A recent Facebook discussion got me interested in pre-contact Native Societies, and I've been reading a bit more on the Mississippian culture. Most of the literature seems to suggest that there weren't substantial contacts between the Mississippian culture and Mesoamerica, but they shared the following;
Maize agriculture
Feathered serpent God
Human sacrifice on mounds
Ball games, including sacrifices and rituals
Hero twin myths
A lot of the art looks remarkably similar too:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2F1%2F1f%2FS.E.C.C._Hero_Twins_1_HRoe_2006.jpg&hash=032b4521d00839a9916e4a3e879cb7db71b9d84e)
I don't get how there would be cultural diffusion without large-scale contact or shared ancestry. Really confused.
How is substantial contact defined? And what is the "no substantial contact" based on? Are there similarities that you would expect that are not present? Why is shared ancestry dismissed?
Whatever contact, and there wasn't enough. Mesoamericans built all sorts of cool things for us to remember them by, and Mississippians didn't do shit.
Quote from: derspiess on January 20, 2013, 02:56:13 PM
Mesoamericans built all sorts of cool things for us to remember them by, and Mississippians didn't do shit.
:lol: And still don't. Well, Waffle Houses maybe.
Spellus, some of the things you mention are probably not indicative of very much. Maize agriculture is simply using an effective crop. I am not sure that the Mississippians practiced human sacrifice on mounds. Even if they did, their mounds are quite different than mesoamerican temples and human sacrifice was probably common in pre modern societies. The ball games seem to have been quite different.
I'll grant that the art has superficial similarities, but the societies were at dramatically different levels of sophistication and were separated by large distances and geographic obstacles. We don't have evidence of much contact, even though both societies existed into the historical period.
QuoteSpellus, some of the things you mention are probably not indicative of very much. Maize agriculture is simply using an effective crop. I am not sure that the Mississippians practiced human sacrifice on mounds. Even if they did, their mounds are quite different than mesoamerican temples and human sacrifice was probably common in pre modern societies. The ball games seem to have been quite different.
Granted, mounds seem to be pretty common-you'd find them in Sumeria, Egypt and China in around the same period in Eurasia's development as the Aztecs were at.
What about the hero twins, though? I'm also not totally convinced that the fact that the games were different means that it isn't proof of some type of contact-I don't think the Incas had these types of games (may be wrong).
Also, what about the Hero Twin and Feathered Serpent myths?
I suppose it is possible that the Nahuatl-who had origins in the Southwest-had some of these myths and practices. Possible origin of the shared myths. It'd be somewhat similar to the popularity of Eurasian storm-bulls, paternalistic lightning Gods, paternalistic life-trees and conflicts with serpents.
It seems unlikely that two separate cultures would develop the same suite of crops independently.
Crops can travel over cultural boundaries such that one culture doesn't have any kind appreciation of where it came from originally. I doubt that most Maori were cognizant of the Inca origins of the sweet potato.
Quote from: Razgovory on January 20, 2013, 03:48:20 PM
It seems unlikely that two separate cultures would develop the same suite of crops independently.
Why not?
Cotton was used pretty widely and independently.
Well you were the one who brought up agriculture. Since the Spanish heard about cultures on the Mississippi and Missouri rivers from their territories in Mexico I think it's safe to assume there was some knowledge.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 20, 2013, 03:55:57 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on January 20, 2013, 03:48:20 PM
It seems unlikely that two separate cultures would develop the same suite of crops independently.
Why not?
Cause agriculture has only been invented independently a handful of times. Mostly it's borrowed from elsewhere. For instance chickens, those tasty tasty birds, come from one place. Indonesia. Nobody else independently domesticated chickens, but they spread all over the world. Why agriculture developed at all or how is not really that well understood.
This has always been one of the areas of discussion, and it is often one with a lot of overtones.
The pre-Olmec cultures saw the introduction of post-teosinte throughout Mesoamerica and into what is now the American Southwest by 2000 BCE. However, the more modern maize didn't seem to hit the US proper until about 1500-2000 years ago. What this means is that there was a long period of contact in the Southwest, but the ability to sustain agriculture further north and east didn't come about for a long time after that.
We do know there were long distance trade routes in the Americas, well before agriculture. It is not a leap to imagine that the spread of maize, the diffusion of Mesoamerican myths, and the systems of agriculture spread due to this trade over centuries. Add into this the warming cycle that coincides with the High Middle Ages and you have plenty of reason why the Mississippian Culture rose at the time it did. There are enough cultural differences that seem grounded in the region to dismiss a simple grafting of southern cultural groups onto the people of the region.
That said, there does seem to be influence. The alignment of mounds, some of the mythic structure, and the basic nature and spread of the crops used show this. However, the contact seems to be secondary or based on trade routes, that seems the more likely than a grafting of southern groups or wholesale borrowing.
As far as I know, the introduction of the waffle culture was not significant in the Pre-Colombian period.
Quote from: Razgovory on January 20, 2013, 04:12:14 PM
Why agriculture developed at all or how is not really that well understood.
:rolleyes: Easy. Agriculture developed because of beer.
Quote from: Razgovory on January 20, 2013, 04:12:14 PM
Why agriculture developed at all or how is not really that well understood.
Some good theories do exist however. The idea of cultural/biological co-evolution is quite promising when it comes to domestication by humans of plants and animals. For instance, the studies of einkorn wheat (one of the earlier crops in the Middle East) show that scheduled rounds of gathering changes the plants in about 30-50 generations (potentially), meaning that in the years of harvesting more and more care needed to be taken by people to ensure a larger and larger harvest. Eventually one gets horticulture at the very least.
Quote from: derspiess on January 20, 2013, 04:26:07 PM
:rolleyes: Easy. Agriculture developed because of beer.
I have always liked the notion that the first fermented wheat "beers" came about from someone drinking the alcoholic liquid off of the top of overnight sourdough pots. Probably not the tastiest of drinks.
H2 has a show named America Unearthed, the first episode was the connection between the Maya and a ruins in Georgia.
Quote from: Queequeg on January 20, 2013, 03:36:55 PM
Also, what about the Hero Twin and Feathered Serpent myths?
Like Romulus and Remus? Are either of those myths special or unique in the world to the point where they must have come through contact?
Quote from: PDH on January 20, 2013, 04:31:57 PM
Quote from: derspiess on January 20, 2013, 04:26:07 PM
:rolleyes: Easy. Agriculture developed because of beer.
I have always liked the notion that the first fermented wheat "beers" came about from someone drinking the alcoholic liquid off of the top of overnight sourdough pots. Probably not the tastiest of drinks.
Who knows, maybe it tasted good in the context of their diet back then.
Quote from: PDH on January 20, 2013, 04:31:57 PM
I have always liked the notion that the first fermented wheat "beers" came about from someone drinking the alcoholic liquid off of the top of overnight sourdough pots. Probably not the tastiest of drinks.
Does wine predate beer? Had to figure there was some kind of container full of fruit that was left over-long at some point.
Quote from: Queequeg on January 20, 2013, 05:49:55 PM
Quote from: PDH on January 20, 2013, 04:31:57 PM
I have always liked the notion that the first fermented wheat "beers" came about from someone drinking the alcoholic liquid off of the top of overnight sourdough pots. Probably not the tastiest of drinks.
Does wine predate beer? Had to figure there was some kind of container full of fruit that was left over-long at some point.
I think the idea is that the first alcohol was fermented fruit. Anyone for banana mash? Not sure that qualifies as "wine" but in a pinch...
Interestingly the Beeb is starting a new story about 'Lost' kingdoms of South America, those predating the Incas, looks like worth watching:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b01pwtqy/Lost_Kingdoms_of_South_America_People_of_the_Clouds/ (http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b01pwtqy/Lost_Kingdoms_of_South_America_People_of_the_Clouds/)
Quote from: Queequeg on January 20, 2013, 02:30:07 PM
A recent Facebook discussion got me interested in pre-contact Native Societies, and I've been reading a bit more on the Mississippian culture. Most of the literature seems to suggest that there weren't substantial contacts between the Mississippian culture and Mesoamerica, but they shared the following;
Maize agriculture
Feathered serpent God
Human sacrifice on mounds
Ball games, including sacrifices and rituals
Hero twin myths
A lot of the art looks remarkably similar too:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2F1%2F1f%2FS.E.C.C._Hero_Twins_1_HRoe_2006.jpg&hash=032b4521d00839a9916e4a3e879cb7db71b9d84e)
I don't get how there would be cultural diffusion without large-scale contact or shared ancestry. Really confused.
Apart from the lack of Maize in the mediterranean all these exist in the med civilizations, The Romans has Mythical Dragons, Gladiatorial games, Burnt offerings to god, Castor and Pollux (not to mention Romulus and Remus). Not to mention Bronze, something that existed in Cahokia but not Tenochtitlan. Bronze is possibly the only thing that would make the 2000 mile trek between the two worth while.
Did the Cahokians really worship and winged serpent? Or was it just a badly drawn snake?
Based on the art, it seems they also had a Pink Flamingo god.
PDH, are there any good works on the Nahuatl going from the South-East down to Mexico? I'd be interested. Always struck me as interesting that they were related to the Comanche. I also don't know how such massive population movements happen without horses.
Quote from: Queequeg on January 21, 2013, 03:21:43 AM
PDH, are there any good works on the Nahuatl going from the South-East down to Mexico? I'd be interested. Always struck me as interesting that they were related to the Comanche. I also don't know how such massive population movements happen without horses.
It's called "walking".
American Southwest and the Mexican North aren't always the best place for a large number of migrants on foot. Also interested in how they displaced or conquered a settled population.
Quote from: Queequeg on January 21, 2013, 01:24:08 PM
American Southwest and the Mexican North aren't always the best place for a large number of migrants on foot. Also interested in how they displaced or conquered a settled population.
Because they had fairly small populations, and many places in North America the tribes were fairly mobile. That's why there is such a mish-mash of languages across North America. The languages of the Apaches are related to languages of First Nations spoken in Canada and possibly some groups in Siberia.
Yeah, but the proto-Aztecs overpowered a settled agricultural population as a (presumably tiny) nomadic band that was hundreds of miles from it's home. It seems quite different to me from most of the cases of language replacement I am familiar with. The Turks were relatively small, but the mobility of the horse meant that a man born in Western Mongolia could pretty easily settle down in the vicinity of modern Ankara, and the steppe's ability to support massive numbers of horses was a huge tactical advantage. Nahuatl had nothing like that far as I can see.
For food, culture and technologytransfer you don't have to have one person walk from Tenochitlan all the way to the SE US - it can be done by a slow and gradual series of transfers. The area inbetween was not home to any major political organization, but was still far from empty.
The trade in physical items is a lot easier to track archaeologically, and they've shown how those physical items were traded hundreds and even thousands of miles from their origin. Those same trade networks could include cultural ideas as well.
One thing to remember, the movement of ideas took a long time. Maize, for instance moves from Mesoamerica to the American Southwest in about 2000 years (or more). That is plenty of time for a gradual acculturation of ideas and practices.
You don't need invaders or such mobile groups, all you need is time.
Quote from: Queequeg on January 21, 2013, 04:02:21 PM
Yeah, but the proto-Aztecs overpowered a settled agricultural population as a (presumably tiny) nomadic band that was hundreds of miles from it's home. It seems quite different to me from most of the cases of language replacement I am familiar with. The Turks were relatively small, but the mobility of the horse meant that a man born in Western Mongolia could pretty easily settle down in the vicinity of modern Ankara, and the steppe's ability to support massive numbers of horses was a huge tactical advantage. Nahuatl had nothing like that far as I can see.
I'm not sue the proto-Aztecs were tiny nomadic bands. I think they had agriculture. Besides, language replacement took place in the Old World without horse. For instance the Afro-Asiatic speakers seemed to have conquered Sumeria at some point well before horses were common in the area.
Quote from: Razgovory on January 21, 2013, 04:20:44 PM
Quote from: Queequeg on January 21, 2013, 04:02:21 PM
Yeah, but the proto-Aztecs overpowered a settled agricultural population as a (presumably tiny) nomadic band that was hundreds of miles from it's home. It seems quite different to me from most of the cases of language replacement I am familiar with. The Turks were relatively small, but the mobility of the horse meant that a man born in Western Mongolia could pretty easily settle down in the vicinity of modern Ankara, and the steppe's ability to support massive numbers of horses was a huge tactical advantage. Nahuatl had nothing like that far as I can see.
I'm not sue the proto-Aztecs were tiny nomadic bands. I think they had agriculture. Besides, language replacement took place in the Old World without horse. For instance the Afro-Asiatic speakers seemed to have conquered Sumeria at some point well before horses were common in the area.
I think they might have had wagons, but year the moment I posted this I thought of the Akkadians.
Quote from: Queequeg on January 21, 2013, 08:45:51 PM
I think they might have had wagons, but year the moment I posted this I thought of the Akkadians.
English, please.
I think the Semitic invaders of Mesopotamia during the time of the Sumerians-who would later be called Akkadians-might have had wagons, but most of the migrants were probably on foot. This directly contradicts my previous post wherein I couldn't remember another time a settled quasi-nomadic people conquered and assimilated a settled agricultural society. The Akkadians did it.
You don't need a migration of people to have a diffusion of culture. The bell beaker spread 4-5000 years ago seems to indicate this.
I've noticed that Psellos and I think alike often. Poor, guy. :(
Quote from: PDH on January 21, 2013, 09:02:28 PM
You don't need a migration of people to have a diffusion of culture. The bell beaker spread 4-5000 years ago seems to indicate this.
Wouldn't some kind of core nucleus of migrants be assumed?
Quote from: Queequeg on January 22, 2013, 02:12:51 AM
Quote from: PDH on January 21, 2013, 09:02:28 PM
You don't need a migration of people to have a diffusion of culture. The bell beaker spread 4-5000 years ago seems to indicate this.
Wouldn't some kind of core nucleus of migrants be assumed?
Trade between groups should be sufficient in most cases.
What is meant by culture?
To use an example I am familiar with, the proto-Uralics had extensive ties with the Indo-Europeans. Much of the material culture was shared, and there was a lot of linguistic contact. Genetic admixture was inevitable, but likely far less so than in areas of outright conquest by earliest Indo-European groups. Some Uralic groups-the Proto-Hungarians- could be spoken of as sharing a material culture with other Eurasian pastoralists, having received large parts of the Indo-European "package." But genetic admixture and linguistic intermingling still happened. Assuming that a linguistic and material culture could change in this period without genetic admixture seems unlikely. Particularly linguistic element.
With the rise of genetic sequencing of ancient remains the academic tide has turned against the "pots, not people" paradigm in tabor of migration and expansion.
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2010/10/volkerwanderung-back-with-a-vengeance/#.UP6FiB01gm8