[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Ad Yurii Gloriam (Was Re: maize in ancient india: strong
In article <E4o88D.47K.firstname.lastname@example.org> email@example.com (Yuri Kuchinsky) writes:
>Peter van Rossum (firstname.lastname@example.org) wrote:
>: Seems that a guy by the name of Shri Gosh was working on a compendium
>: of archaeological excavations in India when he died in 1981. The
>: volume finally got published as "An Encyclopaedia of Indian Archaeology"
>: in 1989 (so its a bit dated now). Here's a little of what it says right
>: up front:
>: "In the post-Independence period the tempo of archaeological field-
>: work increased considerably and COVERED ALL PERIODS OF HUMAN
>: CULTURE." (p. xiv)
>: "Prehistoric investigations adopted new approaches, working on
>: geomorphology palaeontology, PALAEOBOTANY, and palaeo-climatology" (p. xiv)
>: "On [the] protohistoric and HISTORIC SIDE, CULTURAL SEQUENCES
>: SUPPORTED BY A CHRONOLOGICAL FRAME-WORK, OBTAINED THROUGH
>: CAREFULLY OBSERVED VERTICAL EXCAVATIONS, ARE NOW AVAILABLE
>: FOR ALL PARTS OF THE COUNTRY." (p. xiv)
>: "The focus has shifted from the concern for ascertaining the bare
>: culture-sequence to RECOVERING OR RECONSTRUCTING THE COMPLETE
>: LIFE PATTERN" (p. xv)
>: Seems to me that if by the late 1970s they were already excavating
>: historic sites and looking at dietary remains, I see no reason why
>: this process should have discontinued.
>Well, great, let's see the results of some of these studies if they have
>been done. I would have thought that Johannessen's opponents would do
>this, and demonstrate conclusively that maize is lacking in the diet of
>the relevant settlements.
>The replies of the critics of Johannessen that have been published DO NOT
>do this. Instead they go into some questionable statistical studies
>comparing the carvings to maize. Such studies cannot provide any solid
>My conclusion is that they (the critics) couldn't do any better, as I
>assume they tried...
No idiot-stick your conclusion is ridiculous! The obvious conclusion to
be reached is that no one is aware of anyone reporting Precolumbian
corncobs from any Indian sites. If such remains had been reported then
Johannessen & Parker should have mentioned them. Contrary to this they
actually explicitely state that no such corn cobs have been reported and
as we've seen the pollen "evidence" they cite is extremely dicey.
Again you don't understand science. It is not up to critics of a theory
to prove that the theory is wrong (in most cases, including this one, such
a disproof is not even possible), it is up to the theory's proponents
to prove it is correct. The fact that the maize in Precolumbian India
proponents have not been able to provide such concrete proof from the
Indian archaeological record means that at present their theory remains
on shakey ground. If they think such remains can be found in the site's
contents then it is up to them to organize a project to look for such
remains - don't expect people who don't even believe in your theory to
try to prove it for you while you piss and moan from the sidelines.
Until such time as Precolumbian corncobs are reported from an Indian site
(and as we've seen Indian archaeologists are looking for botanical remains)
there is no reason to pursue this theory any further.
You can now drivel on how ever you want on this topic (I won't waste any
more time) but unless you can find such remains there is no good proof
of maize in Precolumbian India.
Peter van Rossum