Archaeologica.org

Frank Harrist wrote:[...] I don't know nothing about no Irish monks, but the bow was invented here before Erickson came here. Even if, (and I'm highly doubtful) the monks came here they probably didn't carry bows. Enlighten me about the Irish monks. I never heard of that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._Brendan
And they would carry bows, Frank. To shoot venison and fowl (hare, deer, boar and turkey), i.o.w. to hunt and eat. Everybody did.

Imagine the depth of impression it must have made on the ignorant indians seeing that funny guy in the robes nail a hare at fifty paces with that contraption! A couple of times a day too!
Or a similar scene with a Phoenician in the leading role?
And didn't good old Odysseus make awesome voyages too? And in his case he lived, and managed to return home, to tell about it. So that Homer had a good story to write down.
How many Odysseus-es did not get back? But landed in America and shot hares to still their hunger?

I enjoy these hypothetical scenarios.


I am glad we have widened this discussion to include more groups, too.

Picking up on Barracuda's "spark" notion, you might as well ask why
the wheel WAS invented somewhere at a particular time, as to wonder why
somebody did not invent it.

It is just as logical to say that the Egyptians or Sumerians were curiously
intelligent and creative, as to say that other groups were curiously not so. Somebody had to be first...and the others were therefore 2nd, third, fourth, etc.

...On the other hand, I wonder about our contemporary world....why is prosperity so elusive in certain areas? You can talk about geopolitics, but
there are other factors as well, such as culture. I started a thread about
aborigines somewhile back,but no one was interested. One of the things I learned was that the aborigines find modern technology, lifestyle, etc,
completely abhorrent and aberrant.

The bible.

you see,iamnot the one opening the door. i posted a legitmately non-religious response to contribute to a good discussion. i wasn't looking to turn this into a religious debate.

In many cases people who remain stone age hunter gatherers do so because there is no need for them to change

i think this is a good point plus i would add that maybe those inovative thinkers that are needed to spark progress either were not present or did not have the support of their peers to move technology along.

or they didn't have the creative thinking needed to invent in their minds first. ( i don't mean to copy anyone if they already said that, iam in a hurry and haven't read all the posts yet.)

That said, those folks are no dummies themselves. Give them a steel axe and they will gladly use it over a stone axe any day

motivation or desire coud be lacking. they were/are content with the way they lived and still live.

Guilty, as charged.

Minimalist has his computer...he doesn't need a steel axe!

I think Stand and Arch have a good point.

Maybe I was looking at things backward....

Technologically advanced cultures were the exception, and not the norm.

Barracuda, it is nice to be appreciated!

More questions:

We know that homo erectus and neandertal had big brains.
Why didn't they invent the wheel?*

But on the other hand, why didn't the "advanced" civilizations
invent the kayak or the boomerang?



*This is a serious question, but
I guess you could say that the reason the cavemen didn't invent wheels is or maybe they were afraid to, since no one had invented brakes yet. .

<We know that homo erectus and neandertal had big brains.
Why didn't they invent the wheel?* >
They didnt need it nearly as much as the guys who invented it.

The oldest evidence I know of is a pair of cups from the 3rd mil found in a grave north of Budapest. But what they *look* like are not oxcarts. The wheels are small on a narrow base with sides that slope out at the top. What they *are* are ore carts with the same small wheels we've seen. Cause not far north of Budapest, what they had was the world's first great mining operation, chalcocite, which when smelted produced arsenic bronze, the toughest of all the bronzes.

And they've found some of the mining tunnels. Hardly wider than a man's shoulders. In business since the 6th mil, they start dragging bags of ore out. But then go upscale, and load baskets which they put on rollers. The bottoms of the baskets are only 1/2 meter wide to make them easy to turn in the narrow tunnels. Full of ore, a 1/2 cubic meter of rock weighs half a ton. On rollers, one guy pulling, one pushing, they can handle it.

But sooner or later, a corner stave of a square basket comes loose, slides down, and gets a roller hung up. Now... its an axle.

It was a bitch; but the payoff in this era was such that arsenic bronze was worth its weight in gold. It was *far* more useful. That is a heavy motivator, and would have men pay attention to anything that mite help in the mine.

But on the other hand, why didn't the "advanced" civilizations
invent the kayak or the boomerang

sometimes inspiration comes from viewing another object at work. inother words, the catalyst was missing to spark invention.

then we would have to look at the limitation of the geographical area. why did some inventions remain only in one spot? stan's example of the boomerrang, why was it basically limited to australia and did not appear in north america for generations?

stan wrote:[...] We know that homo erectus and neandertal had big brains.
Why didn't they invent the wheel? [...]

If the size of the brain determined that, whales would be in Formula 1 cars, stan!
(And Michael Schumacher, Ayrton Senna and Nicky Lauda in Dinky Toys!)

THose whales just know what's good for them!
They need cars like a fish needs a bicycle.


But seriously....those homos were PEOPLE! What was "wrong" with them??

and...

You seem to be equating intelligence with warfare, conquest and high technology.
Do you really feel that way about it?

stan wrote:But seriously....those homos were PEOPLE! What was "wrong" with them??

No, those people were HOMO'S! That's what's wrong with them!

[...] You seem to be equating intelligence with warfare, conquest and high technology.
Do you really feel that way about it?

I don't equate intelligence with warfare and conquest. But, in the absence of revealing texts, technology is indeed a good marker!

stan wrote:
But seriously....those homos were PEOPLE! What was "wrong" with them??
No, those people were HOMO'S! That's what's wrong with them!

Sorry, you lost me.

Frank Harrist wrote:This [North-America] was a land of plenty. There was little incentive to advance technically.

Egypt – 3,500 years BC and all through ancient history – was a land of plenty too, Frank*. So, according to your theory, they also had "little incentive to advance technically". Yet, the contrary is true: civilisation and technologies advanced greatly in ancient Egypt...
I.o.w.: living in a land of plenty does NOT automatically mean there's no incentive to develop technology! There is no link!

* Greek writers amply documented their surprise at the Egyptians' easy life. The Egyptians didn't work hard at all. 'Cause they didn't have to. They lived the good life. The Nile brought everything they needed.

So, since there don't seem to be any other explanations, and since nobody on this forum actually (apparently) has the guts to say it out loud (though Bob hinted at it), I'll say it for you:
the reason NA Indians' civilisation and technologies have stagnated in the past 11,000 years is because they are stupid and lazy!
In fact the NA Indians, as a people/race, were so totally useless for normal day-to-day work*, that real workers were desperately needed. Ergo: the reason for the black slave trade!

*Has anything changed...?