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

Re: maize in Europe and India: a twisted tale

In article <piotrm.504.00154340@umich.edu> piotrm@umich.edu (Piotr Michalowski) writes:
>In article <pmv100.26.32C67888@psu.edu> pmv100@psu.edu (Peter van Rossum) writes:
>>The fact is that no one has reported Precolumbian corn cobs in Old World
>>contexts even though they are extremely durable (for plant remains),
>>extremely easy to identify, and should be very widespread if they made 
>>up any significant portion of a people's diet.  This should give us pause 
>>for concern that the identification is not correct.
>I have no expertise in this matter, but have been following this thread of 
and >on.  I have one simple question that goes along with the above 
statement.  If >corn (maize) were to have been introduced into the "Old 
World" at such an >early date, would it not have spread rapidly and been in 
wide use since, as it >did when it was definitely introduced after 
Columbus & Co?  If such a thing >had happened, we certainly would have 
evidence for widespread use of such a >plant, conspiracy or no--am I correct 
in this assumption?

That is the way I view it.  *If* corn had been introduced at an early date
and its use continued for 1000+ years then it should have existed at 
numerous sites.  Given that it probably would have been used as a food, and
its remains are resilient (compared to other plants) then we should find
its remains.  I argue that since no excavation has reported such remains
this should give us pause to question whether the sculpture identification
is accurate.  Contrary to what Yuri says I don't claim that this proves
for certain that it didn't exist but it should make us much more skeptical
than folks like Yuri would have us believe.  That's why I don't agree
with Yuri when he says that these sculptures are good candidates for
a "smoking gun" type of evidence which would prove for certain that
some kind of contact did occur.

Peter van Rossum