2012

[wolvesevolve]

In Mississippi, the Choctaw were mound-builders and their center of civlilization or holiest place, Nanih Waiya, is said to be where they received the sign from the Great Spirit that this was to be their new home on their migration from the south. Supposedly they carried a large/long pole cut from the trunk of a tree and each night they would dig a hole and put the pole in it. The following morning they would see which direction the pole leaned and that was the bearing for the next day's journey. When the pole remained vertical in the hole, that was the sign that they had arrived at the place to which the Great Spirit wished them to go. That place of the pole remaining vertical was in Central Mississippi at Nanih Waiya.

Archaeologists and anthropologists have never been able to decide if the Choctaws were a smaller tribe of Latin American area Indians that were driven out by war, famine, pestilence, etc. and therefore separated from the other larger civilizations in the area or whether they were part of those civilizations and chose to "expand" their territory by traveling north.

Interestingly, the Natchez Indians were not of the same origins as the Choctaw, were much more warlike, practiced human sacrifice and built mounds for religious purposes. They were thought to be directly connected to the Aztecs due to these similarities. The Natchez were virtually wiped out in a punitive, revenge raid by European settlers after the Natchez massacred the occupants of Fort Rosalie overlooking the Mississippi River. Fort Rosalie was built by the French to help secure control and possession of the river for their use in trade from the north, particularly in beaver pelts which was all the rage for capes and coats back in France. The current town of Natchez, MS is located in the vicinity of the old fort and of the Natchez Indian village.

Which is kinda interesting, as the Aztecs/Mexica have their myth that they were one of 7 "tribes" that came from the north, from the sacred place of 7 caves, called Aztlan (hence we get the name Aztec. The real name of the group is Mexica, they only introduced themselves to the Spanish as Aztecs...as the ones who came from Aztlan, to make themselves look more appealing...and for some reason the history books have stuck them with the name Aztecs rather than Mexica as they were properly known amongst themselves).

Of course all the indigenous tribes are related in one way or another....but again, I think linguistically (or otherwise) there is very little tying in any close relationships between those southern US indigenous tribes with their cousins to the south in Mexico.

I like the bit of history there on Fort Rosalie....though, I know this isn't your argument Southern Celt, you read/heard this somewhere...Natchez=Aztec because they were "savage", the whole dated idea that there is a biological basis for behavior, the earliest form of racism! grrrr!

Edited August 23, 2007 by wolvesevolve

[Guest SouthernCelt]

I like the bit of history there on Fort Rosalie....though, I know this isn't your argument Southern Celt, you read/heard this somewhere...Natchez=Aztec because they were "savage", the whole dated idea that there is a biological basis for behavior, the earliest form of racism! grrrr!

Actually the "connection" between Natchez and Aztec wasn't that they had a savage nature, it's that they practiced ritual death, sacrifice if you will, whereas none of the other tribes in this area did so. All the tribes were at one time or another described as "savage" because they resisted the settlement of whites.

[wolvesevolve]

Actually the "connection" between Natchez and Aztec wasn't that they had a savage nature, it's that they practiced ritual death, sacrifice if you will, whereas none of the other tribes in this area did so. All the tribes were at one time or another described as "savage" because they resisted the settlement of whites.

I probably hit the reply button a bit too quick...you're right on, every single indigenous group, from all of the Americas...and also to Africa, to India, etc. have been called "savage" from the throes of European "civilization", for one reason or another, but mostly because they were different and did not fit into what has been determined as "proper" and "civilized". Of course many Native American groups of North America have been referred to as "noble savages" to distinguish them from other indigenous groups that may have had more "brutal" or extreme practices.

So here's my thing: pretty much all American native groups practiced some form of sacrifice. But it gets under my skin a little, the racism legacy that in some form continues to exist, that stemmed from the name of science and Western rational thought...that biological relationships can be determined (or ruled out) from similar (or dissimilar) behavior patterning, that somehow the Aztecs were different than the vast majority North American tribes, since they practiced human sacrifice (on a massive scale!) and were "war-like". Then a group such as the Nachez, that also practiced human sacrifice (but I'm sure not at all quite like how it was practiced in Mexico) that supposedly differentiated them from other Native groups encountered in the US, well they must be somehow related to the Aztecs since they also had a "death ritual" (disassociating the Natchez from the "noble savages" of North America). It seems all very naive, dated, and demeaning. And I hope that a lot of this misinformation will finally see the wastebasket as we head further into the 21st century...

Edited August 23, 2007 by wolvesevolve

[Guest Ebdim9th]

I dont really know how to reply to what you said a few posts back, other than to state that it seems rather dismissive and belittling, couched in polite language. I never said trade wasn't a two way street, both cultures learning equally from each other. I find it rather upsetting that some particular researcher will hire an artist to start with nothing but postholes in the ground and apparently make the rest up out of whole cloth. Maybe this really is something you have no control over, but it leads me to wonder, how often has this been done, and why hasn't proper peer review put a stop to it? I believe it was the mounds themselves, the ones I saw looked identical, except yes, for the lack of stone, a difference in building materials which I believe I already mentioned, to their South American counterparts, that caused me to make my original comparison. More fanciful reconstruction? My ignorance has been reinforced by such displays. The opposite of 'knowledge' - Science.

Edited August 23, 2007 by Ebdim9th

[wolvesevolve]

I dont really know how to reply to what you said a few posts back, other than to state that it seems rather dismissive and belittling, couched in polite language. I never said trade wasn't a two way street, both cultures learning equally from each other. I find it rather upsetting that some particular researcher will hire an artist to start with nothing but postholes in the ground and apparently make the rest up out of whole cloth. Maybe this really is something you have no control over, but it leads me to wonder, how often has this been done, and why hasn't proper peer review put a stop to it? I believe it was the mounds themselves, the ones I saw looked identical, except yes, for the lack of stone, a difference in building materials which I believe I already mentioned, to their South American counterparts, that caused me to make my original comparison. More fanciful reconstruction? My ignorance has been reinforced by such displays. The opposite of 'knowledge' - Science.

LOL @ the last part!

I apologize if I sound dismissive towards anyone on here...I get a little carried away since I've had a keen interest in the subject of pre-Colombian Mexico/Central America/South America-North America exchange/interaction, and also have spent some time working in both the Midwest on Mississippian sites as well as areas in West-Central Mexico. It just seems less and less likely the more I examine the whole thing (not to mention how the majority of academia think of it!). I remember the first time I saw some of these artists depictions of temple-mound sites...it looked like something right out of prehistoric Mexico, only greener! And really there are a lot more similarities if you start examining other things (like you mentioned about site layout similarities) that I *conveniently* did not mention to drive home my point. (I'd gladly share some more tid-bits now that I'm done w/ my shpeal )

Mainly I just want to enlighten anyone of some major details, that the average person would not know without some thorough study of Mexican sites and late prehistoric places in Southeastern US. And ya got the right idea from my post: the fault is mostly that of museums, some vanity in regards to funding, and (lack of) public outreach by archaeologists. Often in the name of getting better grants and attracting more people to museums/public arch. sites (topped with maybe a shortage of artists that are also archaeologists (or vice-versa?)), some very amazing reconstructions are made that really go a little too far to capture the public's imagination. And then *boom*, here come the archaeologists/historians telling you that it really wasn't that way at all! The b*******s we are, aren't we? But most archaeological sites and small museums are largely privately (under)funded; so there's really a stepping off of academia in this realm and little in the way of possibilities for well established peer review. Hence there's kind of a disconnect between the archaeologists and museum folks...I can only imagine if a museum person were reading this, they'd jump all over me!

But you had a great point Ebdim9th earlier about archaeologists not looking hard enough for "that macaw in the Midwest". Absolutely right! I'd put my money down if there's one out there, it's maybe be somewhere in Oklahoma (where at Spiro we already have an obsidian blade from a source in Central Mexico, uncovered by accident) and maybe nearby into Texas, Alabama...but I don't think ya want to hear more about my opinion on that possibility

Again apologies if my previous reply came off as showboating and belittling, I understand completely where you're coming from....just like other archaeologists, I need to work on my "communication with the public" skills! Hope though that I might have peaked your interest a little more into some other aspects of prehistory of North America.

[hippyroo]

No matter which culture or race you want to claim, there were murderous b*******s in out ancestry. Rousue's (spelling?) concept of the noble savage in laughable. People have been the same four thousands of years in hundreds of cultures. What the Huron and the Sioux did to other tribes people isn't all that different from what Chinese did to mongals (don't you wish I could spell?), Greeks did to barbarians, Zulus did the the Ndwandes, or Vikings to the Brits. However, the grand scale of human sacrifice practiced in Mezzo America was certainly more systematic than anything I've read about in other cultures until we get to the 19th century. Academics try to reason that since there weren't any large herd animals the people had to eat the only large food supply available - humans. Others try to say that it made perfect sense to the tribes that practiced it and that we should not judge them through our "western, monotheistic" eyes. But when I read about Motazuma explaining how they always left enough of a village to ensure that there would be more humans to harvest later, I think more of Himmler than of Squanto.

[Guest Ebdim9th]

Thanks for a well-reasoned reply, ~~Wolvesevolve, I didn't come back 'til now, because, far from offended, I was just afraid you'd be, offended that is, and dreaded reading the reply. Turns out I shouldn't have. And part of me knew that all along, too. Though I have religious beliefs, I am much concerned with the purity of the scientific method, unsullied by politics and overzealous fundraising drives. I think the study of religious culture, history, and writings benefits from vigorous peer-review and consistency of study/follow-up study/conclusion and on rather than suffers marginalization from it. Anyway, I hope you read this soon and want to follow up with the next post here...

~~~Phil B.

[Guest Laurent.]

Can't believe I didn't reply to hippyroo the first time but just wanted to say that I agree with him completely. Rousseau's ideas are not very logical, in fact, I would tend think the exact opposite. Man is not corrupted by society, we have always been violent and egoist in our hearts but society has helped us to develop a more altruist philosophy (which we needed to be able to live together). We have defined lines between what is acceptable and what isn't between different individuals and without those conventions we would just be as self-centered as the primal man (or natural man) probably was. Rousseau was probably not aware that the first genocide in human history goes back to the Cro-Magnon, responsible for the complete extinction of the Neanderthal men...

Anyway, glad I had the opportunity to discuss my point of view on the matter... Rousseau's philosophy has always bothered me.

[Guest Ebdim9th]

I think the Neanderthal were man's most recent ancestors, although I'm not sure they were actively seeking to wipe out their predecessors. Although it certainly seems consistent with human(oid) behavior as we know it.

[Guest Laurent.]

Well Neanderthals aren't really Man ancestors because then we would be extinct. In fact, as far as I know (and I'm not a specialist in this domain, just interested in paleontology), there seem to have been two different branches of "humanoids" so to speak. I just quickly searched Wikipedia and found out this genetic comparison:

An Italo-Spanish research team, lead by David Caramelli, published in 2003 a study on Cro-Magnon and Neanderthal mitochondrial DNA that concluded that Neanderthal man was far outside the modern human range, while Cro-Magnon people were not just inside but well in the average of modern Europeans.

And I don't really know what you mean by most recent but researchers concluded that Neanderthals reach extinction somewhere between 33,000 to 24,000 years ago. Here's alast piece of evidence to prove Man's first mass-murder:

The Cro-Magnons must have come into contact with the Neanderthals, and are often credited with causing the latter's extinction.

If you want to see this informations for yourself, and you probably should, here are the two pages from Wikipedia I read (they are both short but very informative):

Wikipedia - Neanderthal

Wikipedia - Cro-Magnon