cocaine mummies redux
Bernard Ortiz de Montellano
*Erythroxylon coca* contains cocaine. However, if you check J. Duke's
ethnobotany/medicinal plants databases at www.ars-grin.gov/duke/index.html
you will see that a number of *Erythroxylon species* contain cocaine.
a couple *E. recurrens* with cocaine at 3000 ppm and *E. stermarkii* with
1100 ppm are in the ball park for *E. coca* 2000-13000 ppm. At the moment,
I do not have the distribution for E. recurrens or steyermarkii but the
genus occurs in Madagascar. Perhpas intersted ng readers with a handy
University library could find out for us.
--
Bernard Ortiz de Montellano
Steve Whittet
bor...@earthlink.netg says...
My understanding was that the mummies tested positive for cocaine
using a test considered so definite that people are imprisoned on
its basis.
Are you now claiming that in the 12th Dynasty the ancient Egyptians
were voyaging as far south as Madagascar? The "ship wrecked sailor"
only goes as far as Punt.
If your hypothesis were correct and the Egyptians reached Madagascar,
the currents around Madagascar flow south at 12 knots, how would the
Egyptians get back?
So far as I know they first reached Madagascar in the reign of Neco I
and had to circumnavigated Africa to get home...
The cocaine mummies date to considerably earlier. Your assumption
that a species from Madagascar may be used to show the Egyptians
were staying close to home seems to trend in rather the opposite
direction.
Your explanation is something less than satisfactory.
>
>--
>Bernard Ortiz de Montellano
steve
joshua geller
I am not sure why people seem to have so much trouble with the idea
that folks were traveling back and forth a long time ago. The
arguments against it all seem to boil down to "I don't think that it
happened. Here, let me explain away your evidence."
My best,
josh
Doug Weller
0700, dcl...@shell5.ba.best.com said...
the past most of these suggestions have been along the lines of 'the
indigenous people (usually called natives or something less polite)
weren't clever enough to have done this, so it must have been the Celts,
Egyptians, whoever'. This approach still exists, too often with an even
more overtly racist message.
And all evidence should be challenged to see if it stands up.
Doug
--
Doug Weller Moderator, sci.archaeology.moderated
Submissions to:sci-archaeol...@medieval.org
Requests To: arch-mo...@ucl.ac.uk
Co-owner UK-Schools mailing list: email me for details
Bernard Ortiz de Montellano
Whittet) wrote:
I wasn't explaining anything. I was pointing out that the assumptin that
the only species containing cocaine is E. coca is wrong that there are
other species. I was then asking where these species occurred. The book I
looked at says that Erythroxylon species are found in Madagascar but I do
not yet know if the two I listed are found there.
If cocaine is found in plants in Africa then it would be a more
parsimonious explanation than a round trip to the New World.
David D Vantasil
difficult to accept the simplest explanations. If it isn't shrouded in
romantic, religious mystery....than it must have never happenned.
David
joshua geller <dcl...@shell5.ba.best.com> wrote in article
<ypvlnop...@shell5.ba.best.com>...
>
> I am not sure why people seem to have so much trouble with the idea
> that folks were traveling back and forth a long time ago. The
> arguments against it all seem to boil down to "I don't think that it
> happened. Here, let me explain away your evidence."
>
> My best,
>
> josh
>
joshua geller
> In article <ypvlnop...@shell5.ba.best.com>, on 16 Aug 1998 07:47:13 -
> 0700, dcl...@shell5.ba.best.com said...
> > I am not sure why people seem to have so much trouble with the idea
> > that folks were traveling back and forth a long time ago. The
> > arguments against it all seem to boil down to "I don't think that it
> > happened. Here, let me explain away your evidence."
> You probably don't know the history behind this then. In a nutshell, in
> the past most of these suggestions have been along the lines of 'the
> indigenous people (usually called natives or something less polite)
> weren't clever enough to have done this, so it must have been the Celts,
> Egyptians, whoever'. This approach still exists, too often with an even
> more overtly racist message.
That's not my position, Doug.
> And all evidence should be challenged to see if it stands up.
Do you think that this is a wholesome thing, Doug? This jumping to
conclusions based on preconceived notions that y'all engage in?
Have you finished "Night Lamp" Doug?
My best,
josh
David D Vantasil
about?.........I'm curious..............David
joshua geller <dcl...@shell5.ba.best.com> wrote in article
<ypv7m08...@shell5.ba.best.com>...
Larry Elmore
>
>If your hypothesis were correct and the Egyptians reached Madagascar,
>the currents around Madagascar flow south at 12 knots, how would the
>Egyptians get back?
A _12 knot_ ocean current? That seems rather extreme to me. Are you sure it
isn't 1.2 knots?
Larry
joshua geller
"Night Lamp" is a novel by the Sage of Oakland, perhaps the finest
living writer in American, Mr. Jack Vance.
It is very, very good. Everyone should read it.
My best,
josh
___
Mark Richardson
Steve Whittet <whi...@shore.net> wrote in article
<6r6m87$2...@fridge.shore.net>...
> In article <bortiz-1508...@ip213.austin8.tx.pub-ip.psi.net>,
> bor...@earthlink.netg says...
> >
> >Most of the discussion on this topic starts with the assumption that
only
> >*Erythroxylon coca* contains cocaine. However, if you check J. Duke's
> >ethnobotany/medicinal plants databases at
www.ars-grin.gov/duke/index.html
> >you will see that a number of *Erythroxylon species* contain cocaine.
> >
> >
> >a couple *E. recurrens* with cocaine at 3000 ppm and *E. stermarkii*
with
> >1100 ppm are in the ball park for *E. coca* 2000-13000 ppm. At the
moment,
> >I do not have the distribution for E. recurrens or steyermarkii but the
> >genus occurs in Madagascar. Perhpas intersted ng readers with a handy
> >University library could find out for us.
>
> My understanding was that the mummies tested positive for cocaine
> using a test considered so definite that people are imprisoned on
> its basis.
>
>>Large Snip>.
>
> Your explanation is something less than satisfactory.
I do not think that Bernard was saying that the Ancient Egyptians went to
Madagascar for cocaine but that a species of E. recurrens and E stermakii
have the properties which might leave traces of cocaine in the mummies. If
the distribution of either is more appropriate to Ancient Egyptian contacts
then there would be an answer.
However, I am puzzled in that there were plenty of written and pictorial
references to the making and drinking of beer for example. If narcotics
were employed by the Ancient Egyptians for either recreational of medicinal
purposes - and I am sure that this was the case - would there not be either
written or pictorial sources for cocaine if used for either purpose? If
these do not exist would it be possible for the traces to have occured via
the embalming process and the cocaine trace carrier by amongst the
consituents of the "recipe" for that process.
It would seem that if the Ancient Egyptians were either competent
themselves to go to South America for cocaine or, if the South Americans
were competent to travel to Egypt to sell it, someone would have made some
sort of reference to it in contemporary records. After all, it would not
have been a normal everyday business transaction and the Egyptians were
pretty good at describing those with whom they had any sort of dealings.
Mark Richardson
T. Savage
http://www.plantamerica.org/palink.htm
You can search on common & scientific name. Very powerful search engine.
Bernard Ortiz de Montellano wrote:
> Most of the discussion on this topic starts with the assumption that only
> *Erythroxylon coca* contains cocaine. However, if you check J. Duke's
> ethnobotany/medicinal plants databases at www.ars-grin.gov/duke/index.html
> you will see that a number of *Erythroxylon species* contain cocaine.
>
> a couple *E. recurrens* with cocaine at 3000 ppm and *E. stermarkii* with
> 1100 ppm are in the ball park for *E. coca* 2000-13000 ppm. At the moment,
> I do not have the distribution for E. recurrens or steyermarkii but the
> genus occurs in Madagascar. Perhpas intersted ng readers with a handy
> University library could find out for us.
>
Yuri Kuchinsky
: In article <ypvlnop...@shell5.ba.best.com>, on 16 Aug 1998 07:47:13 -
: 0700, dcl...@shell5.ba.best.com said...
: >
: > I am not sure why people seem to have so much trouble with the idea
: > that folks were traveling back and forth a long time ago. The
: > arguments against it all seem to boil down to "I don't think that it
: > happened. Here, let me explain away your evidence."
: You probably don't know the history behind this then. In a nutshell, in
: the past most of these suggestions have been along the lines of 'the
: indigenous people (usually called natives or something less polite)
: weren't clever enough to have done this, so it must have been the Celts,
: Egyptians, whoever'. This approach still exists, too often with an even
: more overtly racist message.
Well, this reply by Doug sure made me think a bit...
Myself, I generally resent when political agendas are being dragged in
into the study of history, which should be done scientifically, which
should exclude all personal political agendas from being introduced.
AFAIAC, historians should do historical science, and do it scientifically.
Period.
But here Doug is suggesting that it is legitimate to question the motives
of researchers, and to suggest that they may be pursuing personal
political/racist agendas. I don't know, maybe he's right? Maybe it is
acceptable to assume that researchers in certain areas of historical
anthropology (such as Diffusionism?) can be assumed to be racist-motivated
until proven otherwise? Who knows...
But, for my own part, I'm especially interested to uncover the truth about
the great cultural achievements of ancient Native Americans. I believe
there's plenty of evidence that they stronlgy influenced ancient
Polynesian civilizations. Also brought considerable cultural influences to
ancient India, along with maize and some other crops, such as sunflower.
All this can be proven scientifically, I believe, and will be proven so
eventually.
But in this research I'm constantly, and often almost fanatically opposed
by certain seemingly prejudiced individuals like Mr. Stone and Greg. So,
using Doug's logic, am I not justified to suspect hidden political bias?
Perhaps we should suspect Eurocentrism or even hidden racism in such
cases? I think Doug may agree with me on this.
Look at the famous scholar Lanning, for example. Here's the guy who's
examining rudders from ancient burials in Southern Peru. These are
rudders. They have rudders written all over them. There's really no doubt
about this. But he claims they're common shovels!!!
What kind of a bias is this? Shouldn't we agree with Doug and conclude
that the assumption here seems to be that 'the indigenous people weren't
clever enough to have done this'?
Is this perhaps just plain ol' racism that prevents Lanning from crediting
ancient Native Americans with these technological achievements? I shure
think this is very possible...
Regards,
Yuri.
Yuri Kuchinsky -=O=- http://www.globalserve.net/~yuku UPDATED
We found a large number of books in these characters and, as they
contained nothing in which there were not to be seen superstition and
lies of the devil, we burned them all, which they regretted to an amazing
degree === Bishop Diego de Landa on his dealings with the Mayans.
Richard Fedrick
Yuri Kuchinsky wrote in message <6r9k5l$764$1...@whisper.globalserve.net>...
>Look at the famous scholar Lanning, for example. Here's the guy who's
>examining rudders from ancient burials in Southern Peru. These are
>rudders. They have rudders written all over them. There's really no doubt
>about this. But he claims they're common shovels!!!
>
so let's make this clear. on the one hand we have an accredited
archaeologist / anthropologist, who has actually handled these objects, and
studied them, and he concludes that they are shovels. on the other, an
amateur who has done no more than see some photographs, and he claims (no!
insists! "there's really no doubt....") that they are rudders.
now folks, place your bets.
richard
Yuri Kuchinsky
: I do not think that Bernard was saying that the Ancient Egyptians went to
: Madagascar for cocaine but that a species of E. recurrens and E stermakii
: have the properties which might leave traces of cocaine in the mummies. If
: the distribution of either is more appropriate to Ancient Egyptian contacts
: then there would be an answer.
"If"? This is a big "if".
So far all this speculation about other non-American members of the genus
_Erythroxylon_ containing any significant amounts of alcaloid cocaine is
nothing more than a bunch of wouldas-couldas.
It's not like scientists haven't looked for such plants in Africa already.
The problem is that they did not find any as yet.
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"
Doug Weller
0700, dcl...@shell5.ba.best.com said...
> dwe...@ramtops.demon.co.uk (Doug Weller) writes:
> > In article <ypvlnop...@shell5.ba.best.com>, on 16 Aug 1998 07:47:13 -
> > 0700, dcl...@shell5.ba.best.com said...
>
> > > I am not sure why people seem to have so much trouble with the idea
> > > that folks were traveling back and forth a long time ago. The
> > > arguments against it all seem to boil down to "I don't think that it
> > > happened. Here, let me explain away your evidence."
>
> > You probably don't know the history behind this then. In a nutshell, in
> > the past most of these suggestions have been along the lines of 'the
> > indigenous people (usually called natives or something less polite)
> > weren't clever enough to have done this, so it must have been the Celts,
> > Egyptians, whoever'. This approach still exists, too often with an even
> > more overtly racist message.
>
I know that, Josh.
> > And all evidence should be challenged to see if it stands up.
>
> Do you think that this is a wholesome thing, Doug? This jumping to
> conclusions based on preconceived notions that y'all engage in?
Josh, you ask if it is a wholesome thing to challenge evidence and then,
it appears, equate this with a red herring about jumping to conclusions
(aimed at some group of people).
> Have you finished "Night Lamp" Doug?
Still trying to get it.
Mycos
>However, I am puzzled in that there were plenty of written and pictorial
>references to the making and drinking of beer for example. If narcotics
>were employed by the Ancient Egyptians for either recreational of medicinal
>purposes - and I am sure that this was the case - would there not be either
>written or pictorial sources for cocaine if used for either purpose? If
>these do not exist would it be possible for the traces to have occured via
>the embalming process and the cocaine trace carrier by amongst the
>consituents of the "recipe" for that process.
snipped
>Mark Richardson
I suppose a check of this hypothesis would be to see if there are any
alkaloids present in animal mummies, for which there is a plentiful
supply. This would'nt be definite because of the possibility of a
different "recipe" for animals and humans but , if it were present in
animal mummies, this would strongly suggest that coca was simply a
part of the recipe.
Gary Williams
>
Remove ! from address to reply
Con-Tiki
Now everyone is onto this thread, I thought I would add some more.
The main discussion here is about the Egyptians bringing the Cocaine
substances to Egypt.
But what about others?
Take this, either:
(1) The Cocaine or plant of origin came from old world.
The first option could have been possible. The Egyptians made their
expedition to the land of Punt at about 1460bc. Considering the land of
Punt was probably down the east coast of Africa, that expedition or
later expeditions might have discovered Madagascar or a place that
traded with it.
The first problem with the old world Egyptian-Cocaine idea, is that,
although some plants contain Cocaine-like substances, the amount present
is tiny. For sizeable amounts to be present in the Mummies, either vast
quantities of one of the known plants would have had to consumed, or an
unknown plant would have existed.
The second problem is that if the Egyptians had been directly trading
in drugs, then surely they would have brought the source plant back to
Egypt with them. If the Egyptians hadn't brought back the source plant
with them, then it implies they either didn't know what it was &/or they
were buying the Cocaine from a third party. This third party could have
been Phoenicians. They are the most likely candidates, though others are
possible. A single Phoenician trade group could have made more money by
keeping the source location and plant a secrete.
-
(2) The Cocaine or Coca came from America.
The second option would have been more likely. This is because Coca is
the only known plant that contains large amounts of Cocaine can be
derived from (please correct me if I'm wrong here). That a plant
containing sizable amounts of Cocaine in the old world could go
unnoticed is unlikely (but possible, & don't forget that). If
Phoenicians had discovered America & obtained Cocaine from the Indians,
then they could have onsold it to the Egyptians without bringing Coca
back to the old world (trusting Cocaine has a long enough shelf live to
survive the voyage). If the Phoenicians had discovered the Americas,
then it would have been in their best interests to keep its existence
secrete. Trade with the peoples of central & north America could have
been quite valuable. That is where Tobacco comes from also. Vast amounts
of nicotine were found in the Mummies, suggesting it was used in the
Mummification process. The distance of America is not a huge amount more
that the distance to Madagascar, with the Phoenicians navigational
skills its impossible to say they were incapable of such a journey.
-
So we have:
(1) The Cocaine & Nicotine or plant of origin came from the old world.
Meaning the Cocaine came from an unknown plant, an unknown
destination & from an unknown trading network.
Meaning the Nicotine came from an unknown plant, an unknown
destination & from an unknown trading network.
(2) The Cocaine & Nicotine came from the new world.
Meaning the Cocaine came from a known plant, an known destination &
from an unknown trading network.
Meaning the Nicotine came from a known plant, an known destination
& from an unknown trading network.
-
To add, if the drugs came from the old world, then its source location
& plant would have been far more likely to have been mentioned somewhere
in ancient texts. As a trade market like this near the Mediterranean
civilization centre would have much harder to miss by competing traders.
The Atlantic was the great unknown. If a rich source of trade had been
discovered there, than it would more easily have been forgotten, after
the Phoenician states ceased to exist.
-
An ancient greek author (Diodorus Siculus) said that the Phoenicians
had discovered beyond Africa, an island of considerable size, very
mountainous, with some navigable rivers.
As is obvious, the description could only have been Madagascar or S.
America.
Eight Carthaginian coins were discovered in the Azores, west of Africa
about 200 years ago.
-
Until more evidence is found from different fields, no absolute
solution can be set in stone. But the America trading contact idea still
remains the most likely at the present time.
-
thanks,
bye.
---------------
-Con Tiki-
--------------
-"The truth will overcome all who stand in its way"-
-"And the same people once did say the world was flat"-
-"The proof is out there"-
-"Think differently"-
-"Start the Revolution"-
-------------
http:/www.geocities.com/athens/troy/4059/
-------------
Yuri Kuchinsky
: Yuri Kuchinsky wrote in message <6r9k5l$764$1...@whisper.globalserve.net>...
How interesting. So you still insist that these are "shovels"? Have you
actually seen these artifacts? Or are you basing your view merely on
"someone said so"?
Yuri.
Yuri Kuchinsky -=O=- http://www.trends.ca/~yuku
Reality is that which, when you stop believing
in it, doesn't go away -=O=- Philip K. Dick
Richard Fedrick
Yuri Kuchinsky wrote in message <6rc411$peb$4...@news.trends.ca>...
>Richard Fedrick (richard...@bigfoot.com) wrote:
>: Yuri Kuchinsky wrote in message <6r9k5l$764$1...@whisper.globalserve.net>...
>
>: >Look at the famous scholar Lanning, for example. Here's the guy who's
>: >examining rudders from ancient burials in Southern Peru. These are
>: >rudders. They have rudders written all over them. There's really no
doubt
>: >about this. But he claims they're common shovels!!!
>: >
>:
>: so let's make this clear. on the one hand we have an accredited
>: archaeologist / anthropologist, who has actually handled these objects,
and
>: studied them, and he concludes that they are shovels. on the other, an
>: amateur who has done no more than see some photographs, and he claims
(no!
>: insists! "there's really no doubt....") that they are rudders.
>:
>: now folks, place your bets.
>
>How interesting. So you still insist that these are "shovels"? Have you
>actually seen these artifacts? Or are you basing your view merely on
>"someone said so"?
all i have to go on is (a) an acknowledged expert, who thinks they are
shovels; (b) a tedious amateur, who thinks they are rudders.
not even close.
richard
Bernard Ortiz de Montellano
<con-...@geocities.com> wrote:
SNIP
> (2) The Cocaine or Coca came from America.
>
> The second option would have been more likely. This is because Coca is
> the only known plant that contains large amounts of Cocaine can be
> derived from (please correct me if I'm wrong here).
The post that I began this thread with gave at least two Erythroxylon
recurrens and Erythroxylon steyermarkii that contained cocaine in the
range of the concentrations found in Erythoxylon coca (the South American
coca plant), i.e greater than 1000 parts per million or 1 percent. That
was the whole point of my post !!!! That there are other species of the
genus Erythroxylon that contain sufficient cocaine. There are hundreds of
others species with trace amounts.
The question I raised is where these two species are to be found? We are
still working on that one
--
Bernard Ortiz de Montellano
Yuri Kuchinsky
: Yuri Kuchinsky wrote in message <6rc411$peb$4...@news.trends.ca>...
: >How interesting. So you still insist that these are "shovels"? Have you
: >actually seen these artifacts? Or are you basing your view merely on
: >"someone said so"?
: all i have to go on is (a) an acknowledged expert, who thinks they are
: shovels; (b) a tedious amateur, who thinks they are rudders.
:
: not even close.
Why an ad hominem, Richard? Are you now getting hot under the collar, or
what?
Now, let's see...
Apparently you're still not sure these are shovels. But you incline to
think they're shovels. This could be because,
a) an "expert" said so,
b) in your view, the indigenous people weren't clever enough to have done
this,
c) both.
Now, Richard, which one would it be?
And if your answer is a), are you sure b) did not influence your views in
any way?
Regards,
Yuri.
Yuri Kuchinsky -=O=- http://www.trends.ca/~yuku
You never need think you can turn over any old falsehoods without a
terrible squirming of the horrid little population that dwells under
it -=O=- Oliver Wendell Holmes
Richard Fedrick
Yuri Kuchinsky wrote in message <6rcboh$qvv$2...@news.trends.ca>...
>Richard Fedrick (richard...@bigfoot.com) wrote:
>: Yuri Kuchinsky wrote in message <6rc411$peb$4...@news.trends.ca>...
>
>: >How interesting. So you still insist that these are "shovels"? Have you
>: >actually seen these artifacts? Or are you basing your view merely on
>: >"someone said so"?
>
>: all i have to go on is (a) an acknowledged expert, who thinks they are
>: shovels; (b) a tedious amateur, who thinks they are rudders.
>:
>: not even close.
>
>Why an ad hominem, Richard? Are you now getting hot under the collar, or
>what?
i come to SAM as an interested amateur, looking to learn from acknowledged
experts. i regard the hijacking of a technical newsgroup by amateurs with
their own agenda (diffusion, atlantis, pacal was a spaceman, etc etc etc) as
a particularly pernicious form of spam. [luckily, the excellent AZTLAN
exists, which by virtue of being moderated succeeds in barring contributions
from people like you].
>Now, let's see...
>
>Apparently you're still not sure these are shovels. But you incline to
>think they're shovels. This could be because,
>
>a) an "expert" said so,
>b) in your view, the indigenous people weren't clever enough to have done
>this,
>c) both.
>
>Now, Richard, which one would it be?
>
>And if your answer is a), are you sure b) did not influence your views in
>any way?
>
yes, quite sure, thank you.
richard
Yuri Kuchinsky
: Yuri Kuchinsky wrote in message <6rcboh$qvv$2...@news.trends.ca>...
: >Richard Fedrick (richard...@bigfoot.com) wrote:
: >: Yuri Kuchinsky wrote in message <6rc411$peb$4...@news.trends.ca>...
: >: >How interesting. So you still insist that these are "shovels"? Have you
: >: >actually seen these artifacts? Or are you basing your view merely on
: >: >"someone said so"?
: >
: >: all i have to go on is (a) an acknowledged expert, who thinks they are
: >: shovels; (b) a tedious amateur, who thinks they are rudders.
: >:
: >: not even close.
: >
: >Why an ad hominem, Richard? Are you now getting hot under the collar, or
: >what?
: i come to SAM as an interested amateur, looking to learn from
acknowledged : experts. i regard the hijacking of a technical newsgroup by
amateurs with : their own agenda (diffusion, atlantis, pacal was a
spaceman, etc etc etc) as : a particularly pernicious form of spam.
Red herring. I'm not a diffusionist, as I've stated many a time.
Not only you're an amateur, but also you're obviously quite uninformed
about what is being discussed here.
: [luckily, the excellent AZTLAN : exists, which by virtue of being
moderated succeeds in barring contributions : from people like you].
Obviously, you're also quite clued out about what's going on on Aztlan-L.
Are you really reading it? So how come you've missed a few of my recent
posts to Aztlan? Quite a few people liked them, you know...
Or are your just making these things up as you go along?
: >Now, let's see...
: >
: >Apparently you're still not sure these are shovels. But you incline to
: >think they're shovels. This could be because,
: >
: >a) an "expert" said so,
: >b) in your view, the indigenous people weren't clever enough to have done
: >this,
: >c) both.
: >
: >Now, Richard, which one would it be?
: >
: >And if your answer is a), are you sure b) did not influence your views in
: >any way?
: yes, quite sure, thank you.
Why are you being so evasive? What do you have to hide?
As far as I can see, there are two possibilities. Either you're a mindless
follower of any "expert" who happens to come along. Or you have a hidden
political agenda that leads you to dismiss the creative achievements of
Native Americans out of hand.
Which one would it be, Richard?
Yuri Kuchinsky
: Yuri Kuchinsky wrote:
: > Richard Fedrick (richard...@bigfoot.com) wrote:
: > : i come to SAM as an interested amateur, looking to learn from
: > acknowledged : experts. i regard the hijacking of a technical newsgroup by
: > amateurs with : their own agenda (diffusion, atlantis, pacal was a
: > spaceman, etc etc etc) as : a particularly pernicious form of spam.
: >
: > Red herring. I'm not a diffusionist, as I've stated many a time.
: hmm, seems that you are the only one who thinks you are not a
: diffusionist.
I think I should know better who I am? Just who are you, Burglin, to judge
my being or not being a diffusionist?
...
[Yuri:]
: > : >And if your answer is a), are you sure b) did not influence your views in
: > : >any way?
: >
: > : yes, quite sure, thank you.
: > Why are you being so evasive? What do you have to hide?
: evasive???????????????
Yes!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
He did not give a clear answer to my question. But you have well known
problems with English comprehension. My guess is that you have the same
problems with German comprehension.
: he just made a statement that
: for him this things are shovels and not paddels, no more.
The chance of these being shovels is maybe 1 in a 100. Even less, I'd say.
: > As far as I can see, there are two possibilities. Either you're a mindless
: > follower of any "expert" who happens to come along. Or you have a hidden
: > political agenda that leads you to dismiss the creative achievements of
: > Native Americans out of hand.
: pfff, to follow and expert is "mindless", gee.
A mindless follower is the one who refuses to look at the evidence for
him/herself. I've already given sufficient evidence to show that these are
not shovels. Thus he's a mindless follower. Perhaps even a brainless
follower.
: how silly, after all,
: an expert spends time to study the thing in more detail than anybody
: else.
If an expert is motivated by racist preconceptions, his expertise is
tainted severely.
: sure, even an expert can be wrong, but less likely than anybody else.
The fact that Burglin thinks these are shovels makes it very clear where
he's coming from.
Disgusting.
Yuri.
Yuri Kuchinsky -=O=- http://www.trends.ca/~yuku NEWLY UPDATED
Peter van Rossum
<snip>
>I think I should know better who I am? Just who are you, Burglin, to judge
>my being or not being a diffusionist?
I think someone who'd be in a better position to judge would be someone who
actually understands the meaning of the word diffusionist. Whether you like it
or not Yuri, you are in fact a diffusionist - and no that's not necessarily
an insult.
<snip>
>A mindless follower is the one who refuses to look at the evidence for
>him/herself. I've already given sufficient evidence to show that these are
>not shovels. Thus he's a mindless follower. Perhaps even a brainless
>follower.
<snip>
>Yuri.
Might a mindless and/or brainless follower also be someone who reads a
statement by an "expert", believes the "expert" be wrong about the statement,
yet still goes ahead to post it as a known fact? Do we know anyone around
here who would do that? Have a good look in the mirror, Yuri.
Peter van Rossum
PMV...@PSU.EDU
Doug Weller
yu...@mail.trends.ca said...
>
> Red herring. I'm not a diffusionist, as I've stated many a time.
>
Diffusionism is the belief that ideas and material culture have moved
across space and through time. I always find it strange that Yuri claims
not to believe this and yet makes the claims he makes.
Doug
Doug Weller
yu...@mail.trends.ca said...
>
> I think I should know better who I am? Just who are you, Burglin, to judge
> my being or not being a diffusionist?
>
Richard Fedrick
Yuri Kuchinsky wrote in message <6rf63b$oq8$1...@news.trends.ca>...
>[Yuri:]
>: > : >And if your answer is a), are you sure b) did not influence your
views in
>: > : >any way?
>: >
>: > : yes, quite sure, thank you.
>
>: > Why are you being so evasive? What do you have to hide?
>
>: evasive???????????????
>
>Yes!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
>He did not give a clear answer to my question. But you have well known
>problems with English comprehension. My guess is that you have the same
>problems with German comprehension.
"yes", "quite", "sure", "thank", "you".
which of these words are you having trouble with, yuri?
richard
Richard Fedrick
Yuri Kuchinsky wrote in message <6reqrq$lva$1...@news.trends.ca>...
>Richard Fedrick (richard...@bigfoot.com) wrote:
>: Yuri Kuchinsky wrote in message <6rcboh$qvv$2...@news.trends.ca>...
>: >Richard Fedrick (richard...@bigfoot.com) wrote:
>: >: Yuri Kuchinsky wrote in message <6rc411$peb$4...@news.trends.ca>...
>
>: >: >How interesting. So you still insist that these are "shovels"? Have
you
>: >: >actually seen these artifacts? Or are you basing your view merely on
>: >: >"someone said so"?
>: >
>: >: all i have to go on is (a) an acknowledged expert, who thinks they are
>: >: shovels; (b) a tedious amateur, who thinks they are rudders.
>: >:
>: >: not even close.
>: >
>: >Why an ad hominem, Richard? Are you now getting hot under the collar, or
>: >what?
>
>acknowledged : experts. i regard the hijacking of a technical newsgroup by
>amateurs with : their own agenda (diffusion, atlantis, pacal was a
>spaceman, etc etc etc) as : a particularly pernicious form of spam.
>
>
>about what is being discussed here.
yup, i'm an amateur, and so are you. what's your point?
and while i'm here, don't make the mistake of asuming that i'm just another
tourist who once went on a package tour to chichen itza. you'd be very
wrong.
>: [luckily, the excellent AZTLAN : exists, which by virtue of being
>moderated succeeds in barring contributions : from people like you].
>
>Obviously, you're also quite clued out about what's going on on Aztlan-L.
>Are you really reading it? So how come you've missed a few of my recent
>posts to Aztlan? Quite a few people liked them, you know...
i've missed nothing. i was also around when you were thrown off aztlan for
persistent off-topic and tendentiously dogmatic postings. very few people
liked them, you know....
>
>Or are your just making these things up as you go along?
>
>: >Now, let's see...
>: >
>: >Apparently you're still not sure these are shovels. But you incline to
>: >think they're shovels. This could be because,
>: >
>: >a) an "expert" said so,
>: >b) in your view, the indigenous people weren't clever enough to have
done
>: >this,
>: >c) both.
>: >
>: >Now, Richard, which one would it be?
>: >
>: >And if your answer is a), are you sure b) did not influence your views
in
>: >any way?
>
>: yes, quite sure, thank you.
>
>Why are you being so evasive? What do you have to hide?
>
>As far as I can see, there are two possibilities. Either you're a mindless
>follower of any "expert" who happens to come along. Or you have a hidden
>political agenda that leads you to dismiss the creative achievements of
>Native Americans out of hand.
>
>Which one would it be, Richard?
don't be silly. i've got no political agenda, and noone has a higher regard
than i for the achievements of the indigenous peoples of latin america. i'm
also not mindless (do you have a doctorate, too, yuri? i thought not), but i
get VERY pissed off when ignorant amateurs like you denigrate and dismiss
the work of professionals with vastly more experience, ability, and
intellectual integrity. given the choice of to whose opinion i should give
greater credence, it's not close.
richard
Yuri Kuchinsky
: In article <6reqrq$lva$1...@news.trends.ca>, on 19 Aug 1998 15:26:50 GMT,
: yu...@mail.trends.ca said...
: >
: > Red herring. I'm not a diffusionist, as I've stated many a time.
: >
: Diffusionism is the belief that ideas and material culture have moved
: across space and through time. I always find it strange that Yuri claims
: not to believe this and yet makes the claims he makes.
This is just so silly.
If this is indeed the definition of "diffusionism" then everybody is a
diffusionist and this term is meaningless.
Yuri.
Yuri Kuchinsky -=O=- http://www.globalserve.net/~yuku UPDATED
"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful
tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor
less."
"The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean
so many different things."
-- Lewis Carrol, "Through the Looking Glass"
Yuri Kuchinsky
: "yes", "quite", "sure", "thank", "you".
:
: which of these words are you having trouble with, yuri?
Now we have answers from Richard. But to which question?
So now he's decided to play silly word games...
Richard, please stop weaseling and reply directly. Are these shovels or
rudders?
Yuri.
Yuri Kuchinsky -=O=- http://www.trends.ca/~yuku
To be is to do.
-- I. Kant
To do is to be.
-- J.-P. Sartre
Yabba-Dabba-Doo!
-- F. Flinstone
Richard Fedrick
Yuri Kuchinsky wrote in message <6rha9b$hh8$1...@news.trends.ca>...
>Richard Fedrick (richard...@bigfoot.com) wrote:
>
>: "yes", "quite", "sure", "thank", "you".
>:
>: which of these words are you having trouble with, yuri?
>
>Now we have answers from Richard. But to which question?
>
>So now he's decided to play silly word games...
you said that you had difficulty understanding what i had written. only
trying to help.
>
>Richard, please stop weaseling and reply directly. Are these shovels or
>rudders?
>
>Yuri.
>
shovels, in all probability.
richard (mystified where this is going)
Doug Weller
GMT, yu...@globalserve.net said...
>
> Doug Weller (dwe...@ramtops.demon.co.uk) wrote on Wed, 19 Aug 1998 20:10:28 +0100:
> : In article <6reqrq$lva$1...@news.trends.ca>, on 19 Aug 1998 15:26:50 GMT,
> : yu...@mail.trends.ca said...
> : >
> : > Red herring. I'm not a diffusionist, as I've stated many a time.
> : >
>
> : Diffusionism is the belief that ideas and material culture have moved
> : across space and through time. I always find it strange that Yuri claims
> : not to believe this and yet makes the claims he makes.
>
> This is just so silly.
>
> If this is indeed the definition of "diffusionism" then everybody is a
> diffusionist and this term is meaningless.
>
>
you didn't even know what it meant?
M.C.Harrison
>
> you said that you had difficulty understanding what i had written. only
> trying to help.
>
> >
> >Richard, please stop weaseling and reply directly. Are these shovels or
> >rudders?
> >
> >Yuri.
> >
>
> shovels, in all probability.
>
> richard (mystified where this is going)
Come on Richard, stop weasling and call a spade a spa... oh... ;)
Jonathan Stone
|> In article <6reqrq$lva$1...@news.trends.ca>, on 19 Aug 1998 15:26:50 GMT,
|> yu...@mail.trends.ca said...
|> >
|> > Red herring. I'm not a diffusionist, as I've stated many a time.
|> >
|>
|> Diffusionism is the belief that ideas and material culture have moved
|> across space and through time. I always find it strange that Yuri claims
|> not to believe this and yet makes the claims he makes.
I prefer to describe Yuri as hyper-diffusionist, given his extreme
diffusionist leanings against indepedent indigenous development of
certain ideas; but then Yuri says he's not one of those, either.
Perhaps the reason is that Yuri sees "diffusionist" as a perjorative?
Larry Elmore
<6r9k6n$ih9$1...@nclient5-gui.server.virgin.net>...
>
>Yuri Kuchinsky wrote in message <6r9k5l$764$1...@whisper.globalserve.net>...
>
>>Look at the famous scholar Lanning, for example. Here's the guy who's
>>examining rudders from ancient burials in Southern Peru. These are
>>rudders. They have rudders written all over them. There's really no doubt
>>about this. But he claims they're common shovels!!!
>
>so let's make this clear. on the one hand we have an accredited
>archaeologist / anthropologist, who has actually handled these objects, and
>studied them, and he concludes that they are shovels. on the other, an
>amateur who has done no more than see some photographs, and he claims (no!
>insists! "there's really no doubt....") that they are rudders.
I've apparently missed the beginning of this somewhere, so could someone
please fill in a few facts for me?
Lanning -- what did he write, when did he write it, and where can it be
found?
The amateur -- Heyerdahl, I take it?
The "rudders" -- this is the first I've ever heard of _rudders_ being found
in coastal S.A. sites. *Guaras* (centerboards) most certainly, but not
_rudders_. Moche double-sterned reed boats (some apparently large enough to
have a cargo deck and an upper crew deck) had fore-and-aft steering paddles
with quite large blades, but these aren't rudders, nor could they be
mistaken for shovels (unless they were built for a race of giants).
As to whether they're rudders, guaras, or shovels, a few photographs showing
them from different angles with something for scale should make it _very_
easy to determine. Guaras are quite distinctive and easily identified. The
vast majority of shovels or shovel-like digging implements should be, as
well. If they're not guaras and not shovels, then they _might_ be rudders,
or maybe they're something else.
Any references, anybody?
Larry
Yuri Kuchinsky
: Richard Fedrick wrote in message
: <6r9k6n$ih9$1...@nclient5-gui.server.virgin.net>...
: >so let's make this clear. on the one hand we have an accredited
: >archaeologist / anthropologist, who has actually handled these objects, and
: >studied them, and he concludes that they are shovels. on the other, an
: >amateur who has done no more than see some photographs, and he claims (no!
: >insists! "there's really no doubt....") that they are rudders.
:
: I've apparently missed the beginning of this somewhere, so could someone
: please fill in a few facts for me?
:
: Lanning -- what did he write, when did he write it, and where can it be
: found?
Hi, Larry,
Here's an old post from Ross:
Date: 1998/08/10
[Yuri wrote:]
> Not at all. Lanning is merely obsolete and thus rather irrelevant. For
> example he only talks about "northern Peru" as a place where navigation
> was practiced. Meanwhile, Heyerdahl described in his books
archaeological
> finds of guara boards ("center-boards" functioning as keels) in southern
> Peru.
"More serious consideration might be given to Gretzer's hypothesis that
the carved wooden slabs found in graves in the Chicha area of southern
Peru are centerboards from sailing rafts (Gretzer, 1914). I have had
opportunity to examine most of these specimens in museums in Peru and the
United States. Every one of them shows, not water polishing, but
splintering of the lower end of the blade. Use as centerboards could not
produce this wear pattern, unless they were all chewed by sharks or
unless every raft was run aground on rocky beaches without the simple
precaution of raising the centerboards. These objects can only be
considered as agricultural implements, some laic, others elaborated for
use in annual ground-breaking ceremonies (Lanning 1967:168)."
(Lanning 1970:178)
[end quote]
This is E.P. Lanning. The full ref is available in Patrick C. McCoy,
EASTER ISLAND, in _The Prehistory of Polynesia_, Jesse D. Jennings,
editor. -- Cambridge, Mass, Harvard University Press, 1979.
I've analysed Lanning's lies and absurdities in some detail at the time in
my reply to Ross's post.
: The amateur -- Heyerdahl, I take it?
Perhaps this is who he meant?
: The "rudders" -- this is the first I've ever heard of _rudders_ being found
: in coastal S.A. sites. *Guaras* (centerboards) most certainly, but not
: _rudders_.
Yes, these boards are guaras. They look somewhat like rudders
nevertheless.
: Moche double-sterned reed boats (some apparently large enough to
: have a cargo deck and an upper crew deck) had fore-and-aft steering paddles
: with quite large blades, but these aren't rudders, nor could they be
: mistaken for shovels (unless they were built for a race of giants).
IMHO, only a scholar motivated by racist preconceptions can come up with
such an absurdity.
: As to whether they're rudders, guaras, or shovels, a few photographs showing
: them from different angles with something for scale should make it _very_
: easy to determine.
Not for someone motivated by racism.
: Guaras are quite distinctive and easily identified. The
: vast majority of shovels or shovel-like digging implements should be, as
: well.
These are the spiritual children of Bishop Diego de Landa (see the sig)...
Regards,
Yuri.
Yuri Kuchinsky -=O=- http://www.trends.ca/~yuku NEWLY UPDATED
tkavanag
flame; eh, not particularly interested in that -- Then I came to another
Yuri Kuchinsky wrote:
eh, what the hell.
[yada, yada]
> (Lanning 1967:168).
> (Lanning 1970:178)
>
> [end quote]
>
> This is E.P. Lanning. The full ref is available in Patrick C. McCoy,
> EASTER ISLAND, in _The Prehistory of Polynesia_, Jesse D. Jennings,
> editor. -- Cambridge, Mass, Harvard University Press, 1979.
But wait, what's this? a citation! Possibly even to an original source!
So I went across the hall and got Lanning 1967, and went to page 168.
There is a similar quotation as given from Lanning (1970) as quoted by
Yuri; but more importantly, there is a photograph.
Ho! to the scanner.
So, if you want to know what a guara looks like, go to
http://www.php.ucs.indiana.edu/~tkavanag/guara.jpg
Now, to be honest [:-)] Lanning does not explicitly say that this is a
guara, but the juxtaposition of the illustration with the discussion
makes that impression.
Jonathan Stone
|> So there I was, surfing thru the ng -- delete this 'cause I know it's a
|> flame; eh, not particularly interested in that -- Then I came to another
|>
|> Yuri Kuchinsky wrote:
|>
|> eh, what the hell.
|>
|> [yada, yada]
|>
|> > (Lanning 1967:168).
|> > (Lanning 1970:178)
|> >
|> > [end quote]
|> >
|> > This is E.P. Lanning. The full ref is available in Patrick C. McCoy,
|> > EASTER ISLAND, in _The Prehistory of Polynesia_, Jesse D. Jennings,
|> > editor. -- Cambridge, Mass, Harvard University Press, 1979.
|>
|> But wait, what's this? a citation! Possibly even to an original source!
|>
|> So I went across the hall and got Lanning 1967, and went to page 168.
|>
|> There is a similar quotation as given from Lanning (1970) as quoted by
|> Yuri; but more importantly, there is a photograph.
|> Ho! to the scanner.
|>
|> So, if you want to know what a guara looks like, go to
|>
|> http://www.php.ucs.indiana.edu/~tkavanag/guara.jpg
That's http://.php.ucs.indiana.edu/~tkavanag/guara.jpg
|> Now, to be honest [:-)] Lanning does not explicitly say that this is a
|> guara, but the juxtaposition of the illustration with the discussion
|> makes that impression.
Just checking: is this what Lanning the Terrible Liar calls an
"agricultural implement" but which Yuri calls a guara ?
Doug Weller
jona...@Kowhai.Stanford.EDU said...
>
> That's http://.php.ucs.indiana.edu/~tkavanag/guara.jpg
>
> |> Now, to be honest [:-)] Lanning does not explicitly say that this is a
> |> guara, but the juxtaposition of the illustration with the discussion
> |> makes that impression.
Er, it must be http://php.ucs.indiana.edu/~tkavanag/guara.jpg
ie no . before php.
> Just checking: is this what Lanning the Terrible Liar calls an
> "agricultural implement" but which Yuri calls a guara ?
>
>
I'd like to know too!
M.C.Harrison
>
> |> So, if you want to know what a guara looks like, go to
> |>
> |> http://www.php.ucs.indiana.edu/~tkavanag/guara.jpg
>
> That's http://.php.ucs.indiana.edu/~tkavanag/guara.jpg
Or even http://php.ucs.indiana.edu/~tkavanag/guara.jpg ? ;)
Yuri Kuchinsky
[Yuri:]
: > This is E.P. Lanning. The full ref is available in Patrick C. McCoy,
: > EASTER ISLAND, in _The Prehistory of Polynesia_, Jesse D. Jennings,
: > editor. -- Cambridge, Mass, Harvard University Press, 1979.
: So I went across the hall and got Lanning 1967, and went to page 168.
:
: There is a similar quotation as given from Lanning (1970) as quoted by
: Yuri; but more importantly, there is a photograph.
: Ho! to the scanner.
:
: So, if you want to know what a guara looks like, go to
:
: http://www.php.ucs.indiana.edu/~tkavanag/guara.jpg
As other posters already remarked, the correct URL is
http://php.ucs.indiana.edu/~tkavanag/guara.jpg
: Now, to be honest [:-)] Lanning does not explicitly say that this is a
: guara, but the juxtaposition of the illustration with the discussion
: makes that impression.
This is interesting... Possibly another misrepresentation on the part of
Lanning.
I have seen this image on Tom's webpage. What is being shown there is not
guara. Not even close. It is actually a double bladed paddle from SA. Very
similar ones are attested on EI of course. More of these can be seen at
http://www.media.uio.no/kon-tiki/tucume/modus/modus4.html
Kon-Tiki Museum site in Oslo.
To get an idea of how guaras really look, see the ones pictured in
Heyerdahl, EARLY MAN AND THE OCEAN, p. 206. Perhaps Tom would be so kind
as to scan this image also?
Regards,
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
tkavanag
whoops, sorry.
> > Just checking: is this what Lanning the Terrible Liar calls an
> > "agricultural implement" but which Yuri calls a guara ?
Lanning (1967:168) says:
"Some large, elaborately carved wooden artifacts from the south coast
have sometimes been interpreted as center boards from balsa rafts. I
have had opportunity to examine a number of these specimens in the R.H.
Lowie Museum in Berkeley [now the P. A. Hearst Museum]. All of them show
the same sort of wear around the bottom edge which is commonly exhibited
by ancient agricultural implements from Peru. They must have been
ceremonial <i>tacllas</i>, used for the annual ritual of breaking ground
in the spring (plate 15)."
Note: the illustrated artifact is from the Museum of Primitive Art, not
from the Lowie.
tk
tkavanag
(1) Lanning calls them <i> tacllas</i> not guaras
(2) The discussion occurs in a chapter entiled "The Incas".
(3) The illustrated artifact is from the Museum of Primitive Art, not
from the Lowie.
tk
tkavanag
tkavanag
> It is actually a double bladed paddle from SA. Very
> similar ones are attested on EI of course. More of these can be seen at
> http://www.media.uio.no/kon-tiki/tucume/modus/modus4.html
So, I go to that page. No paddles.
The correct URL is
http://www.media.uio.no/kon-tiki/tucume/modus/modus6.html
I fail to see how the <i>taclla</i> illustrated in Lanning can be called
a "double- bladed" paddle or that it is "similar" to those illustrated
on the kon-tiki page.
> To get an idea of how guaras really look, see the ones pictured in
> Heyerdahl, EARLY MAN AND THE OCEAN, p. 206. Perhaps Tom would be so kind
> as to scan this image also?
If I can find it I will.
tk
collou...@my-dejanews.com
Col
> Or even http://php.ucs.indiana.edu/~tkavanag/guara.jpg ? ;)
>
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum
Doug Weller
yu...@mail.trends.ca said...
>
> As other posters already remarked, the correct URL is
>
> http://php.ucs.indiana.edu/~tkavanag/guara.jpg
>
> : Now, to be honest [:-)] Lanning does not explicitly say that this is a
> : guara, but the juxtaposition of the illustration with the discussion
> : makes that impression.
>
> This is interesting... Possibly another misrepresentation on the part of
> Lanning.
>
> I have seen this image on Tom's webpage. What is being shown there is not
> similar ones are attested on EI of course. More of these can be seen at
>
> http://www.media.uio.no/kon-tiki/tucume/modus/modus4.html
>
>
ends. I'll accept that they are both made of wood. That they look like
the same thing, definitely not.
tkavanag
<snip>
> To get an idea of how guaras really look, see the ones pictured in
> Heyerdahl, EARLY MAN AND THE OCEAN, p. 206. Perhaps Tom would be so kind
> as to scan this image also?
I'll go you one better.
The drawing on page 206 of _Early Mand and the Ocean_ is based on a
photograph in _Am. Inds in the Pacific_. I scanned the immediately
preceeding photograph which shows a large number of ornamented guaras.It
is at
http://php.ucs.indiana.edu/~tkavanag/guara2.jpg
It is a big file so it might take some time to download.
I also spoke to our local Peruvian archaeologist and he thinks they
probably were center boards or some such seafaring artifact.
tk
tkavanag
<snip>
sorry about the multiple postings of the above message. Last night I was
having trouble with my pc-tcp connection and I couldn't tell if the
messages had gone thru.
tk
tkavanag
>
> Hi,
>
> are there any dimensions given for the quara in the pic? I have to say, it
> does not look very robust...how long/wide/thick is the wee beastie?
g not q [/wara/ not /kwara/]
Unfortunately, there are no scales in any of the pictures. There is an
implication in one of the accompanying quotations by TH in _Am Inds in
the Pac_ to a picture of an artifact similiar to the artifact explicitly
referenced by Lanning --i.e. apparently called a <i>taclla</i> (my
http://php.ucs.indiana.edu/~tkavanag/guara.jpg) that it is ca 6 feet
long. [As I am home now, I cannot give the exact quotation]. At the same
time, I did not notice a dimensional statement in _AIitP_for the
illustrated guaras
(http://php.ucs.indiana.edu/~tkavanag/guara2.jpg)
tk
tkavanag
<snip>
> The image on Tom's page and the image on the page are both long, with 2
> ends. I'll accept that they are both made of wood. That they look like
> the same thing, definitely not.
Well..., um, ... er... if you actually read the text of the Kon-Tiki
page --modus 6, not modus 4 as referenced by Yuri (which is concerned
with birdmen, and contains no reference to paddles) -- the artifact
closest in appearance to that referenced by Lanning is a silver
miniature 8.1 cm long. Not wood. Not long.
But to the wider point, there seems to be nothing on that page which is
relevant to either the "guaras" as illustrated by TH, or to the
"tacllas" as illustrated by Lanning.
So why did Yuri reference it?
tk
tkavanag
> >
> >>Look at the famous scholar Lanning, for example. Here's the guy who's
> >>examining rudders from ancient burials in Southern Peru. These are
> >>rudders. They have rudders written all over them. There's really no doubt
> >>about this. But he claims they're common shovels!!!
Larry Elmore wrote:
> The "rudders" -- this is the first I've ever heard of _rudders_ being found
> in coastal S.A. sites. *Guaras* (centerboards) most certainly, but not
> _rudders_. Moche double-sterned reed boats (some apparently large enough to
> have a cargo deck and an upper crew deck) had fore-and-aft steering paddles
> with quite large blades, but these aren't rudders, nor could they be
> mistaken for shovels (unless they were built for a race of giants).
>
> As to whether they're rudders, guaras, or shovels, a few photographs showing
> them from different angles with something for scale should make it _very_
> easy to determine. Guaras are quite distinctive and easily identified. The
> vast majority of shovels or shovel-like digging implements should be, as
> well. If they're not guaras and not shovels, then they _might_ be rudders,
> or maybe they're something else.
>
> Any references, anybody?
So, here are your pictures.
http://php.ucs.indiana.edu/~tkavanag/guara.jpg
http://php.ucs.indiana.edu/~tkavanag/guara2.jpg
Summary:
Lanning says they are "agricultural implements."
(1)Conclusion:
Doubtful (aka: Lanning was really stretching it).
(2) Conclusion
Heyerdahl, apparently as well as earlier Peruvian archaeologists and
some more contemporary Peruvian archaeologists -- accept them as
part of a seafaring complex.
Concensus:
rudders: no; centerboards or related artifacts (i.e. side boards):
probably.
So: Back to the beginning:
Why are we trying to indict Lanning?
Jono
are there any dimensions given for the quara in the pic? I have to say, it
does not look very robust...how long/wide/thick is the wee beastie?
Jono
Doug Weller wrote:
> In article <6s5b4c$4p9$1...@nntp.Stanford.EDU>, on 28 Aug 1998 04:19:24 GMT,
> jona...@Kowhai.Stanford.EDU said...
> >
> > That's http://.php.ucs.indiana.edu/~tkavanag/guara.jpg
> >
> > |> Now, to be honest [:-)] Lanning does not explicitly say that this is a
> > |> guara, but the juxtaposition of the illustration with the discussion
> > |> makes that impression.
>
> Er, it must be http://php.ucs.indiana.edu/~tkavanag/guara.jpg
>
> ie no . before php.
>
> > Just checking: is this what Lanning the Terrible Liar calls an
> > "agricultural implement" but which Yuri calls a guara ?
> >
> >
> I'd like to know too!
>
Doug Weller
0700, tkavanag <"tkavanag<nospam>"@indiana.edu> said...
>
> Doug Weller wrote:
> <snip>
> > The image on Tom's page and the image on the page are both long, with 2
> > ends. I'll accept that they are both made of wood. That they look like
> > the same thing, definitely not.
>
> Well..., um, ... er... if you actually read the text of the Kon-Tiki
> page --modus 6, not modus 4 as referenced by Yuri (which is concerned
> with birdmen, and contains no reference to paddles) -- the artifact
> closest in appearance to that referenced by Lanning is a silver
> miniature 8.1 cm long. Not wood. Not long.
>
>
>
they were both wood, and I was happy to accept it. Weirder and weirder.
Curt P. Smith IV
Thank you very much to Tom for making these images available on WWW.
tkavanag "@indiana.edu> ("tkavanag<nospam) wrote:
: So, here are your pictures.
:
: http://php.ucs.indiana.edu/~tkavanag/guara.jpg
This is an image of double bladed paddle. Common objects in SA, as well as
on EI. Some miniature representations of these are also well known.
: http://php.ucs.indiana.edu/~tkavanag/guara2.jpg
These are guaras (center-boards, or movable keels, used on ocean
sailing rafts). These seem to be mostly ornamented guaras. Plenty
unornamented or utilitarian ones are also well known.
: Summary:
: Lanning says they are "agricultural implements."
: (1)Conclusion:
: Doubtful (aka: Lanning was really stretching it).
: (2) Conclusion
: Heyerdahl, apparently as well as earlier Peruvian archaeologists and
: some more contemporary Peruvian archaeologists -- accept them as
: part of a seafaring complex.
Yes, this is so.
: Concensus:
: rudders: no; centerboards or related artifacts (i.e. side boards):
: probably.
:
: So: Back to the beginning:
: Why are we trying to indict Lanning?
In my view, Lanning provides a good example of racist scholarship. Such
pseudo-scholars try to dismiss the cultural and technological achievements
of ancient Native Americans, and to make them look incompetent and
uncreative.
Lanning really goes out of his way to silence and ignore valid evidence
showing Native Americans as competent ocean sailors.
Jonathan Stone
|>
|> Thank you very much to Tom for making these images available on WWW.
Indeed. As well as providing some ground-truth, it gives us an
interesting insight into Mr. Kuchinsky's methodology.
|>
|> : So, here are your pictures.
|> :
|> : http://php.ucs.indiana.edu/~tkavanag/guara.jpg
Let's call this "Fig. TK-1".
|>
|> This is an image of double bladed paddle.
I think that's utter nonsense. Visually the object clearly has _one
blade_, at the bottom; the upper object does not resemble a paddle
blade; it resembles an ornately carved handle -- not suprising for a
ceremonial object. As far as I can see, the object in Fig. TK-1 bears
no significant resemblance to the "double-bladed dance paddles" [sic]
used on Rapanui. Check them both for yourself.
Does anyone other than Yuri think this is a "double-bladed paddle"?
|> Common objects in SA, as well as
|> on EI.
AFAIK, Heyerdahl has found _one_ South American specimen, a miniature,
which he claims resembeles the Rapanui objects. How strong the
resemblance, you can judge for yourself. Me, I'd also compare both to
other objects used in Polynesian ritual dances, challenges, and
warfare.
|>Some miniature representations of these are
|> also well known.
|> : http://php.ucs.indiana.edu/~tkavanag/guara2.jpg
Let's call htis one Fig. TK-2.
|> These are guaras (center-boards, or movable keels, used on ocean
|> sailing rafts). These seem to be mostly ornamented guaras. Plenty
|> unornamented or utilitarian ones are also well known.
|>
|> : Summary:
|> : Lanning says they are "agricultural implements."
Please correct me if I am wrong, but i thought Lanning's claim is that
Fig. TK-1 (http://php.ucs.indiana.edu/~tkavanag/guara.jpg) is a
"taclla", a ceremonial version of an agricultural implement.
To which figure does Lanning's remark about bottom-edge wear patterns
apply: Fig. TK-1 only, fig. TK-2 only, or both?
|> : (1)Conclusion:
|> : Doubtful (aka: Lanning was really stretching it).
Why? Is there doubt (Heyerdahl and Kuchinsky aside) that
Fig. TK-1 is a ceremonial version of an agricultural implement?
|> : (2) Conclusion
|> : Heyerdahl, apparently as well as earlier Peruvian archaeologists and
|> : some more contemporary Peruvian archaeologists -- accept them as
|> : part of a seafaring complex.
Fig. TK-2, yes. But is there really consensus that Fig. TK-1 also
depicts an artifact taht's part of a "seafaring complex"?
|> Yes, this is so.
|>
|> : Concensus:
|> : rudders: no; centerboards or related artifacts (i.e. side boards):
|> : probably.
|> :
|> : So: Back to the beginning:
|> : Why are we trying to indict Lanning?
|>
|> In my view, Lanning provides a good example of racist scholarship. Such
|> pseudo-scholars try to dismiss the cultural and technological achievements
|> of ancient Native Americans, and to make them look incompetent and
|> uncreative.
Just what *does* Lanning say about fig. TK-2?
|> Lanning really goes out of his way to silence and ignore valid evidence
|> showing Native Americans as competent ocean sailors.
[snip]
Peter D. Gowdy
Jonathan Stone wrote:
> |>
> |> So, if you want to know what a guara looks like, go to
> |>
> |> http://www.php.ucs.indiana.edu/~tkavanag/guara.jpg
>
> That's http://.php.ucs.indiana.edu/~tkavanag/guara.jpg
>
>
No, its http://php.ucs.indiana.edu/~tkavanag/guara.jpg (no '.' before 'php').
Pete
--
Reading my Usenet posts does not grant you the right to send me unsolicited commercial
email. All senders of unsolicited commercial email will be reported to their postmasters
as Usenet abusers.
tkavanag
<snip>
<snip>
> |> : http://php.ucs.indiana.edu/~tkavanag/guara2.jpg
>
> Let's call htis one Fig. TK-2.
<snip>
> Please correct me if I am wrong, but i thought Lanning's claim is that
> Fig. TK-1 (http://php.ucs.indiana.edu/~tkavanag/guara.jpg) is a
> "taclla", a ceremonial version of an agricultural implement.
Yes, he makes this claim.
> To which figure does Lanning's remark about bottom-edge wear patterns
> apply: Fig. TK-1 only, fig. TK-2 only, or both?
tk-1 was scanned from Plate 15 of Lanning (_Peru Before the Incas_,
1967). The relevant paragraph on page 168 makes a direct reference to
Plate 15.
<repositioned>
> Just what *does* Lanning say about fig. TK-2?
Nothing, or least I have not been able to find anything in Lanning
(1967). Later works might have something -- Yuri: just what is "Lanning
1970"? I have not been able to locate any such book, but it might be an
article.
> |> : (1)Conclusion:
> |> : Doubtful (aka: Lanning was really stretching it).
>
> Why? Is there doubt (Heyerdahl and Kuchinsky aside) that
> Fig. TK-1 is a ceremonial version of an agricultural implement?
Yes. Referring the matter again to my local Peruvian archaeologist
across the hall, it is his opinion that there is no consensus that tk-1
is agricultural; indeed, as he put it, "Lanning did not convince a lot
of people."
> |> : (2) Conclusion
> |> : Heyerdahl, apparently as well as earlier Peruvian archaeologists and
> |> : some more contemporary Peruvian archaeologists -- accept them as
> |> : part of a seafaring complex.
> Fig. TK-2, yes. But is there really consensus that Fig. TK-1 also
> depicts an artifact taht's part of a "seafaring complex"?
Again referring the matter to my local Peruvian archaeologist for
clarification, I must modify my above quoted statement: there is no
consensus that tk-1 is related to a "seafaring complex".
tk
Jonathan Stone
|> Jonathan Stone wrote:
|> <snip>
|> > |> : http://php.ucs.indiana.edu/~tkavanag/guara.jpg
|> >
|> > Let's call this "Fig. TK-1".
|>
|> <snip>
|>
|> > |> : http://php.ucs.indiana.edu/~tkavanag/guara2.jpg
|> >
|> > Let's call htis one Fig. TK-2.
|> <snip>
|>
|> > Please correct me if I am wrong, but i thought Lanning's claim is that
|> > Fig. TK-1 (http://php.ucs.indiana.edu/~tkavanag/guara.jpg) is a
|> > "taclla", a ceremonial version of an agricultural implement.
|>
[snip clarifications]
thanks, Tom. OK, to try and sum up:
* Lanning says that tk-1 (plate XV in Lanning(1967)) is a taclla.
There is no consensus on this amongst Peruvian archaelogists, but
(according to Tom's peruvian archaeology source) there's
no consensus that it's from a "seafaring complex" either.
* Lanning(1967) makes no comment about tk-2; lanning(1970) may or
may not, but we're not sure to what the citation refers.
* This is the evidence upon which Mr. Kuchinksy adjudes Lanning
guilty of "bias", "lies and distortions", and "racist scholarship".
And (again)
* Does *anyone* other than Yuri think that tk-1 is a
"double-bladed paddle"?
Jonathan Stone
|> Doug Weller wrote:
|> <snip>
|> > The image on Tom's page and the image on the page are both long, with 2
|> > ends. I'll accept that they are both made of wood. That they look like
|> > the same thing, definitely not.
|>
|> Well..., um, ... er... if you actually read the text of the Kon-Tiki
|> page --modus 6, not modus 4 as referenced by Yuri (which is concerned
|> with birdmen, and contains no reference to paddles) -- the artifact
|> closest in appearance to that referenced by Lanning is a silver
|> miniature 8.1 cm long. Not wood. Not long.
|>
|> relevant to either the "guaras" as illustrated by TH, or to the
|> "tacllas" as illustrated by Lanning.
|>
|> So why did Yuri reference it?
Because he beleives that all three of:
a) fig. TK-1 (plate XV from Lanning(1967)
b) the South American "miniature sliver dance paddle"
c) the Rapanui "dance paddle"
are the _same_ kind of object, enough so that they constitute evidence
of Rapanui-South American contact.
Anyone can see that fig. tk-1 is not "double bladed"; the top
resembles an ornate handle, perhaps like the silver miniature.
Neither resemble the head-like aspect of the upper portion of the
Rapanui artefact. Object (a) has a clearly rectangular "handle"; (b)
has a rounded elliptical "handle".
(One should take into account Heyerdahl's baselessly false assertion
that ear extension is, within Polynesia unique to Rapanui; and
consider how much that weighs in Heyerdahl's conclusion that the
"paddle" is evidence of South American influence).
Moreover one should take careful note of the regular indentation on
(b); to my eye they are distinctly reminsicent of tines. Note that
there is no corresponding feature in either (a) or (c).
Yet Mr. Kuchinksy asserts that fig tk-1 is obviously a "dance paddle",
and that those who conclude otherwise are "biased", "racist scholars",etc.
Yuri Kuchinsky
[Stone:]
: > Just what *does* Lanning say about fig. TK-2?
:
: Nothing, or least I have not been able to find anything in Lanning
: (1967). Later works might have something -- Yuri: just what is "Lanning
: 1970"? I have not been able to locate any such book, but it might be an
: article.
Tom,
This was cited by Ross. I assume it is a later edition of the same book.
tkavanag
>
> Jonathan Stone wrote:
> <snip>
> > Just what *does* Lanning say about fig. TK-2?
>
> Nothing, or least I have not been able to find anything in Lanning
> (1967). Later works might have something -- Yuri: just what is "Lanning
> 1970"? I have not been able to locate any such book, but it might be an
> article.
Quick trip to the library.
Lanning (1970) is "South America as a Source for Aspects of Oceanic
Cultures"
in _Studies in Oceanic Culture History_ (vol 11 , no 1 of pacific
Anthropologucal Records, Bishop Museum). All he says is the quotation
Ross posted some time ago, including the word "laic", in the sentence,
"These objects can only be considered as agricultural implements, some
laic, some elaborated for use in annual ground breaking ceremonies."
tk
Yuri Kuchinsky
: Yet Mr. Kuchinksy asserts that fig tk-1 is obviously a "dance paddle",
: and that those who conclude otherwise are "biased", "racist scholars",etc.
Your defence of racist Lanning is both pathetic and ridiculous. Here again
is the quote from Lanning for your benefit:
"More serious consideration might be given to Gretzer's hypothesis that
the carved wooden slabs found in graves in the Chicha area of southern
Peru are centerboards from sailing rafts (Gretzer, 1914). I have had
opportunity to examine most of these specimens in museums in Peru and the
United States. Every one of them shows, not water polishing, but
splintering of the lower end of the blade. Use as centerboards could not
produce this wear pattern, unless they were all chewed by sharks or unless
every raft was run aground on rocky beaches without the simple precaution
of raising the centerboards. These objects can only be considered as
agricultural implements, some laic, others elaborated for use in annual
ground-breaking ceremonies (Lanning 1967:168)."
(Lanning 1970:178)
He is talking about whether or not these boards are _centerboards_! TK1
cannot be a centerboard. Only a complete moron would confuse a centerboard
with a paddle. So I doubt that Lanning is a complete moron. He knows what
he's doing. He has set out with a purpose to dismiss, minimize, and
ridicule the cultural achievements of Native Americans.
Yuri.
Yuri Kuchinsky -=O=- http://www.globalserve.net/~yuku 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