Subject:      Re: yes, we have the proof: transpacific trading networks
From:         yuku@globalserve.net (Yuri Kuchinsky 17784)
Date:         1997/09/07
Message-ID:   <5uug1o$48k$1@titan.globalserve.net>
Newsgroups:   sci.archaeology.mesoamerican,sci.archaeology,sci.anthropology,
		alt.folklore.science

Bernard Ortiz de Montellano ([22]bortiz@earthlink.net) wrote:
: In article <5uhvqf$r8k$1@news.trends.ca>, [23]yuku@mail.trends.ca (Yuri
: Kuchinsky) wrote:

> > I have provided the relevant evidence that Carter has published this
> > research, but nobody else was paying attention.

> Repeating a mantra of "Carter said it" is not evidence of anything.

No, Bernard. But there's clear evidence that nobody has provided any sort
of response to Carter, after all these years. This means that Carter's
claims still stand.

> The
> bottom line is that you have not presented us with any of the evidence
> based on primary sources--i.e. the people who actually did the work.
> Carter certainly did not do the work-- he is a geographer.

How much like Bernard to focus exclusively on the peripherals: who has
which qualifications, and which publication was it published in. This is
in poor form, Bernard, and will not substitute for a substantive critique.

> He did not
> archaeology of the Adena culture mounds. He did not do any zoological
> identification of *C.moneta*. Who did? Carter citing Wilfred Jckson is
> also totally worthless as evidence

Bernard has not seen the evidence, and yet it is worthless, according to
him. More Psychic wishful thinking...

> because Jackson did not do any of the work either. I have very serious
> doubts that Carter or you know what the hell primary sources are!!!!

You must be pretty naive if you have doubts about this.

> You never cite any

Nonsense.

> and rely on insults, rethoric, and endless recycling of secondary and
> tertiary sources like Carter and Jackson.

Well, I'll be happy to cut down on rhetoric, right after you show the
way towards it...

> Rather than putting out ink to obscure. Please post full citations to
> the primary source for the claims that 1) an archaeologically controlled
> dig found *C. moneta* in an Adena context reliably dated at 500 A.D. and
> 2) a qualified zoologist identified these shells as actually being *C.
> moneta* from the Indian Ocean.

Well, actually I don't have access to that article of Carter's in the NEW
DIFFUSIONIST. A situation that must be pretty familiar to you by now.
Unfortunately we're talking about research that cannot be published in
easily available sources, usually, because of the bias in the field. A
bias that seems pretty obvious from your postings, need I say? And bias
that you yourself have contributed to.

> If you or Carter cannot do this,

Carter did this.

> them
> please shut up.

Now, now, Bernard. Getting all emotional about this will hardly help your
case.

> Neither I nor any one else in this group should be
> forced to root through Carter's work to find these.

I know, this will be terrible. Bernard being forced to read Carter...

Why, Bernard, are you afraid that the purity of your faith will be
undermined?

> *You* are the one
> making these claims in this group,

I sure do, and I stand by them.

> and you certainly have not presented
> this evidence.

I have presented clear evidence that Carter's research fell on deaf ears.
Where were all the debunkers? Two possibilities:

1. This research is too good to go against.
2. General lethargy of the mainstream scholarship.

Either way, it is shameful. I can't see any other explanations.

> all you posted were paraphrases of Jackson (1917) via
> Carter.

Quite right, and citations to published literature.

So, Bernard, nobody forces you to read Carter. Nobody forces you to reply
to my posts either. Carter's claims will stand as valid until such time as
when they are proven invalid. So if you have nothing to say in reply, you
don't need to reply at all. Simple. Perhaps everybody will be happier this
way...

This is a huge subject indeed. There's the Scandinavian angle on the
cowries. The evidence from Scandinavia about ancient cowries found there
is rock solid. I do have further info on this and can post it. But this
should really go to the nordic newsgroup, under another thread name.
There's the Harappan angle on the Maldive cowries. Just yesterday,
William, who's doing professional excavations in the Indus valley, has
shown his lack of familiarity with the obvious Maldive-Harappan link. This
is sad. This is how far the parochialism in today's scholarship is
distorting any efforts to research the ancient navigation.

Where do we begin to redress these blind spots of mainstream archaeology?
The task ahead is truly daunting. But I guess it must be done little step
by little step.

Respectfully,

Yuri.

Yuri Kuchinsky   | "Where there is the Tree of Knowledge, there
     -=-         | is always Paradise: so say the most ancient
 in Toronto      | and the most modern serpents."  F. Nietzsche
              -=-=- [24]http://www.io.org/~yuku -=-=-
   _________________________________________________________________


Click here to go one level up in the directory.