[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)

In article <5c0lgh$2po$2@nnrp1.toronto.ican.net> yuku@io.org (Yuri Kuchinsky) writes:
>Katrina Worley (kworley@csus.edu) wrote:
>: No, the point is still valid.  If maize were common enough in India to
>: allow for the genetic variation and widespread appearance in carvings that
>: you are claiming, then it would show up in a variety of sites and someone,
>: somewhere, sometime would have identified it as such. 

>How do you know this will not happen in the future? Do you have a
>chrystal ball? Perhaps it would help to keep in mind that very few if any
>settlements from the time period in question have been excavated. If your
>information indicates otherwise, please specify. 

Here I agree with you. Maybe Precolumbian corn cobs will turn up in an Indian 
context in the future and if they do then I will have to admit that there was 
some form of contact.  Until such time, however, the research by people like 
Jeffreys and Johannessen & Parker does not provide the kind of unequivocal 
evidence of contact that you claimed it did.

>This whole thing is very similar to the pre-Columbian chicken in America
>debate we've had recently. In that case, George Carter actually cited
>_possible_ pre-Columbian chicken bones that _were found_. 20 years later,
>it turns out that NO ONE EVEN BOTHERED TO DATE THOSE BONES. Nothing more
>was heard about them.
>Why not?

This was previously explained to you.  The reasons for the lack of dating were 
probably due to the expense and limitations of radiocarbon dating which was 
less than 10 years old at the time these bones were excavated (mid-50s if 
memory serves).  Why do you pretend that no explanation has been given when 
it has?

Peter van Rossum