[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Old World maize: archaeological evidence? Yes!
In article <pmv100.149.3305EA5F@psu.edu>, pmv100@psu.edu says...
> In article <5dvjjp$g73$1@trends.ca> yuku@mail.trends.ca (Yuri Kuchinsky) writes:
> >As some of us are aware, the discussion about maize seemed to have bogged
> >down with the conclusion that the archaeological "smoking gun" has not
> >been in evidence as yet. Where's the archaeological evidence for maize in
> >the Old World? my critics asked. "You have other types of evidence, but not
> >the "hard fossil proof"!"
> >
> >Meanwhile, this proof seems to have been presented already! Take a look,
> >please...
>
> Already did, already posted twice why the evidence is not compelling. Here
> I'll post it for you again.
>
>
> >>Dr. Vishnu-Mittre, an Indian archaeologist, found that proof as far back
> >as 1966... Surprise!
>
> Read below and take special note of the fact that in 1986 Dr. Vishnu-Mittre
> commented to J&P that he was no longer confident that the initial
> identification was correct. Seems your information is now some 10-20 years
> out of date - hopefully this will help you update it.
>
>
> Peter van Rossum
> PMV100@PSU.EDU
Old World maize is absolute poppycock. The "proofs" are as hollow as a corncob
pipe! The whole thing evolves from the use of the word "corn" in two respects in
Europe and in the U.S. We use it for maize, Europeans use it to identify any
number of grain crops. The misleading information comes in the translation of
documents that refer to grains as having referred to "corn," which is not always
"maize."
All the rest is window dressing and nonesense.
sohn.
--
Good company and good discourse are the very sinews of virtue.
Izaak Walton, "The Compleat Angler" (1653)
voice: 718.421.4598 +++ http://www.webcom.com/sasohn +++ fax: 718.421.4098
sign
Follow-Ups:
References: