Moderators: MichelleH, Minimalist, JPeters
I hesitate here....the last time I brought up the wolf/dog/agriculture connection, we went around the barn a few times.I bet that farming was an old idea that people only used if they had no other choice, this may be why farming pops up in very old times but without enough evidence to show that it was the way of life then, I don't think that they liked doing it.
That's a more recent date than I had thought. From Arch. News.Newswise — Ancient farmers were growing sunflowers in Mexico more than 4,000 years before the Spaniards arrived, according to a team of researchers that includes Florida State University anthropologist Mary D. Pohl.
In an article published in the journal PNAS (Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences), Pohl and lead author David Lentz of the University of Cincinnati said their evidence confirms that farmers began growing sunflowers in Mexico by 2600 B.C. The paper is in response to scientists who still believe that sunflowers were first domesticated as an agricultural crop in eastern North America and that the Spaniards introduced the sunflower to Mexico from further north.
“The evidence shows that sunflower was actually domesticated twice -- in Mexico and then again hundreds of miles away in the Middle Mississippi Valley,” Pohl said.
In fact, the researchers argue that after the Spanish Conquest, the Spaniards tried to suppress cultivation of the sunflower because of its association with solar religion and warfare.
Another article on sunflowers.“First of all, sunflower is one of the world's major oil seed crops and understanding its ancestry is important for modern crop-breeding purposes," Lentz says. "For a long time, we thought that sunflower was domesticated only in eastern North America, in the middle Mississippi valley — Arkansas, Missouri, Tennessee, Illinois. This is what traditional textbooks say. Now it appears that sunflower was domesticated independently in Mexico."
"The Mexican sunflower discovery suggests that there may have been some cultural exchange between eastern North America and Mesoamerica at a very early time,” Lentz adds. “Now the textbooks need to be rewritten
A new article disputes earlier findings that the sunflower originated in Mexico, and says that it's domestication occurred in eastern North America. Stay tuned.Abstract I have concluded that my initial verification of a specimen recovered from the San Andrés archaeological site in Mexico as domesticated sunflower was incorrect. The specimen in question is most likely the seed of a bottle gourd. As yet there is no compelling evidence that the sunflower was grown as a food crop in Mexico prior to European contact. In addition, the complete absence of any early historical record for the sunflower in Mexico argues against its presence in pre-Columbian times. Although no dates or boundaries can be set, the wild sunflower may have grown in northernmost Mexico in early times. A southward range expansion for the species is probably very recent, perhaps in the last few hundred years with the development of a modern road system. The widely used common names of the sunflower in Mexico are in Spanish or with Spanish words in them, which suggests that the sunflower is a post-contact arrival.
Probably only of indirect relevance, plus I know I'm repeating myself from a thread started ages ago, but the whole topic of Meso to North American contact seems somewhat poorly covered. Looking through all the Northern Mexico rooms in INAH, it's pretty astonishing to note the numerous parallels between all the various cultures stretching up to the border, and it suggests a lot of cross cultural contact over a long period of time.kbs2244 wrote:The basic problem here is that they are ignoring the idea of contact between Mexico and the Middle Mississippi Valley.
It may have been a scrub weed in the dry areas of Mexico that was brought to the more fertile, better watered soil where it flourished.
I believe in Minnesota it is a major grain crop.
Don't forget - the border is only 250 years old.War Arrow wrote:Probably only of indirect relevance, plus I know I'm repeating myself from a thread started ages ago, but the whole topic of Meso to North American contact seems somewhat poorly covered. Looking through all the Northern Mexico rooms in INAH, it's pretty astonishing to note the numerous parallels between all the various cultures stretching up to the border, and it suggests a lot of cross cultural contact over a long period of time.kbs2244 wrote:The basic problem here is that they are ignoring the idea of contact between Mexico and the Middle Mississippi Valley.
It may have been a scrub weed in the dry areas of Mexico that was brought to the more fertile, better watered soil where it flourished.
I believe in Minnesota it is a major grain crop.
The basic problem here is that they are ignoring the idea of contact between Mexico and the Middle Mississippi Valley.
Physical evidence would help a lot there. What is there?Minimalist wrote:If only the Club would admit that they had boats, huh?
Circumstantial evidence is not in question, Min. Their interpretation is, though. Because it too often leads to serious 'accidents'. Travesties of justice. Where innocent people get convicted (of murder, rape, and other crimes) and serve (up to life) sentences on the basis of a flawed interpretation of circumstantial evidence.Minimalist wrote:You know, if a cop finds a body with a bullet hole through the head he does not have to find the gun or the bullet to ascertain that the cause of death was a gunshot wound and therefore he has a homicide on his hands.
Circumstantial evidence is allowable in law. Is archaeology above that?
