New historical understandings.

Discussion in 'History' started by geordief, May 14, 2018.

  1. river

    Messages:
    11,058
    I gave a link , in my post #19 , go to it if you have the courage .

    Stop dancing around any evidence given .

    It is not easy to face the truth , I know because I have been there .
     
    Last edited: Jun 18, 2018
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Gawdzilla Sama Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,800
    Still no pix. You won't post pix because you have no pix that prove your assertion.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. sideshowbob Sorry, wrong number. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,210
    If there is evidence of maize in India, why would you conclude that it came from America? Why could it not be indigenous to India too?
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. river

    Messages:
    11,058
    Because it simply wasn't .

    Was coca indigenous to India ? No

    Is Tumeric indigenous to the Americas ? No

    Is Teak wood found in the Americas ? No . It is in India .

    Or to the point , is everything found everywhere on every continent ? NO .
     
    Last edited: Jun 23, 2018
  8. sideshowbob Sorry, wrong number. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,210
    That's a little too simple.

    We don't know for sure. Maybe some day we'll find evidence that it was.

    We don't know for sure. Maybe some day we'll find evidence that it was.

    We don't know for sure. Maybe some day we'll find evidence that it was.

    We didn't know that Native Americans came from Asia until we found evidence that they did. We didn't know that Polynesian sweet potatoes came from South America until we found evidence that they did.

    If there's evidence of maize in India, let's not jump to conclusions about how it got there.

    Nobody said it was. The point is that if something is somewhere, it could be indigenous or it could be a traveller. Don't make unfounded assumptions about which it is.
     
  9. Gawdzilla Sama Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,800
    Could have been on a starship, could have been on a shuttle, could have been beamed there, time travelers could have brought it from the distant future. Atlanteans could have spread it around. Plenty of rational explanations.
     
  10. sideshowbob Sorry, wrong number. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,210
    I was thinking more along the lines of dugout canoes, but yeah.
     
    DaveC426913 likes this.
  11. river

    Messages:
    11,058

    And don't make unfounded assumptions about what is indigenous and what isn't .

    Corn is simple not found in India , as an indigenous crop. Period
     
  12. Gawdzilla Sama Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,800
    He doesn't provide the pix that would support his position, because there are none.
     
  13. river

    Messages:
    11,058
    Explain further your point here ..if you can
     
  14. Gawdzilla Sama Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,800
    I asked for pix that would show that maize was in India way back when. None were produced. Bald assertions don't feed the cows.
     
  15. RainbowSingularity Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,096
    "our" ?
    you are refering to a specific culture or nationality or cultural identity ?

    you are asking for an opinion of interpretation of the Eurocentric puritin US immigrant cultures perspective on technologys application in a moral imperative functional society ?

    subjective
    introspective
    third person
    judgement based on morals or ethics or functional relationships ?
    economys ?
    socio-economic models of development ?
    macro economic evolution as a functional socio-cultural relationship to 1st world technoalogical development ?
     
  16. river

    Messages:
    11,058
    The " pix " was given , you chose to ignore , your choice .

    http://www.econ.ohio-state.edu/jhm/arch/maize.html
     
  17. Gawdzilla Sama Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,800
    I'll put that next to the stegosaurus.
     
  18. river

    Messages:
    11,058
    so you ignore the link . no surprise

    many people do so
     
  19. Gawdzilla Sama Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,800
    Sorry, chum, but you're the one who's talking out their ass. You don't even know your von Daniken.
     
  20. river

    Messages:
    11,058
    never known my ass to talk . brain does though

    so your talking is about your ass , no surprise .
     
  21. River Ape Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,123
    Our understanding of the past has changed out of all recognition since I was a young man -- by which I mean that the BIG picture has changed.
    The LITTLE pictures of history, like the Civil War or the French Revolution or World War II have changed to a degree as more research has been carried out -- and a lot of that has come from the availability of new records (written material) either through discovery (e.g. the Dead Sea Scrolls) or release from archives, rather than through technological progress. When I was a young man I was unaware of the code-breaking at Bletchley Park. Even now Britons are not permitted to know the truth about WWII; a visitor to the National Archives at Kew finds that many files are marked "sealed until 2045". Fifty years ago I smelled a rat over the official account of the JFK assassination, but the Zapruder film had not yet been shown to the public. Even now some documents relating to the assassination are still sealed, but in fifty years time people will know a lot more about things they will probably have ceased to care about.
    The BIG picture is that we have discovered much more about human origins, although we may still only be scratching the surface. Here, technological advance, particularly in the realm of DNA, has been of transformative importance. We did not know of the Denisovans fifty years ago. I have always been interested in human origins above all other aspects of history and this is reflected in my name of River Ape -- for we are among the great apes most distinctly creatures that evolved at the riverside. (BTW I have heard that there are more places called Riverside than anything else, including Springfield, in the US.) For others for whom this topic is of interest I recommend the most important book I have read in the last fifty years: Catching Fire, How Cooking Made Us Human, by Richard Wrangham. (I won't say more; you can Google it.)
    In the post Ice Age era, we have discovered that civilisation stretches back further than we supposed fifty years ago, with Gobekli Tepe causing a major rethink of time frames. Early civilisation elsewhere (e.g. at Mohenjo-Daro) has been explored far more deeply. We have learned far more about pre-Columbian Mesoamerica and Peru. Next to DNA, carbon dating has been the technological factor making the greatest impact.
    More generally, we have discovered simply more and more of what was going on in ancient times -- and with that has come the realisation that populations were greater than we used to suppose. Every time we have a drought in England (and this year has been a better year for archaeologists than for farmers) aerial surveys discover the traces of more ancient sites.
    Well, that will do as a start from me . . .
    except to say that if you have never searched "megaliths" on YouTube, you have much to learn -- but keep an open mind!
     

Share This Page