Subject:      Re: trans-Pacific influences: historical stages
From:         yuku@io.org (Yuri Kuchinsky)
Date:         1996/08/12
Newsgroups:   alt.mythology,alt.archaeology,sci.archaeology

ARTICLE 7 OF 10

Len Piotrowski (lpiotrow@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu) wrote:
: yuku@io.org (Yuri Kuchinsky) writes
:

: >This is meant to say that he doesn't think that there was regular
: >communication _both ways_ betwen Asia and the Americas. I believe he is
: >saying that the diffusion was mostly coming from Asia, and much of it was
: >because of demasted or otherwise damaged ships, battered by storms, that
: >were driven to the American coast by currents. He provides a detailed
: >analysis of ocean currents and wind patterns in his book. This can also be
: >found in Campbell.

: You will note from these maps of ocean currents that the dominant directions

: between Central America and Hawaii are towards the west. Even assuming
: Needham's suppositions are true, there is no way that  "demasted or otherwis
e
: damaged ships, battered by storms" could have been "driven to the American
: coast by currents" from Hawaii.

Lenny,

Really, it does seem like I'll have to explain things to you more slowly.
You consistently misunderstand and conflate my arguments. I never said the
Olmecs came from Hawaii. The ONLY REASON I brought up Hawaii in the first
place was to show that the trans-Pacific diffusion was not only possible,
but PROBABLE. The case of Hawaii, Easter Island, etc. shows that
trans-Pacific diffusion was THE FACT OF LIFE. If those people could make
it to the Easter Island, what would have prevented them from GOING A
LITTLE FURTHER? (Chronological considerations are a side-issue IN THIS
SPECIFIC CASE.)

Can I make it any clearer for you?

: I am still unaware of anyone who has proposed
: this idea, either as a migration, colonization, or diffusion of Polynesian
: culture, cultural traits, or persons from Hawaii to Central America except
: you. None of your cited sources addressed such an assertion.

As far as Joseph Campbell, and whether or not he was a diffusionist. I am
really dumbfounded that you continue to question this IN SPITE OF THE
OVERWHELMING EVIDENCE TO THE CONTRARY (at the same time claiming to be a
fan of Joe).

Either a) you never read your Campbell while awake, or b) you're pulling
my leg.

In your other post, you asked me for proof of his diffusionism. Nothing
can be easier. Here's a quote from his MYTHIC IMAGE:

"A third trans-Pacific company seems to have arrived about 1500 b.c. on
the west coast of Guatemala, there to leave sherds of a later Japanese
Jomon style known as Horinouchi ware -- soon after which [here he quotes
from James Ford] "the American cultures received a shock that was to
change their character profoundly ... the sudden introduction of a
religio-political system demanding great public works""

Happy now, Lenny?

Now, there's also the question of how up to date the work of Campbell
is... As it turns out, in the last few years some significant new research
has been published in the area of earliest S. American archeology. I am
grateful to John Hoopes for pointing out to me the recent book that he was
co-editor of (THE EMERGENCE OF POTTERY, Smithsonian, 1995). I just got
hold of this book, and there's a lot of interesting stuff in there. I will
return to this in a later post.

One certainly cannot blame Campbell for not knowing about the work that
wasn't even published while he was still alive. How far is his
trans-Pacific research invalidated by the new discoveries, e.g. of the
very early Amazonian pottery? This must be carefully looked at.

Nevertheless, from what I've been able to figure out so far, the principle
itself of trans-Pacific diffusion will not be significantly affected by
redating earliest American pottery. There's just too much evidence of
diffusion coming from very many fields of study...

All the best,

Yuri.