You agree that “the subconscious model of culture is valid to an undetermined and perhaps undeterminable degree.” Yet there is no such generally agreed model yet. The paradigm of isolationism is as conscious, ‘evolutionary’, and diffusionist as your migration pradigm.
I have developed the work of Levi Strauss to isolate about 100 features of the core content of culture, and a model to demonstrate that about 60% of these features are always present, always in the same five layers of structure, in all artworks and building sites. Thus a vast track of subconscious behaviour is no longer indeterminate. We now have some rigorous conscious evidence of, and some access to, subconscious behaviour, and thus to the role of archetype in culture. No Kumbaya (see my paper on semiotics in Expression, Atelier Etno).
Cultural similarities that you imagine to trace along certain routes, are isolated stylistic markers that mutate fast, even in temporarily static societies (and often faster, a kind of ‘island effect’ as in Homo Florensis).
Of course there are many intercultural influences, more than you can shake a bull roarer at, but your examples equally demonstrate universal elements in various media; cosmology, geometry, myth, ritual (the language sounds results I mentioned in my previous comment, is Blasi et al). I engage with you to get an update on correspondence theory applications in anthropology, but you just pile up evidence of various migrations to the Americas, as if that would lead us to the source of culture. And ironically, you bash modern migrations as if that did not change ancient American cultures.
Your "Celtic crosses" at Driekops Eiland near Kimberley are probably textiles, items of ritual dress decoration of beadwork in leather thongs on headbands, front and rear loincloths, aprons, etc, probably a former annual San, more probably Khoe and Kora (up to Koranna) female initiation site (see recent work of Hollmann on Gestoptefontein).
They would not have known a Celt if they saw one. A Celt would not have recognised the Kora ensemble. Occasional marriage is an unlikely cause for some of the engraved motifs. Intermediate trade items are likely, but cultural elements are easily assimilated, since the core content is already present on both sides (see Japanese comic books and pop art). I study core content of behaviour in a universal paradigm. You study stylisation as if it were ‘culture’. See my magazine edition on Celtic beasts, on
Every culture uses crosses and cosmology, not implying that they are Celts, or astronomers. Your ‘Celts’ remind me of Boudet (‘True Celtic language’) and his elaborate punning prank using the sound of Occitan and any and all other place names in southern France. This kind of correspondence just obfuscates the meaning of terms such as ‘Celt’ and ‘cross’.
Your San (Bushmen) visited by sailors (Phoenicians, Dravidian Indians, etc) did not seem to take much culture from the occasional sailor who ventured beyond the Swahili traders on the coast. San were very numerous, and spoke about five different language groups.
Your swastika is just another mandala, cross and vortex combined, too broad in correspondences to isolate as an archetype.
DNA maps do not match with cultural ensembles yet, nor with language. Thus it holds “great promise for a viable picture of our past,” as you say. I agree with you that there were several seaborne migrations to the Americas, but the culturally significant ones were relatively recent, thus few mutations to track. I favour Indonesian and Chinese migrants going ‘native’ on the American west coasts. Same repertoire, stylistic mutation; jump start in water engineering.
We disagree on what causes, or rather what sustains culture; and cognition. Your “qualitatively different consciousness and cognitive dissonance” at cultural contact is a socio-economic function. Not different wiring. Not different myths. Not different art. Different in population density and organisational maturity. Slightly different stages of technology. Recall the British justifications for genocide in India.
You go back to Neanderthals meeting Sapiens to demonstrate your paradigm of culture differences. Yet those meetings occurred many times, for thousands of years. Long enough for us to carry a few percent Neanderthal markers, and perhaps more in the ‘junk’ or timing vector genes that are still not decoded. Ditto for Denisovans and Sapiens. (see my article on Naledi near Johannesburg on
These issues are not directly relevant to our differences on what culture and cognition is. Correspondence theory is not likely to resolve these issues.
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 16-Apr-18 13:02 by Edmond.