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

Re: Atawallpa was no chicken (It was Re: chicken in America: from Asia? (cont.))

In article <5a15ll$c9e@news1.io.org> yuku@io.org (Yuri Kuchinsky) writes:
>: Carter can make some linguistic
>: pro-chicken arguments (which can be rebuted by linguists) but he's stuck 
>: with the one big con-chicken argument - no archaeological support.
>This is another cheap shot, and obvious twisting and denial of evidence.
>I said it before, and I don't have time to repeat it again: he has MUCH
>MORE than linguistinc evidence.

If you look at Carter's article there is much more devoted to linguistic
arguments than any other line of contact evidence.  But still being
an archaeologist I expect archaeological theories to have archaeological
support - Carter's theory has no (zero, none, zip, nada) archaeological

>: Given the vagaries of the archaeological record, it would be utterly
>: stupid to design a project simply to find chicken bones. 
>This is clearly self-contradictory. First you spend all this time to
>refute this argument (mostly relying on propagandistic techniques and
>demagoguery), and then you claim it's not important to look for these
>chicken bones!

Since you apparently don't understand much about archaeology I'll try 
again.  I didn't say "it's not important to look for these chicken
bones!", I said it is stupid to design a project to just go out and find 
a certain type of plant remains, animal remains, or cultural artifact.
Most of a people's material possessions decay before an archaeologist 
gets to a site - so its a waste of time to just go out looking for
a single type of object.  

What you do is come up with a project to work in an area and then do 
your best to accurately describe/interpret what you find.  When we find 
animal bones, which we do all the time, we try to identify them.  People 
have dug thousands of Precolumbian South American archaeological sites 
and recovered hundreds of thousands if not millions of animal bones, but

Why do we find all kinds of animals but not chickens?  To me the simplest
explanation is that they probably didn't exist in Precolumbian South 

>: Maybe not everything gets written up, but certainly a Precolumbian 
>: chicken bone would be published pretty quickly. 

>More propaganda and demagoguery. I refuted this before. I gave an example
>of _extremely important_ evidence about the very early Amazonian pottery
>"disappearing" for nearly 20 years. Clearly, Peter only wishes to waste
>my time by rehashing arguments based on appeal to emotion. 
>"Archaeologists can never do such a thing because it can never happen,
>and because they are generally nice people who can never do such things,
>or fail to do some other things." Pathetic? Yes, just more cheap

And your response would be what?  That we're a bunch of liars?  That
we don't know how to excavate? What are you claiming?

>: Unless of course
>: you want to claim that for some unfathomable reason archaeologists
>: are trying to cover it up. 
>Cheap innuendo.

Then counter it with an explanation for why we haven't found chicken
bones!  After having read countless articles by you this is what I
think you want to say.  If it is not then please set the record straight,
otherwise I will draw my own conclusions.

>I wonder why do I reply at all to such illogicality as Peter provides ad
>infinitum? Hardly worth the time...

Well you didn't reply to a single question I put to you.  You just made
vague hand wavings that I was trying to distort your position.  If you
think I misrepresent you then clarify your position, that's what I do
when you consistently misrepresent mine.

Peter van Rossum