Subject:      Re: "America B.C." -- anything to this?
From: (Yuri Kuchinsky)
Date:         1997/11/13
Message-ID:   <64fap3$7nc$>
Newsgroups:   sci.archaeology,sci.anthropology,sci.anthropology.paleo,sci.lang

Bruce L. Grubb ([22] wrote:

: Satire aside, Cook (1978) and Ann Ross (1978) cited in John R. Cole's
: (1980) "Cult Archaeology and Unscientific Method and Theory" in _Advances
: in Archaeology Method andTheory_ Vol. 3 article show that Fell wouldn't
: know Ogham if it came up and shook his hand.
: John Carey an expert in Old World languages is cited in Cook (1978:80) and
: he points out Fell's translations involve Celtic two thousand years too
: late.  Ann Ross  citation is simple to state that Fell's "Ogham" is not
: Ogham at all.   This is typical of the kind of things cult archaeologst do
: - sloppy science at best.  This stuff wouldn't past the giggle test of
: most archaeologsts and most of the comments made were in the 1976-8 period
: so you have a case been there did that so why do it again?
: Cook, W, L. (editor)
: 1978  _Ancient Vermont_. Castleton, Vermont: Castlton State College
: Ross, A. and P. Rehnolds
: 1978  Ancient Vermont. Antiquity 52(205):100-107

And also, Bruce wrote in :

> Cult Archaeology pure and simple.  John R. Cole's "Cult Archaeology and
> Unscientific Method and Theory" in _Advances in Archaeology Method and
> Theory_ Vol. 3 (1980) is a good overview of the whole Cult Archaeology
> mentality.

Greetings, Bruce,

Yes, by all means, check out all the details. AFAIAC, this Cult Arcaeology
business is simply a way for lazy professionals to find excuses for not
doing their job, i.e. finding explanations for the glaring transoceanic
parallels. Name calling can be fun, but is pretty meaningless on the

> Cole points out some of Fell's "evidence" are well know frauds with the
> Kensington Stone going back to E. Walhlgren's _The Kensington Stone: A
> mystery solved_ in 1958.

You're _really_ confused, Bruce. There's been miles of evidence offered
here recently that the Kens. Stone is genuine. Little doubt remains about
this. Fell had almost nothing to say about the Kens. Stone.

> Cole also cites John Carey an expert in Old
> World languages who points out Fell's translations involve Celtic two
> thousand years too late.  Futhermore And Ross is cited for point out the
> Ogham Fell uses is not Ogham at all.

More on Ogham later.

> The main problem with Fell's ideas is that they go back to an era in
> which the Native Americans were seen as total savages who couldn't
> possibly have built the structures seen throughout the Americas.

This is baseless.

> And so
> to explain the great cultural achivements in the Americas without
> crediting the Native Americans with the ability to count past five the
> Anthropologists of the day had every Old World culture and its brother
> coming over here before Columbus to 'help' the Native Americans.  The
> Myths of the Moundbuilders by Horizon/Nova summed up this view and its
> eventual fall from grace.
> In short is a racist stance that ignores the Native Americans independent
> acheivments and is insulting.  The reality is that with the exception of
> the Norsemen there is no proof of pre-Columbus connact with the New World
> from the Old.  With Plate Techtonics there is no way for a continent of
> Alantis to exist either so out -that- theory goes.

I will not deal with this nonsense in the future. It is just too silly. So
is _any_ investigation of transatlantic contacts before Columbus sui
generis "racist" according to you? Are you that dumb? So Helge Ingstad
then must be the chief of all racists in your view? How come he is so
highly respected?

I already said in this thread that in my view these accusations of
"racism", as well as all other such silly name calling left best for the
preschooler playground, directed at Fell are nothing but a labour saving
device by tenure-fat professional incompetents who don't feel like doing
any extra work. It's pathetic. I will only consider this question again if
you present some evidence for a change from Fell's writings where he may
have said anything _even remotely_ in this vein. You can't.

And now, re: Fell and the ogham controversy.

Oghams... So few people really know what this stuff is all about... As it
happens, the subject is so obscure that it is virtually impossible to get
any two "qualified experts" to agree on hardly anything in this area.
Especially if one asks about the origins of ogham...

Barry Fell was clearly an expert in this area -- at least as good as any
other expert. For an illustration, I refer the curious to ESOP (Epigraphic
Society Occasional Publications) 18 (1989), pp. 35-51. Here is a detailed
discussion prompted by the 1988 attack on Fell by one Prof. Brendan O
Hehir, a big expert at the UCal at Berkeley, and author of numerous
publications on Gaelic.

Fell answers all the criticisms in detail and generally makes the
mincemeat of the dear Prof. O Hehir. The discussion deals with

the ogham scales
can ogham be written horizontally?
is ogham consaine a fabrication?
ogham on flat surfaces -- real or false?
what is Old Gaelic?
dictionaries [used by Fell]
how old is ogham?
ignorant gibberish [as O Hehir kindly described some of Fell's work]

As one reads the article, one gets the strong impression that if anyone
was spouting ignorant gibberish it was actually O Hehir rather than

What more needs to be said? Those few who are interested and who know
about this stuff can read for themselves. For most people all this is as
clear as the Chinese Algebra.

No, Bruce, your tar-and-feathers excercise here has not presented anything
of substance as yet. I doubt that you can.


Yuri Kuchinsky in Toronto -=O=- [23]

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.