[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Ad Yurii Gloriam (Was Re: maize in ancient india: strong transpacific links are indicated)
Domingo Martinez (firstname.lastname@example.org) wrote:
: This is an ad hominem comment, albeit written as nicely as I could manage.
That's OK, Domingo, as long as you write nicely.
: I send it to this forum because Mr Kuchinsky has previoulsy stated his
dislike : for private correspondence regarding these issues. If not
interested, please : do not read. I apologize in advance for the use of
bandwidth. : You fill your mouth with words like "scholarly" and
"academic", and then you : want to resolve the whole issue with a survey
of people in the streets : looking at pictures.
You really did not understand what I was trying to say there, did you?
What I was trying to say was that these arguments will never be settled
merely by discussing the similarities between the carvings and maize.
Impossible... AND YET, I firmly believe that these arguments WILL BE
SETTLED eventually. How will this happen? Well, these are just some
a) As Johannessen's research indicates that maize was a staple crop in
that area, these cob fossils shouldn't really be that difficult to turn up
in excavations. Is anyone looking for them?
b) The evidence from studying maize genetic liniages alone can tell us
when maize arrived to India. This work is being done now.
c) Our ability to find and analyse ancient plant pollen is constantly
So THIS IS where the final confirmation will come from, I believe. The
carvings are merely a strong indication that maize was in India
pre-Columbus. They should point us towards further research.
Do you understand my point now? I should hope so...
: Cannot you possibly understand that after
such comments : you almost completely lack credibility?
: So far, all the propositions you defend, which sometimes you claim as
"yours" : (chickens, maize, ipomoea, gourds, blowguns, etc.) can be
summarized using one : adjective of the following set: unlikely, not
proven, improbable; a few may : be plausible, but they remain not proven.
And here, I would like to quote for you from a relatively new publication.
ISLANDS, PLANTS, AND POLYNESIANS: AN INTRODUCTION TO POLYNESIAN
ETHNOBOTANY, Paul Cox and Sandra Banack, eds, Portland, 1991. In the
article POLYNESIAN PLANT NAMES, Karl H. Rensch writes:
"I do not intend to go back to the question of whether the word _kumara_
[signifying sweet potato, _Ipomoea_], which has reflexes in most
Polynesian langauges, is of South American Indian origin. The case for it
has been proven beyond doubt (Yen 1974)" (p. 98)
So how about you try this one on for size, Domingo?
And do I really need to explain to you that the case for the
human-assisted diffusion of potato west from America pre-Columbus
significantly strengthens the case for the similar diffusion of maize? I
: And do not expect for people in these forums to be able to disprove
stuff that : you put forward, because "disproving" cannot be done, as
people have : repeatedly said here.
Well, I can disprove to you right now that I'm not Anasthasia, the heir to
the Russian throne. Or that you are not Napoleon... Historical hypotheses
certainly can be disproved through finding new evidence. Perhaps you
should brush up on these theoretical considerations...
: Even if you submit that, say, Cahokia
was built using : digital computers from outer space, nobody can disprove
Yes, but on the other hand, we can prove that technology existing at the
time was sufficient for constructing it.
=O= Yuri Kuchinsky in Toronto =O=
--- a webpage like any other... http://www.io.org/~yuku ---
We should always be disposed to believe that that which
appears white is really black, if the hierarchy of the
Church so decides === St. Ignatius of Loyola