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

Re: maize in ancient india: strong transpacific links are indicated

Douglas Weller (dweller@ramtops.demon.co.uk) wrote:
: On 4 Jan 1997 15:09:30 GMT, yuku@io.org (Yuri Kuchinsky) wrote:
: >Incorrect, Greg. You obviously missed the real story of the discovery of
: >those sites. Helge Ingstad, who found them, was not a professional
: >archaeologist. He was convinced on the basis of _literary and linguistic
: >evidence_ that the Vikings were in America. I assure you that he was the
: >butt of jokes and sarcasm as anybody proposing uncoventional theories
: >inevitably becomes. Yet, he persevered, and, without much support from
: >archaeologists, surveyed the whole N-E coast. He got lucky at L'Anse aux
: >Meadows. That's what happened, Greg. Do you see any interesting parallels? 

: Yuri, do you really not know anything about Helge Ingstad except what
you : wrote above or are you simply withholding the fact that his wife,
Anne Stine : Ingstad, is a professional archaeologist (and directed the
excavations at : L'Anse aux Meadows). 

Yes, but it was he who found the site. Because he believed that the
argument from silence is not valid. Just because the archaeological data
is lacking, it does not mean it's not there... 

I'm sure a lot of people were saying to him, Gimme za fosssil, Gimme za
fossil... If ya don't have a fossil = you're a nut.

: I don't see that as irrelevant.  And he was working on : a pretty good
corpus of literary evidence plus clear proof that there had been :
Scandinavian colonies on Greenland, which is also relevant. 

Yes, but who took this literary evidence seriously? No one. I'm sure gangs
of sarcastic humourists and deniers were cheering him on all the way until
the time when he did find the site. Where are they now? 

When we were discussing precolumbian chickens in America, I gave plenty of
literary evidence. The impact on many of the people in these groups was

And I haven't yet seen anyone address the solid literary evidence for the
precolumbian Old World maize...

: >By the way, some people complained about me using the word "Isolationist". 
: >I really don't see why. If there are indeed no Isolationists in these ngs,
: >as some people said, why would anyone complain then? 

: You use it as a derogatory epithet, that's why I complained. 

: >We all understand what "Isolationist" means. This is a school of thought
: >that vehemently denies that ancient America had any contact whatsoever
: >with the rest of the world, besides the Alaskan landbridge, until the
: >mighty Europeans came along. Or any meaningful contact. Are there such
: >people in American prehistory? I think yes. So why would they not like to
: >be described on the basis of their beliefs? Beats me... 

: Well who are they then? 

That wouldn't be so hard. I can name a few posters here, without going too

: Name the people who talk about mighty Europeans.

But, Doug, this is the _underlying assumption_ of their thinking. This is
their "received wisdom". These things don't have to operate on a conscious
level, you know... 

: If you mean people who say there still isn't any good evidence that
there was : any meaningful contact between the Americas and Europe before
the Vikings, or : between the Americas and Africa before Columbus, or
between the Americas and : Asia except for the several migrations that
took place,

Well, I can only refer to the latter, as this is what I've been
researching of late. I think there are _at least_ over 200 single items of
evidence, or lines of argument, most of them rather convincing, that
indicate contact. Needham lists most of them in his TRANSPACIFIC ECHOES. 

Can a blanket denial of contact be seen as justified in this case?

While a number of possibilites don't add up to a probability, a number of
probabilities DO add up to a greater probability!

: I don't see any of
: them referring to 'mighty Europeans' or saying anything more vehement then
: there isn't any convincing evidence.  You've linked 'mighty Europeans' in to
: make this an epithet, as I've already said.

Well, I just want to clarify some of these unspoken and unreasoned
_assumptions_ that make some of the posters in these ngs to fly off the
handle at the very mention of the words transpacific contact. What are the
reasons for such anger, sarcasm, and invective as we see on a daily basis?


            =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: