Shwa Posted November 17, 2010 Report Posted November 17, 2010 You assume it was the killers who buried them, and not the more likely scenario of people who survived the slaughter or people who fled and returned when it was over. Your speculation is as good as mine.
M.Dancer Posted November 17, 2010 Report Posted November 17, 2010 Is that what the article says happened there? Pretty much... The bones of 31 executed and dismembered Maya nobles were found in a sacred reservoir at the entrance to the royal palace in Cancuén in the Petén rain forest of Guatemala. Researchers also found a shallow grave nearby containing the skeletons of two people they believe were the king and queen. The bones of more than a dozen executed upper-class Maya were found at a third burial site north of the royal palace. That's at least 45...in a reservoir... suggest that the city was wiped out by an invading force around A.D. 800, a critical moment at the beginning of the mysterious collapse of the great Maya empire. In May this year the researchers were studying the area's water system when they made their gruesome discovery: a 90-square-yard (75-square-meter) reservoir near the entrance to the royal palace filled with thousands of human bones and precious artifacts. While commoners may have run away or been taken captive, nobles—men, women, and children—were lined up and executed. The bodies were then deposited with some ceremony in the sacred cistern at the palace entrance, the researchers speculate. RIGHT of SOME, LEFT of OTHERS If it is a choice between them and us, I choose us
charter.rights Posted November 17, 2010 Author Report Posted November 17, 2010 Pre-Clovis certainly.... 50-60,000 years? Ridiculous speculation. That is the era of Pre-Clovis. Topper puts it close to that, if Topper is reliable. “Safeguarding the rights of others is the most noble and beautiful end of a human being.” Kahlil Gibran “Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.” Albert Einstein
charter.rights Posted November 17, 2010 Author Report Posted November 17, 2010 Pretty much... That's at least 45...in a reservoir... Now all you are doing is engaging in speculation because a well is not a reservoir. A bathtub could be a reservoir, or even a fountain could be a reservoir, but not a well. And I would note that it is a Sacred Reservoir which would suggest that it they suspect that it was reserved for the nobility...like a bathtub.... If you are going to quote sources, please stop trying to put your own spin on it. Look up the words in a dictionary if you don't understand them.... “Safeguarding the rights of others is the most noble and beautiful end of a human being.” Kahlil Gibran “Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.” Albert Einstein
Shwa Posted November 17, 2010 Report Posted November 17, 2010 My link That's all you got as "evidence?" Human sacrifice was an aspect of historical Aztec culture, although the extent of the practice is debated by scholars. According to Ross Hassig, author of Aztec Warfare, "between 10,000 and 80,400 persons" were sacrificed in the ceremony Between 10,000 and 80,400, well there is quite a wide discrepency now isn't there? No speculation required when your scholarly estimates have a 70,000 victim discrepency. Nonetheless, according to Codex Telleriano-Remensis, old Aztecs who talked with the missionaries told about a much lower figure for the reconsecration of the temple, approximately 4,000 victims in total. Of course we know that "old" Aztecs couldn't count and 4,000 dead is a pittance in the face of some other conflicts. <---- another Wiki link for you And finally, what does Aztec sacrifice have to do with "First Nations?" Or do we want to say that Europeans murdered 6 million Jews a mere 70 years ago? Because of that, we have ample evidence that isn't really debated by scholars is it?
Shwa Posted November 17, 2010 Report Posted November 17, 2010 Pretty much... ...the researchers speculate
M.Dancer Posted November 17, 2010 Report Posted November 17, 2010 And finally, what does Aztec sacrifice have to do with "First Nations?" So....they are not first nations then? RIGHT of SOME, LEFT of OTHERS If it is a choice between them and us, I choose us
Guest TrueMetis Posted November 17, 2010 Report Posted November 17, 2010 That's all you got as "evidence?" Between 10,000 and 80,400, well there is quite a wide discrepency now isn't there? No speculation required when your scholarly estimates have a 70,000 victim discrepency. So what? Even the low end of the scale is thousands. Large discrepancies for ancient times is common, we can't even be sure of the population of Central America at the time. Of course we know that "old" Aztecs couldn't count and 4,000 dead is a pittance in the face of some other conflicts. <---- another Wiki link for you I shouldn't have to point out that the population densities of these places where much higher than what the Aztecs and surrounding tribes had. So smaller numbers killed would still have had a large effect. And finally, what does Aztec sacrifice have to do with "First Nations?" You're the one that made it about the Aztecs I mention the Maya and Haida as well. Or do we want to say that Europeans murdered 6 million Jews a mere 70 years ago? Because of that, we have ample evidence that isn't really debated by scholars is it? I have no idea what the point your making with this is.
Who's Doing What? Posted November 17, 2010 Report Posted November 17, 2010 (edited) http://archaeology.about.com/od/cterms/g/cactushill.htm http://archaeology.about.com/od/mterms/qt/meadowcroft.htm http://archaeology.about.com/cs/glossary/g/monteverde.htm These sites establish that pre-clovis peoples were likely here and has caused archaeologists to look further. There are other signs as well that have change the thinking of archaeologists such as human footprints found in rock in Mexico dated to about 20,000 years ago. In any case it debunks the myth that all aboriginal people came from Asia. YOu now acknowledge that Europeans arrived in North America thousands of years ago? If they didn't come from Asia and Europe just where did they come from? I see a lot of Asiatic traits in Natives. I don't see any afros. The only possible Continents for natives to come from thousands of years ago is Asia, Europe, Africa and Australia. IF they came from Africa or Australia then they would have more of a resemblance and characteristic traits. So they had to come from Europe or Asia. You do realise Asia is more than just China, Korea, and Japan, right? Edited November 17, 2010 by Who's Doing What? Harper differed with his party on some key policy issues; in 1995, for example, he was one of only two Reform MPs to vote in favour of federal legislation requiring owners to register their guns. http://www.mapleleafweb.com/election/bio/harper.html "You've got to remember that west of Winnipeg the ridings the Liberals hold are dominated by people who are either recent Asian immigrants or recent migrants from eastern Canada: people who live in ghettoes and who are not integrated into western Canadian society." (Stephen Harper, Report Newsmagazine, January 22, 2001)
Who's Doing What? Posted November 17, 2010 Report Posted November 17, 2010 That is the era of Pre-Clovis. Topper puts it close to that, if Topper is reliable. The clovis era is thought to have arrived in NA about 15,000 years ago. 60,000 is not only pre-Clovis it is pre-migration to North America. IN the end who really care if it is 20,000 or 45,000. What difference does that make. I want to see this mystical continent that Natives sprang up from before they migrated to the Americas. Harper differed with his party on some key policy issues; in 1995, for example, he was one of only two Reform MPs to vote in favour of federal legislation requiring owners to register their guns. http://www.mapleleafweb.com/election/bio/harper.html "You've got to remember that west of Winnipeg the ridings the Liberals hold are dominated by people who are either recent Asian immigrants or recent migrants from eastern Canada: people who live in ghettoes and who are not integrated into western Canadian society." (Stephen Harper, Report Newsmagazine, January 22, 2001)
Guest TrueMetis Posted November 17, 2010 Report Posted November 17, 2010 (edited) The clovis era is thought to have arrived in NA about 15,000 years ago. 60,000 is not only pre-Clovis it is pre-migration to North America. IN the end who really care if it is 20,000 or 45,000. What difference does that make. I want to see this mystical continent that Natives sprang up from before they migrated to the Americas. Natives are Atlanteans isn't it obvious? It perfectly explains why they were so advanced they were above all the petty things that normal humans fought about and only ever had small scale fights over resources. Edited November 17, 2010 by TrueMetis
charter.rights Posted November 17, 2010 Author Report Posted November 17, 2010 The clovis era is thought to have arrived in NA about 15,000 years ago. 60,000 is not only pre-Clovis it is pre-migration to North America. IN the end who really care if it is 20,000 or 45,000. What difference does that make. I want to see this mystical continent that Natives sprang up from before they migrated to the Americas. Pre-clovis is anywhere from 50-60,000 years ago to 12-15,000 years ago. “Safeguarding the rights of others is the most noble and beautiful end of a human being.” Kahlil Gibran “Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.” Albert Einstein
M.Dancer Posted November 17, 2010 Report Posted November 17, 2010 Pre-clovis is anywhere from 50-60,000 years ago to 12-15,000 years ago. There are numerous pre clovis sites in Russia RIGHT of SOME, LEFT of OTHERS If it is a choice between them and us, I choose us
Shwa Posted November 17, 2010 Report Posted November 17, 2010 So....they are not first nations then? Nope. And more importantly, they are not all First Nations.
Shwa Posted November 17, 2010 Report Posted November 17, 2010 So what? Even the low end of the scale is thousands. Large discrepancies for ancient times is common, we can't even be sure of the population of Central America at the time. Low end of the scale? So your "evidence" now has a scale which is enough wiggle room to speculate and still be "right." But it isn't speculation. I shouldn't have to point out that the population densities of these places where much higher than what the Aztecs and surrounding tribes had. So smaller numbers killed would still have had a large effect. Really? You have "evidence" of comparative population densities now? Or do you just have a speculative scale you employ based on some numbers parroted off of Wiki? Oh, puh-lease do tell... You're the one that made it about the Aztecs I mention the Maya and Haida as well. Did I now: You haven't heard of the Aztecs I take it? I have no idea what the point your making with this is. No kidding. You didn't get my reference about the Chinese being bureacratic because many of them speak Mandarin either. Seems to be a pattern forming...
Guest TrueMetis Posted November 17, 2010 Report Posted November 17, 2010 (edited) Low end of the scale? So your "evidence" now has a scale which is enough wiggle room to speculate and still be "right." But it isn't speculation. Yep, it's like all the ancient battles were the amount of troops on each side isn't certain, we have some sources that say the amount was X others that say y and yet other that say Q R and G. We also have physical evidence that help narrow it down but we still can't be certain. That's not speculation and if you think it is you don't know what speculation is. Even the link you posted did that. Really? You have "evidence" of comparative population densities now? Or do you just have a speculative scale you employ based on some numbers parroted off of Wiki? Oh, puh-lease do tell... Do you really think that ancient central America could have reached population densities of the 19 and 20 century? Did I now: I've mention the Haida and Maya multiple times in this thread you've ignored it. No kidding. You didn't get my reference about the Chinese being bureacratic because many of them speak Mandarin either. Seems to be a pattern forming... Of not understanding stupid stereotypes? Edited November 17, 2010 by TrueMetis
charter.rights Posted November 17, 2010 Author Report Posted November 17, 2010 Yep, it's like all the ancient battles were the amount of troops on each side isn't certain, we have some sources that say the amount was X others that say y and yet other that say Q R and G. We also have physical evidence that help narrow it down but we still can't be certain. That's not speculation and if you think it is you don't know what speculation is. Even the link you posted did that. Do you really think that ancient central America could have reached population densities of the 19 and 20 century? I've mention the Haida and Maya multiple times in this thread you've ignored it. Of not understand stupid stereotypes? You kicked yourself in the mouth the the Mayan and you have only provided an unsubstantiated accusation about the Haida. I think you are a little bit coo coo, sugar. “Safeguarding the rights of others is the most noble and beautiful end of a human being.” Kahlil Gibran “Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.” Albert Einstein
CANADIEN Posted November 17, 2010 Report Posted November 17, 2010 I think you are a little bit coo coo, sugar. Says the pot to the kettle
CANADIEN Posted November 17, 2010 Report Posted November 17, 2010 So....they are not first nations then? If one goes by a strict definition, if they were not in what is now Canada, they're no, as the term is typically Canadian and not used elsewhere. Mind you, if you were not mentioning human sacrifices by Aztecs and mayas, you referring to them as First Nations would not even be noticed.
Shwa Posted November 17, 2010 Report Posted November 17, 2010 (edited) Even the link you posted did that Well DUH. Nice clue Sherlock. Do you really think that ancient central America could have reached population densities of the 19 and 20 century? What? Now you can't produce the comparative population densities you were drumming about a little while ago? Right, more True Metis "evidence." I've mention the Haida and Maya multiple times in this thread you've ignored it. I take it you've never heard of the Aztecs? Of not understand stupid stereotypes? Stereotypes?? Are you asking me or do you simply not get it? LOFL!! Edited November 17, 2010 by Shwa
M.Dancer Posted November 17, 2010 Report Posted November 17, 2010 Nope. And more importantly, they are not all First Nations. Well, they are still indians....the kith and kin of all american indians... RIGHT of SOME, LEFT of OTHERS If it is a choice between them and us, I choose us
Guest TrueMetis Posted November 17, 2010 Report Posted November 17, 2010 What? Now you can't produce the comparative population densities you were drumming about a little while ago? Right, more True Metis "evidence." Oh I can. My link I just find it interesting that you want to compare modern population to past ones.
Shwa Posted November 17, 2010 Report Posted November 17, 2010 Oh I can. My link I just find it interesting that you want to compare modern population to past ones. Oh, sure you did. Let me quote from your source: Other Guesses:
Guest TrueMetis Posted November 17, 2010 Report Posted November 17, 2010 Oh, sure you did. Let me quote from your source: The guy who wrote the article isn't the source, the places he got the numbers are. You know the ones on the graph that range from 10 million throughout all of the Americas (unlikely) to 140 million. ( ) In this case the scale is much to large with assholes who want to make the number of native inhabitants smaller on one side and idiots who think that huge population could be created and maintained without proper agriculture on the other.
Shwa Posted November 17, 2010 Report Posted November 17, 2010 The guy who wrote the article isn't the source, the places he got the numbers are. You know the ones on the graph that range from 10 million throughout all of the Americas (unlikely) to 140 million. ( ) In this case the scale is much to large with assholes who want to make the number of native inhabitants smaller on one side and idiots who think that huge population could be created and maintained without proper agriculture on the other. So what you are admitting to is providing yet another nice large range with no discernable evidence of what the actual population densities were and thus not being able to provide any sort of comparative outside of sheer speculation?
Recommended Posts