Subject:      Re: Irrelevant Methodogy. (was: Asians, 
	      Hawaiians, Olmecs, etc.
From:         yuku@io.org (Yuri Kuchinsky)
Date:         1996/08/07
Newsgroups:   alt.archaeology,sci.archaeology

ARTICLE 4 OF 6

Randal Allison ([12]rallison@mail.myriad.net) wrote:
: [13]yuku@io.org (Yuri Kuchinsky) wrote:

: >I don't have the book at hand and am writing from memory. In the next
: >couple of days I will get the books I cited and will provide more
: >particulars.

: Fine. In the meantime, explain to us what a Japanese ship off the coast of
: Equador has to do with Polynesians landing in Mexico?? Both had very
: different and very distinct seafaring traditions. Remember. you said
: Polynesians were the source of the Olmecs, not the japanese or some other
: group.

Randal,

Well, here's the situation. I've been reading this stuff a few years ago,
and I was a little rusty on the particulars. Now I had a chance to go back
to those volumes I cited and to refresh all this stuff in my memory. The
basic idea of transpacific contacts is solid, I believe. As far as the
Olmecs are concerned, one thing to keep in mind is the rapid diffusion of
those cultural areas once they appeared. That civilisation was extremely
mobile.

: I'm sure we would all like to know in which archaeology and/or
: anthropology classes and/or texts you were taught that chronology does not
: matter.

I never said chronology doesn't matter. I said it was a side issue in that
particular argument I was making.

: How much easier my work and that of others would be if we could
: selectively ignore chronology. In the case of solid scholarship, however,
: that is an impossibility.

: >: Second, of the 500+ languages of the Malayo-Polynesian language family,
: >: none are spoken in the Americas.
: >
: >This is of limited relevance. The Vikings left no linguistic trace in
: >Newfoundland. Is there any doubt they were there?
: >

: At least you recognize that there are ideas other than your own which have
: relevance. When were you taught that dissimilar culturesw could be
: compared to prove a point? The Vikings and their settlements in
: Newfoundland and elswhere in North America have nothing in common with the
: Olmec civilization. Where are the indigenous cultures in North America
: affected by the Vikings, and who assimilated the Vikings' descendants into
: their ranks?

In the case of the Vikings, their impact on local populace was close to
zero. In the case of Asian arrivals, the impact was very significant in
many ways. I will provide more details in another post.

: Where, which book(s), and what page(s)? What are Campbell's qualifications
: as anything other than a myth scholar?

He was a very responsible scholar whose knowledge of historical
anthropology was superb. His books contain a wealth of info on this
subject with many citations.

: Quite frankly, Mr. Kuchinsky, I am more than a bit disappointed with your
: methodology.

Yes, I admit that you're right. My methodology so far has been somewhat
lacking.

One thing I am amazed about is why this subject is so little known in
these groups. I was hoping that somebody who is better qualified than I
will get involved in this discussion. But such is not the case. So all of
a sudden I have a lot of research to do. I will do it, and I will post
relevant stuff, but I can only do so much at a time.

: I have visited you web page--and I encourage others to visit
: it as well--it is a well constructed and useful source for quite alot of
: information. You are obviously an intelligent person, and this makes your
: approcah to materials presentation and the dialectic of discussion all the
: more frustrating.

Thanks for your kind words. Yes, I have a lot of work to do to justify
some of my claims. And I have made some errors already because I was
speaking without being really prepared for this discussion. But I still
stand by most of what I said.

: In your musings, you decry the problem of communication between the
: disciplines, and use the example that the anthropologist often did not
: know what his colleague in sociology was doing. Quite true, unfortunately.
: But is obvious from this thread that you are unaware of what
: archaeologists and anthropologists are doing WRT pre-Columbian societies,
: linguistics, and migration and settlement patterns.

Well, I don't claim to know everything that's going on. But I know quite a
bit about transpacific contacts.

: My challenge to you is to validate your thesis that the Olmec were
: Polynesians, which was later reduced to the Olmec show Polynesian
: influence.

Some of their "founding fathers" were polynesians, and polynesian and
asian influence on that culture was strong.

: Inherent in this challenge is to stay out of the fabulist literature.
: Joseph Campbell was not an archaeologist,

So, he wasn't. But, perhaps if you will look at his research you will see
that he knows what he's talking about. And here's one more reference. His
THE MYTHIC IMAGE, 1974, pp 104 ff. This deals specifically with the Olmec
complex at La Venta.

: nor was he an expert on Central
: American cultures,

He was a great expert on native American cultures. In fact, this was his
first interest from a very young age.

: and no amount of using him as a reference will change
: that fact.

He is using solid archeological research -- by James Ford, Betty Meggers,
and Clifford Evans, and many others. All highly respected archeologists.
Another scholar whose work is crucial in this area is Robert Heine-Geldern
of the University of Vienna.

: Same goes for Needham--great stuff in his area of expertise,
: but he ain't no pre-Columbian scholar. Use the archaeological and
: anthropological evidence from Olmec, Mayan, Toltec, or Aztec scholars.

Sure will.

All the best,

Yuri.