Subject:      Re: trans-Pacific contacts
From:         yuku@io.org (Yuri Kuchinsky)
Date:         1996/08/09
Newsgroups:   alt.mythology,alt.archaeology,sci.archaeology

ARTICLE 9 OF 49

John W. Hoopes (hoopes@ukans.edu) wrote:
: Yuri Kuchinsky wrote:

: > Nobody has ever managed to document any significant errors (going
: > beyond nit-picks) in the writings and research of Ol' Joe.

:      I suspect it wouldn't be hard to do.  Some have already been
: pointed out here.

John,

I don't know what are your referring to here.

: > Among the work of archaeologists, one can look up:
: >
: > Betty Meggers, Clifford Evans, and Emilio Estrada, EARLY FORMATIVE
: > PERIOD OF COASTAL ECUADOR: THE VALDIVIA AND MACHILILLA PHASES
: > (Smithsonian I., 1969)
: >
: > James Alfred Ford, A COMPARISON OF FORMATIVE CULTURES IN THE
: > AMERICAS (Smithsonian I. Press, 1969).

:      Yuri, again you've missed the point.  Look at the dates on these
: sources.  They represent the thinking of certain scholars, bright but
: idiosyncratic ones, almost thirty years ago.

Your point is well-taken, in so far as the fact that the research in this
area may be still evolving.

: The majority of
: archaeologists look at these publications as especially quirky and
: speculative, with little support from the evidence.  If you want a
: recent reference, check out one of mine:

: Hoopes, John W.
: 1994   Ford Revisited: A Critical Review of the Chronology and
:        Relationships of the Earliest Ceramic Complexes in the
:        New World, 6000-1500 B.C.  Journal of World Prehistory
:        8:1-49.

: Barnett, W.K., and J.W. Hoopes (eds.)
: 1995   The Emergence of Pottery: Technology and Innovation in
:        Ancient Societies.  Smithsonian Inst. Press, Washington.

Well, this is certainly what I did NOT expect. Now it looks like I may
have to argue with a recognized specialist in the field... Just my luck, I
guess...

But who am I to argue with you? I am no archeologist. You probably know
about this area a hundred times more than I do.

Yes, your references are daunting for me to deal with. You provide no
specific information in your post why you disagree with those
archeologists I cited. I will have to look up your references in due
course of time. But meanwhile, let's backtrack somewhat.

My main point has been about trans-Pacific transmission of certain
cultural and other influences. Even if we accept that you are right about
Valdivia ware, let's keep in mind that this is _only one_ piece of
evidence among great many.

As I've been criticised by many people in these groups, and for different
things, I wonder if it makes sense for me to get too deeply involved into
one specialized area? Let us just say that any theory can be criticised
competently, as you no doubt do in your work. But have your refuted Ford
_definitively_? This is the question.

Also, no doubt, your critique of Ford could also be critiqued competently.
For me to do this, I would have to invest a few weeks (years?) for
research. This goes beyond the scope of what is possible for me at this
time.

:      Both provide abundant, hard evidence to refute your antiquated
: theories about transoceanic diffusion and Old World origins for New
: World cultural traits.

My main idea in all this has been to stimulate discussion in this rather
obscure area. I am still persuaded of the validity of my view about
trans-Pacific influences.

So what I will do in the near future is I will post some more info for the
general reader. I don't think I can get involved in a dispute between
specialists. The fact itself that competent specialists disagree about
certain things speaks for itself, i.e. a variety of views about this can
be entertained.

It would be nice if this discussion could go beyond the narrow circle of
specialists, nevertheless...

Best,

Yuri.