[edited in Sept.  98]
  
Subject:      diffusion and the amazing Amazonian pottery
From:         yuku@io.org (Yuri Kuchinsky)
Date:         1996/08/18
Newsgroups:   alt.mythology,alt.archaeology,sci.archaeology

ARTICLE 1 OF 5

[John Hoopes and others in sci.archaeology asked me to give my opinion
about the work of Anna Roosevelt and how it may relate to diffusionist
theories that have been discussed here recently. It's a big and
challenging subject, so here we go...]


STRANGE GOINGS ON IN PRE-COLUMBIAN ARCHAEOLOGY: The emergence of
pottery.

----

As some readers in these newsgroups already know, I've been introduced
into this specialised area because of discussions of diffusionism,
hyperdiffusionism, the theories of Joseph Campbell, and the trans-Pacific
contacts theories. My previous interests have been more generally in the
earliest human cultures, from the points of view of both anthropology and
archaeology. (Also to be noted is my strong interest in socio-biology.)

Generally, I don't consider myself a diffusionist. 

My first introduction to the general area of transoceanic cultures came
from Joseph Campbell who was very interested in this subject. I have read
up on those theories since (Joseph Needham, Donald Lathrap, George F.
Carter).

As far as the diffusionism, this is a very complex matter the discussion
of which will take us far into the arcane areas of anthropological and
psychological theory. As is well known, three theories exist to explain
the emergence in different parts of the world of complex cultural traits
that are obviously similar. Viz.  _diffusionism_, _parallelism_, and
_convergence_. None of this is quite relevant to my main focus of
research. 

---                                                                       
                                                                          
I do not consider myself as a diffusionist, and I have little interest in
diffusionism. Although previously I may have been associated with this
term, now I reject this designation. 
                                                                          
From what I understand (and I don't claim to be too knowledgeable about
these abstract theoretical issues), "Diffusionism" is an extremely complex
theoretical position in anthropology that purports to postulate certain
"truths" about human nature, psychology, and the nature of cultural
change. While I'm interested in the above, in a sort of a vague sense, I
certainly don't claim to have answers to these guestions, and, moreover, I
have no ambition to resolve them. 
                                                                          
From what I can see, as it is generally understood in today's academe,
diffusionists are believed to be somewhat dismissive of the creativity of
ancient peoples. Myself, I strongly object to this, and in my research
I've repeatedly stressed the great creativity of ancient peoples,
especially of ancient South Americans, who were excellent ship-builders
and navigators much earlier than is commonly assumed. 
                                                                          
I can say with certainty that my main interests lie elsewhere than
anthropological theory, and I have no opinion about whether or not the
diffusionists' answers to these quite philosophical and abstract questions
I've outlined above are better than others'. 
                                                                          
In any case, the situation with the _exact definition_ of diffusionism
seems to me as rather unsettled. In fact, I don't really know what this
word means exactly. Usually, but not always, diffusionism seems to be
somehow opposed to "evolutionism" in the literature that I've looked at. 
The discussion had something to do with nomothetic methods -- very
complicated stuff. The best discussion I've seen so far was by the noted
anthropologist Marvin Harris who was also not very sure about the exact
definion. 
                                                                       
I consider myself as a historian of ancient cultures. My only real
interest is history plain and simple: what happened in the past. That's
all. 

As far as the "hyper-diffusionism" is concerned, it seems to be nothing 
more than a perjorative label that is attached to some researchers by 
their critics. I'm not aware of any serious scholar who will call 
him/herself a "hyper-diffusionist".

---

I must state unequivocally that I believe that so much evidence exists for
transoceanic contacts in ancient times, from the earliest pre- historical
times onwards to the most recent pre-Columbian period, that I consider
these theories as basically proven. Separate discussions have been going
on in some of these newsgroups as regards this, and I will not dwell on
this in this article. 

What this article is about is the recent discoveries in the area of
earliest American archaeology, specifically, the work of Anna C. 
Roosevelt, of the University of Illinois at Chicago (EARLY POTTERY IN THE
AMAZON: TWENTY YEARS OF SCHOLARLY OBSCURITY, in THE EMERGENCE OF POTTERY,
John Hoopes and W. Barnett, eds, Smithsonian, 1995.)  Well, to tell the
truth, these discoveries are not really _that_ recent, as it turns out.
So, hence, the _strange goings on_... 

First, a bit of background. The field of earliest archaeology in the
Americas was until quite recently dominated by such distinguished
older researchers as Betty Meggers, Clifford Evans, and John Ford.
I think they can be broadly characterised as diffusionists. These
scholars built much of their work around the archaeological
discovery in the 50s and 60s in coastal Ecuador of a large find of
pottery, now known as Valdivia type. This was then believed to be
the most ancient pottery in the Americas (dating from about 4000
b.p. -- before present), and some connections of that pottery with
some Jomon-type Japanese ware was hypothesized. These two types of
pottery do have some similarities in decoration techniques. The
theory was proposed that some (perhaps involuntary) migrants from
Japan, i.e. shipwrecked sailors, ended up in Ecuador, and set up
some sort of a civilization there.

Further, theories were proposed about subsequent diffusion of these
cultural traits throughout the Americas from this Ecuadorian matrix.
This is connected with the theories about the Olmecs as the "mother
civilization" of the Americas -- a debate that is still ongoing. (As
is well enough known, J. Campbell was a strong supporter of these
theories.)

And now, let's fast-forward up to the present. What's going on now
in the field is that those theories are being challenged most
dramatically. The publication of Anna Roosevelt is leading the
charge. What emerges from Roosevelt is rather mind-boggling. She
documents in her work the existence in the Amazon basin of the
pottery that is some _3,500 years_ EARLIER than the Ecuadorian
pottery!

In fact, more than that emerges from her work. Perhaps what she
documents is something that is close to scandalous. As it turns out,
the existence of early Amazonian pottery was known to some
specialists already for more than 20 years, and yet, this work, one
perhaps can say, was _swept under the rug_ for reasons and in
circumstances that are not yet entirely clear.

Briefly, as early as 1975, some materials from the Amazon have been
excavated _and tested_ (by the Smithsonian) using radiocarbon
methods. 13 dates were obtained, all very early. (The records in the
Smithsonian are available.) And then...

      These potential revolutionary dates were consigned to
      obscurity without explanation. (Roosevelt, op. cit. p.
      119)

It is to be noted that something about this _was_ published in 1981,
after all. But it came out in Portuguese, and in a rather obscure
Brazilian publication (Boletim do Museu Paraense Emilio Goeldi).

      Nevertheless, only seven of the thirteen dates were
      published in Brazil in an article by the excavator,
      Mario Simoes (1981). ... six of the dates that had been
      run by then, including the earliest and
      stratigraphically one of the deepest dates, a charcoal
      date of 5570 b.p., were withheld from publication.
      (ibid.)

It turns out that the existence of the complete set of all those
1970s tests (13 dates) in Smithsonian archives (Roosevelt gives them
in her article) was eventually discovered almost accidentally by a
Brazilian researcher Jose Brochado. Later, he made them available to
Roosevelt.

So here we go. This truly revolutionary and very important data has
been gathering dust, while people theorised about the origins of the
civilization in the Americas in the dark. Strange indeed!

More generally, what can be said about all these matters in light of
the new data about earliest American pottery? Will it discredit
diffusionism?

As this post is already becoming longish, I will return to this
subject at a later opportunity.

All the best,

Yuri.

The world is governed more by appearance than by realities, so
that it is fully as necessary to seem to know something as it
is to know it                 ===               Daniel Webster