Burglin nonsense (was: Maize non-sense
Yuri Kuchinsky
Tom Burglin posted a very long post that included parts of old discussions
of maize in India. Each and every one of the arguments in those old posts
were answered adequately by me and others at the time. Many of my replies
to these old posts are available on my webpage. I will not follow the bad
example set by Tom by cluttering this ng with old and tired (and
ill-formatted!) arguments that are not of interest to anyone any more. The
objections Tom posted were weak then, and they are still weak now.
Unless someone wishes to present any specific arguments they are now
interested in...
It is indicative of the despair the defenders of the doomed old dogma like
Tom feel that they have to resort to such questionable tactics.
Regards,
Yuri.
Yuri Kuchinsky -=O=- http://www.trends.ca/~yuku NEWLY UPDATED
For every credibility gap, there is a gullibility fill -=O=- R. Clopton
JoatSimeon
>Yuri Kuchinsky
>It is indicative of the despair the defenders of the doomed old dogma like Tom
feel that they have to resort to such questionable tactics.
-- this from the guy who can't post twice without a barrage of childish,
schoolyard insults! 8-).
Still haven't come up with the pre-Columbian maize cob from any Old World site.
Tom demolished you quite neatly, and you are left without anything substantive
to say.
-- S.M. Stirling
Yuri Kuchinsky
joats...@aol.com (JoatSimeon) wrote on 6 Mar 1998 17:17:51 GMT:
> Yuri Kuchinsky wrote:
> > It is indicative of the despair the defenders of the doomed old dogma
> > like Tom feel that they have to resort to such questionable tactics.
> Still haven't come up with the pre-Columbian maize cob from any Old
> World site.
We don't really need the corncobs. Sufficient amounts of other evidence
exist.
> Tom demolished you quite neatly,
Only in your own and Tom's dreams.
> and you are left without anything substantive to say.
If you have any valid arguments against early maize in Asia theory, please
present them here.
Yuri.
Yuri Kuchinsky -=O=- http://www.trends.ca/~yuku NEWLY UPDATED
To be is to do.
-- I. Kant
To do is to be.
-- J.-P. Sartre
Yabba-Dabba-Doo!
-- F. Flinstone
JoatSimeon
>Yuri Kuchinsky:
>If you have any valid arguments against early maize in Asia theory, please
present them here.
-- Sure.
1) many digs in Asia of sites dating to before 1492.
2) plenty of unambiguous finds of wheat, barley, rice, sorghum, etc. in these
digs.
3) no physical evidence of maize in these digs.
4) abundant physical evidence of maize _after_ the Columbian voyages.
5) no archeological evidence of Asian contacts in Western hemisphere before
1492.
6) No Old World cultivars or domestic animals attested in Western Hemisphere
before 1492.
7) catastrophic vulnerability of Amerindian populations to Eurasian diseases
indicating no sustained contact with Old World before 1492.
-- and one could go on forever. There simply isn't any evidence of sustained
Old World contact with the Western hemisphere before 1492. There were the
Norse voyages to Vinland, and there may well have been a few accidental
contacts elsewhere, but there's absolutely no record of any transfer of
cultivars, or of people on any scale.
-- S.M. Stirling
oscar_...@yahoo.com
In article <6dp2qe$9o5$1...@news.trends.ca>,
yu...@mail.trends.ca (Yuri Kuchinsky) wrote:
>
> Tom Burglin posted
I posted it and under the nick HornedReaper. And I am not Tom Burglin.
My name is Jack Williamson.
a very long post that included parts of old discussions
> of maize in India. Each and every one of the arguments in those old posts
> were answered adequately by me and others at the time.
Answered in-adequately.
Many of my replies
> to these old posts are available on my webpage.
Edited adn revisione from what is found via Deja News and other
archives.....
I will not follow the bad
> example set by Tom by cluttering this ng with old and tired
Again I am not Tom. And what is old and tired is your continued non-sense
reguarding this entire subject. Your "conclusions" and "sources" are
completely ridiculous and despite overwhelming evidence furthering the
debunking of your ideas, you go on and on and on.......
> arguments that are not of interest to anyone any more.
If they aren't of interest people can simple ignore them, like most
do with your corny ideas....
///////HornedReaper///////
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading
Yuri Kuchinsky
oscar_...@yahoo.com wrote:
: In article <6dp2qe$9o5$1...@news.trends.ca>,
: yu...@mail.trends.ca (Yuri Kuchinsky) wrote:
: > Tom Burglin posted
:
: I posted it and under the nick HornedReaper. And I am not Tom Burglin.
: My name is Jack Williamson.
Jack,
Did you mean to say that you have not seen the following previous post by
Burglin containing the same material:
From Tburglin <[1]bur...@deleteTHIS.ubaclu.unibas.ch>
Organization Biozentrum
Date Wed, 04 Mar 1998 20:02:10 +0100
Newsgroups [2]sci.archaeology
Message-ID <34FDA5...@deleteTHIS.ubaclu.unibas.ch>
In other words, the idea of posting this material was entirely yours?
Hmm... Perhaps you should get access to a better newsfeed then?
: > a very long post that included parts of old discussions
: > of maize in India. Each and every one of the arguments in those old posts
: > were answered adequately by me and others at the time.
:
: Answered in-adequately.
How do you know? You seem pretty clued out about this generally...
: > Many of my replies
: > to these old posts are available on my webpage.
:
: Edited adn revisione from what is found via Deja News and other
: archives.....
Well give me specific examples where I may be to blame for inappropriate
editing. I will correct such errors.
: > I will not follow the bad
: > example set by Tom by cluttering this ng with old and tired
:
: Again I am not Tom.
Well, so clarify if you've seen Tom's post then.
: And what is old and tired is your continued non-sense
: reguarding this entire subject.
You despise scholarship. What are you doing in this newsgroup?
: Your "conclusions" and "sources" are
: completely ridiculous
You're a pathetic bigot and you show your contempt for scholarship. You
seem like some sort of a redneck. Most of my sources were published in
peer-reviewed publications.
: and despite overwhelming evidence furthering the
: debunking of your ideas, you go on and on and on.......
Why don't you get out of this newsgroup if this is how you feel about
scientific research? Go and play with other bigots in your own sandbox.
Yuri.
Yuri Kuchinsky -=O=- http://www.globalserve.net/~yuku UPDATED
You'd better beat it. You can leave in a taxi. If you can't get a taxi,
you can leave in a huff. If that's too soon, you can leave in a minute
and a huff -=O=- Groucho Marx
Yuri Kuchinsky
JoatSimeon (joats...@aol.com) wrote:
: >Yuri Kuchinsky:
:
: >If you have any valid arguments against early maize in Asia theory, please
: present them here.
:
: -- Sure.
:
: 1) many digs in Asia of sites dating to before 1492.
So?
: 2) plenty of unambiguous finds of wheat, barley, rice, sorghum, etc. in these
: digs.
Please cite your sources and some particulars. Otherwise I'll know you're
bluffing.
: 3) no physical evidence of maize in these digs.
Sources please.
: 4) abundant physical evidence of maize _after_ the Columbian voyages.
So?
: 5) no archeological evidence of Asian contacts in Western hemisphere before
: 1492.
False statement. Plenty of evidence for this exists.
: 6) No Old World cultivars or domestic animals attested in Western Hemisphere
: before 1492.
False statement.
: 7) catastrophic vulnerability of Amerindian populations to Eurasian diseases
: indicating no sustained contact with Old World before 1492.
I did not say "sustained contacts".
: -- and one could go on forever.
I know you can bluff forever. You appear to have a talent for this.
: There simply isn't any evidence of sustained
: Old World contact with the Western hemisphere before 1492.
Straw man.
: There were the
: Norse voyages to Vinland, and there may well have been a few accidental
: contacts elsewhere, but there's absolutely no record of any transfer of
: cultivars, or of people on any scale.
Totally and absolutely false. The transfer of the sweet potato (Ipomoea
batatas) has been established beyond doubt. So get yourself informed.
Yuri.
Yuri Kuchinsky -=O=- http://www.globalserve.net/~yuku UPDATED
"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful
tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor
less."
"The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean
so many different things."
-- Lewis Carrol, "Through the Looking Glass"
JoatSimeon
>Yuri Kuchinsky
>1) many digs in Asia of sites dating to before 1492
>So?
-- So arguments based on lack of evidence fail. There's plenty of excavation
by trained archaeologists using the full suite of techniques, floatation,
paeleobotany, etc. If it's there, it will have been found.
2) plenty of unambiguous finds of wheat, barley, rice, sorghum in these digs.
>Please cite your sources and some particulars.
-- Sources and particulars for common knowledge? Are you denying that these
grains _are_ well-attested?
Any standard reference work will list them. Eg., the American Museum of
Natural History, "Civilizations in Sourthern Asia", Dr. Ian C. Glover (Senior
Lecturer, Department of Prehistoric Archaeology, University College, UK) and
Dr. Himanshu Prabha Ray, Center for Historical Studies, Jawaharlal University,
New Delhi):
"The people [of Mehragarh] kept sheep, goats and humped zcattle, and cultivated
barley, wheat, cotton and possibly date palms."
-- that's for the early Neolithic. Continuous finds of all the species
mentioned down through the ages. And they all had two legs and one head, too.
>3) no physical evidence of maize in these digs.
>Sources please.
-- sources, please. You've confessed yourself that there are no physical
remains of maize from the pre-Columbian period.
If you've got a peer-reviewed article showing physical evidence of maize in
Asia before 1492 -- actual remains of the plant, not "carvings" -- by all
means, tell us. Odd that it wouldn't have created any fuss, isn't it? Heh,
heh.
>4) abundant physical evidence of maize _after_ the Columbian voyages.
>So?
So since there's no physical remains of maize before the Columbian voyages, and
there _are_ remains of other cultivated plants from before then, and there
_are_ physical remains of maize _after_ the Columbian period...
... the obvious and parsimonious explanation is that there aren't any physical
remains of maize in pre-Columbian era digs because there wasn't any to find.
QED.
>False statement. Plenty of evidence for this exists.
-- in your mind.
>No Old World cultivars or domestic animals attested in Western Hemisphere
before 1492.
>False statement.
-- Oh? Show us the horses, sheep, wheat, barley, rye, millet, etc.? Ah, you
couldn't? Didn't think so.
-- S.M. Stirling
JoatSimeon
>Yuri Kuchinsky (to Jack Williamson)
>You're a pathetic bigot...
-- ah, Yuri the Cossack's inimitable style... so "scholarly", so objective...
8-).
>...you show your contempt for scholarship...
-- Yuri claiming the mantle of "scholarship"; what's next, Yassir Arafat
becoming Chief Rabbi? This is the same Yuri who continually denounces the
archaeological community for 'supressing' evidence.
>if this is how you feel about scientific research?
-- even more hilarious. Yuri, setting himself up to oppose the overwhelming
consensus of archaeologists, paleobotanists and historians, claims to represent
"scientific research".
As opposed to someone who _supports_ the overwhelming consensus of
archaeologists, paleobotanists and historians, who is supposed to have
"contempt for scholarship" (along with all the scholars, presumably) and feel
negatively about "scientific research" (along with the scientists?)
What logic!
>Go and play with other bigots in your own sandbox.
-- oooooh, that really evokes confidence in Yuri's objectivity. No hint of
emotional bias or an agenda there!
-- S.M. Stirling
Doug Weller
On Sat, 07 Mar 1998 07:19:56 -0600, in sci.archaeology, oscar_...@yahoo.com
wrote:
>In article <6dp2qe$9o5$1...@news.trends.ca>,
> yu...@mail.trends.ca (Yuri Kuchinsky) wrote:
>>
>> Tom Burglin posted
>
> I posted it and under the nick HornedReaper. And I am not Tom Burglin.
>My name is Jack Williamson.
Come now, you aren'te challenging Yuri's research are you? You must be Tom!
Doug
Yuri Kuchinsky
...
: 2) plenty of unambiguous finds of wheat, barley, rice, sorghum in these digs.
:
: >Please cite your sources and some particulars.
:
: -- Sources and particulars for common knowledge?
Sources and particulars for the area of Somnathpur in the same horizon as
when the temples were constructed.
: Are you denying that these
: grains _are_ well-attested?
Attested where?
: Any standard reference work will list them. Eg., the American Museum of
: Natural History, "Civilizations in Sourthern Asia", Dr. Ian C. Glover (Senior
: Lecturer, Department of Prehistoric Archaeology, University College, UK) and
: Dr. Himanshu Prabha Ray, Center for Historical Studies, Jawaharlal University,
: New Delhi):
:
: "The people [of Mehragarh] kept sheep, goats and humped zcattle, and cultivated
: barley, wheat, cotton and possibly date palms."
:
: -- that's for the early Neolithic.
Early Neolithic where? Where's Mehraharh? Is this near Somnathpur? I bet
you it isn't even close and you're bluffing.
: Continuous finds of all the species
: mentioned down through the ages. And they all had two legs and one head, too.
You really don't understand what you're talking about. Show me excavation
reports for the area of Somnathpur in the same horizon as when the temples
were constructed. You can't. So you just want to waste time here?
: >3) no physical evidence of maize in these digs.
:
: >Sources please.
:
: -- sources, please. You've confessed yourself that there are no physical
: remains of maize from the pre-Columbian period.
You have no idea what you're talking about. Your argument from the absense
of evidence can only work for these specific areas. Your case is hopeless.
...
: >False statement. Plenty of evidence for this exists.
:
: -- in your mind.
This was in reference to: "no archeological evidence of Asian contacts in
Western hemisphere before 1492".
You can look up great amounts of evidence on my webpage. I have all kinds
of archaeological evidence. The most obvious are the parallels in artistic
styles. These are obvious to anyone with an open mind. In my experience
over 90% of people looking at these pictures agree instantly. But narrow
minded characters like you can of course deny the obvious.
: >No Old World cultivars or domestic animals attested in Western Hemisphere
: before 1492.
:
: >False statement.
:
: -- Oh? Show us the horses,
Plenty about horses on my webpage. Also plenty about bananas and chicken.
Perhaps you can learn a few new things after all. Read below about the
intellectual pharisees and think who it might apply to...
Yuri.
Yuri Kuchinsky -=O=- http://www.trends.ca/~yuku NEWLY UPDATED
Comparative studies of primitive art have probably been
jeopardized by the zeal of investigators of cultural contacts and
borrowings. But let us state in no uncertain terms that these
studies have been jeopardized even more by intellectual pharisees
who prefer to deny obvious relationships because science does not
yet provide an adequate method for their interpretation
-=- Claude Levi-Strauss, ANTHROPOLOGIE STRUCTURALE, 1958
Yuri Kuchinsky
JoatSimeon (joats...@aol.com) wrote:
...
: As opposed to someone who _supports_ the overwhelming consensus of
: archaeologists, paleobotanists and historians, who is supposed to have
: "contempt for scholarship" (along with all the scholars, presumably) and feel
: negatively about "scientific research" (along with the scientists?)
:
: What logic!
So anyone who is trying to discover anything new in history automatically
demonstrates "contempt for scholarship" and "lacks logic"? You're not
making the slightest bit of sense, Stirling. Get yourself some clues. If
narrow minded philistines like you always carried the day, there would be
zero progress in scholarship.
Yuri.
Yuri Kuchinsky in Toronto -=O=- http://www.globalserve.net/~yuku
If ignorance is bliss, why aren't there more happy people?
JoatSimeon
>Yuri Kuchinsky
>So anyone who is trying to discover anything new in history...
-- uses the methods of the archaeologists and paleobotanists, who (insofar as
they're aware of your existance) rightly regard you as a crank.
BTW, Yuri, we _do_ always carry the day. Guys like you get footnotes in
histories of popular culture; or occasionally found religions, like the LDS.
-- S.M. Stirling
JoatSimeon
>Yuri Kuchinsky
>Sources and particulars for the area of Somnathpur in the same horizon when
the temples were constructed...
-- aha, I see; you're doing a bait-and-switch, sudden changes in the terms of
argument. Originally you claimed there was maize all over Asia.
_Now_ you're claiming that there was maize in Asia... but _only_ in the
Somnathpur area and _only_ in the same horizon as the construction of those
temples? Is that it? Yes or no?
In other words, after 1492 maize spread widely, but before then it was present
only around Somnathpur?
What logic!
>Attested where?
-- why, the standard cultivars are attested all over India, you doorknob!
>Where's Mehraharah?
-- northwestern Pakistan, sixth-seventh millenium BC. Are you claiming that
farming took 7500 years to diffuse to the Somnathpur area? Don't think much of
Indians, do you?
>The most obvious are the parallels in artistic styles...
-- aha, I thought so; no real evidence, just "artistic styles" that are similar
as interpreted by... you. I don't think so. Show me some artifacts; show me
bronze vessels and iron swords and preserved textiles from the Old World. Put
up or shut up. The Viking settlement in Newfoundland has _artifacts_, iron
slag, spindle whorls. The early Spanish settlements in the Carribean have
European pottery.
What have you got? Nada.
>over 90% of people looking at these pictures agree instantly. But
narrow-minded characters like you...
-- yeah, narrow-minded types who insist on evidence. Are you referring to the
Valdavia ware pottery or something of that sort?
>Plenty about horses on my webpage.
-- Lots on horses, nothing showing their presence in the Americas before 1492.
(Except for the ones wiped out by Paleo-Indian hunters, of course.) Ditto
chickens and bananas.
-- S.M. Stirling
Yuri Kuchinsky
JoatSimeon (joats...@aol.com) wrote:
: >Yuri Kuchinsky
:
: >So anyone who is trying to discover anything new in history...
:
: -- uses the methods of the archaeologists and paleobotanists, who (insofar as
: they're aware of your existance) rightly regard you
Hey, Stirling, so you know so well how these other people regard me? Once
again, you could have only derived this info from psychic readings you
obviously engage in on a daily basis.
> as a crank.
This comes from the same guy who complained loudly just yesterday about me
using similar ad hominems. After always using them first! What a terrible
hypocrite you are.
It seems bigotry and hypocrisy always go hand in hand...
: BTW, Yuri, we _do_ always carry the day.
And now some sort of delusions of grandeur. Do talk to a shrink for your
own good, won't you? It seems like your long involvement with sci-fi genre
made it rather difficult for you to distinguish between fanatasy and
reality...
Yuri.
Yuri Kuchinsky -=O=- http://www.trends.ca/~yuku NEWLY UPDATED
You never need think you can turn over any old falsehoods without a
terrible squirming of the horrid little population that dwells under
it -=O=- Oliver Wendell Holmes
Jeffrey L Baker
On 7 Mar 1998, Yuri Kuchinsky wrote:
> JoatSimeon (joats...@aol.com) wrote:
>
> : 2) plenty of unambiguous finds of wheat, barley, rice, sorghum, etc. in these
> : digs.
>
> Please cite your sources and some particulars. Otherwise I'll know you're
> bluffing.
see Chowdhary, K.A., 1990, Archaeobotany. In An Encyclopedia of Indian
Archaeology, edited by A. Ghosh, pp. 6-9. E. J. Brill, New York.
Jeff Baker
JoatSimeon
Sputter on, Yuri. That's really the way to get respect... 8-).
How's Toronto these days?
-- S.M. Stirling
JoatSimeon
>Jeffrey L. Baker
>Please cite your sources and some particulars.
>See Chowdhary, K.A., 1990, Archaeobotany, in An Encyclopedia of Indian
Archaeology...
-- Thanks. It's a bit startling to be asked for a cite of the merest common
knowledge!
-- S.M. Stirling
JoatSimeon
OK, got some of my books out of boxes:
"The food-producing economy associated with Pakistan and much of India today
originated in the uplands of the Iranian Plateau and Afghanistan and is based
on the wheat/barley and sheep/goat/cattle constellation of domesticated plants
and animals. This is clearly related to the Near Eastern pattern of early food
production. It was this complex of plants and animals on which the Harappan
and Mesopotamian civilizations were based. The earliest manifestation of this
tradition in South Asia comes from the site of Mehrgarh, on the Kachi Plains of
the Indus Vally in Pakistan... There is a rich, complex collection of
paleobotanical remains, most of which is from thousands of impressions in the
mud bricks of the period. The dominant plant of Period I is domesticated naked
six-row barley... Domesticated hulled six-row and two-row barley and
domesticated einkorn, emmer and hard wheat were also there."
Gregory L. Possehl, "Prehistory and Early History of South Asia", in The Oxford
Companion to Archaeology, p. 53
-- S.M. Stirling
JoatSimeon
"Central India, in 2000 BC, was home to diverse peoples... They were wheat and
millet farmers who herded cattle, sheep and goats. There is continuity in
Central India and Southern India between the earliest farming/herding peoples
(Malwa-Jorwe and the Southern Neolithic) and the succeeding Early Iron Age of
the Peninsular Indian Megalithic Complex."
Gregory L. Possehl, "Prehistory and Early History of South Asia", in The Oxford
Companion to Archaeology, p. 53.
-- S.M. Stirling
JoatSimeon
"Northern India... The most thoroughly excavated site in the eastern Ganges
valley is Chirand... The early village site contains roughly 10 feet of
stratified remains from the early second millenium BC... Plant remains include
domestic rice, as well as wheat, barley, and letils."
-- Carla M. Sinopoli, "Origins of Food Production in South Asia", in The Oxford
Companion to Archaeology, p. 62.
-- S.M. Stirling
JoatSimeon
The above postings show that I was correct in attributing well-attested remains
of wheat, barley, rice, etc. to early levels in Indian digs.
Now, is Yuri going to waste any more of our time demanding "cites" for things
which are common knowledge to anyone with a nodding acquaintance with
archaeology and paleobotany?
-- S.M. Stirling
JoatSimeon
Note that we have abundant paleobotanical remains of wheat, barley, rice,
millet, lentils, etc. from very early times in India.
We have no paleobotanical remains of maize from the pre-Columbian levels in
India (or anywhere else outside the Americas).
The obvious and simplest inference is that there wasn't any. Yuri has yet to
meet this objection to his hypothesis.
Therefore there are no grounds for taking it seriously. Show Us the Corn Cobs.
-- S.M. Stirling
oscar_...@yahoo.com
In article <6drv07$muu$1...@news.trends.ca>,
yu...@mail.trends.ca (Yuri Kuchinsky) wrote:
>
> oscar_...@yahoo.com wrote:
> : In article <6dp2qe$9o5$1...@news.trends.ca>,
> : yu...@mail.trends.ca (Yuri Kuchinsky) wrote:
>
> : > Tom Burglin posted
> : And I am not Tom Burglin.
> :
>
> In other words, the idea of posting this material was entirely yours?
It's as follows
A) I saw a rather long debate about Maize yet again.
B) You were making the same agruments that other answered in full detail
before
C) I checked the sources the others had listed and then yours
D) Thier sources were correct
E) So I simply re-post thier summaries of the sources.
> : > a very long post that included parts of old discussions
> : > of maize in India. Each and every one of the arguments in those old
posts
> : > were answered adequately by me and others at the time.
> :
> : Answered in-adequately.
>
> How do you know?
There is a thing called Deja News, everything you have posted within the
last few years in there for the reading.......
> : And what is old and tired is your continued non-sense
> : reguarding this entire subject.
>
> You despise scholarship. What are you doing in this newsgroup?
One odd statue and a small collection of books written by people who
have only speculated as you have on maize.
Not one bit of archaeological evidence of any bit of maize in India pre-
dating 1500 ad.
What are you doing posting to sci.archaeology without any archaeological
evidence?
> : Your "conclusions" and "sources" are
> : completely ridiculous
>
> You're a pathetic bigot
I checked thier sources and I've check yours(such as they are).
And so far you absolute assertion on Maize in India prior to 1500 ad
isn't supported. Plain and simple.
> and you show your contempt for scholarship.
This from a person who can't provide any archaeological evidence beyond
one single statue?
You
> seem like some sort of a redneck.
You seem like a person who has failed to support his claim and rather
attack his critics then try to really prove anything.
> : and despite overwhelming evidence furthering the
> : debunking of your ideas, you go on and on and on.......
>
> Why don't you get out of this newsgroup if this is how you feel about
> scientific research?
I wasn't talking about Scientific Research, I was talking about your ideas.
Which are two seperate things.
> Go and play with other bigots in your own sandbox.
Because I don't feel you've adequatly supported your claims while I believe
others, and thier sources have, doesn't make one a big.
----Oscar Schlaf-----
Tburglin
Doug Weller wrote:
>
> On Sat, 07 Mar 1998 07:19:56 -0600, in sci.archaeology, oscar_...@yahoo.com
> wrote:
>
> >In article <6dp2qe$9o5$1...@news.trends.ca>,
> > yu...@mail.trends.ca (Yuri Kuchinsky) wrote:
> >>
> >> Tom Burglin posted
> >
> >My name is Jack Williamson.
>
> Come now, you aren'te challenging Yuri's research are you? You must be Tom!
>
> Doug
No, it was posted twice, once by me, and once by the other guy.
That's all.
Yuri Kuchinsky
oscar_...@yahoo.com wrote:
: In article <6drv07$muu$1...@news.trends.ca>,
: yu...@mail.trends.ca (Yuri Kuchinsky) wrote:
...
: > You're a pathetic bigot
:
: I checked thier sources and I've check yours(such as they are).
: And so far you absolute assertion on Maize in India prior to 1500 ad
: isn't supported. Plain and simple.
My dear man, you're seriously misguided.
: > and you show your contempt for scholarship.
:
: This from a person who can't provide any archaeological evidence beyond
: one single statue?
You say you "checked thier sources". But you betray your abysmal ignorance
of these sources when you say "one single statue". There are DOZENS of
statues and sculptures. Your dishonesty in saying you checked the sources
indicates that you're a narrowminded bigot.
The sculptures ARE archaeological evidence.
...
: You seem like a person who has failed to support his claim and rather
: attack his critics then try to really prove anything.
I don't attack the critics. Only the bigots who despise scholarship.
Yuri Kuchinsky
: the temples were constructed...
:
: -- aha, I see; you're doing a bait-and-switch, sudden changes in the terms of
: argument. Originally you claimed there was maize all over Asia.
In many places in Asia.
: _Now_ you're claiming that there was maize in Asia... but _only_ in the
: Somnathpur area
False.
: and _only_ in the same horizon as the construction of those
: temples? Is that it? Yes or no?
No.
: In other words, after 1492 maize spread widely, but before then it was present
: only around Somnathpur?
False.
...
: >Where's Mehraharah?
:
: -- northwestern Pakistan, sixth-seventh millenium BC. Are you claiming that
: farming took 7500 years to diffuse to the Somnathpur area? Don't think much of
: Indians, do you?
"Northwestern Pakistan, sixth-seventh millenium BC" makes your cites
COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT to Somnathpur. As I said, you have no idea what
you're talking about.
You're trying to make an argument based on the absense of evidence, a
flawed argument right from the start. In order for your weak argument to
be relevant in any way you have to show the places where maize should be
attested as per Johannessen's hypothesis, but isn't. Do you understand
now? Get yourself some clues.
: >The most obvious are the parallels in artistic styles...
:
: -- aha, I thought so; no real evidence,
Bigots will not be impressed. Just normal people.
: just "artistic styles" that are similar
: as interpreted by... you.
You're clued out. Please see the bibligraphy I have on my webpage.
: I don't think so. Show me some artifacts;
Man, you have to start from zero. You're totally clued out about this
whole subject.
: show me
: bronze vessels
Plenty of those.
: and iron swords and preserved textiles from the Old World.
Irrelevant.
: Put
: up or shut up.
Your silly insults betray your desperation to find any _real arguments_.
: The Viking settlement in Newfoundland has _artifacts_, iron
: slag, spindle whorls. The early Spanish settlements in the Carribean have
: European pottery.
:
: What have you got?
Plenty of material.
...
: Are you referring to the
: Valdavia ware pottery or something of that sort?
Plenty of material, including this. Get yourself informed.
: >Plenty about horses on my webpage.
:
: -- Lots on horses, nothing showing their presence in the Americas before 1492.
You're desperate to deny the obvious. I have such material.
: (Except for the ones wiped out by Paleo-Indian hunters, of course.) Ditto
: chickens and bananas.
: -- S.M. Stirling
You're ignorant about this whole subject. Your prejudice prevents you from
accepting the obvious.
Yuri.
Yuri Kuchinsky -=O=- http://www.trends.ca/~yuku NEWLY UPDATED
Comparative studies of primitive art have probably been
Yuri Kuchinsky
Jeffrey L Baker (jba...@U.Arizona.EDU) wrote:
: On 7 Mar 1998, Yuri Kuchinsky wrote:
: > Please cite your sources and some particulars. Otherwise I'll know you're
: > bluffing.
:
: see Chowdhary, K.A., 1990, Archaeobotany. In An Encyclopedia of Indian
: Archaeology, edited by A. Ghosh, pp. 6-9. E. J. Brill, New York.
Thanks for the refs, Jeff.
Yuri.
Yuri Kuchinsky -=O=- http://www.trends.ca/~yuku NEWLY UPDATED
It is a far, far better thing to have a firm anchor in nonsense than
to put out on the troubled seas of thought -=O=- John K. Galbraith
Yuri Kuchinsky
JoatSimeon (joats...@aol.com) wrote:
: The above postings show that I was correct in attributing well-attested remains
: of wheat, barley, rice, etc. to early levels in Indian digs.
:
: Now, is Yuri going to waste any more of our time demanding "cites" for things
: which are common knowledge to anyone with a nodding acquaintance with
: archaeology and paleobotany?
: -- S.M. Stirling
My dear man, your earnest attempts to show that the standard old sources
don't have this new information are rather naive. Perhaps you wish to
maintain that anything not found in standard old sources is a priori "not
scientifically valid". If so, this makes me wonder if you have even the
slightest familiarity with the scientific method.
Yours,
Yuri.
Yuri Kuchinsky -=O=- http://www.trends.ca/~yuku NEWLY UPDATED
Whenever you find that you are on the side of the majority,
it is time to reform -=O=- Mark Twain
JoatSimeon
>Yuri Kuchinsky
>You're trying to make an argument based on the absense of evidence...
-- On the contrary, the fact that there is plenty of evidence. Of rice, wheat,
barley, millet, lentils... but no evidence of maize.
So, let's simplify things. There is direct evidence of these crops in physical
remains of the plants themselves. There is no such evidence of maize. Why?
-- S.M. Stirling
JoatSimeon
>Yuri Kuchinsky
>standard old sources don't have this new information...
-- ah, you have paleobotanical evidence of maize? (Plant residues, not
"statues")
Let's have the cites.
No? I didn't think so.
-- S.M. Stirling
JoatSimeon
>Yuri Kuchinsky
>If so, this makes me wonder if you have even the slightest familiarity with
the scientific method.
-- ah, Yuri up to his old tricks... 8-).
-- S.M. Stirling
Doug Weller
On Mon, 09 Mar 1998 14:42:24 +0100, in sci.archaeology, Tburglin wrote:
>Doug Weller wrote:
>>
[SNIP]
>>
>> Come now, you aren'te challenging Yuri's research are you? You must be Tom!
#
>
>No, it was posted twice, once by me, and once by the other guy.
>That's all.
Sorry, forgot the smiley!
Doug
Yuri Kuchinsky
JoatSimeon (joats...@aol.com) wrote on 9 Mar 1998 17:41:34 GMT:
: >Yuri Kuchinsky
: >You're trying to make an argument based on the absense of evidence...
: -- On the contrary, the fact that there is plenty of evidence.
I see I have to explain the simplest things to you. Oh, well, it's never
too late to learn. If only your arrogance allowed you to learn anything
new...
You're making an argument based on the absence of evidence of maize _in
the standard old sources_. Got it now?
: Of rice, wheat,
: barley, millet, lentils... but no evidence of maize.
In the standard old sources.
: So, let's simplify things. There is direct evidence of these crops in physical
: remains of the plants themselves.
As reported by the standard old sources.
: There is no such evidence of maize. Why?
: -- S.M. Stirling
Because they are standard old sources. And the scientific method has as
its goal to discover new evidence. New theories cannot be based on
standard old sources. That's why they are called new theories.
So get down to educating yourself about how science works.
Yuri.
Yuri Kuchinsky -=O=- http://www.globalserve.net/~yuku UPDATED
Jeffrey L Baker
On 9 Mar 1998, Yuri Kuchinsky wrote:
> JoatSimeon (joats...@aol.com) wrote on 9 Mar 1998 17:41:34 GMT:
>
> You're making an argument based on the absence of evidence of maize _in
> the standard old sources_. Got it now?
>
> : Of rice, wheat,
> : barley, millet, lentils... but no evidence of maize.
>
> In the standard old sources.
>
> : So, let's simplify things. There is direct evidence of these crops in physical
> : remains of the plants themselves.
>
> As reported by the standard old sources.
>
> : There is no such evidence of maize. Why?
> : -- S.M. Stirling
>
> Because they are standard old sources. And the scientific method has as
> its goal to discover new evidence. New theories cannot be based on
> standard old sources. That's why they are called new theories.
So tell us what are these new sources that provide paleobotanical
evidence of maize. The sculptures are not convincing evidence of the
presence of maize in precolumbian India.
Jeff Baker
oscar_...@yahoo.com
In article <6e15ob$10m$1...@news.trends.ca>,
yu...@mail.trends.ca (Yuri Kuchinsky) wrote:
>
> oscar_...@yahoo.com wrote:
> : In article <6drv07$muu$1...@news.trends.ca>,
> : yu...@mail.trends.ca (Yuri Kuchinsky) wrote:
>
> ...
>
> : > You're a pathetic bigot
> :
> : I checked thier sources and I've check yours(such as they are).
> : And so far you absolute assertion on Maize in India prior to 1500 ad
> : isn't supported. Plain and simple.
>
> My dear man, you're seriously misguided.
So says a person whose "evidence" and support are quiet lacking.
> : > and you show your contempt for scholarship.
> :
> : This from a person who can't provide any archaeological evidence beyond
> : one single statue?
>
> But you betray your abysmal ignorance
> of these sources when you say "one single statue". There are DOZENS of
> statues and sculptures.
There is one jpg of a "maize statue" on the web ...And only one real statue
all along that has spurred this debate on. The "other" statues look even
less like maize and are in fact even rejected by a few who believe the
first statue is a representation of maize.....
Your dishonesty in saying you checked the sources
> indicates that you're a narrowminded bigot.
>
> The sculptures ARE archaeological evidence.
Sculptures are subject to interpetation and experts in Hindu architecture
and biology experts have both dismissed your claims.
> ...
>
> : You seem like a person who has failed to support his claim and rather
> : attack his critics then try to really prove anything.
>
> I don't attack the critics. Only the bigots who despise scholarship.
When experts who have done in the feild work along with scholarship
don't support your ideas, your ideas are then apparently lacking.
Which yours certainly are.
You a a blind and stubborn man who refuses to see the truth, perhaps from an
unwillingness to admit you were wrong. Or perhaps your just a big loonie,
who's in the same catagory with those who believe aliens built the
pyramids......
-----Oscar Schlaf----
Hu McCulloch
oscar_...@yahoo.com writes:
> yu...@mail.trends.ca (Yuri Kuchinsky) wrote:
>> oscar_...@yahoo.com wrote:
>> : I checked thier sources and I've check yours(such as they are).
>> : And so far you absolute assertion on Maize in India prior to 1500 ad
>> : isn't supported. Plain and simple.
>> : This from a person who can't provide any archaeological evidence beyond
>> : one single statue?
[Yuri]:
>> But you betray your [beep] ignorance
>> of these sources when you say "one single statue". There are DOZENS of
>> statues and sculptures.
[Oscar]:
> There is one jpg of a "maize statue" on the web ...And only one real statue
>all along that has spurred this debate on. The "other" statues look even
>less like maize and are in fact even rejected by a few who believe the
>first statue is a representation of maize.....
[snip]
> -----Oscar Schlaf----
Oscar is technically right that the 10 different ears of maize shown in the
photographs from the 1989 _Economic Botany_ article by Johannessen
and Parker on Yuri's website now at
http://www.globalserve.net/~yuku/dif/wmzpix.htm (2 pp.)
are not JPGs, since they are in fact in GIF format, even though this doesn't
make any difference to your browser. Nevertheless, the
three excellent color photos Johannessen himself put up on his
page at
http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~carljohann
are truly in JPG format, thereby falsifying Oscar's assertion, both literally
and substantially. CJ's three maize ear photos are also linked, with
some additional references, on my page,
http://www.econ.ohio-state.edu/jhm/arch/maize.html
The one maize ear in a JPG on Tom Burglin's copan site
is not an additional sculpture, but just another photo of one of
the J&P/Yuri sculptures, with the negative reversed in one case
or the other. But it is a far cry from the only maize ear sculpture on
the web, JPG or otherwise. No one, including Yuri,
claims the other object held by this figure, or the
two objects held by the figure in the adjacent photo Tom has provided,
are maize ears. I think Yuri is right that the object indicated by
the arrow in Tom's adjacent photo is a bowl filled high with something,
perhaps pearls.
BTW, Tom still hasn't answered my challenge to him to identify which
of the objects in the five hands of the figure in Photo #2 on Johannessen's
site (or my site) is the one Johannessen thinks is a corn cob.
In another post, I have already given away that it is not the one in the
figure's second left hand from the front. But this leaves three other
objects. (Be sure to click on the full-sized photos).
-- Hu McCulloch
PS: I have changed the name of this thread from the offensive
"Burglin nonsense" to match the "maize in Asia before Columbus"
thread.
Yuri Kuchinsky
...
: > Because they are standard old sources. And the scientific method has as
: > its goal to discover new evidence. New theories cannot be based on
: > standard old sources. That's why they are called new theories.
:
: So tell us what are these new sources that provide paleobotanical
: evidence of maize.
None published already that I'm aware of. But some are in the works
apparently.
: The sculptures are not convincing evidence of the
: presence of maize in precolumbian India.
But, Jeff, the sculptures are only a part of the evidence. Other evidence
is botanical, genetic, linguistic and literary. Some archaeological
evidence other than the sculptures is also available.
Yuri.
Yuri Kuchinsky -=O=- http://www.trends.ca/~yuku NEWLY UPDATED
JoatSimeon
>Yuri Kuchinsky
>So tell us what are these new sources that provide paleobotanical evidence of
maize.
>None published already that I'm aware of.
-- ah, exactly as I said. No paleobotanical evidence of maize.
When you've got physical evidence of the actual plants, come back and tell us.
-- S.M. Stirling
Horned...@rocketmail.com
In article <mcculloch.2...@osu.edu>,
mccul...@osu.edu (Hu McCulloch) wrote:
(big snip)
Yuri's old site didn't have all those pics up and Yuri continued
to list only old his site in his posts, needs to change his .sig......
In any event, continued reliance on sculptors that have been dismissed by
both a scholar of Hindu architecture and a agro biologist seems like a bad
idea.
Please provide a single bit of evidnece besides the statues. Since those
who know of maize & Hindu architecture have dismissed them. Even if the
statues did happen to be real representations of maize, as Yuri and others
persist, at least one bit of physical evidnece of maize pre-1500ad should
have turned by now, but it hasn't....
Also explanations and evidnece as how maize would have gotten to India,
pre-1500 ad, has yet to surface either.
----Oscar Schlaf-----
up by now in India
Tburglin
>
> BTW, Tom still hasn't answered my challenge to him to identify which
> of the objects in the five hands of the figure in Photo #2 on Johannessen's
> site (or my site) is the one Johannessen thinks is a corn cob.
> In another post, I have already given away that it is not the one in the
> figure's second left hand from the front. But this leaves three other
> objects. (Be sure to click on the full-sized photos).
>
> -- Hu McCulloch
Well, it's obvious what looks like maize, but for the umpteen
time I have to state, that what are shown in the two pictures
on my site are the two extremes of the object that is supposed
to be maize. One extreme of the samples looks like maize,
but the other extreme does not. Saying that Johannessen et al.
never say this is maize does not help. He is selecting
only those objects that he thinks might be maize, but those
which are a little more dissimilar, he leaves out.
This type of selection is unscientific.
Thomas
Yuri Kuchinsky
Horned...@rocketmail.com wrote on Wed, 11 Mar 1998 05:56:27 -0600:
: Yuri's old site didn't have all those pics up and Yuri continued
: to list only old his site in his posts, needs to change his .sig......
My website has moved recently. See my new URL in my sig.
: In any event, continued reliance on sculptors that have been dismissed by
: both a scholar of Hindu architecture and a agro biologist seems like a bad
: idea.
Well, most people prefer to trust their eyes rather than someone else's
opinion. The pictures tell their own story.
: Please provide a single bit of evidnece besides the statues.
You still don't understand. My webpage has plenty of evidence of many
kinds.
: Since those
: who know of maize & Hindu architecture have dismissed them. Even if the
: statues did happen to be real representations of maize, as Yuri and others
: persist, at least one bit of physical evidnece of maize pre-1500ad should
: have turned by now, but it hasn't....
Yes it has. I posted about this yesterday.
: Also explanations and evidnece as how maize would have gotten to India,
: pre-1500 ad, has yet to surface either.
This is asking too much. Explanations are possible, but you cannot expect
to have all the answers at this stage.
Yuri.
Yuri Kuchinsky -=O=- http://www.globalserve.net/~yuku UPDATED
"Contrariwise," continued Tweedledee, "if it was so, it might be, and
if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic!"
-- Lewis Carroll, "Through the Looking Glass"
Hu McCulloch
Thomas Burglin writes, concerning the 10 different ears of maize
shown in the photographs on Yuri's website now at
http://www.globalserve.net/~yuku/dif/wmzpix.htm (2 pp.) ,
the 3 additional color photos on Carl Johannessen's page at
http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~carljohann ,
also linked, with references, on my page,
http://www.econ.ohio-state.edu/jhm/arch/maize.html ,
and the two photos on his own page, at
http://copan.bioz.unibas.ch/meso.html
(under "Commentaries"),
[I had written]:
>> BTW, Tom still hasn't answered my challenge to him to identify which
>> of the objects in the five hands of the figure in Photo #2 on Johannessen's
>> site (or my site) is the one Johannessen thinks is a corn cob.
>> In another post, I have already given away that it is not the one in the
>> figure's second left hand from the front. But this leaves three other
>> objects. (Be sure to click on the full-sized photos).
[Tom replies]:
>Well, it's obvious what looks like maize,
I trust you are referring to the object in the figure's frontmost left
hand. ;-)
> but for the umpteen
>time I have to state, that what are shown in the two pictures
>on my site are the two extremes of the object that is supposed
>to be maize.
No, only one of the four hand-held objects in the photos on your
page is supposed by anyone to be maize. The text on your page
linking the photo, copied below,
Example picture (on left), showing that many of the
pseudo-"maize cobs" do not look at all like
maize, from Payak and Sachan 1988.
nevertheless gives the false impression that the object indicated by the
arrow in your left picture has been identified as a "maize cob"
by Johannessen and Parker, but in fact this is not the case.
> One extreme of the samples looks like maize,
>but the other extreme does not.
Object A looks like maize, but object B does not. Ergo,
according to Tom's logic, object A is not maize. As I
said earlier, _non sequitur_.
> Saying that Johannessen et al.
>never say this is maize does not help. He is selecting
>only those objects that he thinks might be maize, but those
>which are a little more dissimilar, he leaves out.
He shows 15 objects that look like maize, out of 80 at Somnathpur
alone, he says, but leaves out thousands, no doubt, that look
nothing like maize. This sounds sensible to me.
>This type of selection is unscientific.
The Caltech physicist Richard P Feynman once remarked that
Isaac Newton, unlike his less illustrious contemporary Francis Bacon,
correctly viewed Science as "the Art of ignoring the irrelevant".
How true!
The object Tom (following Payak and Sachan) indicates with an
arrow on his site might be relevant if it were part of a continuum of
objects that began with the "maize ears" and ended with it.
But neither he nor they offer such a continuum.
Such a continuum _does_ exist among the objects Johannessen
and Parker depict in their 1989 Economic Botany article,
however. 10 of these photos
are reproduced on Yuri's site, whose new URL is given above.
Three of these objects (on the 2nd page of Yuri's site) look
like maize ears with husks still on, and two of these have
what appears to be corn silk dangling down from the top.
The point of continuity is J&P's photos 12 and 13, (not on
Yuri's site), which show _partially husked_ maize ears!
At least one of the ones with husk on also shows dimples
in the husk created by the kernels within, something that
does occur with young maize ears.
>Thomas
-- Hu McCulloch
oscar_...@yahoo.com
In article <6e6mqq$o0k$1...@titan.globalserve.net>,
yu...@globalserve.net (Yuri Kuchinsky) wrote:
>
> Horned...@rocketmail.com wrote on Wed, 11 Mar 1998 05:56:27 -0600:
> : In any event, continued reliance on sculptors that have been dismissed
by
> : both a scholar of Hindu architecture and a agro biologist seems like a bad
> : idea.
>
> Well, most people prefer to trust their eyes rather than someone else's
> opinion.
Then why is the vast amount of your new site filled with articles written by
you?
>The pictures tell their own story.
The Statues are subject to interpetation. And the interpetation of an expert
in Hindu Architecture and an expert in Agro Biology are more valid then
an opinion by you, untrained in either area. I'm not trained in either area
either, which is why I turn to those that are, perhaps you should as well...
> : Please provide a single bit of evidnece besides the statues.
>
> You still don't understand. My webpage has plenty of evidence of many
> kinds.
On the subject of maize no, and your webpage is vastly old posts by you
slighty reworked, with second-hand mention of a few sources.
> : Since those
> : who know of maize & Hindu architecture have dismissed them. Even if the
> : statues did happen to be real representations of maize, as Yuri and others
> : persist, at least one bit of physical evidnece of maize pre-1500ad should
> : have turned by now, but it hasn't....
>
> Yes it has. I posted about this yesterday.
No maize dating back to pre-1500ad has been found to India as of yet. Such
a discovery would have been plastered not only in the normal journals but
in the general media as well.
> : Also explanations and evidnece as how maize would have gotten to India,
> : pre-1500 ad, has yet to surface either.
>
> This is asking too much. Explanations are possible, but you cannot expect
> to have all the answers at this stage.
And to draw conclusions about maize reaching India pre 1500 ad without all
the answers, or at the very least key answers, is not only pre-mature but
plain stupid.
Having theories is fine, but the absolute assertions you are making are
just as pigheaded as the "traditional" historians you claim to be differant
from.
---Oscar Schlaf---
Yuri Kuchinsky
oscar_...@yahoo.com wrote:
: In article <6e6mqq$o0k$1...@titan.globalserve.net>,
: yu...@globalserve.net (Yuri Kuchinsky) wrote:
: > Well, most people prefer to trust their eyes rather than someone else's
: > opinion.
:
: Then why is the vast amount of your new site filled with articles written by
: you?
This is silly. What else do you expect?
BTW, I have quite a few articles by others, but you seem to be incapable
of reading.
Why don't you send me some of your articles, and maybe I'll include them
too.
: >The pictures tell their own story.
:
: The Statues are subject to interpetation. And the interpetation of an expert
: in Hindu Architecture and an expert in Agro Biology are more valid then
: an opinion by you, untrained in either area. I'm not trained in either area
: either, which is why I turn to those that are...
That's because your own vision is defective?
...
: > Yes it has. I posted about this yesterday.
:
: No maize dating back to pre-1500ad has been found to India as of yet.
Why don't you read my post about what has been found?
...
: > This is asking too much. Explanations are possible, but you cannot expect
: > to have all the answers at this stage.
:
: And to draw conclusions about maize reaching India pre 1500 ad without all
: the answers, or at the very least key answers, is not only pre-mature but
: plain stupid.
This makes it perfectly clear that you're an ignorant redneck who is
threatened by any view not in accord with his own.
Yuri.
Yuri Kuchinsky -=O=- http://www.trends.ca/~yuku NEWLY UPDATED
oscar_...@yahoo.com
In article <6e9276$lg5$2...@news.trends.ca>,
> : In article <6e6mqq$o0k$1...@titan.globalserve.net>,
> : yu...@globalserve.net (Yuri Kuchinsky) wrote:
>
> : > Well, most people prefer to trust their eyes rather than someone else's
> : > opinion.
> :
> : Then why is the vast amount of your new site filled with articles
written by
> : you?
>
> This is silly. What else do you expect?
Something besides your personal opinion, like text direct from
> BTW, I have quite a few articles by others, but you seem to be incapable
> of reading.
Also from threads and simple quotes not the evidnece that support thier
theories.
> : >The pictures tell their own story.
> :
> : The Statues are subject to interpetation. And the interpetation of an
expert
> : in Hindu Architecture and an expert in Agro Biology are more valid then
> : an opinion by you, untrained in either area. I'm not trained in either
area
> : either, which is why I turn to those that are...
>
> That's because your own vision is defective?
Gee should I trust your judgement on ancient Hindu architecture or one
trained in such a subject? Should I trust a Trained Agro Biologist on
the subject of maize or should I trust you?
Simple personal put-downs isn't an ample explanation as to why one should
put your opinion over those trained in the area we are discussiing.
> ...
>
> : > Yes it has. I posted about this yesterday.
> :
> : No maize dating back to pre-1500ad has been found to India as of yet.
>
> Why don't you read my post about what has been found?
Why don't you quote a direct source?
> ...
>
> : > This is asking too much. Explanations are possible, but you cannot
expect
> : > to have all the answers at this stage.
> :
> : And to draw conclusions about maize reaching India pre 1500 ad without
all
> : the answers, or at the very least key answers, is not only pre-mature but
> : plain stupid.
>
> This makes it perfectly clear that you're an ignorant redneck who is
> threatened by any view not in accord with his own.
It is rather clear that you have a certain pet theory and anyone questioning
it will be subject to junvenial insults rather then ample evidence and support
from the Scienctific and Araechaeological community.
Find me a single agro biologist, those that study plants, that supports
your theory of maize in India prior to 1500ad, it would be much more useful
then silly insults.
JoatSimeon
>oscar schlaf
>Find me a single agro biologist, those that study plants, that supports your
theory of maize in India prior to 1500 AD...
-- don't hold your breath. Yuri keeps talking about all his 'evidence', but he
has yet to come up with a single maize cob.
-- S.M. Stirling
Yuri Kuchinsky
JoatSimeon (joats...@aol.com) wrote:
: >oscar schlaf
Stirling,
I know of course that the ignorance of oscar schlaf knows no bounds. But I
thought _you_ should have known better, since I've been trying to give you
some info about this matter for some time. Are you really in the same
leagues as oscar, the king of the uninformed bigots?
The answer to both your questions is PROF. SACHAN, THE LEADING INDIAN
MAIZE SCHOLAR.
Aren't you guys ashamed of your ignorance and of obvious inability to
absorb the simplest information?
Regards,
oscar_...@yahoo.com
In article <6eefdk$g5p$1...@news.trends.ca>,
yu...@mail.trends.ca (Yuri Kuchinsky) wrote:
>
> JoatSimeon (joats...@aol.com) wrote:
> : >oscar schlaf
> :
> : >Find me a single agro biologist, those that study plants, that supports
your
> : theory of maize in India prior to 1500 AD...
> :
> : -- don't hold your breath. Yuri keeps talking about all his 'evidence',
but he
> : has yet to come up with a single maize cob.
> : -- S.M. Stirling
>
> Stirling,
>
> I know of course that the ignorance of oscar schlaf knows no bounds.
Your a terrible liar, Prof. Sachen doesn't support your thesis and
Carl Johanssen is a geographer, not a historian or archeaologist.
But I
> thought _you_ should have known better, since I've been trying to give you
> some info about this matter for some time.
One of your "sources" doesn't support you and the other is written by a
fellow who has no expertise in the area and is merely speculating with
nothing more then a statue or two to go on.....
Are you really in the same
> leagues as oscar, the king of the uninformed bigots?
A Bigot is one who is intolerant, and about the only thing I am intolerant
of is bad liars and fools such as yourself.
---Oscar Schlaf----
> The answer to both your questions is PROF. SACHAN, THE LEADING INDIAN
> MAIZE SCHOLAR.
Do the words blantant liar mean anything to you?
Here is an article co-written by Prog. Sachan in which he argues AGAINST
you silly theory.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>Payak, M.M., and Sachan, J.K.S.
> 1993 "Maize Ears Not Sculpted in 13th Century Somnathpur
> Temple in India." Economic botany. APR 01 1993, vol. 47
> no. 2, P. 202->
This article's abstract says:
The contention that objects in the hands of male and female deities sculpted
on the exterior of the Kesav Temple at Somnathpur near the city of Mysore,
Karnataka State, India, represent maize ears is rejected on linguistic,
-----------------------------------------------
religious, sculptural, archaeological, and botanical grounds. The stone
------------------------------------------------------------
inscriptions associated with the temple list items or commodities used in
worship, maize is not included. We find no evidence for maize figuring in
any kind of religious ritual or worship. The word for maize used currently
in the Kannada language is "Musukin Jola" which refers to a kind of millet
resembling sorghum (jola). This appelation is of recent origin and does not
appear in any literary work contemporary with the period of construction of
Somnathpur temple. The wall images do not fully simulate in form and
proportion the actual human figures. The beaded ornamentation, likewise, of
the hand-held object shows considerable variation and its comparison whether
on qualitative or quantitative basis with actual maize kernels of both
primitive and modern maize is inappropriate. The variation in form and
proportion and stylistic features of these objects is ascribed to their being
the work of different sculptors. Maize now grown near the temple comprises
modern cultivars, especially hybrids released during the early 1960's. It is
inconceivable that none of the primitive and advanced types of maize
purported to be represented in the temple sculpture would have been
considered worthy of cultivation from
thirteenth century to the present time. We hold that these temple sculptures
----------------------------------
do not represent maize or its ear but an imaginary fruit bearing pearls known
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
in Sanskrit as "Muktaphala"
--------------------------
GKeyes6988
oscar_...@yahoo.com wrote:
In article <6eefdk$g5p$1...@news.trends.ca>,
yu...@mail.trends.ca (Yuri Kuchinsky) wrote:
>
<Sip to>
(Yuri)
> The answer to both your questions is PROF. SACHAN, THE LEADING INDIAN
> MAIZE SCHOLAR.
. Do the words blantant liar mean anything to you?
. Here is an article co-written by Prog. Sachan in which he argues AGAINST
you silly theory. <snip>
This is not a lie on Yuri's part, though it may be hyperbole.
I've never been certain that the two Sachans are the same, but what Yuri is
referencing here is a short article in the MAIZE COOPERATIVE BULLETIN (?? this
cite may be slightly wrong -- I don't feel like dredging up the title to be
sure) in which a Dr. Sachan argues, on the basis of morphology and
knob-counting, that an extant variety of Maize in India must be very ancient
there, predating the post-columbian varieties. The pros and cons of this have
been argued here more than once.
As to the suggestion that this Sachan is "THE LEADING INDIAN MAIZE SCHOLAR" --
that was not my impression when I researched the matter, but perhaps Yuri is
privy to some ranking system which I am not. As the article in question was
published in a "fast -track" non-refereed journal, and has not since -- to my
knowledge -- been printed elswhere, expanded upon, critiqued or reviewed, it is
impossible to say what the status of this argument is other than that it was
made.
If Sachan is "the" leading maize scholar in India, I would be interested in a
citation of some sort that verifies it. But he is indeed a maize scholar in
India, and he did indeed argue for a precolumbian variety of maize.
-- Greg Keyes
Yuri Kuchinsky
GKeyes6988 (gkeye...@aol.com) wrote on 15 Mar 1998 16:15:05 GMT:
: oscar_...@yahoo.com wrote:
: In article <6eefdk$g5p$1...@news.trends.ca>,
: yu...@mail.trends.ca (Yuri Kuchinsky) wrote:
: (Yuri)
: > The answer to both your questions is PROF. SACHAN, THE LEADING INDIAN
: > MAIZE SCHOLAR.
: . Do the words blantant liar mean anything to you? : . Here is an
article co-written by Prog. Sachan in which he argues AGAINST : you silly
theory. <snip>
: This is not a lie on Yuri's part, though it may be hyperbole.
Thanks for setting the record straight, Greg.
That Sachan is a leading Indian maize scholar has been brought to may
attention in a posting from another Indian scholar to this newsgroup many
months ago. This guy said that he is "one of the best in India".
Regards,
Yuri.
: I've never been certain that the two Sachans are the same, but what Yuri
is : referencing here is a short article in the MAIZE COOPERATIVE BULLETIN
(?? this : cite may be slightly wrong -- I don't feel like dredging up the
title to be : sure) in which a Dr. Sachan argues, on the basis of
morphology and : knob-counting, that an extant variety of Maize in India
must be very ancient : there, predating the post-columbian varieties. The
pros and cons of this have : been argued here more than once.
: As to the suggestion that this Sachan is "THE LEADING INDIAN MAIZE
SCHOLAR" -- : that was not my impression when I researched the matter, but
perhaps Yuri is : privy to some ranking system which I am not. As the
article in question was : published in a "fast -track" non-refereed
journal, and has not since -- to my : knowledge -- been printed elswhere,
expanded upon, critiqued or reviewed, it is : impossible to say what the
status of this argument is other than that it was : made.
: If Sachan is "the" leading maize scholar in India, I would be interested
in a : citation of some sort that verifies it. But he is indeed a maize
scholar in : India, and he did indeed argue for a precolumbian variety of
maize.
Yuri Kuchinsky -=O=- http://www.globalserve.net/~yuku UPDATED
It is a far, far better thing to have a firm anchor in nonsense than
oscar_...@yahoo.com
In article <6eh71t$c74$3...@titan.globalserve.net>,
yu...@globalserve.net (Yuri Kuchinsky) wrote:
>
> GKeyes6988 (gkeye...@aol.com) wrote on 15 Mar 1998 16:15:05 GMT:
> : oscar_...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> : In article <6eefdk$g5p$1...@news.trends.ca>,
> : yu...@mail.trends.ca (Yuri Kuchinsky) wrote:
>
> : (Yuri)
> : > The answer to both your questions is PROF. SACHAN, THE LEADING INDIAN
> : > MAIZE SCHOLAR.
>
> : . Do the words blantant liar mean anything to you? : . Here is an
> article co-written by Prog. Sachan in which he argues AGAINST : you silly
> theory. <snip>
>
> : This is not a lie on Yuri's part, though it may be hyperbole.
>
> Thanks for setting the record straight, Greg.
There is one Sachan who has co-written something specifically what you
are talking about Yuri and he doesn't agree with your conclusions.
The other Sachan hasn't been mentioned, least in this current round of
debates on this topic. And he isn't an ethnobiologist, and if you recall I
asked for any ethnobiologist that supports your theory on Pre-Columbian
Maize in India.
> That Sachan is a leading Indian maize scholar has been brought to may
> attention in a posting from another Indian scholar to this newsgroup many
> months ago. This guy said that he is "one of the best in India".
That's hardly a reliable source. What some fellow said or says on a
newsgroup isn't proof of his credentials and is merely personal opinion.
---Oscar Schlaf----
Hu McCulloch
oscar_...@yahoo.com writes:
> There is one Sachan who has co-written something specifically what you
>are talking about Yuri and he doesn't agree with your conclusions.
> The other Sachan hasn't been mentioned, least in this current round of
>debates on this topic. And he isn't an ethnobiologist, and if you recall I
>asked for any ethnobiologist that supports your theory on Pre-Columbian
>Maize in India.
The JKS Sachan who, with Kumar, advocates pre-Columbian maize
in India on the basis of genetic evidence is the same JKS Sachan who,
with Payak, rejects Johannessen and Parker's (Economic Botany, 1989)
sculptural evidence for pre-Columbian maize in India. See his
bibliography on the Maize Genetics Newsletter site, at
http://www.agron.missouri.edu:80/cgi-bin/sybgw_mdb/mdb3/Person/13015
He is with the Division of Genetics, Indian Agricultural Research Institute,
New Delhi. I don't know if he's India's_ biggest_ expert on maize, but
certainly he is _an_ Indian authority on maize.
-- Hu McCulloch
http://www.econ.ohio-state.edu/jhm/arch/maize.html
Horned...@rocketmail.com
>
> > There is one Sachan who has co-written something specifically what you
> >are talking about Yuri and he doesn't agree with your conclusions.
> > The other Sachan hasn't been mentioned, least in this current round of
> >debates on this topic. And he isn't an ethnobiologist, and if you recall I
> >asked for any ethnobiologist that supports your theory on Pre-Columbian
> >Maize in India.
>
> The JKS Sachan who, with Kumar, advocates pre-Columbian maize
> in India on the basis of genetic evidence is the same JKS Sachan who,
> with Payak, rejects Johannessen and Parker's (Economic Botany, 1989)
> sculptural evidence for pre-Columbian maize in India.
So JKS Sachan, an authority on Maize in India, rejects the sole
peices of historical/archaeological evidence supporting the theory of
pre-1500ad Maize in India
> He is with the Division of Genetics, Indian Agricultural Research Institute,
> New Delhi. I don't know if he's India's_ biggest_ expert on maize, but
> certainly he is _an_ Indian authority on maize.
Yes. But his work, that's available on the subject. Isn't a clear cut
acceptance of the Pre-Columbian Maize theory as Yuri seems to maintain.
For one he dismisses the statues, and in the realm of genetics he
merely speculates that the genetic differences between East Indian
maize with that of Meso-American, might mean earlier cultivation of
maize in India prior to 1500ad. And for obvious reasons he didn't have
any East Indian Maize dating prior to 1500ad to test.
Again Yuri streches the realm of theory into "absolute hard proof" of his
ideas.
---Oscar Schlaf---
JoatSimeon
>Yuri Kuchinsky:
>Aren't you guys ashamed of your ignorance and of obvious inability to absorb
the simplest information?
-- aren't you ashamed of your inability to write an English sentence without a
glaring error? "and of obvious"? Little Slavic grammar bleeding over there?
8-).
You still haven't come up with that maize cob.
-- S.M. Stirling
JoatSimeon
Yuri's "proofs" tend to resemble rainbows; the receed when you try to approach
them... 8-).
Still no maize cobs.
-- S.M. Stirling
Yuri Kuchinsky
JoatSimeon (joats...@aol.com) wrote:
: >Yuri Kuchinsky:
:
: >Aren't you guys ashamed of your ignorance and of obvious inability to absorb
: the simplest information?
:
: -- aren't you ashamed of your inability to write an English sentence without a
: glaring error? "and of obvious"?
Please show me what would be the correct grammar in this case.
: Little Slavic grammar bleeding over there? 8-).
I suppose your willingness to focus on ethnic attributes (not for the
first time) indicates that you're some kind of a racialist. I strongly
suspected as much before.
Is ethnic prejudice coming back into fashion where you're from?
: You still haven't come up with that maize cob.
And you still don't have any new or any valid arguments?
You're really scraping the bottom of the garbage pail now for your
responses, Stirling... I suppose this must indicate something...
Yuri Kuchinsky
JoatSimeon (joats...@aol.com) wrote:
: Still no maize cobs.
: -- S.M. Stirling
Still no valid arguments?
Yuri.
Yuri Kuchinsky -=O=- http://www.trends.ca/~yuku NEWLY UPDATED
A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change
the subject -=O=- Winston Churchill
Yuri Kuchinsky
Jeffrey L Baker <jba...@U.Arizona.EDU> wrote on Mon, 16 Mar 1998 17:44:55
-0700:
[Hu:]
> > This work was apparently done prior to 1968. Was flotation
> commonplace > that early? I think you noted earlier that maize remains
> would be more likely > to show up _in flotation_ than _in situ_. [That's
> a new technical term > I just made up. ;-) ]
>
> They found rice, if maize was present and common, it would have been
> found by the same methods that found rice remains.
Jeff,
Since they found rice, it would be rather unlikely that they would also
find maize in the same area. Because maize farmers were replaced in
Somnathpur area with rice farmers, and maize cultivation seased there.
I disagree with Hu's theory that maize was stricken by blight. It seems
pretty obvious to me that the peoples who cultivated maize were simply
forced to move from these areas as a result of military defeats.
I believe it is a commonplace in anthropology that almost all mountain
peoples were once plains peoples. The pressure from other tribes makes
them move high into the mountains. They would take their traditional crops
with them.
Best,
Yuri.
Yuri Kuchinsky -=O=- http://www.trends.ca/~yuku NEWLY UPDATED
It is a far, far better thing to have a firm anchor in nonsense than
JoatSimeon
>Yuri Kuchinsky (the irony-impaired):
-- still haven't come up with that maize cob, I see, and still fan-dancing
around the lack.
-- S.M. Stirling
JoatSimeon
>Yuri Kuchinsky
>Since they found rice, it would be rather unlikely that they would also find
maize in the same area. Because maize farmers were replaced in Somnathpur area
with rice farmers, and maize cultivation seased (sic) there... It seems pretty
obvious to me that the peoples who cultivated maize were simply forced to move
from these areas as a result of military defeats.
-- well, there's an abomination of bad logic for you; and no evidence of
genocidal "rice farmers" is offered, either. Of course.
Note that in eastern North America, where the indigenous population _was_
virtually eliminated by the West European conquerors, the incoming European
settlers took up maize cultivation alongside their 'kit' of Eurasian grains --
in fact, in many areas they made it their primary crop. (Hence our practice of
referring to it as "corn".)
Why didn't these "wheat farmers" expel the "maize" of the "maize farmers"?
(Because it was useful, obviously... or at least it's obvious to most people.)
More desperate wiggling. After maize _was_ introduced to India, post-1500, it
quickly became ubiquitous in all areas where it would grow at all; the same
occurred in China. "Rice farmers" happily cultivated maize in appropriate
areas.
Prior to this, we're supposed to believe, it was widespread too... but left no
unambiguous evidence, unlike all the other staple crops, and was "expelled"
from some areas at very convenient times.
I don't think so.
-- S.M. Stirling
Robin R Langton
On 17 Mar 1998 22:46:04 GMT, yu...@mail.trends.ca (Yuri Kuchinsky)
wrote:
>JoatSimeon (joats...@aol.com) wrote:
>: >Yuri Kuchinsky:
>:
>: >Aren't you guys ashamed of your ignorance and of obvious inability to absorb
>: the simplest information?
>:
>: -- aren't you ashamed of your inability to write an English sentence without a
>: glaring error? "and of obvious"?
>
>Please show me what would be the correct grammar in this case.
You could try either missing out the second "of" or inserting a second
"your" after it..... :-)
Robbie Langton For Sci-Fi Cult TV Satire see:
http://www.roblang.demon.co.uk/fangrok/index.html
tkavanag<no spam>
Yuri Kuchinsky wrote:
<snip>
> I believe it is a commonplace in anthropology that almost all mountain
> peoples were once plains peoples. The pressure from other tribes makes
> them move high into the mountains. They would take their traditional crops
> with them.
nonsense.
tk
Yuri Kuchinsky
Robin R Langton (Rob...@roblang.demon.co.uk) wrote:
: On 17 Mar 1998 22:46:04 GMT, yu...@mail.trends.ca (Yuri Kuchinsky)
: wrote:
: >: >Aren't you guys ashamed of your ignorance and of obvious inability
to absorb : >: the simplest information?
: >Please show me what would be the correct grammar in this case.
:
: You could try either missing out the second "of" or inserting a second
: "your" after it..... :-)
Robbie,
Well, why not? Perhaps you're right. I suppose it would have sounded
better this way.
But Stirling's picking on such trifles goes to show better than anything
else that he doesn't have a case. He's desperate to prove me wrong, but
cannot find any real problems in my research.
I suppose that, for a bigot, the hardest thing is to admit that he was
wrong...
Yuri.
Yuri Kuchinsky -=O=- http://www.trends.ca/~yuku NEWLY UPDATED
Alexandrians are adepts at flattery and imposture and hypocrisy, ready
enough with fawning words, but causing universal disaster with their
loose and unbridled lips. || Philo, "The Embassy to Gaius"
JoatSimeon
>Robbie Langdon:
>You could try either missing out the second "of" or inserting a second "your"
after it.
-- true enough. A more elegant form would be: "Aren't you guys ashamed of
your ignorance of the simplest facts?" "Ignorance" and "obvious inability to
absorb" constitute a redundant double description, and "information" is an
aureate term in a sentence that begins with a contraction ("aren't") and a
colloquialism ("guys").
That's a common error of bureaucratese, and also of the scantily educated
trying to imitate academic rhetoric.
-- S.M. Stirling
JoatSimeon
>Yuri Kuchinsky
>can't find any real problems in my research.
-- what research? You still haven't come up with that corn cob, and until you
do you haven't got squat. Where's the corn cob, Yuri?
-- S.M. Stirling
Yuri Kuchinsky
JoatSimeon (joats...@aol.com) wrote on 18 Mar 1998 07:05:52 GMT:
: >Yuri Kuchinsky
: >Since they found rice, it would be rather unlikely that they would also find
: maize in the same area. Because maize farmers were replaced in Somnathpur area
: with rice farmers, and maize cultivation seased (sic) there... It seems pretty
: obvious to me that the peoples who cultivated maize were simply forced to move
: from these areas as a result of military defeats.
: -- well, there's an abomination of bad logic for you;
Stirling,
The bad logic is yours. Also a lack of awareness of this area of research.
: and no evidence of
: genocidal "rice farmers" is offered, either. Of course.
You're not interested in evidence, but mostly in trolling.
: Note that in eastern North America, where the indigenous population _was_
: virtually eliminated by the West European conquerors, the incoming European
: settlers took up maize cultivation alongside their 'kit' of Eurasian grains --
: in fact, in many areas they made it their primary crop. (Hence our practice of
: referring to it as "corn".)
: Why didn't these "wheat farmers" expel the "maize" of the "maize farmers"?
: (Because it was useful, obviously... or at least it's obvious to most people.)
Rice is a more productive crop than maize.
Stirling doesn't understand that what I was trying to do in my post was to
_expand_ on my hypothesis, and not to _defend_ it. He has a poor grasp of
logical reasoning.
: More desperate wiggling.
More desperation to reject any new research because it goes against your
faith.
: After maize _was_ introduced to India, post-1500, it
: quickly became ubiquitous in all areas where it would grow at all;
This is special pleading in defence of your faith.
: the same
: occurred in China. "Rice farmers" happily cultivated maize in appropriate
: areas.
Citations please. When? Which areas?
: Prior to this, we're supposed to believe, it was widespread too...
Again, you don't understand that what I was trying to do in my post was to
_expand_ on my hypothesis, i.e. to _elaborate_ it, and not to _defend_ it.
I've defended it enough already. Learn about logical reasoning.
This is why it is so difficult to get new research such as this off the
ground. Primitive bigots such as Stirling will try to shoot down any
attemt to elaborate a hypothesis, to make it more understandable. Stirling
is simply incapable of comprehending that at some point one needs to ask
the question, Supposing the hypothesis X is correct, then what?
I'm not asking you to believe anything, Stirling. You are beyond hope.
Yuri.
Yuri Kuchinsky -=O=- http://www.globalserve.net/~yuku UPDATED
We should always be disposed to believe that that which
appears white is really black, if the hierarchy of the
Church so decides -=O=- St. Ignatius of Loyola
Yuri Kuchinsky
"tkavanag<no spam>" <"tkavanag<nospam>"@indiana.edu> wrote on Wed, 18 Mar
1998 09:45:53 -0500:
> Yuri Kuchinsky wrote:
> > I believe it is a commonplace in anthropology that almost all mountain
> > peoples were once plains peoples. The pressure from other tribes makes
> > them move high into the mountains. They would take their traditional crops
> > with them.
> nonsense.
Tom,
I'm surprised to see you say so. Did you mean to say that such a
phenomenon is unknown? Such theories are unknown? Or that such theories
are in the minority?
Please clarify.
Yuri.
Yuri Kuchinsky -=O=- http://www.globalserve.net/~yuku UPDATED
If ignorance is bliss, why aren't there more happy people?
Doug Weller
On 18 Mar 1998 17:37:06 GMT, in sci.archaeology, Yuri Kuchinsky wrote:
>
>I suppose that, for a bigot, the hardest thing is to admit that he was
>wrong...
And for Yuri, the hardest thing is to disagree with someone without calling them
a bigot or other names.
Doug
tkavanag<no spam>
Yuri Kuchinsky wrote:
>
> "tkavanag<no spam>" <"tkavanag<nospam>"@indiana.edu> wrote on Wed, 18 Mar
> 1998 09:45:53 -0500:
> > Yuri Kuchinsky wrote:
>
> > > I believe it is a commonplace in anthropology that almost all mountain
> > > peoples were once plains peoples. The pressure from other tribes makes
> > > them move high into the mountains. They would take their traditional crops
> > > with them.
>
> > nonsense.
>
> Tom,
>
> I'm surprised to see you say so. Did you mean to say that such a
> phenomenon is unknown? Such theories are unknown? Or that such theories
> are in the minority?
>
> Please clarify.
>
not "commonplace
JoatSimeon
>Yuri Kuchinsky
>Rice is a more productive crop than maize
-- on land which can be used for paddy farming. However, rice-growing
districts usually include large areas unsuited for paddy; maize is a valuable
secondary crop on such land.
>"Rice farmers" happily cultivated maize in appropriate areas.
>Citations please?
-- This is the merest commonplace of economic history. You do understand that
most farmers grow more than one crop, I hope?
If you want a good treatment of the impact of maize and other Amerindian food
crops on Ming and Manchu China, I'd suggest Boserup, POPULATION AND
TECHNOLOGY, and Evin THE PATTERN OF THE CHINESE PAST. It would be useful to
look into Braudel, CIVILIZATION AND CAPITALISM: V. 3, THE PERSPECTIVE OF THE
WORLD.
>was to _expand_ on my hypothesis, and not to _defend_ it.
-- because it's indefensible and silly on its face; crank-fringe stuff.
>This is why it is so difficult to get new research such as this off the
ground.
-- because of the tiresome insistence on evidence. Where's the maize cob,
Yuri?
>Primitive bigots...
-- like the entire archaeological community. Yuri, from the majestic heights
of his own imagination, deigns to enlighten the experts again... 8-).
>Supposing the Hypothesis X is correct, then what?
-- Supposing the Mande paddled their canoes across the Atlantic and taught the
Indians how to carve giant stone heads, then what?
Your hypothesis has, so far, absolutely zero evidence to support it.
Discussing it has as much validity as debating precisely _how_ aliens used
antigravity machines to build the Great Pyramid.
Where's the maize cob, Yuri? Until you produce it, all else is moot. Nobody's
going to listen to elaborations when the basic hypothesis rests on nothing but
air -- hot air.
Where's the maize cob?
-- S.M. Stirling
tkavanag<no spam>
Sorry, that last one slipped away before I was ready.
tkavanag
Since two previous attempts to answer this have just left me sputtering,
I will move to another machine.
Ok, total nonsense, on both the general and on the particular levels.
> > > I believe
The operative words.
>>it is a commonplace in anthropology that almost all mountain peoples were once plains peoples.
Such a "phenomenon" is not commonplace in ethnography and such a
"theory" is not commonplace in anthropological theory. Not only are such
"theories" in the "minority" they are, in anthropology, non-existant.
Not all mountains are surrounded by "plains" from which people were
pushed.
>>>The pressure from other tribes makes them move high into the mountains.
Far too general a statement in both space and time. The particular
inoperative word is 'tribes': not all pre-state groups are 'tribes'.
>>>They would take their traditional crops with them.
Again, far too general a statement. Particularly, not all "mountain
people" are agriculturalists. Some are/were h/g, some pastoralists, eg.
just too "high" in the mountains to grow crops.
That is, too clarify, as given the sentences remain nonsense.
tk
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
On 18 Mar 1998 18:06:50 GMT, yu...@globalserve.net (Yuri Kuchinsky)
wrote:
>JoatSimeon (joats...@aol.com) wrote on 18 Mar 1998 07:05:52 GMT:
>: After maize _was_ introduced to India, post-1500, it
>: quickly became ubiquitous in all areas where it would grow at all;
>
>This is special pleading in defence of your faith.
>
>: the same
>: occurred in China. "Rice farmers" happily cultivated maize in appropriate
>: areas.
>
>Citations please. When? Which areas?
Encyclopaedia Britannica:
"Rice, China's most important crop, is dominant in the southern
provinces, many of which yield two harvests a year. In the North wheat
is of the greatest importance, while in central China wheat and rice
vie with each other for the top place. Millet and kaoliang (a variety
of grain sorghum) are grown mainly in the Northeast and some central
provinces, which--together with some northern areas--also provide
considerable quantities of barley. Most of the soybean crop is derived
from the North and the Northeast; corn (maize) is grown in the centre
and the North, while tea comes mainly from the hilly areas of the
southeast. Cotton is grown extensively in the central provinces, but
it is also found to a lesser extent in the southeast and in the
North. Tobacco comes from the centre and parts of the South. Other
important crops are potatoes, sugar beets, and oilseeds.
[Statistics:]
Production (metric tons except as noted). Agriculture, forestry,
fishing (1993): grains--rice 187,211,000, wheat 105,005,000, corn
(maize) 103,380,000, sorghum 5,605,000, millet 3,961,000, barley
3,700,000; oilseeds--soybeans 13,007,000, peanuts (groundnuts)
8,086,000, rapeseed 6,950,000, sunflower seeds 1,150,000; fruits and
nuts--watermelons 6,570,000, apples 5,018,000, oranges 4,685,000,
cantaloupes 3,384,000, walnuts 175,000; other--sweet potatoes
105,185,000, sugarcane 68,419,000, potatoes 35,050,000, sugar beets
12,100,000, seed cotton 11,280,000, cabbage 9,705,000, tomatoes
8,665,000, cucumbers 7,850,000, eggplants 5,220,000, garlic 4,783,000,
onions 4,432,000, tobacco leaves 3,438,000, tea 619,000;
==
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal ~ ~
Amsterdam _____________ ~ ~
m...@wxs.nl |_____________|||
========================== Ce .sig n'est pas une .cig
Yuri Kuchinsky
JoatSimeon (joats...@aol.com) wrote:
: >Yuri Kuchinsky
:
: >can't find any real problems in my research.
:
: -- what research?
I mean about 200 text files on my 2 webpages. Where's yours?
Oh, yeah, I know you wrote a whole pile of trashy novels...
: You still haven't come up with that corn cob, and until you
: do you haven't got squat. Where's the corn cob, Yuri?
Where are valid arguments, Stirling? You sound like a parrot of late. A
sign of desperation?
Yuri.
Yuri Kuchinsky -=O=- http://www.trends.ca/~yuku NEWLY UPDATED
If they can make penicillin out of moldy bread, they can sure
make something out of you -=O=- Muhammad Ali
Yuri Kuchinsky
...
: If you want a good treatment of the impact of maize and other Amerindian
food : crops on Ming and Manchu China,
This is question-begging on your part. I have good evidence to indicate
maize was there many centuries before Columbus.
: I'd suggest Boserup, POPULATION AND
: TECHNOLOGY, and Evin THE PATTERN OF THE CHINESE PAST. It would be
useful to : look into Braudel, CIVILIZATION AND CAPITALISM: V. 3, THE
PERSPECTIVE OF THE : WORLD.
Oh, yeah, you read a lot of old books. It makes you proud I guess? Too bad
you don't know about new research.
How come you don't include the dates when these books were published?
: >was to _expand_ on my hypothesis, and not to _defend_ it.
:
: -- because it's indefensible and silly on its face; crank-fringe stuff.
Nothing more needs to be said. Your bigotry is self-evident.
...
: Your hypothesis has, so far, absolutely zero evidence to support it.
That's because you have problems with reading comprehension.
...
: Where's the maize cob, Yuri?
And you sound like a parrot.
Do you also have the brains of a parrot, Stirling?
Yuri.
Yuri Kuchinsky -=O=- http://www.trends.ca/~yuku NEWLY UPDATED
To be is to do.
-- I. Kant
To do is to be.
-- J.-P. Sartre
Yabba-Dabba-Doo!
-- F. Flinstone
Yuri Kuchinsky
tkavanag <"tkavanag<nospam>"@indiana.edu> wrote on Wed, 18 Mar 1998
17:33:32 -0800:
[Yuri:]
> > I'm surprised to see you say so. Did you mean to say that such a
> > phenomenon is unknown? Such theories are unknown? Or that such theories
> > are in the minority?
> >
> > Please clarify.
> Ok, total nonsense, on both the general and on the particular levels.
>
> > > > I believe
>
> The operative words.
Am I allowed to have opinions, Tom?
> >>it is a commonplace in anthropology that almost all mountain peoples
> were once plains peoples.
>
> Such a "phenomenon" is not commonplace in ethnography and such a
> "theory" is not commonplace in anthropological theory. Not only are such
> "theories" in the "minority" they are, in anthropology, non-existant.
OK, this answers one of my question. According to Tom, anthropologists
never heard of such a phenomenon. I find this very strange. Because this
phenomenon is real.
> Not all mountains are surrounded by "plains" from which people were
> pushed.
Please give some examples.
> >>>The pressure from other tribes makes them move high into the mountains.
>
> Far too general a statement in both space and time. The particular
> inoperative word is 'tribes': not all pre-state groups are 'tribes'.
I don't understand your objection. I don't think it's valid. It sounds
like you're going out of your way to obscure this rather simple matter.
> >>>They would take their traditional crops with them.
>
> Again, far too general a statement. Particularly, not all "mountain
> people" are agriculturalists.
I know. So what? I'm talking about the majority of "mountain people".
People tend to be conservative about their important crops.
> Some are/were h/g, some pastoralists, eg.
> just too "high" in the mountains to grow crops.
So? How does this address my general thesis?
> That is, too clarify, as given the sentences remain nonsense.
I find your position very strange, Tom. You answered one of my questions,
but failed to answer another important one: "Did you mean to say that such
a phenomenon is unknown?"
Please answer this. Because if you answer "No", I can prove you wrong. If
you answer "Yes", I will prove you wrong also.
Because my statement was simply an expression of common sense, and is far
from "nonsense".
Who is being out of touch with reality, here Tom? Is it you, or is it the
whole of anthropology?
Yuri.
Yuri Kuchinsky -=O=- http://www.globalserve.net/~yuku UPDATED
JoatSimeon
>Yuri Kuchinsky
>I have good evidence to indicate maize was there many centuries before
Columbus.
-- You have pre-Columbian maize cobs, kernels and stalks from China? By all
means, show us. No? Didn't think so.
Plenty of rice husks, carbonized barley, etc., but no maize. Where's the maize
cob, Yuri?
>Where's the maize cob, Yuri?
>And you sound like a parrot.
-- perhaps, to a man who won't answer a simple straightforward question.
Where's the maize cob, Yuri?
>Too bad you don't know about new research.
-- what, like your magical clam shells? There _is_ no new research which
supports your claims.
If there is new research with an unambiguously dated maize cob or other
phyisical remains, by all means, tell us. (Please, no references to your web
page; just give us the article, the author, the journal, the dates.)
No? I didn't think so.
Because you have yet to produce this simple, straightforward evidence for your
hypothesis.
>Do you also have the brains of a parrot, Stirling?
-- oooh, that's scholarly, that is. Impressive. Objective.
-- S.M. Stirling
JoatSimeon
>Yuri Kuchinsky
>Where are the valid arguments...
-- you still haven't answered the first; if maize was widespread in Asia
centuries before Columbus, where are the physical remains of the maize plants?
We have plentiful physical remains of _other_ crops, but none of maize. If
maize was widespread, why doesn't it show up in the archaeological record?
At this point you generally side-slip off to the "sculptures", or like
pre-Copernican astronomers come up with reasons why maize was there and then
suddenly disappeared ("invading rice farmers") only to reappear later... in
post-Columbian times.
>I mean about 200 text files on my 2 webpages
-- of which, those which are genuine do not support your hypothesis, and those
which support it are not genuine -- fake runestones and the like.
-- S.M. Stirling
Doug Weller
On 19 Mar 1998 17:37:03 GMT, in sci.archaeology, Yuri Kuchinsky wrote:
>
>Oh, yeah, I know you wrote a whole pile of trashy novels...
A typical Yuri comment. I'm sure he's also an expert in literary criticism.
Doug
JoatSimeon
>Doug Weller
>A typical Yuri comment. I'm sure he's also an expert in literary criticism.
-- not only that, but an expert in the rather esoteric field of speculative
fiction.
Is there no end to the fields in which Yuri Kuchinsky is the world's greatest
scholar? 8-).
Hey, Yuri -- just for a lark, let's hear your qualifications. What degrees,
from what institutions? What publications?
-- S.M. Stirling
GKeyes6988
Doug Weller wrote:
.On 19 Mar 1998 17:37:03 GMT, in sci.archaeology, Yuri Kuchinsky wrote:
>
>Oh, yeah, I know you wrote a whole pile of trashy novels...
.A typical Yuri comment. I'm sure he's also an expert in literary criticism.
Or perhaps a frustrated writer.
-- Greg Keyes
tkavanag
Yuri Kuchinsky wrote:
>
> tkavanag <"tkavanag<nospam>"@indiana.edu> wrote on Wed, 18 Mar 1998
> 17:33:32 -0800:
>
> [Yuri:]
> > > I'm surprised to see you say so. Did you mean to say that such a
> > > phenomenon is unknown? Such theories are unknown? Or that such theories
> > > are in the minority?
> > >
> > > Please clarify.
>
> > Ok, total nonsense, on both the general and on the particular levels.
> >
> > > > > I believe
> >
> > The operative words.
>
> Am I allowed to have opinions, Tom?
Opinions, yes. Knowledge is something else.
> > >>it is a commonplace in anthropology that almost all mountain peoples
> > were once plains peoples.
> >
> > Such a "phenomenon" is not commonplace in ethnography and such a
> > "theory" is not commonplace in anthropological theory. Not only are such
> > "theories" in the "minority" they are, in anthropology, non-existant.
>
> OK, this answers one of my question. According to Tom, anthropologists
> never heard of such a phenomenon. I find this very strange. Because this
> phenomenon is real.
Before I answered the question, I looked through the Anthro 101
textbooks that I have, whihc, because I have taught Anthro 101, the
publishers kindly send me for free. Based on that
tkavanag
[It control-enter]
Ok, lets keep this simple.
Yuri Kuchinsky wrote:
> Because my statement was simply an expression of common sense, and is far
> from "nonsense".
That is, it is not based in ethnographic or historical researches.
Please give an ethnographic citation of a mountain people forced out of
an earlier Plains existence who took their traditional crops with them.
tk
Jeffrey L Baker
On 17 Mar 1998, Yuri Kuchinsky wrote:
>
> Since they found rice, it would be rather unlikely that they would also
> find maize in the same area. Because maize farmers were replaced in
> Somnathpur area with rice farmers, and maize cultivation seased there.
This is simply not true. At the time of contact, Indian farmers were
growing rice in wetlands and wheat and barley in upland areas that were
not suited to maize cultivation.
While rice is more productive than maize, maize is more productive than
barley.
>
> I disagree with Hu's theory that maize was stricken by blight. It seems
> pretty obvious to me that the peoples who cultivated maize were simply
> forced to move from these areas as a result of military defeats.
>
> I believe it is a commonplace in anthropology that almost all mountain
> peoples were once plains peoples. The pressure from other tribes makes
> them move high into the mountains. They would take their traditional crops
> with them.
No, it is not commonplace. In fact, the Hoysala were mountain people who
moved into the plains and conquered the plains people. It is more common
historically to see a more nomadic group conquer and rule over a settled
group. Rice cultivators are generally settled people.
Also, the Hoysala temples mention the presence of rice growing in that
area.
Jeff Baker
Jeffrey L Baker
On 18 Mar 1998, Yuri Kuchinsky wrote:
> JoatSimeon (joats...@aol.com) wrote on 18 Mar 1998 07:05:52 GMT:
> : Note that in eastern North America, where the indigenous population _was_
> : virtually eliminated by the West European conquerors, the incoming European
> : settlers took up maize cultivation alongside their 'kit' of Eurasian grains --
> : in fact, in many areas they made it their primary crop. (Hence our practice of
> : referring to it as "corn".)
>
>
> : the same
> : occurred in China. "Rice farmers" happily cultivated maize in appropriate
> : areas.
>
> Citations please. When? Which areas?
see Kang Chao, 1986, Man and Land in Chinese History. University of
Stanford Press, Palo Alto.
Jeff Baker
John Eaton
Re. Precolumbian cultural contacts, we've been working from
http://www.econ.ohio-state.edu/jhm/arch/maize.html
wherein you'll find
> Carl L. Johannessen and Anne Z. Parker, "Maize Ears Sculptured in 12th and 13th Century A.D. India as Indicators of
> Pre-Columbian Diffusion," Economic Botany 43 , 1989, 164-80, argue that stone carvings of maize ears exist in at least
> three pre-Columbian Hoysala stone block temples near Mysore, Karnataka state, India. Their article provides 16
> photographs of a few of the sculptures in question.
Why is it that so many people desirously cling to obviously incorrect
and inaccurate "isolationist" views?
John
P.S. Hi, Yuri.
JoatSimeon
>John Eaton
>"isolationist" views?
-- because they're true.
-- S.M. Stirling
Duncan Craig
Interesting statistics. Corn production almost equals wheat. m...@wxs.nl
>On 18 Mar 1998 18:06:50 GMT, yu...@globalserve.net (Yuri Kuchinsky)
>>: quickly became ubiquitous in all areas where it would grow at all;
>>
>>This is special pleading in defence of your faith.
>>
>>: occurred in China. "Rice farmers" happily cultivated maize in appropriate
>>: areas.
>>
>>Citations please. When? Which areas?
>
Interesting statistics. Corn production almost equals wheat and far
exceeds other grains except rice, and is grown in central and northern
China.
Are the coastal areas unsuitable? That is where one would assume a great
deal of it would be grown if it where a recent import. How is it possible
that corn production became so important so quickly in an almost
changeless society like China? Four hundred years is a very short time.
Regards, Duncan
JoatSimeon
>Duncan Craig
>Are the coastal areas unsuitable?
-- no, maize is grown in varying quantities virtually everywhere that isn't too
cold or too dry. It isn't competitive with rice on land suitable for paddy
cultivation, of course. In those areas it tends to be a crop of marginal land
which can't be used to grow paddy. In the center and north it competes with
wheat and millet.
>How is it possible that corn production became so important so quickly in an
almost changeless society like China?
-- Because China isn't an "almost changeless" society; that's mere prejudice.
China has been the source of many technological innovations and the Chinese
were always on the lookout for new crops.
-- S.M. Stirling
Duncan Craig
Thanks for correcting that misconception. China has been the source of
many technological inovations, among which are matches sold on the streets
of Hangchou six hundred years before Europe knew what a match was, chrome
plating nineteen hundred years before the west, magnetic compasses
fourteen hundred years before Europe, four hundred foot ships with
watertight bulkheads, sternpost rudders, offset mat and batten masts at
least seven hundred years before the Spanish and English, etc. So how far
across the Pacific do you think they traveled in search of new crops?
Duncan
"The Tao that can be known is not the real Tao" Tao Te Ching
"The sun that can be seen is not the real sun" Popul Vuh
JoatSimeon
>Duncan Craig
>So how far across the Pacific do you think they traveled in search of new
crops?
-- About as far as Manilla. The Chinese were only sporadically active beyond
their own waters; eg., in the 8th century there were Arab traders in Canton,
but Chinese were not often seen west of Malaysia, and Indonesia and Southeast
Asia (except for Vietnam) tended to be more under the cultural and commercial
influence of India than China, most of the time. There was an outburst of
Chinese maritime energy under the Yuan (Mongol) dynasty in the 13th-14th
century, and again under the Ming (some famous voyages to the Indian Ocean and
Java) but that was about it.
The coastal Chinese were maritime-minded, but China tended to be controlled by
inland elites contemptuous of and hostile to traders -- Confucian ideology is
agriculturally oriented and anti-merchant; Chinese governments were focused on
the military threat from the steppe countries to their north.
Also, China was so large and so self-contained, and so self-sufficient, that it
didn't develop the sort of relentless outward urge that Europeans, and to a
lesser extent the Islamic peoples, did. Europe wanted Chinese porcelain, tea,
silk, etc.; all the Chinese wanted from outsiders was silver and some raw
materials.
BTW, you're a little off on Chinese innovations. They did get the compass and
sternpost rudder first; also paper, printing, paper money, coal-smelting of
iron, the crossbow, gunpowder, and possibly the horse collar (the stirrup was
probably invented by nomadic peoples to the northwest of China).
A very inventive and intellectually curious people; unfortunately for China,
for reasons having to do with the political bad luck of imperial unification
and cultural factors (lack of a rationalist philosophical tradition comparable
to the First and Second Sophistics, and their religion) they didn't make all
that much use of the technologies they invented.
Eventually European gunboats and armies sailed up their rivers and beat the
stuffing out of them with technologies that were mostly refined versions of
things the Chinese had invented centuries earlier. Sort of ironic, isn't it?
-- S.M. Stirling
Duncan Craig
joats...@aol.com (JoatSimeon) wrote:
>>Duncan Craig
>
>>So how far across the Pacific do you think they traveled in search of new
>crops?
>
>-- About as far as Manilla. The Chinese were only sporadically active beyond
>their own waters; eg., in the 8th century there were Arab traders in Canton,
>but Chinese were not often seen west of Malaysia, and Indonesia and Southeast
>Asia
Who would be able to see them sail the Pacific in the 8th century?
According to Joseph Needham, in vol.29 of "Science and and Civilisation in
China", passages from the Cchien Han Shu translated by Pelliot describes
extensive maritime trade. Needham concludes,
"This probably refers to the two centuries preceding the time when Pan
ku was writing (ie, about 90 ad), so we may take it as well applicable to
the 1st century bc, indeed back to the time of Han Wu Ti. Since the
furthest country is said in the text to require a sea voyage of just over
twelve months, and since the whole account is quite devoid of any
legendary quality, Pelliot felt that one should visualise Chinese missions
penetrating already at this time as far as the western extremity of the
Indian Ocean. Further evidence for these extensive contacts has come from
archaeological investigations in Southeast Asia; thus Chinese coins of the
first quarter of the first century ad have been found in the tombs at
Dongson (northern Annam), Chinese pottery of the former Han, one piece
bearing an inscvription dated 45bc, occurs in Sumatra, Java and Borneo."
pg.443
(except for Vietnam) tended to be more under the cultural and commercial
>influence of India than China, most of the time. There was an outburst of
>Chinese maritime energy under the Yuan (Mongol) dynasty in the 13th-14th
>century, and again under the Ming (some famous voyages to the Indian Ocean and
>Java) but that was about it.
The logbooks of the Ming voyages of Cheng Ho were burned by a government
official in 1454. The remaining records of the Ming voyages were
destroyed in 1477. We will never know where the four hundred foot ships
went on their three year missions. Chinese literature is replete with
accounts of expeditions across the 'Eastern Sea' beginning with the Shu
Hai Ching circa 2200 bc.
>
>The coastal Chinese were maritime-minded, but China tended to be controlled by
>inland elites contemptuous of and hostile to traders -- Confucian ideology is
>agriculturally oriented and anti-merchant; Chinese governments were focused on
>the military threat from the steppe countries to their north.
>
>Also, China was so large and so self-contained, and so self-sufficient, that it
>didn't develop the sort of relentless outward urge that Europeans, and to a
>lesser extent the Islamic peoples, did. Europe wanted Chinese porcelain, tea,
>silk, etc.; all the Chinese wanted from outsiders was silver and some raw
>materials.
...and Jade (no evidence that jade was ever found in China proper), and
the drugs of immortality.
>
>BTW, you're a little off on Chinese innovations. They did get the compass and
>sternpost rudder first; also paper, printing, paper money, coal-smelting of
>iron, the crossbow, gunpowder, and possibly the horse collar (the stirrup was
>probably invented by nomadic peoples to the northwest of China).
>
>A very inventive and intellectually curious people; unfortunately for China,
>for reasons having to do with the political bad luck of imperial unification
>and cultural factors (lack of a rationalist philosophical tradition comparable
>to the First and Second Sophistics, and their religion) they didn't make all
>that much use of the technologies they invented.
Their greatest advances may have been in the areas of social
organization.
>
>Eventually European gunboats and armies sailed up their rivers and beat the
>stuffing out of them with technologies that were mostly refined versions of
>things the Chinese had invented centuries earlier. Sort of ironic, isn't it?
>-- S.M. Stirling
Irony irony everywhere. Needham senses this also, I think, when he
observes
"It is indeed an extraordinary historical coincidence that Chinese
long-distance navigation from the far east reached its high water mark
just as the tide of Portuguese exploration from the far west was beginning
its spectacular flow"
I just wonder whether it is the irony of historical coincidence that
accounts for the destruction of the Ming naval records, the documents of
Prince Henrys Navigation school, Mayan libraries, and the early historias
of Spanish clergy in the New World?
As for European gunboat diplomacy, I guess you're refering to the Boxer
rebellion, a relatively late exercise in Imperialism. There were many
petitions to the Crown and Church by would-be conquistadors for permission
to invade China in the afterglow of Cortes' success...all denied. The
Vatican position paper on "Why War with China Would be Immoral", was
written by Father Jose' de Acosta, the Council of the Indies official
Censorate of the New World. It's ironic that Acosta was also the first
person to postulate the 'land bridge theory' in the 1580's...more than two
hundred years before the discovery of the Bering Straits.
Duncan
Yuri Kuchinsky
...
: >Where's the maize cob, Yuri?
:
: >And you sound like a parrot.
:
: -- perhaps, to a man who won't answer a simple straightforward question.
I've answered this question already, but unfortunately you have problems
with reading comprehension.
The absense of remains of maize in India cannot be considered by any means
as a decisive evidence against Johannessen's hypothesis. Because the
material remains of Hoysala settlements remain inadequately studied.
OTOH, Johannessen's hypothesis is supported by a large amount of
botanical, genetic (the work of Prof. Sachan), linguistic and literary
evidence. Some supporting archaeological evidence is also available.
Genetic evidence alone, if studied adequately, is perfectly capable of
proving Johannessen correct. (As I understand it, some genetic testing is
happening at this time.) So archaeologists certainly have no monopoly on
pronouncing any kind of a verdict in this case.
OTOH, _if_ the case is proven on other grounds, the incompetence of
archaeologists and/or inadequacy of their methods will be made rather
clear.
Understand now, Stirling?
Yuri.
Yuri Kuchinsky -=O=- http://www.trends.ca/~yuku NEWLY UPDATED
Yuri Kuchinsky
tkavanag "@indiana.edu> ("tkavanag<nospam) wrote:
: > Because my statement was simply an expression of common sense, and is far
: > from "nonsense".
:
: That is, it is not based in ethnographic or historical researches.
:
: Please give an ethnographic citation of a mountain people forced out of
: an earlier Plains existence who took their traditional crops with them.
Tom,
My statement was based on my general study of ancient history, and on
first hand observation. Perhaps this subject falls under the rubric of
history rather than anthropology.
I will give you two examples. First, the Armenian history. It is well
known among historians that Armenians inhabited large areas in lowland
Turkey towards the Mediterranean about 2000 years ago. But then they were
gradually pushed up high into the mountains where Armenia is today.
Second example is from the Philippines where I spent some considerable
time. It is well known that the tribes inhabiting the mountains in
Northern Luzon speak a Malay related language, and lived originally in the
lowlands, whereas the present day Tagalog speaking lowland people were a
later arrivals to the scene.
I'm sure these examples can be multiplied.
This supports the hypothesis that the present day maize growing peoples of
the Indian highlands were originally inhabitants of lowland areas, perhaps
including Karnataka State.
So what about this, Tom?
Yuri Kuchinsky
Jeffrey L Baker (jba...@U.Arizona.EDU) wrote:
: On 17 Mar 1998, Yuri Kuchinsky wrote:
:
: >
: > Since they found rice, it would be rather unlikely that they would also
: > find maize in the same area. Because maize farmers were replaced in
: > Somnathpur area with rice farmers, and maize cultivation seased there.
:
: This is simply not true.
What is "not true", Jeff? That rice was grown in this area in post-Hoysala
period?
: At the time of contact, Indian farmers were
: growing rice in wetlands and wheat and barley in upland areas that were
: not suited to maize cultivation.
And also maize it seems...
: > I disagree with Hu's theory that maize was stricken by blight. It seems
: > pretty obvious to me that the peoples who cultivated maize were simply
: > forced to move from these areas as a result of military defeats.
: >
: > I believe it is a commonplace in anthropology that almost all mountain
: > peoples were once plains peoples. The pressure from other tribes makes
: > them move high into the mountains. They would take their traditional crops
: > with them.
:
: No, it is not commonplace.
I've addressed this already in my reply to Tom.
: In fact, the Hoysala were mountain people who
: moved into the plains and conquered the plains people.
Were they created from somebody's rib in the mountains by G*D?
: It is more common
: historically to see a more nomadic group conquer and rule over a settled
: group.
Sure. But in some cases the conquered will have to move from the area.
Uninhabited mountain areas are often the places to go.
: Rice cultivators are generally settled people.
:
: Also, the Hoysala temples mention the presence of rice growing in that
: area.
Now, this is interesting. Are you sure about this?
Yuri.
Yuri Kuchinsky -=O=- http://www.trends.ca/~yuku NEWLY UPDATED
What are the things of long ago? Tell us, that we may
reflect on them, and know their outcome; or declare
to us the things to come -=O=- Isaiah 41:22
Jeffrey L Baker
On 20 Mar 1998, Duncan Craig wrote:
> Interesting statistics. Corn production almost equals wheat and far
> exceeds other grains except rice, and is grown in central and northern
> China.
> Are the coastal areas unsuitable? That is where one would assume a great
> deal of it would be grown if it where a recent import. How is it possible
> that corn production became so important so quickly in an almost
> changeless society like China? Four hundred years is a very short time.
>
> Regards, Duncan
The idea that China is a changeless society is a myth of western
societies. Admittedly in the 18th and 19th centuries, the central
government was discouraging some types of research, but farmers have
always shown the ability to adapt new ideas. Looking at Chinese history
prior to the 18th and 19th centuries, it becomes clear that China was
anything but a stagnant unchanging society.
Most of the coastal areas of China were at one time wetlands. Once
protected from invasion by sea water, this area becomes perfect for
rice, but less so for maize. The coastal areas are prime rice growing
regions.
Jeff Baker
Jeffrey L Baker
On 21 Mar 1998, Yuri Kuchinsky wrote:
> Jeffrey L Baker (jba...@U.Arizona.EDU) wrote:
> : On 17 Mar 1998, Yuri Kuchinsky wrote:
> :
> : >
> : > Since they found rice, it would be rather unlikely that they would also
> : > find maize in the same area. Because maize farmers were replaced in
> : > Somnathpur area with rice farmers, and maize cultivation seased there.
> :
> : This is simply not true.
>
> What is "not true", Jeff? That rice was grown in this area in post-Hoysala
> period?
What is not true is that farmers would completely abandon one crop when a
second comes into the area.
>
> : At the time of contact, Indian farmers were
> : growing rice in wetlands and wheat and barley in upland areas that were
> : not suited to maize cultivation.
>
The last sentence above is a type. It should read "wheat and barley in
upland areas that were not suited to RICE cultivation.
Sorry for the confusion.
Jeff
> I've addressed this already in my reply to Tom.
>
> : In fact, the Hoysala were mountain people who
> : moved into the plains and conquered the plains people.
>
> Were they created from somebody's rib in the mountains by G*D?
Check out a decent history book on India, or overviews of Indian
archaeology. The Hoysala were living in the Deccan Highlands before
invading the lowlands and establishing their dynasty
e.g.
Kulke, H. and D. Rothermund, 1986, A History of India
Nilakanta Sastri, K.A.,1975, A History of South India. Oxford University
Press.
> Now, this is interesting. Are you sure about this?
(in regard to rice growing in the Hoysala area at the times the temples
were constructed)
Positive. Check some of the references I posted before.
While their has not been alot of archaeological work done on the Hoysalas,
there has been a considerable amount of epigraphic work, including three
dissertations looking at the Hoysala temples.
Jeff Baker
JoatSimeon
>Duncan Craig:
>Who would be able to see them sail the Pacific in the 8th century?
-- if you want to postulate Chinese voyages to far places, you have to show
concrete evidence.
>Beginning with the Shu Hai Ching circa 2200 BC.
-- everything before the Shang is legend.
>Their greatest advances may have been in the areas of social organization.
-- what, the disasterous paralysis imposed by the Confucian scholar-bureaucrats
and the examination system? Or the even greater disaster of repeatedly
re-imposing political unity on the whole Chinese-speaking world?
Both required endless amounts of ingenuity and effort; both were utter
catastrophes for Chinese civilization. No progress without competition.
Do you think Chinese firearms would have been so backward and ineffectual --
given that the Chinese invented gunpowder and were first to use it in war -- if
China, like Europe, had remained a mosaic of contending states?
And if China had been 20 different countries each competing for wealth and
power, no bureaucrat would have been able to shut down their overseas voyages
-- each state would have been too afraid of a neighbor gaining an advantage.
Probably ships from Canton would have sailed into Lisbon and imposed "unequal
treaties" on _them_.
>referring to the Boxer rebellion
-- I was thinking of the Opium Wars, the sack of the Summer Palace near Peking
in 1860, etc.
-- S.M. Stirling
JoatSimeon
>Yuri Kuchinsky:
>Because the material remains of Hoysala settlements remain inadequately
studied.
-- adequately enough to discover remains of _other_ crops. Maize, however,
remains mysteriously absent. What a surprise!
Incidentally, are you now claiming that maize was limited to the Hoysala
settlements? I thought you claimed it was _widespread_.
Or do the material remains of the entire continent of Asia "remain inadequately
studied"?
Where's the maize cob, Yuri?
-- S.M. Stirling