New research on why Cahokia Mounds civilization left(scitechdaily.com) |
New research on why Cahokia Mounds civilization left(scitechdaily.com) |
Maybe the population of St. Louis themselves also fits the narrative: “They put a lot of effort into building...but there were probably external pressures that caused them to leave,” Rankin said. “The picture is likely complicated.”
Was it disease?
["Fusang" to the Chinese, various names to Islanders FWIU]
[?? BC/AD: Egyptian treasure in Illinois, somehow without paddleboats to steam up the Mississippi]
~800 AD: Lead Cross of Knights Templar in Arizona, according to America Unearthed S01E10. https://www.google.com/search?q=%7E800+AD%3A+Templar+Cross%2... ; a more recent dating of Tucson artifacts: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tucson_artifacts
~1000 AD: Leif Erickson, L'Anse aux Meadows; Discovering Vinland: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leif_Erikson#Discovering_Vin...
And then the Story of Erik the Red, and a Skraeling girl in Europe, and Columbus; and instead we'll celebrate Juneteenth day to celebrate when news reached Galveston.
Did they plant those mounds? Did they all bring good soil or dirt to add to the mound?
May Pole traditions may be similar to "all circle around the mountain" practices in at least ancient Egyptian culture FWIU.
If there was a lot of contact there, would that have spread diseases? (Various traditions have intentionally high contact with hol y water containers on the way in, too, for example.)
FWIU there's strong evidence for Mayans and Aztecs in North America; but who were they displacing?
They're also definitely unrelated to the mound cultures except for the broadest possible relationships like existing on the same continent.
Cahokia Mounds: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cahokia :
> Today, the Cahokia Mounds are considered to be the largest and most complex archaeological site north of the great pre-Columbian cities in Mexico.
Chicago was a trading post further north FWIU, but not an archaeological site.
"Michoacan, Michigan, Mishigami, Mizugami: Etymological Origins? A Legend." https://christopherbrianoconnor.medium.com/michoacan-michiga...
Is there evidence of hydrological engineering or stonework?
It's not clear whether the megalithic Sage Wall in MT was man-made, and sort of looks like the northern glacier pass it may have marked.
FWIU there are quarry sites in the southwest that predate most timelines of stonework in the Americas and in Egypt, Sri Lanka / Indonesia, and East Asia; but they're not further north than Cahokia Mounds.
In TN, There are many Clovis sites; but they decided to flood the valley that was home to Sequoyah - who gave written form to Cherokee and other native languages - and also a 9500-year old archaeological site.
This says the Clovis people of Clovis, New Mexico are the oldest around: https://tennesseeencyclopedia.net/entries/paleoindians-in-te...
The Olmecs, Aztecs, and Mayans all worked stone.
From where did stonework like the Osireon originate?
What fun.-
He previously wrote "Red Plenty", a brilliant historical fiction about the Soviet economy and cybernetics in a brief moment of post-Stalin optimism.
Which seems pretty parsimonious to me? Without so much fixed infrastructure such as harbors and paved highways and the Ford Rouge factory, there's less to keep pulling people back to an urban lifestyle if that's not what they're after.
You're asserting a causal relationship, not a functional or morphological similarity. You haven't made an argument for that yet.
> This says the Clovis people of Clovis, New Mexico are the oldest around
They aren't. Pre-clovis is well established at this point. I'm not sure you intend this with your phrasing, but maybe this will be useful. Archaeological cultures like Clovis don't name a "people" because the actual humans or may not have shared unified identities. Type sites also just represent a clear example of the broader category they're naming rather than anything about where things originated.
There's also thousands and thousands of years separation between Clovis Mexica, Mound cultures, or the Maya, so unless you make an argument I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. Do you think all lithics are the same?
> The Olmecs, Aztecs, and Mayans all worked stone.
1) you've made the same naming mistake again and 2) this isn't an argument for anything.