How chocolate is used for healing in the past and present
crunch
"Archaeologists have dated cacao as chocolate being eaten by the Mayan
Indians of Mexico as early as 600 CE. The cocoa bean had been
worshipped by the Mayans as a heavenly gift. The beans were put on a
pedestal and worshipped as an idol."
David Christainsen
Jack Linthicum
> http://www.groundreport.com/Lifestyle/How-chocolate-is-used-for-heali...
>
> "Archaeologists have dated cacao as chocolate being eaten by the Mayan
> Indians of Mexico as early as 600 CE. The cocoa bean had been
> worshipped by the Mayans as a heavenly gift. The beans were put on a
> pedestal and worshipped as an idol."
>
> David Christainsen
Wrong, even Wiki gives better data
Chocolate has been used as a drink for nearly all of its history. The
earliest record of using chocolate dates back before the Olmec. In
November 2007, archaeologists reported finding evidence of the oldest
known cultivation and use of cacao at a site in Puerto Escondido,
Honduras, dating from about 1100 to 1400 BC.[7] The residues found and
the kind of vessel they were found in indicate that the initial use of
cacao was not simply as a beverage, but the white pulp around the
cacao beans was likely used as a source of fermentable sugars for an
alcoholic drink.[7] The Maya civilization grew cacao trees in their
backyard,[8] and used the cacao seeds it produced to make a frothy,
bitter drink.[9] Documents in Maya hieroglyphs stated that chocolate
was used for ceremonial purposes, in addition to everyday life.[10]
The chocolate residue found in an early ancient Maya pot in Río Azul,
Guatemala, suggests that Maya were drinking chocolate around 400 AD.
In the New World, chocolate was consumed in a bitter, spicy drink
called xocoatl, and was often flavored with vanilla, chili pepper, and
achiote (known today as annatto).[11] Xocoatl was believed to fight
fatigue, a belief that is probably attributable to the theobromine
content. Chocolate was also an important luxury good throughout pre-
Columbian Mesoamerica, and cacao beans were often used as currency.
[12] For example, the Aztecs used a system in which one turkey cost
one hundred cacao beans and one fresh avocado was worth three beans.
[13] South American and European cultures have used cocoa to treat
diarrhea for hundreds of years.[14] All of the areas that were
conquered by the Aztecs that grew cacao beans were ordered to pay them
as a tax, or as the Aztecs called it, a "tribute".[15]
# (Cambridge University Press) 11: 55–75. 2000.
# ^ a b "New Chemical Analyses Take Confirmation Back 500 Years and
Reveal that the Impetus for Cacao Cultivation was an Alcoholic
Beverage". Penn Museum. http://www.museum.upenn.edu/new/news/fullrelease.php?which=306.
Retrieved 13 November 2007.
# ^ "Chocolate: A Mesoamerican Luxury 250-900 C.E. (A.D.) - Obtaining
Cacao". Field Museum. http://www.fieldmuseum.org/Chocolate/history_mesoamerican3.html.
Retrieved 2 June 2008.
# ^ "Chocolate: A Mesoamerican Luxury 250-900 C.E. (A.D.) - Making
Chocolate". Field Museum. http://www.fieldmuseum.org/Chocolate/history_mesoamerican4.html.
Retrieved 2 June 2008.
# ^ "Chocolate: A Mesoamerican Luxury 250-900 C.E. (A.D.) Using
Chocolate". Field Museum. http://www.fieldmuseum.org/Chocolate/history_mesoamerican5.html.
Retrieved 2 June 2008.
# ^ "Achiote (Annatto) Cooking". las Culturas.
http://www.lasculturas.com/lib/rcp/rcpAchiote.htm. Retrieved 21 May
2008.
# ^ "A Brief History of Chocolate, Food of the Gods". Athena Review
(Athena Pub). http://www.athenapub.com/chocolat.htm. Retrieved 8 June
2007.
# ^ Buford, Bill. "Notes of a Gastronome: Extreme Chocolate: Reporting
& Essays: The New Yorker". The New Yorker.
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2007/10/29/071029fa_fact_buford.
Retrieved 17 May 2008.
# ^ "Dark chocolate helps diarrhea". Children's Hospital & Research
Center at Oakland. http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2005-09/chr-dch092905.php.
Retrieved 2 May 2007.
# ^ "Chocolate: A Mesoamerican Luxury 1200—1521 - Obtaining Cacao".
Field Museum. http://www.fieldmuseum.org/Chocolate/history_mesoamerican7.html.
Retrieved 2 June 2008.
Peter Alaca
It obviously didn't work for you.
Tom McDonald
> http://www.groundreport.com/Lifestyle/How-chocolate-is-used-for-heali...
>
> Indians of Mexico as early as 600 CE. The cocoa bean had been
> worshipped by the Mayans as a heavenly gift. The beans were put on a
> pedestal and worshipped as an idol."
Maya, not 'Mayan'.
A better article, with archaeological context, not written in a hurry
by a general writer, with references:
http://archaeology.about.com/od/caterms/qt/cacao.htm
Or:
From the article:
"Criollo cacao (Theobroma cacao spp cacao) is the name of a small
tropical tree with large ovate fruit, native to the northern Amazon of
South America but found in ancient planted groves throughout central
America. The large fruits have a sweet pulp that can be pulverized and
drunk as refreshing liquid. Alternatively, the juice can be fermented
into a mildly alcoholic drink called chicha."
And:
"Five hundred years ago, Zapotec, Aztec, and Maya civilizations all
had their own versions of cacao drinks. Archaeologists have also
documented cacao use a thousand years earlier, at archaeological sites
in the Toltec, Maya, Olmec, and Soconusco regions.
"Archaeological evidence used to identify cacao on archaeological
sites include the beans themselves, images from codexes which show the
preparation of the liquid, lists of tribute for various kings,
carvings on stele, the presence of specialized bottle forms and shapes
for the making of cacao drinks, and, most recently, chemical analysis
of residues on the insides of bottles or broken pot sherds.
"Another strand of evidence for cacao use is the language used for
cacao drinks, which also reflects its use throughout Mesoamerica. The
word cacao is a Maya term (kakaw), borrowed from the Mixe-Zoqueaen
(also spelled Mije-Sokean), the language of the Olmec and Soconusco
region. But the word 'chocolate' as used by the Spanish probably comes
from a colonial period confusion of terms. The Aztec (Nahuatl) term
for chocolate was cacahuatl; the Maya name for hot water is chocol ha;
and the word chocolate is (so Michael Coe surmises) probably a
combination of those two."
crunch
wrote:
> Retrieved 13 November 2007.
> # ^ "Chocolate: A Mesoamerican Luxury 250-900 C.E. (A.D.) - Obtaining
> Retrieved 2 June 2008.
> # ^ "Chocolate: A Mesoamerican Luxury 250-900 C.E. (A.D.) - Making
> Retrieved 2 June 2008.
> # ^ "Chocolate: A Mesoamerican Luxury 250-900 C.E. (A.D.) Using
> Retrieved 2 June 2008.
> # ^ "Achiote (Annatto) Cooking". las Culturas.http://www.lasculturas.com/lib/rcp/rcpAchiote.htm. Retrieved 21 May
> 2008.
> # ^ "A Brief History of Chocolate, Food of the Gods". Athena Review
> 2007.
> # ^ Buford, Bill. "Notes of a Gastronome: Extreme Chocolate: Reporting
> Retrieved 17 May 2008.
> # ^ "Dark chocolate helps diarrhea". Children's Hospital & Research
> Retrieved 2 May 2007.
> # ^ "Chocolate: A Mesoamerican Luxury 1200—1521 - Obtaining Cacao".
> Retrieved 2 June 2008.
Yet, for the benefit of sci.arch, you neglect to
point out specifically what is "wrong". This is
your failing even if the original story has its
failings. So, our purpose on the NG is educational
for the sake of accurate knowledge thru discussion.
Not to put too fine a point to it - you rarely encourage
me to discuss archaeology with you and you should
correct yourself in this regard for the sake of the group.
David Christainsen
crunch
> crunch <pchristain...@yahoo.com> 07/11/2009 15:56 wrote:
>
> >http://www.groundreport.com/Lifestyle/How-chocolate-is-used-for-heali...
>
> > "Archaeologists have dated cacao as chocolate being eaten by the Mayan
> > Indians of Mexico as early as 600 CE. The cocoa bean had been
> > worshipped by the Mayans as a heavenly gift. The beans were put on a
> > pedestal and worshipped as an idol."
>
> > David Christainsen
>
> It obviously didn't work for you.
Why do you break comity with me on our NG
consistently? Answer - my considered opinion
is that your emotions are unbalanced and your
perception of the other person distorted by your
own ego. You are often deceived by appearance.
So, were you to make amends, you would talk
archaeology, not personality clash, as Tom McDonald
actually did in this thread.
David Christainsen
David Christainsen
Peter Alaca
> Not to put too fine a point to it - you rarely encourage
> me to discuss archaeology with you and you should
> correct yourself in this regard for the sake of the group.
If you cared for the sake of the group you would have fucked
off long ago.
Nobody feels the need to discuss archaeology with you because
you know nothing about it and you have no idea how to discuss.
Sir David
> On Nov 7, 10:38 am, Jack Linthicum <jacklinthi...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> > >http://www.groundreport.com/Lifestyle/How-chocolate-is-used-for-heali...
> > Wrong, even Wiki gives better data
> So, our purpose on the NG is educational
> for the sake of accurate knowledge thru discussion.
You don't get to decide what anyone's purpose on the NG is. You're not
in charge, Crunchy.
> Not to put too fine a point to it - you rarely encourage
> me to discuss archaeology with you and you should
> correct yourself in this regard for the sake of the group.
Crunchy, we all know that you are utterly incapable of discussing
archaeology. We know this based on years of observations of consistent
behavior. Why don't you go search the lifestyle pages of trendy blogs
for some more dumbed-down pop archaeology, Crunchyboy?
> Carl Crunchyworm
crunch
> On Nov 7, 8:56 am, crunch <pchristain...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >http://www.groundreport.com/Lifestyle/How-chocolate-is-used-for-heali...
>
> > "Archaeologists have dated cacao as chocolate being eaten by the Mayan
> > Indians of Mexico as early as 600 CE. The cocoa bean had been
> > worshipped by the Mayans as a heavenly gift. The beans were put on a
> > pedestal and worshipped as an idol."
>
> Maya, not 'Mayan'.
Acknowledged.
> A better article, with archaeological context, not written in a hurry
> by a general writer, with references:
>
> http://archaeology.about.com/od/caterms/qt/cacao.htm
>
> Or:
>
> http://tinyurl.com/yh3npey
>
> From the article:
>...
>
> "Archaeological evidence used to identify cacao on archaeological
> sites include the beans themselves, images from codexes which show the
> preparation of the liquid, lists of tribute for various kings,
> carvings on stele, the presence of specialized bottle forms and shapes
> for the making of cacao drinks, and, most recently, chemical analysis
> of residues on the insides of bottles or broken pot sherds.
>...
Let's say, for the sake of discussion, that your article
is "better". Yet, I wish to make 2 observations -
a) it puzzles me that "lists of tribute for various kings"
is called archaeological evidence. By extention of the
same logic, the contents of the Dead Sea Scrolls would
be considered archaeological evidence. Were this the
case in the real world, a real trip on the wild side of
controversy would break out on sci.arch. So, I guess
it's a slip-up on the part of the writer.
b) your article makes no mention of the following statement
from my original article -
"The cocoa bean had been worshipped by the Mayans
as a heavenly gift. The beans were put on a pedestal
and worshipped as an idol."
I would like the matter cleared up specifically, if sci.archers,
who are interested, would be so good.
David Christainsen
Jack Linthicum
What puzzles me is that you can be exposed to as much about
archaeology as you have been and still not have even a vague ability
to discuss what is posted. No, no one is going to play teacher and
class with you.
George
> What puzzles me is that you can be exposed to as much about
> archaeology as you have been and still not have even a vague ability
> to discuss what is posted. No, no one is going to play teacher and
> class with you
I doubt there are any qualified infant school teachers here to assist
him in his quest for Archaeology 101
crunch
>...
> What puzzles me is that you can be exposed to as much about
> archaeology as you have been and still not have even a vague ability
> to discuss what is posted.
You are making an unjustified assumption and should
retract your remark in the name of comity. You really
don't have the faintest idea how deep my knowledge
goes on the specialized subject at hand. I assure you
I could write well about it if I wanted to. You consistently
break proper manners.
> No, no one is going to play teacher and
> class with you.
Instead, in archaeological discussion we educate one
another on our NG. Look at the tone of your demeaning
thought here and then rise above its pettiness with corrected
NG behaviour. Try following the usenet style guide.
David Christainsen
crunch
Try following the usenet style guide.
David Christainsen
Jack Linthicum
He thinks he is the teacher, assigning tasks to the students who
worship him for his deep insights.
Jack Linthicum
Down deep where it really counts your totally shallow. I don't think
there is a measurement small enough to gauge your ignorance of
archaeology.
Jack Linthicum
No, Carl thinks he is the play-school teacher from his early days. He
assigns tasks and refuses to give answers to his "students'"
questions. Very third grade in both senses.
Sir David
hobbyhorse:
> a) it puzzles me that "lists of tribute for various kings"
> is called archaeological evidence. By extention of the
Just another utterly predictable ploy to mount your hobbyhorse.
Peter Alaca
Once there was a very capable Swedish one.
I mean, she was a schoolmissus, did understand next
to nothing of archaeology and liked very weird men.
Peter Alaca
> You really
> don't have the faintest idea how deep my knowledge
> goes on the specialized subject at hand.
You mean that some friendly uncle in a raincoat
offered you a chocolate once when you were a boy?
Tom McDonald
Link to this style guide, and specify what in it George is offending.
crunch
No, I am interacting with grown-ups and they
have the responsibility to look inside themselves
re: their own moral behaviour. Something that
the best of the Quakers did all the time in their
Worship; not to mention Christians of all types.
So, ask yourself whether breaking comity in its
true meaning is rightful behaviour.
May things go well with you.
David Christainsen
Tom McDonald
> On Nov 7, 4:22 pm, Tom McDonald <kilt...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Nov 7, 1:47 pm, crunch <pchristain...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Nov 7, 2:27 pm, George <gbl...@hnpl.net> wrote:
>
> > > > On Nov 8, 8:13 am, Jack Linthicum <jacklinthi...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > What puzzles me is that you can be exposed to as much about
> > > > > archaeology as you have been and still not have even a vague ability
> > > > > to discuss what is posted. No, no one is going to play teacher and
> > > > > class with you
>
> > > > I doubt there are any qualified infant school teachers here to assist
> > > > him in his quest for Archaeology 101
>
> > > Try following the usenet style guide.
>
> > Link to this style guide, and specify what in it George is offending.
>
> No, I am interacting with grown-ups and they
> have the responsibility to look inside themselves
> re: their own moral behaviour.
As do you.
But you referred to a specific standard of behavior, some purported
'usenet style guide'. It is up to you to specify what in that
statement of recommended behavioral standards people are violating
when you charge them to live up to those standards.
I know you resist most requests for you to back up your statements.
You will probably continue that pattern here. I wish you wouldn't; but
you may not be able to help yourself.
> Something that
> the best of the Quakers did all the time in their
> Worship; not to mention Christians of all types.
This isn't a Christian or Quaker group. Your reference was to a
secular document. Stop going off on irrelevant tangents.
> So, ask yourself whether breaking comity in its
> true meaning is rightful behaviour.
Is 'breaking comity' like reporting funny news?
Or is it more like breaking wind? Now *that's* comity! Comedy!
Whatever!
> May things go well with you.
And you.
George
> Link to this style guide, and specify what in it George is offending.
I'm offending an off topic poster (hopefully) so he will go away and
reflect upon his inability to interact with the rest of humanity
Peter Alaca
Do you really think he is part of humanity?
zayton
> On Nov 7, 4:22 pm, Tom McDonald <kilt...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Nov 7, 1:47 pm, crunch <pchristain...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Nov 7, 2:27 pm, George <gbl...@hnpl.net> wrote:
>>
>>>> On Nov 8, 8:13 am, Jack Linthicum <jacklinthi...@earthlink.net>
>>>> wrote:
>>
>>>>> What puzzles me is that you can be exposed to as much about
>>>>> archaeology as you have been and still not have even a vague
>>>>> ability to discuss what is posted. No, no one is going to play
>>>>> teacher and class with you
>>
>>>> I doubt there are any qualified infant school teachers here to
>>>> assist him in his quest for Archaeology 101
>>
>>> Try following the usenet style guide.
>>
>> Link to this style guide, and specify what in it George is offending.
>
> No, I am interacting with grown-ups and they
> have the responsibility to look inside themselves
> re: their own moral behaviour. Something that
> the best of the Quakers did all the time in their
> Worship; not to mention Christians of all types.
Would these be the same Quakers who expelled you from their meeting for your
constant sdisruptions?
George
No. Neither is he a part of humissity but I'd never say that :-)
crunch
> On Nov 7, 3:54 pm, crunch <pchristain...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Nov 7, 4:22 pm, Tom McDonald <kilt...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Nov 7, 1:47 pm, crunch <pchristain...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Nov 7, 2:27 pm, George <gbl...@hnpl.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Nov 8, 8:13 am, Jack Linthicum <jacklinthi...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > > What puzzles me is that you can be exposed to as much about
> > > > > > archaeology as you have been and still not have even a vague ability
> > > > > > to discuss what is posted. No, no one is going to play teacher and
> > > > > > class with you
>
> > > > > I doubt there are any qualified infant school teachers here to assist
> > > > > him in his quest for Archaeology 101
>
> > > > Try following the usenet style guide.
>
> > > Link to this style guide, and specify what in it George is offending.
>
> > No, I am interacting with grown-ups and they
> > have the responsibility to look inside themselves
> > re: their own moral behaviour.
>
> As do you.
>
> But you referred to a specific standard of behavior, some purported
> 'usenet style guide'. It is up to you to specify what in that
> statement of recommended behavioral standards people are violating
> when you charge them to live up to those standards.
I don't have to specify it; Tom McDonald is a
grownup. Further, Tom McDonald is knowledgeable
(compliment) re: archaeology but does not realize
the full importance of comity among scientists although
he realizes the importance of co-operation within his
own circle on archaeological matters.
> I know you resist most requests for you to back up your statements.
> You will probably continue that pattern here. I wish you wouldn't; but
> you may not be able to help yourself.
I am outside your paradigm; there is no need for me
to back it up. You put on a pose of obtuseness.
Instead, you should review the exact words in this
thread that show the breaking of comity - a serious
matter.
> > Something that
> > the best of the Quakers did all the time in their
> > Worship; not to mention Christians of all types.
>
> This isn't a Christian or Quaker group. Your reference was to a
> secular document. Stop going off on irrelevant tangents.
It's not the secular document that is important; I say
that the breaking of comity is immoral behaviour.
> > So, ask yourself whether breaking comity in its
> > true meaning is rightful behaviour.
>
> Is 'breaking comity' like reporting funny news?
A serious matter.
> Or is it more like breaking wind? Now *that's* comity! Comedy!
> Whatever!
A serious matter.
> > May things go well with you.
>
> And you.
Right; this exchange is faintly Episcopalian (like just
after the worship session) but I want you to know that
I got my exact words from my background experience
with Chinese custom. I meant the words.
David Christainsen
crunch
I am not an off topic poster; your prejudice is showing.
Instead, you should reflect upon your own inappropriate
behaviour.
Further, as I have already made mention of; Google Scholar
is the place to get high-quality information on the
specialized topic of chocolate in ancient MesoAmerica.
Do not delude yourself into thinking that I lack the
skills to find the appropriate information and share
it to your satisfaction with sci.arch. Your attitude
is an obtuse pose that you should drop.
Peter Alaca
Let me remind you:
You said to George: "Try following the usenet style guide."
Tom replied: "Link to this style guide, and specify what in
it George is offending."
It is obvious that you can't because you talk like a
Chinese dog.
crunch
>...
> Would these be the same Quakers who expelled you from their meeting for your
> constant sdisruptions?
Since my character is being attacked, I will now defend
myself briefly.
My membership was removed from Wellesley Meeting in 2001.
My behaviour was above reasonable reproach; their
behaviour was insufficently quakerly. IOW my
roots in true quakerism was deeper than theirs.
When I spoke in Worship there, I was consistently
speaking in the Spirit.
I have interacted with Cambridge Meeting and others
in specific ways over the past year re: my serious
complaint against Wellesley Meeting for going off
the deep end of prejudice.
David Christainsen
crunch
>
> - Show quoted text -
I talk like a gentleman, something that is more
important than any selected set of facts concerning
a given archaeological subject.
Further, you have weakened your standing among
sci.archers because socially, your behaviour has
been wrong and needs correction on your part.
Tom McDonald
A Google search on 'Usenet style guide' gives a number of
results. I found no single 'Usenet style guide', but rather many
and varied and not uniform sets of suggested rules. If you mean
something specific, you *do* have to specify it. Rules of
evidence apply to you, too.
>> I know you resist most requests for you to back up your statements.
>> You will probably continue that pattern here. I wish you wouldn't; but
>> you may not be able to help yourself.
>
> I am outside your paradigm; there is no need for me
> to back it up.
I know you think you are singular as regards rules that you
expect all others to live by. You are not. I understand why you
are that way; your parents did a number on you, and you have to
think as you do in order to function.
But you are an adult, and the expectations that apply to other
adults apply equally to you.
I know you do not agree; emotionally, you *cannot* agree. But it
is true nonetheless.
> You put on a pose of obtuseness.
> Instead, you should review the exact words in this
> thread that show the breaking of comity - a serious
> matter.
Not as serious as failing to respect others' requests that affect
their RL. Yet that's something you have done. But you think you
are singular and special, not subject to the rules.
>>> Something that
>>> the best of the Quakers did all the time in their
>>> Worship; not to mention Christians of all types.
>> This isn't a Christian or Quaker group. Your reference was to a
>> secular document. Stop going off on irrelevant tangents.
>
> It's not the secular document that is important; I say
> that the breaking of comity is immoral behaviour.
>
>>> So, ask yourself whether breaking comity in its
>>> true meaning is rightful behaviour.
>> Is 'breaking comity' like reporting funny news?
>
> A serious matter.
>
>> Or is it more like breaking wind? Now *that's* comity! Comedy!
>> Whatever!
>
> A serious matter.
>
>>> May things go well with you.
>> And you.
>
> Right; this exchange is faintly Episcopalian (like just
> after the worship session) but I want you to know that
> I got my exact words from my background experience
> with Chinese custom. I meant the words.
As did, and do, I. I don't wish you any ill, no matter that I
sometimes get frustrated with your behavior.
--
Tom
When Tyrants tremble, sick with fear,
And hear their death-knell ringing;
When friends rejoice, both far and near,
How can I keep from singing.
Peter Alaca
Bwhahahaha!
This is sci.archaeology, not alt.dumbass.gentleman
> Further, you have weakened your standing among
> sci.archers because socially, your behaviour has
> been wrong and needs correction on your part.
You never established a 'standing' among sci.archers.
Fuck off.
Peter Alaca
> Do not delude yourself into thinking that I lack the
> skills to find the appropriate information and share
> it to your satisfaction with sci.arch.
Bwhahahahaha!
crunch
> crunch wrote:
> > On Nov 7, 5:11 pm, Tom McDonald <kilt...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Nov 7, 3:54 pm, crunch <pchristain...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> But you referred to a specific standard of behavior, some purported
> >> 'usenet style guide'. It is up to you to specify what in that
> >> statement of recommended behavioral standards people are violating
> >> when you charge them to live up to those standards.
>
> > I don't have to specify it; Tom McDonald is a
> > grownup. Further, Tom McDonald is knowledgeable
> > (compliment) re: archaeology but does not realize
> > the full importance of comity among scientists although
> > he realizes the importance of co-operation within his
> > own circle on archaeological matters.
>
> A Google search on 'Usenet style guide' gives a number of
> results. I found no single 'Usenet style guide', but rather many
> and varied and not uniform sets of suggested rules. If you mean
> something specific, you *do* have to specify it. Rules of
> evidence apply to you, too.
You forget that this a more FREE forum than a
courtroom. IOW it suffices for me to protest my
mocking by frivilous people.
> >> I know you resist most requests for you to back up your statements.
> >> You will probably continue that pattern here. I wish you wouldn't; but
> >> you may not be able to help yourself.
>
> > I am outside your paradigm; there is no need for me
> > to back it up.
>
> I know you think you are singular as regards rules that you
> expect all others to live by. You are not. I understand why you
> are that way; your parents did a number on you, and you have to
> think as you do in order to function.
I do not think I am singular.
> But you are an adult, and the expectations that apply to other
> adults apply equally to you.
>
> I know you do not agree; emotionally, you *cannot* agree. But it
> is true nonetheless.
You are no accurate judge of that.
> > You put on a pose of obtuseness.
> > Instead, you should review the exact words in this
> > thread that show the breaking of comity - a serious
> > matter.
>
> Not as serious as failing to respect others' requests that affect
> their RL. Yet that's something you have done. But you think you
> are singular and special, not subject to the rules.
That is your unwarranted assumption.
> >>> Something that
> >>> the best of the Quakers did all the time in their
> >>> Worship; not to mention Christians of all types.
> >> This isn't a Christian or Quaker group. Your reference was to a
> >> secular document. Stop going off on irrelevant tangents.
>
> > It's not the secular document that is important; I say
> > that the breaking of comity is immoral behaviour.
>
> >>> So, ask yourself whether breaking comity in its
> >>> true meaning is rightful behaviour.
> >> Is 'breaking comity' like reporting funny news?
>
> > A serious matter.
>
> >> Or is it more like breaking wind? Now *that's* comity! Comedy!
> >> Whatever!
>
> > A serious matter.
>
> >>> May things go well with you.
> >> And you.
>
> > Right; this exchange is faintly Episcopalian (like just
> > after the worship session) but I want you to know that
> > I got my exact words from my background experience
> > with Chinese custom. I meant the words.
>
> As did, and do, I. I don't wish you any ill, no matter that I
> sometimes get frustrated with your behavior.
>
> --
> Tom
>...
Yet, unknown to you, my behaviour has most recently
been to investigate Google Scholar under the broad
rubric of MesoAmerica and chocolate.
The result so far shows that drastic screening and
narrowing of the topic is needed because of a mammoth
number of matches.
So, the earliest date for use of chocolate among the Maya
on the archaeological evidence is fair game.
But also, were the beans put on a pedestal and
worshipped as an idol by the Maya?
Further, there is the Olmec in Honduras (1100 to 1400 BC)
if sci.archers take it back further as to use as a beverage
and cultivation. I must say I was not originally interested
in this broadening of scope of the topic.
Yet, there is a matter involved in sci.arch interaction
in this thread that disturbs me. Evidently, it is fair
game for Jack Linthicum to bring forward, as he did
in his first reply to my initial post, "documents in Maya
hieroglyphs". Nobody objected.
So, unless people specifically object and give good reasons,
I will feel free to bring up contents of Dead Sea Scrolls in
a different thread to support the idea of Essenes at
Qumran from an archaeological context. IOW the hypothesis
here is that the Qumran sectarians were of a Pythagorean
mentality. Symmetry, God's order, was uppermost. So,
that mentality should be revealed in the geographical layout
(a Plan of Qumran) for the buildings; also, celestial alignments.
Also, there are detailed measurements within each room.
Last, to put Essenes at Qumran is a very important
scholarly and archaeological issue that fully warrants
full discussion.
David Christainsen
crunch
Please try -
Chocolate in Mesoamerica: A Cultural
History of Cacao.
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/fulltext/121527527/PDFSTART
Extract -
Kufer and McNeil then examine ‘‘The Jaguar
Tree (Theobroma bicolor Bonpl.),’’ noting
especially its value in rituals. This chapter,
plus Simon Martin’s examination of cacao
use in ancient Maya religion, are of particular
interest to me in my search for ephemeral traces
of organic remains used in ritual contexts (see also chapter 19,
‘‘Cacao in Ch’orti’ Ritual’’ by J. Kufer and M. Heinrich).
-----
So, my interest here is a drastic reduction of scope -
the focus here is Maya religion and ritual. Are the
beans put on a pedestal and worshipped as an idol?
Why would the Maya do this?
David Christainsen
Jack Linthicum
> On Nov 7, 11:10 pm, George <gbl...@hnpl.net> wrote:
>
> > On Nov 8, 11:55 am, Peter Alaca <p.al...@invallid.invalid> wrote:
>
> > > George <gbl...@hnpl.net> 07/11/2009 23:37 wrote:
>
> > > > On Nov 8, 10:22 am, Tom McDonald <kilt...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > >> Link to this style guide, and specify what in it George is offending.
>
> > > > I'm offending an off topic poster (hopefully) so he will go away and
> > > > reflect upon his inability to interact with the rest of humanity
>
> > > Do you really think he is part of humanity?
>
> > No. Neither is he a part of humissity but I'd never say that :-)
>
> Please try -
>
> Chocolate in Mesoamerica: A Cultural
>
> Extract -
> Kufer and McNeil then examine ‘‘The Jaguar
> Tree (Theobroma bicolor Bonpl.),’’ noting
> especially its value in rituals. This chapter,
> plus Simon Martin’s examination of cacao
> use in ancient Maya religion, are of particular
> interest to me in my search for ephemeral traces
> of organic remains used in ritual contexts (see also chapter 19,
> ‘‘Cacao in Ch’orti’ Ritual’’ by J. Kufer and M. Heinrich).
>
> -----
>
> So, my interest here is a drastic reduction of scope -
> the focus here is Maya religion and ritual. Are the
> beans put on a pedestal and worshipped as an idol?
> Why would the Maya do this?
>
> David Christainsen
Some months ago I compared you to the small child at the family
reunion who thinks he can participate in the adult conversations. He
couldn't, you can't. Live with it.
Tom McDonald
> On Nov 8, 1:48 pm, Tom McDonald <tmcdonald2...@charter.net> wrote:
>> crunch wrote:
>>> On Nov 7, 5:11 pm, Tom McDonald <kilt...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On Nov 7, 3:54 pm, crunch <pchristain...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> ...
>>>> But you referred to a specific standard of behavior, some purported
>>>> 'usenet style guide'. It is up to you to specify what in that
>>>> statement of recommended behavioral standards people are violating
>>>> when you charge them to live up to those standards.
>>> I don't have to specify it; Tom McDonald is a
>>> grownup. Further, Tom McDonald is knowledgeable
>>> (compliment) re: archaeology but does not realize
>>> the full importance of comity among scientists although
>>> he realizes the importance of co-operation within his
>>> own circle on archaeological matters.
>> A Google search on 'Usenet style guide' gives a number of
>> results. I found no single 'Usenet style guide', but rather many
>> and varied and not uniform sets of suggested rules. If you mean
>> something specific, you *do* have to specify it. Rules of
>> evidence apply to you, too.
>
> You forget that this a more FREE forum than a
> courtroom.
It has been you pushing legalisms such as your vague 'Usenet
style guide' and some sort of barely relevant gentlemanly behavior.
What I, and others, have been asking you to do is to support your
assertions according to the normal scientific (like in 'sci.'
archaeology) rules of evidence. That *is* relevant on this ng.
> IOW it suffices for me to protest my
> mocking by frivilous people.
Then defend yourself; don't bring up some sort of rules that you
won't or can't specify.
>>>> I know you resist most requests for you to back up your statements.
>>>> You will probably continue that pattern here. I wish you wouldn't; but
>>>> you may not be able to help yourself.
>>> I am outside your paradigm; there is no need for me
>>> to back it up.
>> I know you think you are singular as regards rules that you
>> expect all others to live by. You are not. I understand why you
>> are that way; your parents did a number on you, and you have to
>> think as you do in order to function.
>
> I do not think I am singular.
I knew you would respond that way. It's your oppositional-defiant
behavior; makes you predictable.
>> But you are an adult, and the expectations that apply to other
>> adults apply equally to you.
>>
>> I know you do not agree; emotionally, you *cannot* agree. But it
>> is true nonetheless.
>
> You are no accurate judge of that.
Pretty good judge, though.
>>> You put on a pose of obtuseness.
>>> Instead, you should review the exact words in this
>>> thread that show the breaking of comity - a serious
>>> matter.
>> Not as serious as failing to respect others' requests that affect
>> their RL. Yet that's something you have done. But you think you
>> are singular and special, not subject to the rules.
>
> That is your unwarranted assumption.
Knew you'd respond with that, too.
Fine. Tell us what you've found.
But the Maya weren't the first to cultivate and use cacao. In
fact, a potentially more interesting question is how cacao got
from Amazonia to Honduras during rather early Olmec (pre-Maya) times.
> But also, were the beans put on a pedestal and
> worshipped as an idol by the Maya?
I don't know. What have you found?
> Further, there is the Olmec in Honduras (1100 to 1400 BC)
> if sci.archers take it back further as to use as a beverage
> and cultivation. I must say I was not originally interested
> in this broadening of scope of the topic.
That's more interesting than when the Maya first used it.
> Yet, there is a matter involved in sci.arch interaction
> in this thread that disturbs me. Evidently, it is fair
> game for Jack Linthicum to bring forward, as he did
> in his first reply to my initial post, "documents in Maya
> hieroglyphs". Nobody objected.
Why would anyone? It was used as one of many bits of evidence
regarding cacao use.
> So, unless people specifically object and give good reasons,
> I will feel free to bring up contents of Dead Sea Scrolls in
> a different thread to support the idea of Essenes at
> Qumran from an archaeological context.
I knew you were trying to use this to give you another excuse to
bring up Thiering.
The difference here is that Jack wouldn't use the codices as an
excuse to pound and pound and pound on the cacao issue.
You don't need an excuse to pound and pound and pound on the DSS
and the Essenes. You do it whether there is valid reason or not.
Why not just do what you're going to do, and stop worrying about
some fig leaf of supposed archaeological context?
> IOW the hypothesis
> here is that the Qumran sectarians were of a Pythagorean
> mentality. Symmetry, God's order, was uppermost. So,
> that mentality should be revealed in the geographical layout
> (a Plan of Qumran) for the buildings; also, celestial alignments.
> Also, there are detailed measurements within each room.
Nothing to do with cacao or healing. IOW, OT in your own thread.
> Last, to put Essenes at Qumran is a very important
> scholarly and archaeological issue that fully warrants
> full discussion.
Only for those interested. No one here is.
crunch
If the shoe fits, wear it; you are deeply prejudiced.
Where is your inner Light? (quakerism)
-----
Further, the narrowed scope is religion and ritual of
the Maya re: chocolate. This is different from how
chocolate is used for healing in the past and the
present.
If you don't want to participate in the sci.arch
discussion, just drop out.
Tom McDonald
> On Nov 8, 2:41 pm, crunch <pchristain...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On Nov 7, 11:10 pm, George <gbl...@hnpl.net> wrote:
>>
>>> On Nov 8, 11:55 am, Peter Alaca <p.al...@invallid.invalid> wrote:
>>>> George <gbl...@hnpl.net> 07/11/2009 23:37 wrote:
>>>>> On Nov 8, 10:22 am, Tom McDonald <kilt...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> Link to this style guide, and specify what in it George is offending.
>>>>> I'm offending an off topic poster (hopefully) so he will go away and
>>>>> reflect upon his inability to interact with the rest of humanity
>>>> Do you really think he is part of humanity?
>>> No. Neither is he a part of humissity but I'd never say that :-)
>> Please try -
>>
>> Chocolate in Mesoamerica: A Cultural
>> History of Cacao.http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/fulltext/121527527/PDFSTART
>>
>> Extract -
>> Tree (Theobroma bicolor Bonpl.),�� noting
>> especially its value in rituals. This chapter,
>> use in ancient Maya religion, are of particular
>> interest to me in my search for ephemeral traces
>> of organic remains used in ritual contexts (see also chapter 19,
>>
>> -----
>>
>> So, my interest here is a drastic reduction of scope -
>> the focus here is Maya religion and ritual. Are the
>> beans put on a pedestal and worshipped as an idol?
>> Why would the Maya do this?
>>
>> David Christainsen
>
> Some months ago I compared you to the small child at the family
> reunion who thinks he can participate in the adult conversations. He
> couldn't, you can't. Live with it.
I think this is perspicacious. In my opinion, that is exactly
what is going on. It was probably cute 60 years ago; not so much
now. Now it's just sad.
crunch
No, I made reference to usenet style guide. Yet,
I insist on gentlemanly behaviour and it is completely
relevant. There cannot be co-operation among
sci.archers without comity.
> What I, and others, have been asking you to do is to support your
> assertions according to the normal scientific (like in 'sci.'
> archaeology) rules of evidence. That *is* relevant on this ng.
I already gave a scholarly reference for 2008. What is
important is the narrowed subject matter itself, not assertions.
There is a difference.
> > IOW it suffices for me to protest my
> > mocking by frivilous people.
>
> Then defend yourself; don't bring up some sort of rules that you
> won't or can't specify.
Excuse me - I will do my protest my way, which I
think is effective because you are reacting to it (because
I suspect that you think there is a germ of truth to it)
> >>>> I know you resist most requests for you to back up your statements.
> >>>> You will probably continue that pattern here. I wish you wouldn't; but
> >>>> you may not be able to help yourself.
> >>> I am outside your paradigm; there is no need for me
> >>> to back it up.
> >> I know you think you are singular as regards rules that you
> >> expect all others to live by. You are not. I understand why you
> >> are that way; your parents did a number on you, and you have to
> >> think as you do in order to function.
>
> > I do not think I am singular.
>
> I knew you would respond that way. It's your oppositional-defiant
> behavior; makes you predictable.
Your psychological training gets in your own way. Mine
is not defiant etc. Instead, you will bend to my truth that
there be comity on sci.arch.
> >> But you are an adult, and the expectations that apply to other
> >> adults apply equally to you.
>
> >> I know you do not agree; emotionally, you *cannot* agree. But it
> >> is true nonetheless.
>
> > You are no accurate judge of that.
>
> Pretty good judge, though.
Not in the shadow world that is usenet.
> >>> You put on a pose of obtuseness.
> >>> Instead, you should review the exact words in this
> >>> thread that show the breaking of comity - a serious
> >>> matter.
> >> Not as serious as failing to respect others' requests that affect
> >> their RL. Yet that's something you have done. But you think you
> >> are singular and special, not subject to the rules.
>
> > That is your unwarranted assumption.
>
> Knew you'd respond with that, too.
I really would feel more comfortable if you focused
on archaeology, not personality clash.
Actually, for now, Jack's 400 AD will do. I have limited
time for Google Scholar.
> How can I keep from singing.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
Peter Alaca
> No, I made reference to usenet style guide. Yet,
> I insist on gentlemanly behaviour and it is completely
> relevant. There cannot be co-operation among
> sci.archers without comity.
>
There will be no such thing as long as you are around.
In you megalomania you started a war here, and you will
face the consequences.
You are on no position to insist on something here.
crunch
You quite mistaken in your position. Further, on the
subject of gentlemanly behaviour on sci.arch, I will
argue with the Devil, if necessary, because I am right
on the issue of comity and you are not.
---
I started no war; you missed that I gave a scholarly
reference for 2008. Then again, in conversation with
me Tom McDonald said that more information on how
the bean spread from Amazonia to Honduras would
be interesting. Why don't you contribute some
archaeological info on that?
---
Further, I intend to cross-post on Dr. Thiering on the
correct intercalation method for sectarian calendar
science (Qumran). It is not a runaway pounding job
by me. Quite the opposite, it is highly obscure and
esoteric scholarship that I publicize.
For your ears -
This thread shows that contents of Maya hieroglyphs
are legitimate for sci.arch (please read what Tom
McDonald said about it). Thus, since I have deep
knowledge, I will publicize Dr. Thiering scholarship.
If you attack me for doing it, I will blow you out of the
water morally and ethically.
David Christainsen
Peter Alaca
> On Nov 8, 4:15 pm, Peter Alaca <p.al...@invallid.invalid> wrote:
>> crunch <pchristain...@yahoo.com> 08/11/2009 21:50 wrote:
>>
>>> No, I made reference to usenet style guide. Yet,
>>> I insist on gentlemanly behaviour and it is completely
>>> relevant. There cannot be co-operation among
>>> sci.archers without comity.
>> There will be no such thing as long as you are around.
>> In you megalomania you started a war here, and you will
>> face the consequences.
>> You are on no position to insist on something here.
>
> You quite mistaken in your position.
I said nothing about /my/ position
> Further, on the
> subject of gentlemanly behaviour on sci.arch, I will
> argue with the Devil, if necessary, because I am right
> on the issue of comity and you are not.
So go away and fuck the devil.
> I started no war; you missed that I gave a scholarly
> reference for 2008. Then again, in conversation with
> me Tom McDonald
Conversation? You? Bwahahaha!