Ludd wrote:the "cutting edge" of the new scholarship emerging from the fields of archaeology and anthropology. You know, the increasing number of peer-reviewed studies by the "rising generation" of scholars who are revisiting the compelling evidence for pre-columbian cultural diffusion long-denied and long-avoided by the dying dinosaurs in the field
Oh, you mean the Viking village found in New Found Land. That's in Canada, if you didn't know.
"In the 1960s two Norwegian researchers, Helge Ingstad and Anne Stine Ingstad, discovered and excavated the Viking base camp at L'Anse aux Meadows (map) on the northern tip of Newfoundland—the first confirmed Viking outpost in the Americas. Dated to between 989 and 1020, the camp boasted three Viking halls, as well as an assortment of huts for weaving, ironworking, and ship repair."
Sutherland has found evidence of a second Viking village established on Baffin Island (That's in Canada, if you didn't know) from around 1300 CE.http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news ... utherland/
"Five hundred years before Columbus sailed the ocean blue, a Native American woman may have voyaged to Europe with Vikings, according to a provocative new DNA study.
Analyzing a type of DNA passed only from mother to child, scientists found more than 80 living Icelanders with a genetic variation similar to one found mostly in Native Americans. (Get the basics on genetics.
) (That's a quote from the article....not a dig from me.)
This signature probably entered Icelandic bloodlines around A.D. 1000, when the first Viking-American Indian child was born, the study authors theorize."http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news ... ce-europe/
While National Geographic is, in itself, not a scientific journal, they usually reference which journal and where the reader can turn to find the original research. You'll have to do that for yourself.
In case you haven't noticed it from other posters here, It's time for you to provide some actual references as to which research, and who the researchers were, and in which journals the research has been published, to back up your claims.
First of all, let me restate what I said earlier: I am not active LDS. I haven't ever seen any evidence that supports the Book of Mormon as a historical record. I'm basically agnostic on all questions related to religion in general and Mormonism in particular. My interest in "cultural diffusionism" has absolutely nothing to do with wanting to support Mormonism, and as far as I can tell, very few of the scholars currently involved in diffusionism studies are Mormon, or have any interest in supporting the Book of Mormon as a historical record. In fact, the only scholars I know about that are related to diffusionism studies are John Sorenson from BYU and Martin Raish, who I think is at BYU-Idaho. They published what is widely considered the definitive source for diffusionism evidences: Pre-Columbian Contact With the Americas Across the Oceans: An Annotated Bibliography
. It is a two-volume set (about 1100 pages, iirc).
I am very aware that the "old guard" in archaeology and anthropology pretty much closes their eyes and puts their hands over their ears whenever what they call "outlier" scholars try to present papers on diffusionism, because it goes against their long-established dogma. This is because diffusionism has been equated with racism, and so they've been shouting down diffusionists with allegations of racism for a long time now.
Anyway, I've read several fairly recent articles that present what I think is very compelling evidence that there was quite a lot of pre-Columbian contact in the Americas by European, East Asian, African, and Polynesian people. Contact that occurred via trans-oceanic travel, rather than via a Bering Straits land bridge. None of the articles I've read suggest that these contacts produced much, if anything, in the way of discernable impacts. Several of them argue that some of the best evidence for contact consists of things the "explorers" brought back with them after contact. Evidence like Egyptian mummies with traces of coca and tobacco in them, or representations of maize in India, or the kinds of sweet potatoes found in both South America and Polynesia. There have also been Roman coins found at or near mound-builder sites in the Mississippi drainage. I've been trying to find online versions of some of these articles, but haven't been able to do so yet. So I suppose if people here want to dismiss what I have claimed as a growing trend towards diffusionism among archaeologists and anthropologists, that's fine. Doesn't bother me at all. Your motivation appears to be to dismiss anything that you think could be twisted to supportthe Book of Mormon, whereas I'm not encumbered by that prerogrative. I've just always been interested in the topic, so I've tried to follow it as best I can. Is there some "crank science" out there that argues for diffusionism? Sure. Way too much, unfortunately. It's the crank science crap that has done as much as the racism charges to discredit diffusionism. But part of the problem, at least as I see it, is that a lot of the diffusionism research has been forced
to the fringes by the irrational refusal of so-called "mainstream" archaeology/anthropology to even permit diffusionists to present papers at conferences. It's a lot like the anthropogenic global warming debates, where so-called "deniers" are systematically discredited by what we are told is "the consensus" of all respectable scientists. Anyway, my point is that the existence of bad scholarship in the study of diffusionism shouldn't automatically discredit ALL of the scholarship. The field is still very new, and it has the disadvantage of having to fight against an almost religious dogma of old-school scholars for whom (as I already wrote above) diffusionism is supposedly some kind of veiled racist attempt to deprive native Americans of the credit they deserve for all the things they produced.
At any rate, there are a couple good articles I did find online that discuss the growth of diffusionism as a more accurate description of pre-Columbian American history. One is just an article in The Atlantic magazine and is fairly old (2000), and just talks about some of the controversy. The other is a very entertaining, well-written article by a Sioux Indian scholar who isn't among those who think diffusionism is racist, per se, and instead is obviously persuaded that pre-Columbian contact explains many things that otherwise don't make sense in a scenario where the Americas were supposedly isolated from all contact after the Bering Straits land bridge was flooded.
I also recommend the Sorenson book as a great source for diffusionism scholarship, although I am sure that most of the people here will just automatically assume that anything from a Mormon is nothing but a bunch of lies or apologetic nonsense, etc. Even though the book in question is nothing but a comprehensive bibliography. Sorenson also collaborated with a non-Mormon University of Oregon professor on what I think is a very interesting book concerning biological evidence for pre-columbian contact across the oceans: World Trade and Biological Exchanges Before 1492
Here are the links to the two articles I mentioned above:The Diffusionists Have LandedIndians, Archaeologists, and the Future