Subject:      Re: Easter Island, Gallapagos and the South 
		American mainland, Chou (Zhou) Chavin
From:         yuku@globalserve.net (Yuri Kuchinsky 17784)
Date:         1997/10/09
Message-ID:   <61iva2$fal$1@titan.globalserve.net>
Newsgroups:   sci.archaeology,sci.anthropology

GKeyes6988 ([22]gkeyes6988@aol.com) wrote (in reply to Steve):

        ...

: You have a still worse problem.  You were going to show that Chou
influenced :  Chavin.  Then you try to define Chou as going through the
Han dynasty.  The :  problem with this is that the Han dynasty could not
have influenced Chavin, :  because the Chavin horizon was long over.  Get
it?  So it still has to be the :  Bronze age Chou (Zhou) as conventionally
defined to have influenced Chavin.

From what I know about comparisons between the art styles of ancient S. 
America and S. E. Asia, there are indeed some very interesting parallels. 
Some of the artifacts in fact look like carbon copies of each other. Only
those who have a preconceived political agenda, or are blind (which may
come pretty close anyway), will deny that these similarities are strong. 

Yes, there are some problems of chronology; there are apparent
chronological gaps between when these artifacts are attested in Asia and
in S. America. But these certainly cannot be taken as excluding the idea
of transoceanic contact. These are not insurmountable problems.

But of course if one has a preconceived political agenda, any excuse will
do to refuse to face reality. And the problems of obvious parallels can be
simply swept under the rug. Et voila! The historical deception is
complete, and the life can go on as per usual in the Enchanted Castle of
American Isolationism...

Nevertheless, the walls of the Castle may be getting a littly shaky
perhaps...

Yuri.

Yuri Kuchinsky in Toronto -=O=- [23]http://www.io.org/~yuku

Comparative studies of primitive art have probably been
jeopardized by the zeal of investigators of cultural contacts and
borrowings. But let us state in no uncertain terms that these
studies have been jeopardized even more by intellectual pharisees
who prefer to deny obvious relationships because science does not
yet provide an adequate method for their interpretation
   -=-   Claude Levi-Strauss, ANTHROPOLOGIE STRUCTURALE, 1958
   _________________________________________________________________


Subject:      Re: problem of parallels (was: Easter Island...
From:         yuku@mail.trends.ca (Yuri Kuchinsky)
Date:         1997/10/13
Message-ID:   <61s1eg$9bp$1@news.trends.ca>
Newsgroups:   sci.archaeology

GKeyes6988 ([22]gkeyes6988@aol.com) wrote:
: Yuri Kuchinsky wrote:

[Greg:]
: > Yuri is aware that no one has "excluded" the idea of contact.What he and
: >  Steve have to do is demonstrate contact.  A chronological "problem" of
: more
: >  than a millennium is actually somewhat more than a problem,

: .A problem that is more than a problem? What's that, Greg?
:
: Getting a cat out of a tree using a step ladder is a problem.  Getting a cat
: off of the moon using a stepladder is something more than a problem.

OK, I'll grant you this if you insist.

: Explaining how Zhou China could influence Teotihuacan is a problem (a big
: problem) but explaining how Han (according to Steve, 500 AD) could influence
: Chavin (400 BC) is something more than a problem.

This is red herring. If some cultural influence from culture A to culture
B is postulated, then the artifacts in question should be younger in
culture B. This is obvious. Nobody would be stupid enough to claim that
artifacts of culture A should be younger in this context. Steve did not
make such a mistake.

I admit that there are some problems in chronology in so far as similar
artifacts are found that are considerably younger in S. America compared
to China. In his ATLAS OF WORLD MYTHOLOGIES, Joseph Campbell includes
photos of two objects, one from S. America, and another one from China,
that are almost carbon copies of each other. But they are separated by
many centuries. Nevertheless, such a problem is not insurmountable.

So don't try to muddy the waters here, Greg.

In any case, I think this debate about the exact classifications and
nomenclature is a little silly. Any outside observer will take one look at
the photographic evidence, e.g. as given by Campbell, of amazingly similar
artistic objects from Asia and from S. America and will conclude
immediately that some sort of contact was likely. (Or else we will have to
drift inevitably to some sort of a Space Aliens hypothesis.) Then, the
only question will be, Would have contact been possible given the
available watercraft and navigation skills, and ocean currents, etc. The
answer to this is unqualified Yes.

So the obvious answer is Yes, the contact was likely. All the attempts of
Some Sainted Professionals to muddy the waters and to analyze these
similarities into oblivion is just this -- they are the rationalizations
in the service of politics. Interesting game of hoops and ladders.

But the real evidence is clear and it points only one way.

Regards,

Yuri.

Yuri Kuchinsky in Toronto -=O=- [23]http://www.io.org/~yuku

You never need think you can turn over any old falsehoods
without a terrible squirming of the horrid little population
that dwells under it -=O=- Oliver Wendell Holmes
   _________________________________________________________________


Click here to go one level up in the directory.