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

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

In article <5aoqnq$nna@news1.io.org> yuku@io.org (Yuri Kuchinsky) writes:
>Doug Weller wrote:
>: 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.

Reasonable archaeologists said (and rightly so) that until Viking objects could
be found in a secure Precolumbian New World context, such contacts were
not proven.  Once such objects were recovered these archaeologists admitted
that the case of Viking/New World contacts was demonstrated.  End of story.
That is far different from calling someone a nut - it is simply holding them 
to the high standards required of scientific investigations.

That's exactly what would happen if the same could be shown for other contact
situations.  So far this evidence has not been forthcoming. Therefore, we say 
that while contacts were possible there is not solid evidence to prove that 
such contacts occurred.

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

There is no blanket denial of contact.  Just an observation that for every
contact case (except for the Vikings) which has been investigated the 
necessary evidence is lacking to prove that such contacts did occur.

>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?

What makes them get irritated is seeing their views and motivations  
consistently being misrepresented by people who have spent nowhere near
the amount of time, effort and money which they have in trying to 
understand New World cultures

Peter van Rossum