Re: What really is Andre Gunder Frank's position on worlds?

Well, you mistakenly attribute any "working assumptions" to me, as all I did 
was lay out differences between IW's and Gills and Franks positions.  As to the 
sea-change of evidence you reference, I'm certainly interested in seeing 
concrete arguments.  

I'd add that there's much more to it than finding interactions among people and 
then declaring "Eureaka!" I've found the REAL history of a bigger system.  A 
Stremlin notes, "If we aspire to larger and larger systemic explanations, why 
should trade and accumulation (as opposed to ecological exchanges or even 
timeless physical laws) occupy the center of our attention?"

Elson

Elson E. Boles
Assistant Professor
Sociology
Saginaw Valley State University


>>> Duncan Craig <dunkers@pacbell.net> 08/13/03 03:28PM >>>


Elson Boles wrote:
> Thanks Gunder for your time.  Yes, we're done.  Comments from others CCd 
>would be appreicated.
> Elson
> 
> Elson E. Boles
> Assistant Professor
> Sociology
> Saginaw Valley State University
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> 
> 
> 
> 

The basis of your working assumption is that the 'New World' 
was isolated prior to 1492. This assumption is based on a 
paradigm that has been eroding for several years due mainly 
to forensics, mitochondrial dna studies and ethnographic 
evidence. The 'land bridge theory', which has been orthodox 
for four hundred years, is falling more out of favor with 
even the most conservative archaeologists, and has been 
replaced by the 'coastal migration theory'. I cannot begin 
to recount the landslide of new evidence here, but it has 
been increasingly clear that:

1) the small tribes, clans and sub-polities of the 'New 
World' were outlier vassal states of a centralized authority 
and its core area of Teotihuacan.

2) that Mesoamerica had an ongoing relationship, and indeed 
was a outlier area, of the dominant center of capital 
accumulation,... Hangzhou, China. Recent advances in 
archeo-astronomy and translation of the Mayan pantheon of 
gods has indicated that Chinese 'tribute bearing missions' 
have been visiting Mesoamerica since the formation of the 
city-states at La Venta and San Lorenzo. Moreover, with the 
uncovering of the God K or Kawil, even the shipping schedule 
can be synchronized with the 819 day cycle.

With the discoveries at Monte Verde, Chile and Lucia in 
Brazil (predating anything Clovis), all of the assumptions 
about the peopling of the 'New World' are in a state of flux 
unequaled in the field of  New World pre-history.

The ambiguities of Mr. Frank and Gills are rooted, I would 
think, in a realistic approach to rapidly emerging data. 
Conversely, the contradictions you point out are based on an 
increasingly shaking paradigm.

Duncan Craig