PRIMATIVE AMERICAN ARMOR

[aiontay]

I read Fell's book America BC years ago. The problem is, he posits not just Celts, but a whole mess of different folks roaming around the US. He wrote another book which claims Scandinavians visited the copper mining regions in the NE USA and Canada and left inscriptions in North African scripts. So how exactly did folks from Sweden learn Berber scripts in the Bronze Age? Plus, all the inscriptions Fell dechiphers in all his books are so terse as to almost be nonsensical. Like I said, I don't doubt there were pre-Columbian crossing of both the Atlantic and the Pacific for that matter. Based on Caesar's descriptions, Celtic tribes in Gaul had the technological abiltiy to get a ship across the Atlantic.

Again though, the question is how significant was the contact? If you believe Fell, there were Celtic horse ranches out on the Plains of Oklahoma in the early Iron Age. Given the speed with which the Plains tribes adopted horses at a later date, why didn't they acquire them in the BC when it would have been just as advantageous?

[fearn]

I've got to sit with Aiontay on this one.

Thing is, we've got enough archeological evidence for things like the spread of the bow and arrow from the Labrador Eskimo around 2000 BCE to down through the Americas, and we've got some evidence of corn spreading out of Central America by around 1000 CE. What we're missing is substantial evidence of technical or biological transfers from the Old World to the New, with the exception of those Chilean chickens and (possibly) Mayan bark pounders. Not great.

Even at L'Anse Aux Meadows (link), we've got good archeological evidence of the Vinland colony, and material from it shows up in Indian archeology sites. But we don't see the Indians learning to make iron tools from the Norse. Ditto with the Norse Greenland settlement.

Similarly, the only good evidence we have for New World to Old World transmission is the sweet potato from south America making its way into Oceania, probably again from Chile. Again, not much.

It's a wonderfully seductive area to theorize in, but with the exception of the sweet potato transferring to Oceania, there was little in the way of definite technology or cultural transfer. Even with millenia of potential contacts, that's kind of a sad result.

Best,

F

[pallas]

i have an interest in the mystery hill site in new hampshire as there are dolmens/cairns and various underground complexes that seem to be "celtic" in nature there.........

[celtan]

There are many interesting theories out there regarding the amount of influence that numbers of individuals can exert on their surroundings.

You need a certain amount of people to exert enough social pressure to cause persistent and observable changes in a society. There's a term for this concept, that I can't remember right now.

Perhaps isolated bands of bands of lost mariners didn't have the critical numbers to be able to influence the native tribes.

There have been found large cemeteries in China with what appears to be celtic remains, and yet, no signs of their presence has been found beyond these...

Vasques, Galicians and Asturian sailors plied the waters of Labrador for centuries, and yet, no signs of their presence is apparent, beyond a few underwater wrecks.

Vikings had a large colony in Galicia, known as Jakobsland. Yet the only remaining signs I ever saw of the vikings (beyond toponymics) was a couple rowing oars. These were over the altar of a forgotten medieval church, lost in the Galician mountains...

The Spanish reached today's Canada (Aca Nada: Nothing here) in their explorations, and yet only a Helm and a breastplate have ever been found, in the silt of a dredged harbour.

So yes, I also believe that there were many, albeit ephemeral visitors to American coasts, long before Erik and Colon.

Just pondering.

Best


M

Originally Posted by fearn

I've got to sit with Aiontay on this one.

Thing is, we've got enough archeological evidence for things like the spread of the bow and arrow from the Labrador Eskimo around 2000 BCE to down through the Americas, and we've got some evidence of corn spreading out of Central America by around 1000 CE. What we're missing is substantial evidence of technical or biological transfers from the Old World to the New, with the exception of those Chilean chickens and (possibly) Mayan bark pounders. Not great.

Even at L'Anse Aux Meadows (link), we've got good archeological evidence of the Vinland colony, and material from it shows up in Indian archeology sites. But we don't see the Indians learning to make iron tools from the Norse. Ditto with the Norse Greenland settlement.

Similarly, the only good evidence we have for New World to Old World transmission is the sweet potato from south America making its way into Oceania, probably again from Chile. Again, not much.

It's a wonderfully seductive area to theorize in, but with the exception of the sweet potato transferring to Oceania, there was little in the way of definite technology or cultural transfer. Even with millenia of potential contacts, that's kind of a sad result.

Best,

F

[fearn]

Hi Celtan,

The weird part, come to think of it, is disease. There's this theory out there that the Americas were largely depopulated in the 16th Century by epidemic diseases introduced from Europe. Actually, it's a bit more than a theory...

So...I guess everyone before the Conquistadors who made it to America was perfectly healthy. Now there's a weird thought. Did ships get that much faster after 1492? Fast enough, I mean, to bring infectious people to the New World.

F

[aiontay]

Fearn,
You raise a very good point. Disease would be my other argument against extended contact. There wasn't enough newcomers (and their livestock) to be vectors of disease. Or if there a large settlement, it was so long ago that the epidemics ran their courses and the population rebounded.

Also, the depopulation continued well after the 16th Century. Take the Mandans for example. In 1719 Bernard Le Harpe visited an area of Wichita villages in eastern Oklahoma that had a population of around 6,000 people if I remember correctly. Later, in the 1750's the Wichitas had a fortified village on the Red River on the OK/TX border where they defeated a Spanish expedition with cannons, and probably a few of those lancers with leather armor. If I remember correctly, by the end of the 19th Century, there were only 332 Wichitas left. Today there are around 2,000, about 1/3rd of what one group them had in the 18th Century.

[aiontay]

This probably should go in the thread about Spanish colonial leather armor, but it sort of fits with the Wichita bit I previously posted, In his book "Oklahoma Treasures and Treasure Trails" Steve Wilson describes the 1759 Parilla expedition's attack on the fortified Red River village of the Wichitas. He writes that the Wichitas were well armed with French muskets and that Parilla's "...cuirass was twice shot", but doesn't tell exactly what kind of cuirass it was. He also notes a lieutenant had his leather shield shot from his hand. As might be guessed from the title, the book isn't exactly a scholarly history, but I have no doubts about the chief officer wearing some sort of body armor and the lieutenant carrying a leather shield.

[VANDOO]

ONE INTERESTING THING ABOUT THE OLD NORTH AMERICAN ARMOR IS THAT IT WAS AS WELL CONSTRUCTED AS THE ARMOR USED IN MANY OTHER COUNTRYS AROUND THE WORLD THAT DID NOT HAVE METALS EASILY AVAILABLE. ALL FORMS AND CONSTRUCTION TECKNIQUES OF PRIMATIVE ARMOR (NON METALLIC) SEEM TO HAVE BEEN USED AND TO HAVE BEEN OF A QUALITY ON A PAR WITH THEIR COUNTERPARTS AROUND THE WORLD.
HEAD PROTECTION WAS USED IN SOME AREAS AND SOME WAS MADE TO LOOK LIKE SOME FIERCE BEAST TO CAUSE THE ENEMY TO FEAR YOU AND AS ONLY VERY GOOD WARRIORS WORE SUCH THINGS IT WAS ALSO A SYMBOL OF STATUS AND WOULD ATTRACT SUITABLE FOES FROM THE OTHER SIDE AS TO KILL SUCH A WARRIOR WOULD BRING PRESTIEGE AND WOULD PROVE A WORTHY FOE.
MOST ARMOR DID NOT HAVE A FIERCE MASK COVERING THE FACE AS SOMETIMES SEEN IN SAMURAI ARMOR BUT IN THE AMERICAS NO DOUBT WAR PAINTS MADE A FIERCE ENOUGH FACE AND DID NOT INTERFERE WITH ONES SIGHT.
I HAVE READ OF ARMOR, SHIELDS AND BOW QUIVERS BEING MADE FROM THE ARMORED HIDE OF THE LARGE GAR FISH IN THE AMERICAS. TURTLE SHELLS AND CROCODILE HIDES ARE USED IN OTHER PARTS OF THE WORLD SO IT IS LIKELY TURTLE AND ALLIGATOR SKINS WERE USED IN THE AMERICAS TOO. THE BACK SKIN MAKES A VERY GOOD ARMOR AS THERE ARE BONE PLATES CALLED SCUTES BUILT INTO THE SKIN
AS TO OTHER RACES VISITING THE AMERICAS IN THE PAST IT IS MORE LIKELY THAN THE ARGUMENT THAT NO ONE EVER CAME EXCEPT ACROSS THE BERING STRAIGHTS. IN OKLAHOMA THERE ARE SEVERAL SITES WHERE WRITEING CAN BE FOUND WITH EVERYTHING FROM SPANISH TO NORSE TO EGYPTIAN. BUT THERE ARE THOSE WHO SAY COLUMBUS WAS THE FIRST WHITE MAN EVER AS WELL AS THOSE WHO SAY MANY OTHER THINGS.
THE SIMULARITYS TO POTTERY DESIGNS AND TECKNIQUES AND TO ARROW POINTS AND TOOLS FOUND IN THE OLD AND NEW WORLDS WOULD LEAD ONE TO LOGICALLY THINK THERE WERE WAVES OF IMMIGRATION AND EXPLORATION BY GROUPS OF EXPLORERS AND ADVENTURERS IN THE AMERICAS AS WELL AS EVERYWHERE ELSE. AS NONE OF IT CAN BE PROVED I RESERVE MY JUDGEMENT AND LET THE OTHERS ARGUE AS THEY WILL.

[pallas]

Originally Posted by fearn

Hi Celtan,

The weird part, come to think of it, is disease. There's this theory out there that the Americas were largely depopulated in the 16th Century by epidemic diseases introduced from Europe. Actually, it's a bit more than a theory...

So...I guess everyone before the Conquistadors who made it to America was perfectly healthy. Now there's a weird thought. Did ships get that much faster after 1492? Fast enough, I mean, to bring infectious people to the New World.

F

i agree with the the general lack of old world illness as evidence of unsustained precolumbian (actually "pre norse-scandanavian") contact between the new and old worlds, however was there not a general lack of large damaging plagues/waves of diseases in europe before the 1200's? i know that they occured here and there (the plauge that afflicted the huns in italy and that which afflicted byzantine troops of justinian in byzantium as examples) but they dident seem to be as widespread or as devastating as those that swept over europe in the 12-1300s. could the vikings/celts and/or other european visitors have been largely communacable-disease free at the time they landed? im excluding STDS of course as theyve always been present in most world populations..

[aiontay]

Pallas,

I've read that part of the reason the New World was relatively disease free is that the cold temperatures of Beringia killed most germs, viruses etc. Assuming this is true, then maybe the Norse, coming via Greenland would have been relatively disease free.

[fearn]

Hi Aiontay,

The Western Hemisphere has all sorts of indigenous diseases. What was missing in Beringia wasn't diseases, it was the ability to spread quickly. If someone in a hunter-gatherer band falls sick (say, he picked up influenza from a migratory duck he shot for dinner) then the worst that could happen is that he and his family would die. Others would be unaffected, and a potentially lethal epidemic would fizzle. That kind of disease screen showed up all over the world, including Polynesia, Australia, and so forth. Diseases hit hard there too.

As for why the Norse didn't bring anything with them, I think Pallas might be onto something, in that they happened to voyage at a time when there weren't massive epidemics scudding around. So far as I know, the Black Death made it into Scandanavia, and, well, we all suffer from influenza in cold weather. Cold isn't necessarily a barrier to disease.

F