Re: Ad Yurii Gloriam (Was Re: maize in ancient india: strong transpacific links are indicated)
Peter van Rossum (email@example.com)
Tue, 21 Jan 1997 12:09:06 GMT
In article <firstname.lastname@example.org> email@example.com (Yuri Kuchinsky) writes:
>Katrina Worley (firstname.lastname@example.org) 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.
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
Peter van Rossum