Why NOT in America?

[Digit]

To answer your question RS we need to answer one of mine, and that is, why did cities develop in the old world?
According to accepted dogma many major civilisations had developed in the old world at the stone age or bronze age stage whereas many people in the new world had reached that stage without producing what was produced in the old world.
Perhaps the reason was no desire for such, rather than a technical one.

[Beagle]

http://www.archaeologychannel.org/conte ... hiloh.html

Capitalizing on a rare archaeological opportunity, archaeologists at Shiloh National Military Park in Tennessee have unearthed the architecture of a Mississippian platform mound built a thousand years ago. Their findings may change how archaeologists see all such mounds: these ancient pyramids were not merely piles of earth, but instead colorful creations with powerful symbolism. Archaeology is revealing this mound's original appearance and yielding compelling clues about the way it was used during the Mississippian Period (A.D. 900-1550).

I attended a lecture by Dr. Morrison last week. He is the archaeologist digging at Shiloh, in Tennessee. I told him that I would be down to visit the dig.

This 22 min. video does not do justice to the pictures of the unearthed mounds in North America. He convinced me that Native Americans had a wonderful culture and civilization, and most of our assumptions have been based on early prejudices in the post Columbian era - after that culture had been destroyed.

The building techniques were incredible. Their economy and trade network rivaled anything on the planet. They excelled at agriculture, and because they managed the land resources so well, they had no need to domesticate any animal but the dog.

Check the video when you have a few minutes. I wish it was as good as the slide show I saw.

[Minimalist]

Their techniques may have been incredible but their building materials (earth and wood) were highly susceptible to erosion and decay. Unlike the M/E which is dry and in which stone figured prominently it is not too difficult to see how repeated floods could have wiped away early agrarian experiments along the Mississippi or other large rivers in the system.

[Beagle]

Their techniques may have been incredible but their building materials (earth and wood) were highly susceptible to erosion and decay. Unlike the M/E which is dry and in which stone figured prominently it is not too difficult to see how repeated floods could have wiped away early agrarian experiments along the Mississippi or other large rivers in the system.

No doubt. People have always made their buildings out of the most available material. Until recently, we didn't know that there was an ancient culture in Europe, as everything was made of wood.

The pictures I saw were really something though. You've seen the intricate patterns that Native Americans use in their cloth and pottery. There were giant buildings decorated like that - only it wasn't paint - it was built in of natural material. That took some talent. And sophistication.

[Minimalist]

The Cathedral of Santa Maria del Fiore in Florence is made of different colored marble. From a distance, it looks painted. Up close.......... it is mind-boggling.

[Rokcet Scientist]

There was a wide disparity in the Americas, R/S. I'm not sure that you can generalize in that manner. Even among the American Indians in NA there were nomadic types in the mid west; town dwellers in the SW and NE who practiced agriculture.

OK, then take the oldest occurrences of any/all of those types of civilisation. Any traces of anything predating 500 BC in North America?

The Maya, Aztec, Inca and Toltec did not seem to have problems building cities.

Nothing predating 1,500 BC, afaik.

There are tantalizing clues about early American cultures but these are shrouded in legend and when someone, like Poznansky suggests an early date for Tiahuanaco, the Club laughs him off because their model says there was no one here before Clovis.

I wasn't aware Poznansky, or anybody, had suggested Teotihuanaco to predate 14,000 BC.
Did he?

It's a mystery why having those forms present they did not make more of an impact on history, though.

Maybe what you see is what you get? Isn't that the most straightforward explanation? There simply isn't much to discover, because there wasn't much to begin with!
It might help to accept that fact, so that we could move on to the next question: if that was the case, why?

[Beagle]

Evening RS. I've been gone a week and missed this conversation. I'll just toss out my opinion that the North Americans seem to have developed a superior culture IMO.

There are reasons people build cities. There seems to be less need of urban communities in North America although there were definate megacities like Cahotek in Illinois. Probably quite a few more but as Min noted, they don't leave the same imprint as stone construction.

Anyway, it's late in Tennessee. Later.

[Minimalist]

http://fusionanomaly.net/tiahuanaco.html

There is considerable controversy about the age of Tiahuanaco. Some scholars argue that building started around 150 BC and the city continued to grow until the latter part of the first millennium AD.

Others insist it's much older and was probably in place by the second millennium BC. Firmly in the latter camp are Arthur Posnansky, an archaeologist whose findings were endorsed by the Bolivian government, and Rolf Muller, a German astronomer with an interest in the site. Posnansky was the first to suggest the Kalasasaya enclosure functioned as an astronomical observatory, a thesis that is now widely accepted by his peers. But Posnansky also used this insight to date the complex and came up with the astonishing figure of 15,000 BC. Dr Muller checked his calculations and cautioned that while 15,000 BC was certainly a possibility, the astronomical findings could also point to 9300 BC.

[Digit]

That was my view as well Beag, people don't wake up and say 'let's build a city'. The Chinese and the ancient Egyptians effectively called a halt to their development at a stage that suited them.
This does not make them backward. The SA civilisations didn't develop wheeled transport, they knew about the wheel but managed to their own satisfaction without.
The fact that some native Americans did build urban centres and others did not would seem to indicate a definite choice.
After the collapse of the Roman empire here the Saxons seemed to pretty well ignore the large urban centres and live in smaller communities.

[Rokcet Scientist]

After the collapse of the Roman empire here the Saxons seemed to pretty well ignore the large urban centres and live in smaller communities.

For 400/500 years, max., Digit. That was a mere hiccup in 'civilisational development'. And it was limited/localized to western Europe. At that same time, Byzantium/Constantinople was the biggest city in the world. And for twice as long!

[Digit]

I agree RS, what I was suggesting was that the Saxons managed a civilsation without large urban centres, later of course we reached the point where London was the largest urban centre in the world.
I'm not convinced that civilisation automatically requires large urban populations.

[Rokcet Scientist]

I'm not convinced that civilisation automatically requires large urban populations.

Imo, you're turning it upside down now, Digit: it's not large urban populations that create civilisations, but it's civilisations that create large urban populations....

Large urban populations are the consequence of civilisations. Not their cause.

[Digit]

Perhaps I should have phrased it differently. I don't believe that civilisation need automatically create large urban populations.

[Rokcet Scientist]

Perhaps I should have phrased it differently. I don't believe that civilisation need automatically create large urban populations.

OK, then show me one such 'different' civilisation, just one, similar in scope, or size, or effect (to its surroundings) to, say, Rome's civilisation. Or Egypt's. Or ancient China's.
Older than, say, 0 A.D.

Sofar, that 'concept' – a civilisation that need not 'automatically' create large urban populations – is totally unsupported by fact. In fact I'm convinced it is wishful thinking. Imo, the idea is/was conceived to 'explain' the absence of large urban populations (pre 0 A.D.) in the Americas. Because mis-directed pride cannot accept the fact that there simply was no civilisation (as we understand the concept).

My ancestors were barbarians.
That's a fact, and I accept that.
Apparently American indians can not accept that their ancestors were barbarians too, and simply refuse to accept that fact. With unsupported BS theories – "legends" – about 'different' civilisations.

Now, I can understand that American indians - from their point of view, and in their macho culture – want to believe that. Even if I think it is stupid and childish.

But why do you?
Are you an American indian?

[Beagle]

Long live having a two method model. The Old World folks were master brewers (that requires lots of agriculture to keep the beer flowing, but I prefer it.) The New World folks were master herbalists. For people of that persuasion it requires very little space - mainly just recognition. Except for tobacco.