[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: maize in ancient india: strong transpacific links are indicated
August Matthusen (email@example.com) wrote:
: Yuri Kuchinsky wrote:
: > The best parts for a layman are the photographs. Yes, this is the
: > "Smoking Gun", no doubt about it... The stone carvings are
: > _extremely intricate_ and realistic -- and well preserved. No
: > mistake about it. Every little grain of corn is portrayed
: > painstakingly. _Little doubt_ can remain that corn was definitely in
: > India very early on!
: Hmm, from this we can deduce several working hypotheses:
: India was settled in the 12th and 13th century by migratory
: peoples from the Americas, India was settled in the 12th and
: 13th century by migratory ears of corn from the Americas, India was
: was settled in the 12th and 13th century by migratory Redenbockers,
: or India was settled in the in the 12th and 13th century by clever
: pieces of rock sculpted to resemble maize.
Well, here they go again...
These fellows don't even wait until the whole argument is presented. Why
bother to look at the evidence when you can already begin to demonstrate
your amazing sense of humour? They don't have their usual excuses now
about the evidence being incomplete, unverified, unscientific, etc. This
is solid peer-reviewed stuff that I'm presenting... So what do they have
to throw at this research? The usual: innuendo, cheap sarcasm, ad
hominems, ex silentio arguments, demands for "more proof" (as if any
proof would be enough for those whose minds have been made up long time
I have followed the maize, and other likely plants, diffusion discussions
for a while. I cannot think of any evidence that is stronger than
Johannessen's in demonstrating transpacific contacts. This is definitely
the "smoking gun". It is so, because, and I guarantee you that, if you
ask 10 "men in the street" to look at these photos and to identify these
plants, 10 of them -- without any doubt -- will say, This is maize. And
this is good enough for me.
I don't doubt for a second that counter-arguments can be made. I also
don't doubt that counter-arguments _will be made_, since this matter is
of extreme importance in defending strong vested interests for many
scholars. Doubt will be cast upon thousands upon thousands of academic
careers if this evidence is accepted as valid, and the necessary
conclusions are drawn.
But can _good counter-arguments_ be made? This is the question. I would
really like to see them. So far, none came up in these frequently
vitriolic hasty replies that already arrived to my yesterday's post. Oh,
yes, definitely, we will see much more of the same...
I believe that reality is catching up fast with the American
isolationists. The sand-castle of isolationism is crumbling and sinking
fast under the impact of increasing evidence that demonstrates that
ancient peoples crossed the oceans many thousands of years before
The fear and trembling among isolationists is palpable now. They will
spare no innuendo, no cheap sarcasm, ad hominems, ex silentio arguments,
no demands for "more proof". But I think they can smell the defeat in the
air... I can discern more than a whiff of desperation in their formulaic
and ritualistic denials. In the replies to my first posting you will see
the names of stout defenders of the status quo. They are the valiant
Knights Defenders of the threatened dogma, seeking strength in numbers,
dressed in cardboard armour and suited for a good food fight, and they
ride out on their toy horses to wage battle to defend the great Sand
Castle of Isolationism, reinforced with cardboard-and-styrofoam.
Certainly expecting to persuade these people of anything would be the
heights of naivete. I have no such ambitions. The Superman is not me. I
simply provide information for interested individuals to peruse. I will
post the rest of this Indian maize material, and see the show unfold. For
me, the big question is over and done with. Now I'm basically sure that
maize was in India a long time ago. And, sure, I will wait for
substantial criticism to arrive, but, I fear, I'll be waiting in vain...