[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: maize in ancient India: transpacific links (cont.)
In article <firstname.lastname@example.org> email@example.com (Yuri Kuchinsky) writes:
>Peter van Rossum (firstname.lastname@example.org) wrote:
>: Again, wouldn't you consider a real Precolumbian corn cob in an Old
>: World context a better piece of evidence than a scultpured form which
>: is subject to interpretation?
>Not necessarily a _better_ piece of evidence.
>: If not, why not?
>Because these _nearly photographic_ and _extremely realistic_ carvings,
>of which there's _great many_ are a sufficient piece of evidence in and of
>themselves. I would put them on the same level as actually finding an
So you don't think that evaluating the objects depicted in the sculptures
is subject to any interpretation whatsoever? That is ridiculous, as we've
seen other people interpret the sculptures as representing something
different - so obviously there is some level of subjectivity in the
identification. There is, however, no subjectivity in identifying
a REAL CORN COB. The only reason I can see for you claiming that they
are on an equal level, is that you don't want to accept that the first
article you read on the topic might be wrong.
>: If so, why have no such
>: remains ever been reported from Old World contexts?
>Argumentum ex silentio. A common fallacy.
Drivel. Archaeologists recover, analyze, identify, and report plant remains
on a daily basis. Given the ubiquity of these "maize sculptures" it is
obvious that if the identification is correct then there should have been
a lot of maize in their lifestyle, therefore, some remains should have been
left. The fact that such remains have not been found should lead us to
be cautious about the accuracy of the identification.
Peter van Rossum