Skip to search.

Breaking News Visit Yahoo! News for the latest.

×Close this window

Precolumbian_Inscriptions · Discussion Group on American Prehistory
  • Members Only
  • Post
  • Files
  • Photos
  • Links
  • Database
  • Polls
  • Calendar
  • Promote

The Yahoo! Groups Product Blog

Check it out!

Group Information

? Already a member? Sign in to Yahoo!

Yahoo! Groups Tips

Did you know...
Real people. Real stories. See how Yahoo! Groups impacts members worldwide.

Messages
Message #
Search:
Advanced
 Messages Help
Messages
Topics
Hot Topics
Messages 11804 - 11833 of 12092   Oldest  |  < Older  |  Newer >  |  Newest
Messages: Show Message Summaries Sort by Date ^  
#11804 From: <aumsparky@...>
Date: Sun Oct 2, 2011 10:35 am
Subject: southwest usa 		aumsparky
Send Email Send Email
 
 
   most will admit that the rocky mts are a relatively new range, it just a matter of how recent.  we are led to believe they uplifted more than 50 mya. 
   our lads seem to also believe that the green and colorado rivers are responsible for all of the water erosion in az and utah.  if someone has better info, plz offer it.  is it not true, that these rivers began after the rockies arose?   so, new mts have new rivers, which should produce less erosion.   yet, check bryce canyon ... 
 
 
   i dont think those rivers caused the erosion evident.  my interest in the history of man has brought an interest in geology, to explain some of the genetic bottlenecks, and migrations of people.  these are just my ideas.  rivers cut canyons in a vee pattern, yet these walls are fairly vertical.  my lay opinion, is that only a raging torrent in a high wall of water, could produce the grand and bryce canyons.  the mesas of az point to a high torrent of water that stripped off hundreds of feet of surface.  the rivers didnt do all that.   
   what event could have caused the damage to the land?  was the water salt or fresh?  was it one event, or several?  what was the date[s]? 
   since its high desert, over a mile above sealevel, we first consider the break of a glacial dam.   at least one geologist agreed that only floodwaters could have caused the erosion, but he was jeered when he couldnt locate the glacial dam that broke. 
   based on my study and travel thru the region, im led to believe the water was from the sea, leaving the salt lakes.  the rocky mts may be less than 52,000 years old, or at least some ranges of it.  if true, those rivers are too new to have cut major canyons.
   it seems likely that the region has had vertical plate movement, not so long ago.  the rockies are on an extension of the same subduction zone that produced the andes.  both ranges probably are prone for the plates to drop or uplift when the earth goes thru an upheaval, brought on by poleshift, when polar icecaps get excessive. 
   the mystics say we are overdue for such an event.  on the bright side, much has been written lately on the reduced ice at the north pole, and huge bergs breaking off the south.  if this keeps up, the poleshift will continue to be delayed.  the less ice, the better.  it dont hurt to be prepared though. 
 
mike
 
 

Reply | Messages in this Topic (2)
#11805 From: david collins <dmcollins6@...>
Date: Sun Oct 2, 2011 4:04 pm
Subject: Re: southwest usa 		dmcollins6
Send Email Send Email
 
Maybe a reduction in ice cover would be sufficient to create enough of an altered balance in the revolving Earth to cause the upheaval.
From: "aumsparky@..." <aumsparky@...>
To: Ancient-Mysteries@yahoogroups.com
Cc: Precolumbian_Inscriptions@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sunday, 2 October 2011, 11:35
Subject: [Precolumbian_Inscriptions] southwest usa

 
 
   most will admit that the rocky mts are a relatively new range, it just a matter of how recent.  we are led to believe they uplifted more than 50 mya. 
   our lads seem to also believe that the green and colorado rivers are responsible for all of the water erosion in az and utah.  if someone has better info, plz offer it.  is it not true, that these rivers began after the rockies arose?   so, new mts have new rivers, which should produce less erosion.   yet, check bryce canyon ... 
 
 
   i dont think those rivers caused the erosion evident.  my interest in the history of man has brought an interest in geology, to explain some of the genetic bottlenecks, and migrations of people.  these are just my ideas.  rivers cut canyons in a vee pattern, yet these walls are fairly vertical.  my lay opinion, is that only a raging torrent in a high wall of water, could produce the grand and bryce canyons.  the mesas of az point to a high torrent of water that stripped off hundreds of feet of surface.  the rivers didnt do all that.   
   what event could have caused the damage to the land?  was the water salt or fresh?  was it one event, or several?  what was the date[s]? 
   since its high desert, over a mile above sealevel, we first consider the break of a glacial dam.   at least one geologist agreed that only floodwaters could have caused the erosion, but he was jeered when he couldnt locate the glacial dam that broke. 
   based on my study and travel thru the region, im led to believe the water was from the sea, leaving the salt lakes.  the rocky mts may be less than 52,000 years old, or at least some ranges of it.  if true, those rivers are too new to have cut major canyons.
   it seems likely that the region has had vertical plate movement, not so long ago.  the rockies are on an extension of the same subduction zone that produced the andes.  both ranges probably are prone for the plates to drop or uplift when the earth goes thru an upheaval, brought on by poleshift, when polar icecaps get excessive. 
   the mystics say we are overdue for such an event.  on the bright side, much has been written lately on the reduced ice at the north pole, and huge bergs breaking off the south.  if this keeps up, the poleshift will continue to be delayed.  the less ice, the better.  it dont hurt to be prepared though. 
 
mike
 
 



Reply | Messages in this Topic (2)
#11806 From: "Seppo" <sstiusanen@...>
Date: Sun Oct 2, 2011 6:42 pm
Subject: Frisian problem 		alamikamba7
Send Email Send Email
  
Hi all,

I found this old message "somewhere":
From: José Vergara
To: Precolumbian_ Inscriptions@ yahoogroups. com
Sent: Tuesday, July 13, 2010 3:16 PM
Subject: Re: [Precolumbian_ Inscriptions] cro magnon

Re/Jose: " I know that there were frisian languages realted (dutch, etc) but
where in time and space where located frisian Empire?"
I am sorry to come here between you and Mike. Before I never believed any
stories of Mike about the Frisians, but now I MUST take all seriously after
using years and years autosomal STR used by Interpol, FBI and others in the
world of criminals. I was surprised to find (really) the Frisians in Holland and
Belgium by autosomal STR that reach to South America strongly as well.

Do not worry about the language, Jose! English is not my language, pero estoy
hablando Español en mi  casa, but Spanish is not my language either. BTW, Jose,
I have "met" your family tens of times by DNA-searches.
That is a mystery: Who are the Frisians? Maybe they are Scythians in diaspora?

Warm regards and saludos to everybody,
Sakari

Reply | Messages in this Topic (4)
#11807 From: "Frank" <frankroskind@...>
Date: Sun Oct 2, 2011 10:12 pm
Subject: Re: Frisian problem 		frankroskind
Send Email Send Email
  
Frisia was a nation (insofar as nations existed at the time) along the coast of
what is now the Netherlands as well as parts of what is now France, and Denmark.
The Frisian language today is the closest language to English of any language
that does not trace its roots through the British Isles.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frisian_Kingdom
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Frisian_languages

The Frisians were not completely conquered until the 14th century, so I have
conjectured that what are referred to as "Flemish Archers" in 11th, 12th, and
13th century histories of England, Ireland and Wales were Frisians or descended
from Frisians.  This could explain why the language found in Wexford, Ireland,
Yola, closely related to English, has relatively little linguistic connection to
modern Flemish, a language closely related to modern Dutch, not to Frisian.  One
prominent family from Wexford, the Roches, apparently has DNA showing Frisian
roots.  Caution, the name Roche came to Ireland from more than one source or
language, so some families Roche have Norman roots, and the name is derived from
the word for rock, but these are not the apparent root of the Roche name in
Wexford.

The North Sea was once known as the Frisian Sea, and Frisians dominated trade in
that sea.  In some accounts, the start of the Viking raids in Europe, especially
against Christian monasteries, was a retaliation for Charlemagne's forcible
conversion of the Vikings erstwhile coreligionists, the Frisians.

Modern English probably owes a good portion of its heritage to Frisian, but
there is no reason to believe that today we can tell the difference between Old
Frisian, the language of the early Angles, the language of the Jutes, or of the
Saxons, especially in runes.  It is not clear what distinctions existed among
various Norse groups, including Danes, Norwegians, and the other groups listed. 
Their religions were similar,and today we have traces of that religion in our
words Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday and Friday.

--- In Precolumbian_Inscriptions@yahoogroups.com, "Seppo" <sstiusanen@...>
wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> I found this old message "somewhere":
> From: José Vergara
> To: Precolumbian_ Inscriptions@ yahoogroups. com
> Sent: Tuesday, July 13, 2010 3:16 PM
> Subject: Re: [Precolumbian_ Inscriptions] cro magnon
>
> Re/Jose: " I know that there were frisian languages realted (dutch, etc) but
where in time and space where located frisian Empire?"
> I am sorry to come here between you and Mike. Before I never believed any
stories of Mike about the Frisians, but now I MUST take all seriously after
using years and years autosomal STR used by Interpol, FBI and others in the
world of criminals. I was surprised to find (really) the Frisians in Holland and
Belgium by autosomal STR that reach to South America strongly as well.
>
> Do not worry about the language, Jose! English is not my language, pero estoy
hablando Español en mi  casa, but Spanish is not my language either. BTW, Jose,
I have "met" your family tens of times by DNA-searches.
> That is a mystery: Who are the Frisians? Maybe they are Scythians in diaspora?
>
> Warm regards and saludos to everybody,
> Sakari
>

Reply | Messages in this Topic (4)
#11808 From: <aumsparky@...>
Date: Mon Oct 3, 2011 5:21 am
Subject: Re: Re: Frisian problem 		aumsparky
Send Email Send Email
 
 
   this old page of mine has some of the reasons that prompted my words on the frisians.  note that there were frisians in chile before the conquest.  the page is in need of update. 
   i no longer think that the word inka or inca was of frisian origin.  the word is atlantean, and relates to sun worship.  peru had been a colony of atlantis for over a thousand years before the frisian-magyar arrival, after the 10,000 bce submersion of atlantis, and portions of the frisian empire. 
 
 
mike
 
 
 
----- Original Message -----
From: Frank
Sent: Sunday, October 02, 2011 6:12 PM
Subject: [Precolumbian_Inscriptions] Re: Frisian problem

 

Frisia was a nation (insofar as nations existed at the time) along the coast of what is now the Netherlands as well as parts of what is now France, and Denmark. The Frisian language today is the closest language to English of any language that does not trace its roots through the British Isles.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frisian_Kingdom
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Frisian_languages

The Frisians were not completely conquered until the 14th century, so I have conjectured that what are referred to as "Flemish Archers" in 11th, 12th, and 13th century histories of England, Ireland and Wales were Frisians or descended from Frisians. This could explain why the language found in Wexford, Ireland, Yola, closely related to English, has relatively little linguistic connection to modern Flemish, a language closely related to modern Dutch, not to Frisian. One prominent family from Wexford, the Roches, apparently has DNA showing Frisian roots. Caution, the name Roche came to Ireland from more than one source or language, so some families Roche have Norman roots, and the name is derived from the word for rock, but these are not the apparent root of the Roche name in Wexford.

The North Sea was once known as the Frisian Sea, and Frisians dominated trade in that sea. In some accounts, the start of the Viking raids in Europe, especially against Christian monasteries, was a retaliation for Charlemagne's forcible conversion of the Vikings erstwhile coreligionists, the Frisians.

Modern English probably owes a good portion of its heritage to Frisian, but there is no reason to believe that today we can tell the difference between Old Frisian, the language of the early Angles, the language of the Jutes, or of the Saxons, especially in runes. It is not clear what distinctions existed among various Norse groups, including Danes, Norwegians, and the other groups listed. Their religions were similar,and today we have traces of that religion in our words Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday and Friday.

--- In Precolumbian_Inscriptions@yahoogroups.com, "Seppo" <sstiusanen@...> wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> I found this old message "somewhere":
> From: José Vergara
> To: Precolumbian_ Inscriptions@ yahoogroups. com
> Sent: Tuesday, July 13, 2010 3:16 PM
> Subject: Re: [Precolumbian_ Inscriptions] cro magnon
>
> Re/Jose: " I know that there were frisian languages realted (dutch, etc) but where in time and space where located frisian Empire?"
> I am sorry to come here between you and Mike. Before I never believed any stories of Mike about the Frisians, but now I MUST take all seriously after using years and years autosomal STR used by Interpol, FBI and others in the world of criminals. I was surprised to find (really) the Frisians in Holland and Belgium by autosomal STR that reach to South America strongly as well.
>
> Do not worry about the language, Jose! English is not my language, pero estoy hablando Español en mi casa, but Spanish is not my language either. BTW, Jose, I have "met" your family tens of times by DNA-searches.
> That is a mystery: Who are the Frisians? Maybe they are Scythians in diaspora?
>
> Warm regards and saludos to everybody,
> Sakari
>


Reply | Messages in this Topic (4)
#11809 From: "Seppo" <sstiusanen@...>
Date: Mon Oct 3, 2011 2:35 pm
Subject: Re: Frisian problem 		alamikamba7
Send Email Send Email
 

The Frisians of Holland is not any mystery but there are many questions like this: “Did the Frisians sail to South America?â€

This link must be well known for everybody:

http://all-ez.com/frisian-inka.htm

The real mystery is that when searching my family roots with autosomal STR in South Siberia, China and South America, too many matches in Holland. My N1c1- family from China, Xiongnu, Baikal, Ural, Volga has genetically nothing to do with Holland.

So far my interpretation is that these persons must be Frisians. Even some graves of Egyin Gol hit to Holland when searching results of the European countries.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1180365/

The mysteries can be resolved by modern genetic methods, but it will take time because we have too much material. They have a DNA Project that seems quite normal: about 53.5% R1b and about 33% Celtic autosomal STR according to other sources.

http://www.familytreedna.com/public/Netherlands/default.aspx?section=yresults


People from Europe moved massively to China maybe with the East Scythians. So it is not strange to find people from the west in China and ex-Xiongnu like the 2,500-year-old Chinese Linzi population of Turkish, Portuguese, Icelander, German, Finnish, Welsh etc background.

http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/content/17/9/1396.full


Reply | Messages in this Topic (4)
#11810 From: <aumsparky@...>
Date: Tue Oct 4, 2011 12:27 pm
Subject: olde forester 		aumsparky
Send Email Send Email
 
 
   plz check out the life work of an interesting man, who contributed much to the history of ohio.  he dug deep for the truth, and didnt hesitate to offer ideas contrary to the mainstream. 
 
 
   how odd, that the early pioneer iron furnaces of ohio burned charcoal, instead of the vast coal deposits nearby.  the moundbuilders burned coal, so i assume it was common knowledge before 3000 bce.  i think there were iron furnaces in ohio long before the pioneers.  i visited one, but forget its name or location.  ive found no evidence that the moundbuilders used much iron, other than the meteoric variety.  so the iron furnaces and stone forts may come from a more ancient people.  the old tracks were well-worn when they arrived, said the tribes. 
   i regret that my legs no longer permit long hikes, or i would explore ancient trails, the straight, dry, and direct routes used by game and the ancients.  no doubt they passed springs, caves, and salt licks, as well as important sites back then.  many of the trails and roads i travelled before were portions of the ancient walkways.  the 'saginaw trail' of michigan connected with the warrior trails of ohio.  these trails and the rivers have been heavily used by the ancients. 
   ohio may have been occupied by man continuously for unknown ages, back to the giants.  for a time it may have been tropical along an inland sea, the seashell and parrot relics were thought trade items by our lads.  it could be a mistake to always think distant trade, when climate change may better explain the record found. 
   their idea of the americas being the new world, lately populated, must lead them astray often. 
 
mike
 
 

Reply | Messages in this Topic (1)
#11811 From: <aumsparky@...>
Date: Wed Oct 12, 2011 11:55 am
Subject: Fw: [Ancient-Mysteries] southwest 		aumsparky
Send Email Send Email
 
 
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Wednesday, October 12, 2011 7:17 AM
Subject: Re: [Ancient-Mysteries] southwest

 

 
   we need a survey of the great basin, and its run-off region, to determine if the water was salty or fresh.  fresh seems the most likely.  this may be the large lake mentioned by phylos circa 11,500 bce.  there may have been more than one great flood thru the southwest, for researchers report finding water flood erosion in both directions.  we may also find recent marine deposits from utah south.  we might expect such things in an area that is unstable, prone to quakes, and elevator plate movement. 
   i examined the southwest from space using google earth.  west of nebraska the landscape looks entirely different, more than just mountainous, having too much surface salt, as if the whole west had dropped below the sea, and later uplifted.  the same situation is seen in peru.  its odd that the mystics did not give us a clearer warning.  lets hope that i'm mistaken.  its clear that the southwest has spent much of its history as dry land, as seen by relics on the colorado plateau, but it could have also had brief submersions under the sea.  its just a matter of how recent was the last event.  it may have required the sea to create the coal seams of colorado. 
   cayce included mexico, and portions of az, nm, and s ca, as being on the lemurian plate.  i guess im wondering if everything west of nebraska is on the same current plate, extending to the san andreas fault?  the new madrid fault appears to mark another plate boundary.  tn may be subducting under ar.  the 1811-12 events were felt differently by people east and west of center.  perhaps the plate extends from new madrid to san andreas?  much remains to be learned about plates, and their movements. 
   such floods not so long ago may have caused the cliff dwellers to seek these high places, just as hopi live on mesas. 
 
mike
 
 
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Tuesday, October 11, 2011 8:49 AM
Subject: [Ancient-Mysteries] southwest

 

 
   this book on the archaeology of oregon may shed some light on the prehistory of our southwest.  the erosion of the region that includes az and utah shows evidence of massive flooding.  the current rivers could not have cut the great canyons, leaving so many natural bridges.  it had to be a rushing wall of water. 
   the text discusses the great basin that extended from southeast oregon, thru ut, az, nv.   it was a huge lake in 11,000 bce, and had people along the ancient beaches.  based on finds in connley cave, the lake persisted until circa 5000 bce, when the water birds disappeared, and the climate changed.   the lake had been up to 350 ft deep. 
   near that date, 5000 bce, mt mazama exploded, leaving crater lake, and depositing ash.  im wondering if that eruption somehow emptied the massive lake, sending huge waves thru ut, az, nv, to the sea in southern ca, and the sea of cortez.  volcanic activity is often joined by quakes. 
   its near impossible to learn of ancient man, without considering the affects of earth-changes.   poleshifts, rivers changing courses, the uplift of mountains, have a heavy influence on mankind.  this has caused me to look closer at geology.  the current state of that science has done much to muddle and confuse related fields. 
 
 
mike
 
 


Reply | Messages in this Topic (1)
#11812 From: enrico mattievich <enrico.mattievich@...>
Date: Mon Oct 17, 2011 8:59 pm
Subject: COMMUNICATION OF ARTICLES 		enrico.mattievich@...
Send Email Send Email
 


Hello!
 
I discovery Precolumbian Inscription Groups reading Fuente Magna article.
 
I would like to communicate some articles of interest:
 
 
 
 
http://phoenicia.org/      ( second item "What's New in Phoenicia")
 
 
Regards,
 
Enrico Mattievich
From: Petrópolis, RJ, Brazil
 



Reply | Messages in this Topic (1)
#11813 From: <aumsparky@...>
Date: Fri Dec 23, 2011 12:49 am
Subject: maya in ga? 		aumsparky
Send Email Send Email
 
 
   mayan ruins near blairsville, ga
 
 
mike
 
 

Reply | Messages in this Topic (15)
#11814 From: "dcampbell75479" <fred-dobbs@...>
Date: Fri Dec 23, 2011 6:43 pm
Subject: Re: maya in ga? 		dcampbell75479
Send Email Send Email
  
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-year-old-m\
aya-site-discovered-georgia-s-mountains
>
> mike
>

Reply | Messages in this Topic (15)
#11815 From: <aumsparky@...>
Date: Fri Dec 23, 2011 7:51 pm
Subject: Re: Re: maya in ga? 		aumsparky
Send Email Send Email
 
 
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 -----
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-year-old-maya-site-discovered-georgia-s-mountains
>
> mike
>


Reply | Messages in this Topic (15)
#11816 From: "Phil Whitley" <pwhitley@...>
Date: Sat Dec 24, 2011 12:07 am
Subject: Re: Re: maya in ga? 		brewmeister999
Send Email Send Email
 
This is all very exciting to me since I have felt for many years that the Creek/Muskogee Indians of the southeast were related to the Maya, or at least migrated here from Central America - Mexico. I have a blog with photos of the Etowah Mounds. The connection I find there is amazing in several areas: The mounds themselves, the two stone effigies (in the photos) which appear very Mayan, and the DATE! 900 AD sound familiar? The latest find at Brasstown Bald was dated at 1100 years ago. Pretty close I would say!
 
Why did the Maya leace their homeland before and around this time period? Maybe this article explains it...
 
FTA - "Recent studies of historic volcanic activity by Dr. Martin el Pozzo at the university’s Institute of Geophysics suggest that catastrophic volcanic eruptions may have been primary causes of the collapse of several of Mexico’s civilizations including a massive drop in the Maya population between 830 AD and 915 AD. "
Dontcha just love it> Merry Christmas to all,
Brew (Phil Whitley))
 
_________________________________________
 
 
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Friday, December 23, 2011 2:51 PM
Subject: Re: [Precolumbian_Inscriptions] Re: maya in ga?

 

 
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 -----
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-year-old-maya-site-discovered-georgia-s-mountains
>
> mike
>



__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 6738 (20111223) __________

The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.

http://www.eset.com

Reply | Messages in this Topic (15)
#11817 From: Robert Simons <uft36@...>
Date: Sat Dec 24, 2011 8:03 am
Subject: Muscogees came from Isthmus of Darien 		uft36
Send Email Send Email
 
Here is a great article on the history of the Native Americans of Alabama and Georgia...Read about Big Warrior about 2 thirds to the bottom of page...
http://homepages.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~cmamcrk4/pkt3.html#anchor280524

Reply | Messages in this Topic (1)
#11818 From: <aumsparky@...>
Date: Sat Dec 24, 2011 9:39 am
Subject: Fw: [Ancient-Mysteries] cieza de leon: natural history of the indies 1550 		aumsparky
Send Email Send Email
 
 
   some of you may be interested that for a few months, ive been reviewing primary and early sources on the andes and mexico, on the ancient-mysteries list, de leon, acosta, humboldt, and squier, etc.  some mystical info may be included. 
 
mike
 
 
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Saturday, December 24, 2011 1:42 AM
Subject: Re: [Ancient-Mysteries] cieza de leon: natural history of the indies 1550

 

 
   look for the royal road near motupe.  on the arid coasts, mt streams are lost to the sands.  the natives have smaller underground channels for irrigation.  this should be done for the rivers as well.  at least, block the stream, to cause it to overflow a wider part of the valleys.  most of the aquaducts and fine water works of the inca, have been destroyed or neglected, and no longer function.  its a shame.  all of the valleys had been fertile, and were densely peopled.  the great inca buildings fell into ruin, and most of the people were gone within decades.   much of the valleys were still forested in 1550.  coast between valleys was a hot barren wilderness, travelled by night with a guide then.  leon said a royal road, with its walls, was built thru all of the valleys. 
   the chimu at chanchan carried water thru underground aqueducts.  it sounds like only in the valley of chimu at truxillo were the waterworks functioning in the time of leon. 
   valley of santa is large with a big stream 1800 yards across.  near a valley that has no stream, but has a well, causing him to wonder if the river is underground.  the old tombs are high up the valley in the rocks.  it was depopulated, and irrigation neglected, became full of brambles, and mosquitoes. 
   parmonga has a fortress with murals on the walls, the valley fertile but depopulated early. 
   it would be amiss, if the inca did not incorporate a covered canal along the coastal road, to catch the water from valleys where it was plentiful, and carry it to others less forunate.  why allow such rivers to spill into the sea.  perhaps he did, and it fell into disuse.  it would be hard to have a tree-lined road on that coast without a water conduit. 
    every rumor of treasure was passed on, causing more ruin to the old buildings. 
   some elongated skulls were found at pachacamac. 
   [ we would learn more from the ancients, if we read their words, and examined their relics, with the realization that they may be wiser and closer to the truth.  peru had close ties with lemuria and atlantis, and may well have had the high technology of the last atlanteans, and the spiritual growth of the lemurians.  the treasure hunters have rifled most of the surface, but little deep excavation has been done in peru and bolivia.   startling works of the last 50,000 years have been found, just imagine what might be at 60-100 feet.  with numerous volcanoes in the andes, we could find cities buried below ash or lava deposits.  all of the same applies to mexico.  both date back to the giants, the mystics have said it, and the finds support that conclusion, at least for me.  ] 
   chilca valley was fertile without rain or river.  they planted in holes, and the dew was thought to suffice.  there could be underground water channels.  sardine heads were sowed with seed.  had deep wells.  a line of vegetation runs from the andes to the sea, proving the river underground. 
   mala valley was well irrigated, but the people were decimated. 
  guarco valley had a great inca fortress, near the river canette.   many stones were looted, but it was still much intact in 1858. 
   pizarro was told the chincha valley was the best in all peru.  the first race to possess that valley were reported to be 3 ft tall.  only 4 generations before 1550 they were defeated by the indians.  yet, they claim that cuzco was founded after their rise to power.  chincha was a large well irrigated valley.  much gold was taken from the tombs in the hills.  its just north of ica, written yca by leon. 
   a great waterwork of the inca was in the ica valley, later destroyed. 
   nasca was well irrigated in 1550, but most of the people were killed.   palaces were built by the inca at nasca, with a fortress above on the slope, all in stone. 
   the natives of chachapoyas were the most fair of all andeans. 
   huanuco had inca palace and sun temple. 
   huaraz had a large stone building that was pre-inca, showing on its sides images of the giants who had built it. 
   the inca travelled 4 leagues a day in his sedan chair [16 miles], and had tambos and store houses this far apart along the roads. 
   the natives would ask one of their number to fast for a whole year. 
   'all these roads are full of caves.'  pucara
   de leon says the last refuge of the inca was at viticos, east of the andes. 
   vinaque near ayacocha had ruins of a race of bearded white men who settled there before the inca.  its midway between lima and cuzco.  'certain letters were found on a tile', in this place. 
   vilcas also had a giant stone seat. 
   chancas used the same word for heart and soul. 
 
mike
 
 
 


Reply | Messages in this Topic (1)
#11819 From: <aumsparky@...>
Date: Sun Dec 25, 2011 5:49 pm
Subject: cabeza - shang 		aumsparky
Send Email Send Email
 

   several years ago i made an amazing discovery, finding potters marks on the cabeza bust excavated on an island in lake titicaca.  the image was posted by bernardo biados, associated with bolivian archaeologists.  mr biados confirmed that the marks do exist on the museum relic.
   bailey included a list of shang potters' marks in his book, 'sailing to paradise'.  the symbols on cabeza seemed to have matches on the shang potters mark chart.  the face does have an asian look about it. 
   'ancient american' magazine was interested in publishing my findings, but the small fee offered, and the difficulty getting permission to use the image was discouraging. 
   potters marks often include several pieces of information, such as where made, and by whom, date completed, and sometimes who it was made for.  i was unable to find a chart outlining the protocals.  when this is found, this discovery could be of the utmost importance. 
   the shang dynasty is thought to have ruled china from 1700 bce to about 1100 bce.  they were foreigners who first settled along the yellow river, and introduced the bronze age and chariots to china.  the date assigned may or not be correct.  history is murky for early china. 
   the inca civilization was basically an atlantean colony, but was affected by large numbers of frisian and magyar who arrived in peru circa 9750 bce.  the frisian sea king inka led the fleet to peru. 
   about the same period, the city of tyre was founded by another frisian-magyar fleet led by the sea king nef tunis, who also founded tunis, and was later deified as neptune.  the frisians were the greatest navigators of the ancients, and probably created the accurate sea charts studied by hapgood. 
   it would appear that the expert seamanship, sea charts, trade routes, and potters marks, should be credited to the frisians and magyar.  these were adopted by those who became known later as phoenicians.  the phoenician alphabet may have resulted from the input of those early navigators. 
   my work has received no notice from the scholars and experts for these many years.  
 
 
Cabeza's Potter's Marks
 
   andean legends report that white men once lived at titicaca.  the frisian-magyar no doubt were involved in the metals trade.  peru has great resources of silver, gold, copper, tin, lead, and mercury.  many old world inscriptions have been found in peru and bolivia. 
   the fuente magna found in bolivia has cuneiform inscriptions, and seems to depict heracles as a baby grasping two serpents.  i was first to discover this fact.  again, the discovery was ignored. 
 
 
mike
 
 

Reply | Messages in this Topic (1)
#11820 From: enrico mattievich <enrico.mattievich@...>
Date: Sun Dec 25, 2011 10:37 pm
Subject: Article on Atlantis 		enrico.mattievich@...
Send Email Send Email
 


---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: enrico mattievich <enrico.mattievich@...>
Date: 2011/12/24
Subject: Article on Atlantis
To: Precolumbian_Inscription@egroups.com


Greeting Christmas and New Year 2012!
Here is an article on Atlantis recently
published in Migration & Diffusion website:
See also the press release of "Journey to the Mythological Inferno":
 
Regards,
E. Mattievich
 


Reply | Messages in this Topic (1)
#11821 From: "bigalemc2" <sgtti@...>
Date: Thu Dec 29, 2011 7:35 am
Subject: Re: maya in ga? 		bigalemc2
Send Email Send Email
 
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 .  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-year-old-maya-site-discovered-georgia-s-mountains
> >
> > mike
> >
>

Reply | Messages in this Topic (15)
#11822 From: "dcampbell75479" <fred-dobbs@...>
Date: Thu Dec 29, 2011 3:44 pm
Subject: Re: maya in ga? 		dcampbell75479
Send Email Send Email
  
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
> > >
> >
>

Reply | Messages in this Topic (15)
#11823 From: "bigalemc2" <sgtti@...>
Date: Thu Dec 29, 2011 6:47 pm
Subject: Re: maya in ga? 		bigalemc2
Send Email Send Email
  
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
> > >
> >
>

Reply | Messages in this Topic (15)
#11824 From: <aumsparky@...>
Date: Thu Dec 29, 2011 9:17 pm
Subject: Fw: [Ancient-Mysteries] canada mounds 		aumsparky
Send Email Send Email
 
 
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Tuesday, December 27, 2011 6:04 AM
Subject: [Ancient-Mysteries] canada mounds

 

 
   mounds were found along the red and rainy river of manitoba.  a 'large skull' was found, but most of the bones and pottery turned to dust.  it was above the headwaters of the mississippi.  there was evidence of fire in the tomb, similar to those of ohio.  red and yellow ochre were found.  lumps of arsenic iron pyrite were in the hands of one skeleton.  copper knife and drill were uncovered.  the copper may have been tempered.  tropical seashells were used.  the mounds are only found in fertile soil country, suggesting they were farmers.  maize was used. 
   he said the sioux and iroquois had dolichocephalic skulls. 
   author thought the mounds were 400-800 years old.  imho, they are much older, at least 3,000 years old, for bones to turn to dust in air. 
   the mystics suggest more relics of early man remain to be found in canada, from an era when it was warmer. 
 
 
mike
 
 


Reply | Messages in this Topic (1)
#11825 From: <aumsparky@...>
Date: Fri Dec 30, 2011 11:30 am
Subject: Re: Re: maya in ga? 		aumsparky
Send Email Send Email
 
 
   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
 
 

Reply | Messages in this Topic (15)
#11826 From: <aumsparky@...>
Date: Fri Dec 30, 2011 12:35 pm
Subject: Re: Re: maya in ga? 		aumsparky
Send Email Send Email
 
 
   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
 
 


Reply | Messages in this Topic (15)
#11827 From: "JohnR" <popepony@...>
Date: Fri Dec 30, 2011 10:42 pm
Subject: Re: maya in ga? 		popepony
Send Email Send Email
  
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
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

Reply | Messages in this Topic (15)
#11828 From: "bigalemc2" <sgtti@...>
Date: Fri Dec 30, 2011 10:55 pm
Subject: Re: maya in ga? 		bigalemc2
Send Email Send Email
 
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
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

Reply | Messages in this Topic (15)
#11829 From: "bigalemc2" <sgtti@...>
Date: Fri Dec 30, 2011 11:39 pm
Subject: Re: maya in ga? 		bigalemc2
Send Email Send Email
  
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
>

Reply | Messages in this Topic (15)
#11830 From: <aumsparky@...>
Date: Sat Dec 31, 2011 2:27 am
Subject: Re: Re: maya in ga? 		aumsparky
Send Email Send Email
 
 
   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
> > > >
> > >
> >
>


Reply | Messages in this Topic (15)
#11831 From: <aumsparky@...>
Date: Sat Dec 31, 2011 3:50 am
Subject: Re: Re: maya in ga? 		aumsparky
Send Email Send Email
 
 
   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
> > > >
> > >
> >
>


Reply | Messages in this Topic (15)
#11832 From: <aumsparky@...>
Date: Mon Jan 9, 2012 6:15 am
Subject: heracles strangling 2 serpents 		aumsparky
Send Email Send Email
 
 
   a popular theme among the ancients, was that hera sent two serpents to kill the baby heracles.  numerous vase paintings use this theme. 
  
 
   when i concluded that the fuente magna depicted this theme, it was surprising that nobody echoed support.  it is a very important point, whose implications may guide us to the voyagers who deposited it in bolivia. 
   it may be a votive bowl which the ancients were fond of donating to their temples.  there may be a buried temple to heracles yet to be found in bolivia. 
   there were two prominent heracles, the first about 10,000 bce.  he was adopted by the greeks, and the phoenicians, and was known, if not worshipped in egypt.  he is said to be a son of zeus, and a mortal mother.  he made many travels, to tunis, and across the trident sea in north africa.  he looted troy.  his fame was known in northern europe.  for the most part he was deified in europe and the mideast.   
   in the 'oera de linda' book, with corrected chronology, we have the frisian/magyar fleet, circa 9750 bce, founding tyre and a temple to thor.  tyre is thor corrupted.  7,000 years later the tyreans rebuilt and dedicated the temple to heracles.  alexander was enraged by their refusal to allow him to worship in that temple.  he destroyed tyre about 330 bce. 
   the origin of the fuente magna seems to point to tyre, prior to 330 bce.  they may have worshipped heracles long before 2750 bce.  likely several temples were built within 7,000 years.  so the fuente magna probably dates between 9750 bce and 330 bce.  the phoenicians got their seamanship from the frisian founding of tyre.  they became the most capable of long sea voyages, by the charts they inherited.  the use of cuneiform could most likely date between 9750 bce and 2000 bce.  it was a widely known script in those days.  the sailors could have picked up a scribe at some port along the way.  each nation would need scribes to keep in contact with babylon and assyria.  its likely that the change from thor to heracles began after the trojan war, which i date to 5500 bce, thru hint by cayce.  so maybe we can pin the date of the fuente magna to between 5500 bce and 2000 bce, when tyre may have been under greek domination.  having a better idea of the approximate date and origin, may speed the translation.  i dont accept that it was an oracle bowl, or the translation by winters.  i believe king hiram reigned during that time, his voyagers left an inscription in brazil, so we know he reached south america.  in fact his fleet made voyages to ecuador for solomon, imho.   reading that bowl will make it an incredible find.  i bet hiram is named on the bowl!  the use of cuneiform should not mislead scholars, scribes of many nations were available in seaports and capitals, for trade and diplomacy.  
 
mike
 
 

Reply | Messages in this Topic (1)
#11833 From: <aumsparky@...>
Date: Mon Jan 9, 2012 11:41 am
Subject: fuente magna 		aumsparky
Send Email Send Email
 
 
Subject: fuente magna

 
   these came up on yahoo for fuente magna, and cuneiform.  world-mysteries has the other, to give credit. 
   from this first chart, it appears that the script on fuente magna is the archaic cuneiform, circa 2500 bce.  see the god symbol below.  the earliest script had more characters, near 1000, while that near the end had about 400.  with more examples of the script, we can come to a closer dating of the relics.  they admit cuneiform had some appearance before 2500 bce.  it appeared in india, iran, babylon, assyria, perhaps all of the places the atlanteans relocated to near 10,000 bce.  maybe somewhere there is a person who can translate archaic cuneiform.  the work of rawlinson with the trilingual script may shed some light upon it.   
    these important finds from the last decade collect dust, making us all look like dull scholars.  i will continue to bring these relics up until academia investigates them properly.  its time that they rewrote the books anyway. 
 
 
   its clear that the various scripts of cuneiform are pictographs.  one shows 'bird', the other can be seen as the horns of an ox, etc. 
   the fuente magna does have an odd star shaped character, thats given as god, in one cuneiform script.  perhaps we can translate the word 'hiram', 'tyre', or 'heracles', on the fuente magna.  not the above chart, i need to relocate the other cuneiform chart. 
   i hope the archaeologists and authorities of bolivia will cooperature in further studies of these relics.  until recently, the fuente magna votive bowl was used as a feeding dish for pigs.  its received little notice by academia, asleep at their watch.  the finder reported other bowls, a fountain, and other relics, were found associated with fuente magna.  these have not been brought forward.  we have no profit motive, just want to know more about them.  i will try to examine the fuente magna and the cabeza, when i tour bolivia.  maybe the gold museum in la paz.  these finds could bring much more interest, and money to the economy of bolivia. 
   ive lost touch with bernardo biados, last i heard he was in argentina.  we need more information and images, so we can help identify the relics, the time, and the voyagers.  they have given no information on the general village near the site of the finds.  it would be enough if we could email the owner of the pig farm estate or hacienda. 
 
mike
 
 

Reply | Messages in this Topic (12)
Messages 11804 - 11833 of 12092   Oldest  |  < Older  |  Newer >  |  Newest
Add to My Yahoo!      XML What's This?
Copyright © 2010 Yahoo! Inc. All rights reserved.
Privacy Policy - Terms of Service - Guidelines NEW - Help