[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: maize in ancient india: strong transpacific links are indicated
On 4 Jan 1997 15:09:30 GMT, yuku@io.org (Yuri Kuchinsky) wrote:
[SNIP]
>
>I did not say "jobs will be threatened". Nevertheless, many scholars
>working in American prehistory have based their research on certain
>"isolationist" assumptions that, if demonstrated to be false, will be
>extremely problematic. Their work will be undermined. Will they be happy
>to see these assumptions undermined?
Won't it give them new research to do then?
>: This happened once
>: before, when the pre-Columbian Norse settlements in the New World were
>: discovered, documented, and widely accepted. Thousands of Isolationists
>: had their careers irreperably damaged and many were fired. (Oh, wait a
>: minute, that didn't happen at all. In fact it was archaeologists who
>: excavated those sites. Never mind, strike that part).
>
>Incorrect, Greg. You obviously missed the real story of the discovery of
>those sites. Helge Ingstad, who found them, was not a professional
>archaeologist. He was convinced on the basis of _literary and linguistic
>evidence_ that the Vikings were in America. I assure you that he was the
>butt of jokes and sarcasm as anybody proposing uncoventional theories
>inevitably becomes. Yet, he persevered, and, without much support from
>archaeologists, surveyed the whole N-E coast. He got lucky at L'Anse aux
>Meadows. That's what happened, Greg. Do you see any interesting parallels?
Yuri, do you really not know anything about Helge Ingstad except what you
wrote above or are you simply withholding the fact that his wife, Anne Stine
Ingstad, is a professional archaeologist (and directed the excavations at
L'Anse aux Meadows). I don't see that as irrelevant. And he was working on
a pretty good corpus of literary evidence plus clear proof that there had been
Scandinavian colonies on Greenland, which is also relevant.
>By the way, some people complained about me using the word "Isolationist".
>I really don't see why. If there are indeed no Isolationists in these ngs,
>as some people said, why would anyone complain then?
You use it as a derogatory epithet, that's why I complained.
>We all understand what "Isolationist" means. This is a school of thought
>that vehemently denies that ancient America had any contact whatsoever
>with the rest of the world, besides the Alaskan landbridge, until the
>mighty Europeans came along. Or any meaningful contact. Are there such
>people in American prehistory? I think yes. So why would they not like to
>be described on the basis of their beliefs? Beats me...
Well who are they then? Name the people who talk about mighty Europeans.
If you mean people who say there still isn't any good evidence that there was
any meaningful contact between the Americas and Europe before the Vikings, or
between the Americas and Africa before Columbus, or between the Americas and
Asia except for the several migrations that took place, I don't see any of
them referring to 'mighty Europeans' or saying anything more vehement then
there isn't any convincing evidence. You've linked 'mighty Europeans' in to
make this an epithet, as I've already said.
--
Doug Weller Moderator, sci.archaeology.moderated
Submissions to:sci-archaeology-moderated@medieval.org
Requests To: arch-moderators@ucl.ac.uk
Co-owner UK-Schools mailing list: email me for details
Follow-Ups:
References: