigors
                  needed to hike up to the site.
                  > apparently, some of the maya escaped the general revolt of the
                  masses, and may have taken boats from tulum. they may have come inland
                  on the savanah river.
                  > i dont recall the particulars, but some relics from the mound in
                  franklin may have related to the maya. this may be how bamboo was
                  carried into this region.
                  > ive travelled much in asia in the last 9 years. im hoping to
                  explore the andes and mexico next.
                  > i will look for authors other articles.
                  >
                  > happy holidays
                  > mike
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > ----- Original Message -----
                  > From: dcampbell75479
                  > To: Precolumbian_Inscriptions@yahoogroups.com
                  > Sent: Friday, December 23, 2011 1:43 PM
                  > Subject: [Precolumbian_Inscriptions] Re: maya in ga?
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > That's a fascinating article, Mike. I ran across it yesterday at
                  another list. About a year ago I corresponded with Richard Thornton on a
                  project of mine. He has a whole slew of similar articles on the Examiner
                  which I suggest you check out.
                  >
                  > --- In Precolumbian_Inscriptions@yahoogroups.com, aumsparky@ wrote:
                  > >
                  > >
                  > > mayan ruins near blairsville, ga
                  > >
                  > >
                  http://www.examiner.com/architecture-design-in-national/massive-1-100-ye\
                  ar-old-maya-site-discovered-georgia-s-mountains
                  > >
                  > > mike
                  > >
                  >
                Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.