[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: chicken in America: from Asia? (cont.)

On 20 Dec 1996, Yuri Kuchinsky wrote:

> Wayne,
> This is a great piece of info that may help put together this jig-saw
> puzzle. You ask some very valid questions.
> rwchilders (rwchilders@interoz.com) wrote:
> : Note that the problem is compounded by the early Spanish explorers apparent
> : failure to differentiate linguistically between turkeys and chickens. At
> : times they are apparently called gallinas. At other time, they are called

This is a point several of us have been making repeatedly. It is 
difficult to tell which bird the Spaniards are taking about. When they 
say "the fowl is different from ones we have in Spain" are they implying 
that the fowl is a different type of chicken or a different type of bird?

We cannot tell that from the context given by Carter.  Acosta's work is 
not available at the UofA library so I can't tell what the total context is.

> : gallinas del Pais. They even call them pavos occasionally. I find it
> : interesting that Iberville when he is exploring the Gulf Coast of the
> : Southeastern US in 1700 or so, finds the Bayougoula Indians of Louisiana
> : raising chickens as sacred birds rather than for domestic consumption. One
> : would think that if the chicken were introduced by way of the Spaniards,
> : that they would have adopted the Spanish attitude toward chickens as food
> : sources.
> Absolutely. "Isolationists" may well validly suggest that the chicken
> could have come from Asia post-Columbus. Yet their arguments really fall
> flat if they would also insist that the Spanish would have introduced
> ritual uses associated with chickens in America! Hardly possible. Such
> ritual uses and cultural complexes associated with chickens are
> well-attested and have been strongly linked with Asia. 

Couldn't the chickens have replaced another bird in the ritual of native 
peoples? Foreign objects can be readily incorporated into 
well-established rituals.

> This would be a great place to look for more evidence.
> : While the linguistic evidence that is put forth is imposing, only
> : discovery of actual remains in datable pre-Columbian sites will put this
> : argument to rest. However, if chickens were not a Pre-Columbian
> : introduction, their rapid spread may give some real insight into cultural
> : diffusion that will upset many cherished beliefs. Wayne Childers
> Either way, anti-diffusionists will have a problem with the chicken!

Geoffrey Moss has cited two references that critique the linguistic 
evidence. Why no mention of this post Yuri?

Jeff Baker