If the Celtic Cross [similar to the Greek Cross] derives “from a navigational tool used by Neolithic global mariners”, then you could publish a global ancient technology dictionary. But culture is not degraded technology.
If “current Hopi/Navajo admixture is obvious and boring”, then so is ancient cultural diffusion.
If you “do not ‘do’ science”, then do not use anthropology terminology. As Geertz recognised, anthropology is either science or craft, thus metrics within a theoretical and paradigmatic framework, or mythology. Of which myth is usually more intelligent. You are a great mythologist. Perhaps some Hopi are already using your books as ‘ancient oral teaching’.
If your book, Orion Zone: Ancient Star Cities of the American Southwest’, is “pervaded at times with an aura of poetry”, then it is mythology. Some would call it modern and thus irrelevant, but archetype is alive and well. Myth is a global medium, and global in content, as comparison of various recent correspondence myths demonstrate.
Your primary thesis of culture from the sky, demonstrates the problem in the conscious paradigm of culture. Your thesis was much more useful than the “logical syllogism” drivel that prof engineer Sweatman and Tsikritsis last year pedalled past the scientists who edit Mediterranean Archaeology and Archaeometry (MAA), for which science and myth should never forgive them. Here is my scientific and structuralist (currently considered 'not scientific') assessment of the lowest point in archaeo astronomy;
Culture is not a conscious construct. I agree that “the stakes are much higher”. I agree that you are “helping to redefine the paradigms and parameters of the cultural evolution and history of our planet." Just abandon the common sense approach to culture via “evolution” and conscious constructs. You are using the same paradigm that causes the 'scientific' problem. Your article and comments demonstrate that the current ‘scientific’ paradigm is inadequate to study culture.
Eddy Larry; yes nature works on causes and effects, but the bigger picture requires original causes, which is archetype. Nature is not just a construct of jostling envelopes. Matter and energy follow laws such as the periodic table. Culture also has laws and a periodic table.
DrRayEye, I have not studied Lennenberg's linguistics. But I like this quote; "(4) The capacity for extracting similarities from physical stimulus causes the outer form of language to vary with relatively great freedom, but causes the underlying type to remain constant. (5) ...Environmental condition is the key to make it possible to unfold language... in two steps; latent structure for language-readiness; and actualization... of underlying concept into a concrete utterance." With some of my reservations about the linguistic definitions of these terms.
Some archaeologists, whom I do not want to provoke in isolated comments, have hinted that 'primitive' society lack some latent brain structure; and lack some stimulus for utterance. They wrote of "the language-ready brain". Perhaps they mis-interpeted Lennenberg? Or perhaps his summary dumbs down Chomsky and others?
Edited 9 time(s). Last edit at 21-Apr-18 15:30 by Edmond.