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

ARTICLE 5 OF 49

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

:      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.  The majority of
: archaeologists look at these publications as especially quirky and
: speculative, with little support from the evidence.

[reply #2]

John,

The two key words here are the "majority" and "thirty years ago".

Yes, the majority says so, and yet the majority is not ALWAYS right.

Thirty years ago? If the evidence was persuasive 30 years ago, why would
it fail to persuade now? (This is not to say that this is in itself
impossible, but something more than an assertion is required.)

: 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.

Yes, these no doubt are valuable references.

Yet, I just hope we can go beyond appeals to authority and look at some
evidence for a change. I think we should keep in mind the fact that most
people reading in these groups probably don't have a clue about what we
are talking about...

So, I will be the first to present some facts here.

The following are quotes from THE HISTORICAL ATLAS OF WORLD
MYTHOLOGY, v. II, by Joseph Campbell, 1989.

      The work of Meggers, Evans, and Estrada suggests that,
      together with the primary idea and technique of pottery
      manufacture, there had crossed the sea, c. 3000 b.c., a
      distinctive cluster of secondary ideas and techniques
      for the non-functional embellishment of the ceramic
      vessels produced. Meggers has compiled a list of twenty-
      eight Valdivia traits that are shared, on the one hand,
      by the Jomon wares of Japan and, on the other, by
      potteries of the very same early period from Panama and
      the Colombian Caribbean coast.  (p. 360)

There are 8 photos provided on the page looking at the similarities
of the two pottery decoration styles from Asia, and from Ecuador.
They are:

a) Broad-line incisions with square-ended tool;
b) Row of punctuations atlower margin of an incised zone;
c) Combination of crosshatch at rim, horizontal incised lines on neck, and
zigzag lines on body;
d) Zoned punctuation and incised lines.

I invite the readers to take a look and see what they think. They look
pretty similar to me. And what may 30 years have to do with THIS? They
looked the same 3000 years ago, and they sure look the same today. Readers
can judge for themselves...

As far as Campbell's methodology is concerned, I quote here what he
writes in the caption for the photos:

      Consideration of these similarities, some experts argue,
      as well as the apparent absence of any clearly
      antecedent indigenous ceramic tradition, suggests that
      the art of pottery-making might have been introduced
      into the Americas by some prehistoric, trans-Pacific
      voyagers. The question has not been resolved.

Does he beg the issue? No.

So, this is as far as pottery is concerned. (There are also the Valdivia
figurines to consider, as well.)

But, of course, the case for trans-Pacific influences does not rest on
pottery alone. Pottery is only one of the many considerations of
influence. About others I will post separately.

Much, much more material is available...

Best wishes,

Yuri.