Actually, archetypes and their ocular grid are primarily in art and building sites, with some aspects in ritual, myth, calendar, and constellations. They do not “come from” or even through any single medium. We are hard wired to perceive, and to picture, characters with their eyes on an axial grid. Characters always express one or two features from the repertoire of one of the sixteen archetypes, and always in the same peripheral sequence, around certain polar markers.
Gemini, for example, is a constellation; and a celestial 'sign' (now lying entirely over Taurus Auriga, Orion, Hyades and most of Perseus constellations); and a month; and a myth of brothers; and an archetype (15 Gemini, which has about ten known features that occur at fixed frequencies in artworks). The label is mythic shorthand. It does not "come from" the sky. Hour decans adjacent to Gemini (Canis, Lynx, Canis Minor) are cultural abstracts based on cosmology (which is everywhere in space and time, not from the sky). Gemini emblems include pharao smiting a rival brother, the trump of worldly creator churning souls, wanderer with a bag, etc. Culture is also imprinted in the sky. It does not come from certain stars.
The rigorous structure of culture is easily demonstrated in artworks. Constellation anchor points (stars) were not designed by an artist, thus their eyes or lucida are not on an axial grid. The division lines between them happen to be (when mapped on an ecliptic grid, as in the post I linked in a previous comment).
I am not “as much engaged in mythopoeia” as you are. I did not invent the types, their features, the average frequencies of their features, the axial grid, or any novel interpretations of this behaviour that has been hidden in plain sight for ever (thanks to common sense assumptions), until access to global art data enabled me to identify it. I had to discard the common sense meanings of “invention, development, art, design, culture”. Diffusion was the easiest assumption to get rid of.
It was a diffusion test that revealed the opposite. I tested the prevalence and dating of academically recognised features in rock art (bent forward /trance /spiritual healing, hunter, quarry, bovid flanked by ritual gestures, female, griffin /dragon, therianthrope, teacher, chief /king, twins, motley /varicoloured, bag, snake, staff, relative positions, tools, weapons). I noticed that some of these appear in the same peripheral sequence, often in the same ‘narrative’ contexts, but in equal percentages in all regions, all cultures, all eras. I then drafted a template to see where the entire structure or myth or example could come from, using Renaissance art as a control of “different” art. But the same template was in Italy, as it is in all art. 600 examples later my only concern is that I should have found a percentage of blank or scrambled or changed structure, or consciously recognised and manipulated structure. I only found more details of the same structure (more features; more of their fixed frequencies; doubling of the imprint into two adjacents; the same in building sites with a few media-based differences; standard compromises in minimalist works, even with fewer characters than the minimum eleven).
Diffusion does not explain any aspect of this behaviour. It explains very little. Genetic markers do not explain universal sapiens behaviour. The contrary. There is a mindprint of our species in our environment.
You assure me that “contemporary humans make meaning,” but JG Frazer and many others have used some myths to explain others on the other side of the world. Thus meanings are not unique. Languages are all trnaslatable. The archaeological application of archetype is ‘tacking’ as termed by Alison Wylie. I could not find any novel meanings in any art or rock art. Ice Age cave art, and Gobekli Tepe (as in my AOM article September 2015), should have “fewer meanings” in your view. They had fewer people, fewer technologies (which they used in most creative ways), but the same culture (behaviour independent of technology maturity curve, and of social functions arising from population density curve).
Regarding “loss of Hopi culture”, see a recent Hopi painting of Candle Night;
If you are tempted to argue that ‘it is not what it used to be’ (“in ceremonial detail and legends”), be consoled that the entire subconscious structure, as far as known, is in all Hopi artworks. And it will be there when terms such as 'Hopi' do not apply any more. And when Hopi styling had mutated back to the format cycle it had mutated from. I will post a demonstration of the standard structure in this painting, next month. See the same demonstrated in some other modern Hopi artworks in the link in my previous comment, about three-quarters of the way through other examples.
Hopi may well read your books as prompts for regaining ‘their’ culture. Myth and poetry in any language is archetypal. But they already have the full repertoire of culture. There is no challenge to anthropology in your books.
Regarding “Khoisan at Platfontein”, the few remaining San, at Mier and other places, and more numerous Khoe, and similar San admixtures, have “degenerated” by genocide, and loss of environment, partly due to assumptions about their genes, technology, and culture. They are still cultural individuals, but the social dimensions of culture are degenerated everywhere due to over-population and mass media dumbing. San carry the oldest sapiens genetic mutation markers, and among the best art, myth, ritual and ecological sustainability on earth. Diffusion should demonstrate them as either the source of ‘culture’, or bypassed by ‘culture’? All I found is the same repertoire of perception, expression, spirituality (including the “sacred bundle” that you see as distinctly Hopi. Archaeology knows this artefact. It has six versions in archetype). And we know that they have always been physically exploited, perhaps by some polities whom they have outlived.
You are explicit that “the sacred dimension and certain related practices of the prehistoric period" were different. I do not see how katsina cult is a “different sacred dimension” or an advance or even evolution as you imply, from Mexico, or from Peru, or from Sumeria, or from Gobekli Tepe. All I found is the same repertoire, at a predictable level of complexity, at a resolution of about 100 distinct features. There may be more (in 2014, I had isolated only about 70 distinct features).
You want to “talk commonsense” about “discrete cultures” carried by different genes. But you do not respond to my examples of culture and genes going separate ways. The map you posted is of genetic markers that are currently extant. Very few are from ancient bodies. It is not a map of cultural 'markers', nor even of styling (which are the only markers), nor even of technology.
Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 25-Apr-18 10:12 by Edmond.