[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: maize in ancient India: transpacific links (cont.)
Um, just in case anyone familiar with my record from sci.archaeology is
waiting for me to jump in and take Mr. Kuchinsky to task, sorry, folks.
It's true that I've seen no site report mention signs of <Zea> spp. in
stratigraphic context. But most site reports I've read have neglected
periods A.D. - and all of Mr. Kuchinsky's claimed sculptures date after
Christ, as indeed they would have to given the history of sculpture in
South Asia - most site reports I've read have lacked palynological
analyses, and finally, my own reading of them was focused strictly on
periods up to (or presumed to be up to) 200 B.C.
Nor do I have time at the moment to dig up his references in the libraries,
even if I had the proper background in post-Maurya art history and such.
I would appreciate it, however, if any more threads spawn from this, if the
phrase "ancient India" would be reserved to the period prior to A.D. 1000.
In current usage, "ancient India" isn't even considered appropriate that
late - I've gotten answers ranging from 300 B.C. to A.D. 300 as to the
proper cutoff - but at one time "ancient India" was taken to mean anything
up to 1000 and I'm willing to cut some slack. However, I was pretty
flabbergasted to open Mr. Kuchinsky's first post on the subject and find
the "ancient" sculpture in question dated no earlier than the 12th century.
I think this other post (the one this is a followup to), by citing older
sculptures alleged to depict maize as well, explains the reference. Still,
the somewhat befuddled s.a Indo-guy
Joe Bernstein, writer, banker, bookseller firstname.lastname@example.org
speaking for myself alone http://www.tezcat.com/~josephb/
But...co-proponent for soc.history.ancient, now back under
discussion in news.groups!