[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Diffusion chickens, sweet potato, maize, grourds and more coming

Peter van Rossum (pmv100@psu.edu) wrote:
: In article <5abdsl$pdf@news1.io.org> yuku@io.org (Yuri Kuchinsky) writes:

: >Domingo, I hasten to assure you that A LOT of progress has been made.
You, : >and most others in these groups, don't have a clue how much
progress has : >been made... Myself, only recently I've gone into trying
to find the : >newest research, after familiarizing myself with previous
research. Now, : >I've tracked down much of it (yes, I have plenty up my
sleeve yet, so, : >fear and tremble, you miserable Isolationists!), and
I'm constantly amazed : >how much is known now _already_ about
transoceanic contacts in earliest : >antiquity. I will just give you some
names of respected scholars. Their : >work certainly did not yet get the
publicity that it deserves. But I think : >it's only a matter of time
now... Stephen Jett, David H. Kelley, Paul : >Tolstoy, and Carl
Johannessen, of course. Only some of them... I think the : >day is coming
when the old paradigms will be overturned. : >Yuri. 

: Yuri, Jett's work on the blowgun dates back to the early '70s (that
about 25 : years old),

Peter,

It's nice of you to mention this, but do you really suppose that Jett was
just resting on his laurels all this time? Hint: he's published some
additional research recently.

: Kelley's work on the calendar dates to at least the
mid-'70s : (that's at least 20 years ago),

Ditto.

: Tolstoy's arguments on bark
cloth go all the : way back to 1963 (that 33 years ago). 

But, again, you're missing something. His not so old article in NATURE is
relevant...

: These works have
all been cited by : archaeologists in mainstream publications. They aren't
in any way obscure - 

A matter of interpretation, surely. The fact that _you_ haven't yet
learned about some quite recent _relevant_ publications is revealing...
And _you_, no doubt, consider yourself rather well-informed...

: just unconvincing to the majority of
archaeologists. 

: Johannessen's work is relatively new, but I had seen his letter in Nature the
: same year it came out - 1988. 

But did you see the photos?

: So again its not like no one was aware of it.

: You also forget that the old paradigm used to be that diffusion had
definitely : occurred and provided the major impetus for many New World
developments.  

It's nice of you to provide this historical footnote, but I don't know
about its relevance today.

Yuri.

p.s.

The currently ruling paradigm, wherever it is now, has obviously
contributed to a wave of hate-messages yours truly has received in
sci.archaeology.mesoamerican recently. I will not reply to obvious
hate-mail. But perhaps it's true that this discussion should not take over
s.a.m the way it's been happening of late. 

So I will try not to post to s.a.m as much as I have been doing recently. 
Accordingly, the follow-ups of this message omit s.a.m. This should make a
few people quite happy. <grin> I will continue to post to sci.archaeology. 
There's no need to cross-post to two archaeology newsgroups at the same
time, anyway, as most people in s.a.m also read s.a. 

: That paradigm had started shifting by the '50s to where
now it is not the : current position of most archaeologists (although I
don't know of any who : would state they can prove for certain that
contacts didn't occur). 


--
            =O=    Yuri Kuchinsky in Toronto    =O=
  --- a webpage like any other...  http://www.io.org/~yuku ---
 
We should always be disposed to believe that that which 
appears white is really black, if the hierarchy of the 
Church so decides       ===      St. Ignatius of Loyola
Follow-Ups: References: