precolumbian Amerindian horse?

[Yuri Kuchinsky 17784]

FRANK GILBERT ROE ON VERY EARLY INDIAN HORSES.

By Yuri Kuchinsky.

THE INDIAN AND THE HORSE, 1955, by Frank Gilbert Roe, University
of Oklahoma Press, Norman.

Greetings,

Prompted by the recent interest in these ngs, and by the
questions asked about the early American horses, I have been
reading the above very interesting volume. It is a very detailed
and determined effort by Roe to document from historical sources
the history of Indian horse in America, and of the Native
traditions associated with it. What are my conclusions so far?
Well, it almost seems at this point that the more I try to
research this question, the more questions are emerging... The
whole thing is a veritable puzzle, and anyone who would wish to
claim that we know all we need to know about this, and the thing
is settled, really doesn't know what s/he is talking about.

Some things seem pretty obvious, though. One is that the Indian
horses were very different from the horses both the Spanish and
the English usually introduced. The difference is in the colour
and the size. Of this, more later.

Another thing that is very clear is that, as many early European
eyewitnesses reported repeatedly, many Native tribes had the
horse, and were expert horsemen extremely early in the game, in
fact suspiciously early to square with the mainstream view that
their horse came from the Spanish sources. This holds true for
the Indian tribes both in the South and in the North.

The earliest explorers in the North-West reported consistently
that, by the time they made it to their areas, the Indians were
already expert horsemen and women, and must have had the horse for
some time. Roe is persuaded that these Indians had the horse very
early indeed.

Who may have brought the horse to America before the Spanish? One
feature of his book is that Roe has not asked this question even
once in it. This question never seems to have occurred to him!
All in all, my general impression of him is that he is honestly
trying to answer the difficult questions about the likely
chronology of the Indian horse without actually considering one
rather obvious solution -- the horse was there before the
Spanish. So he is confused most of the time as a result. His
confusion may have been diminished considerably if he looked at
some alternatives to Spanish introduction.

Myself, I certainly believe it is possible that the horse could
have been brought before Columbus both by the Scandinavians
(and/or Celts), and by the Asians. The book provides much support
for this, without Roe being aware of this!

As I say, Roe, himself, seems to be rather confused most of the
time.

It is mortifying to have to acknowledge how little our
researches really add to our definite knowledge as to when
and how any one tribe actually acquired the horse. ... When
periods of thirty or fifty years intervene, we can but
conjecture and balance probabilities. And frequently our
conclusions cannot be made to agree. (p. 134)

Here's an honest man. I wish more scholars could be so forthright
about their findings...

So, first, let us look at the early European accounts, and at
Roe's attempts to establish some kind of a reasonable chronology
for horse among the Natives.

Roe disposes quite early of the idea that horses were first
acquired by the Natives as strays from ill-fated Spanish
expeditions (Ch. 2). He believes this was unlikely for a number
of reasons.

One of the big questions that Roe tries to answer next is when
the wild horses, or mustangs, were first reported in America. Of
these wild horses, huge herds were reported by various observers
at various times. some very early. I find the following witness
quite amazing,

Be this as it may, in Virginia, about 1669, wild horses ...
[originally imported from England?] ... were a pest. (p. 67,
quoting Wissler, INFLUENCE OF THE HORSE)

Strange, but this is what our sources say... I really cannot
believe these would have been English horses originally...

And here's a report from an early observer,

Le Page du Pratz (1719) and others speak of horses being
"numerous" in the South, and seemingly "different from the
European horse". (p. 69)

The interesting thing here is that while the Southern horses'
derivation from the Spanish stock would have been quite likely,
apparently this wasn't the case...

And here are the opinions of some reputable scholars about the
very early Indian horses,

The earliest hypothetical date in Wissler's paper is where
he considers that many tribes should have had horses before
1600. This opinion is endorsed by Walter Prescott Webb, a
high authority on Plains history. (p. 72)

And here is another amazingly early date, in reference to the
testimony coming from Francisco de Ibarra who was in the Sonora
Valley in 1567,

In that account we find the tribes -- or some of them -- in
that territory not merely acquainted with the horse, but
practiced horsemen at that date. (p. 73, quoting Denhardt,
HORSE OF THE AMERICAS)

So this was the situation in the South. How was it possible that
the Natives close to Spanish areas could have horses so early,
and a _different kind of a horse_, the one that the Spanish were
strongly prejudiced against, and probably did not introduce? These
are very difficult questions...

[second part coming up]

Best regards,

Yuri.

Yuri Kuchinsky in Toronto -=O=- http://www.io.org/~yuku

It is a far, far better thing to have a firm anchor in nonsense than
to put out on the troubled seas of thought -=O=- John K. Galbraith

[Yuri Kuchinsky 17784]

[this is the second part of my article]

FRANK GILBERT ROE ON VERY EARLY INDIAN HORSES. (Part 2)

By Yuri Kuchinsky.

THE INDIAN AND THE HORSE, 1955, by Frank Gilbert Roe, University
of Oklahoma Press, Norman.

And now, let's look at some of the Northern tribes.

A very interesting account was supplied by an explorer Jacques de
Saint-Pierre in 1750-52. He describes some tribes in the far
interior in the Rocky Mountains area that were expert horse
breeders and traders (p. 97). No Europeans had penetrated there
at this point!

Another account comes from Antony Henday in 1754. He was the
first European in some of the territories of the Sarcee Indians
west of Hudson Bay. He describes

... the friends and neighbouring allies of the Sarcee, the
Blackfoot, as possessing horses in 1754, and "well
supplied". (p. 106)

Roe reports further,

For this declaration he was denounced and discredited as a
mere liar for nearly twenty years, until vindicated by the
testimony of Matthew Cocking, 1772-73. The "Archithinue"
(Blackfoot) were not even the first horse Indians whom
Henday met. (p. 106)

The interesting thing here is that it seems that the early European
arrivals already were disputing at that very early time whether or
not the Indians had the horse previously to the European arrival!
And if _they_ were not so sure, how can we be? This to me is
extremely revealing...

The author says this about the Snake Indians,

We should in any event be compelled to date the Snake
[Shoshoni] horses not later, and very probably much earlier,
than 1700. (p. 128)

Roe says the following of the situation in the North-West in
general,

In view of the conventional application to Plains tribes,
par excellence, of such terms as "characteristic" or
"typical" horse Indians, it is curious to note that among
those who were apparently the earliest to possess horses in
really large quantities -- which perhaps implies, among the
earliest to possess them at all -- were some of the more
northerly tribes living to the westward of the first (main)
range of the Rocky Mountains. (p. 123)

I think this is quite significant as well...

Another big problem Roe tries to deal with is What kinds of
horses did the Natives have? What was the breed of the Indian
pony, and how did it emerge? Again, he seems to be quite confused
about possible solutions to this conundrum,

There is one problem that may never be solved. It would be
of immense interest and value, both to the historical
student and to the zoologist more purely, to learn what
agglomeration of European, Asiatic, or Hispano-American
breeds combined to produce the wild or "Indian" pony of the
North American continent, with its hang-dog appearance so
little suggestive of its almost inexhaustible stamina, and
its inescapable "pinto" coloration. (p. 135)

And yet, he himself, provides an interesting clue to the possible
solution:

There is also a small and very ancient breed which was
indigenous to Europe in prehistoric times, the Polish
"Konink". This creature ... certainly presents a very
striking resemblance to the Indian pony in its
disproportionately large, hang-dog head...(p. 139)

The author also deals at some length with the situation with
horses in South America. It is very clear, according to him, that
the S. American feral or wild horses were very different from N.
American. The author remarks that earliest horses of S. America
were much more like the Spanish horses. In N. America, earliest
horses were different, they were pinto, or piebald.

Yet in one most important characteristic, the historical
wild horses of S. America (baguales) and those of the
northern continent were or are fundamentally different. The
difference is one of colour. In the Northern Plains area the
Indian pony is almost typically a pinto. (p. 144)

The author is really puzzled,

Once again, why in the north and not in the south? ...why
... in the north exclusively ... should these peculiar
coloration phenomena occur in such large numbers? (p. 151)

The author quotes from a noted authority on American horse,
Francis D. Haines (THE APPALOOSA HORSE, 1951) and says,

Haines has very skilfully summarized a mass of evidence
tending to support his conclusions that the ancestors of the
Appaloosa reach back in a very similar (and readily
identifiable) form and colouring to a great antiquity across
an enormous Eurasiatic territory, stretching from far
eastern China to the Adriatic. (p. 153)

This conclusion by Haines is extremely important. Haines clearly
thinks that the Indian pony derived from the Asian, or old European
horse somehow.

Now, guess what was the theory of Haines as to how that ancient
Old World horse reached America? Believe it or not, he thought it
...was brought over by the Spanish -- from the Netherlands!
Myself, I think this is rather unbelievable. If it indeed came
from Europe, the Vikings were far more likely to bring it than
the Spanish who were very particular that their horses should be
of uniform colour.

What are my conclusions to all this? It seems to me that the
Indian pony derived from the ancient Old World stock, and very
early on. Whether that pony was brought over by the Vikings, or
by other North Europeans, or by the Chinese from the West, or by
both, is anybody's guess at this point, I suppose.

It is very clear to me that the derivation of the Indian pony
cannot be considered as settled at this point in time. Perhaps
some more recent literature casts additional light on these
matters, but I have not been able to look at it as yet.

Now we already do have one seemingly solid case of horse remains
in a very early precolumbian context in Milwaukee, as posted by Hu
McCulloch in article <mcculloch.2....@osu.edu>.

[begin quote:]

: In the Milwaukee Public Museum there is the skull of a mustang
: excavated in 1936 by W.C. McKern from a mound on
: Spencer Lake in NW Wisconsin (47BT2), and vouched for by
: McKern in the _Wisconsin Archaeologist_, Vol. 45, #2
: (June 1964), pp. 118-120. Says McKern , "there
: remains no reasonable question as to the legitimacy
: of the horse skull that we found as a burial association placed
: in the mound by its builders."

[end quote]

I believe there are other such cases also, not posted here as yet.

Best regards,

Yuri.

Below are some of the sources that Roe mostly relied on in the
above analyses:

Denhardt, Robert Moorman, HORSE OF THE AMERICAS, Norman, 1947

Haines, Frances D., HOW THE DID THE INDIANS GET THEIR HORSES?
American Anthropologist, Vol. XL (1938), 112-17

Haines, Frances D., THE APPALOOSA HORSE, Lewiston, Idaho, 1951

Roe, Frank Gilbert, THE INDIAN AND THE HORSE, 1955, University of
Oklahoma Press, Norman.

Webb, Walter Prescott, THE GREAT PLAINS, New York, 1931

Wissler, Clark, INFLUENCE OF THE HORSE, American Anthropologist,
Vol. XVI, 1914, 1-25

[Paul J. Gans]

Yuri Kuchinsky 17784 (yu...@globalserve.net) wrote:

: [ Article crossposted from sci.archaeology ]
: [ Author was Yuri Kuchinsky 17784 ]
: [ Posted on 10 Sep 1997 14:39:36 GMT ]

: FRANK GILBERT ROE ON VERY EARLY INDIAN HORSES.

[over 100 lines deleted]

At the risk of annoying some of the readers of
soc.history.medieval, I want to point out that
Mr. Kuchinsky has been waging a long-running
battle on this subject in sci.archaeology. As
he has often done in the past, he has deliberately
sought to spread his postings around to other
groups on the net.

In my opinion, Mr. Kuchinsky is a believer in
strange and unproven theories of all sorts. He
will be glad to debate these issues endlessly.
The recent (and still ongoing) Kensington Rune
Stone thread was another of his gifts to this
newsgroup.

Again, my opinion only, I would hope that folks
who want to become involved in this would do
so in sci.archaeology, the home for this sort
of thing.

------ Paul J. Gans [ga...@scholar.chem.nyu.edu]

[Doug Weller]

On 10 Sep 1997 15:53:24 -0400, in sci.archaeology, Paul J. Gans wrote:

>
>
>Again, my opinion only, I would hope that folks
>who want to become involved in this would do
>so in sci.archaeology, the home for this sort
>of thing.

Er, stories about horses in North America aren't really archaeology, are they?
Remember, archaeology is about material culture, not tales of 18th century
explorers.

Doug

[Hu McCulloch]

yu...@globalserve.net (Yuri Kuchinsky 17784) provides
a very interesting summary of

>THE INDIAN AND THE HORSE, 1955, by Frank Gilbert Roe, University
>of Oklahoma Press, Norman.

> [snip]

>One of the big questions that Roe tries to answer next is when
>the wild horses, or mustangs, were first reported in America. Of
>these wild horses, huge herds were reported by various observers
>at various times. some very early. I find the following witness
>quite amazing,

> Be this as it may, in Virginia, about 1669, wild horses ...
> [originally imported from England?] ... were a pest. (p. 67,
> quoting Wissler, INFLUENCE OF THE HORSE)

>Strange, but this is what our sources say... I really cannot
>believe these would have been English horses originally...

Strange, but not entirely impossible. I don't have any real
data on the fecundity of horses, but let's say that one mare
can have 8 foals, 4 female, whose average age is
no more than 10 years less than her own.

That makes a 4-fold increase per decade.
In 5 decades this would be a 2^10-fold increase, if predators
were not a problem and food were abundant, or a 1-kilohorse
population of descendants. The Jamestown colony was 1618 or
so, and the ill-fated Roanoke colony even earlier. 1024
wild horses in the neighborhood muching the corn could
be a major nuisance.

In 1 century, the same rate of population increase would
produce a 1 megahorse population, and in 150 years,
1 gigahorse. By then, predators and/or food would have
become a constraint...

The famous Sea Island horses are presumably descendants
of these wild horses, so it would be interesting to know
what their DNA and/or anatomy tells about their ancestry.

So while I don't think the sheer numbers of early wild horses
contradict post-Columbian introducion, the fact that the
mustang looks so much different than its supposed
Spanish ancestors is more telling. Is the "Spanish"
look so recessive that it would disappear in just a few
generations? How fast could mustang characteristics
evolve from post-Columbian horse stock?

Frank Yurco just called attention to a relevant (if conventional)
PBS special last night on the N. Am. horse, on a related
thread on sci.archaeology.

-- Hu McCulloch
Econ Dept.
Ohio State U
mccul...@osu.edu
http://www.econ.ohio-state.edu/jhm/arch/outliers.html

[Paul J. Gans]

Doug Weller (dwe...@ramtops.demon.co.uk) wrote:

Sure. My point was, and is, that it is totally off
topic for soc.history.medieval.

I e-mailed Yuri directly on this. His response basically
was that he'd post where he wanted and anyway "Tom"
(whoever that is) asked him to do it.

One of the more endearing things about Yuri is his
continual spreading of his threads to other
newsgroups. It is as if he is crying to the world:
"Look how they mistreat me in sci.archaeology!".

[thomas kavanagh]

Paul J. Gans wrote:

> I e-mailed Yuri directly on this. His response basically
> was that he'd post where he wanted and anyway "Tom"
> (whoever that is) asked him to do it.
>

Hi there. I'm Tom. This is the history of the thread:

I started the "So KRS is real, Big Deal" thread over on s.c.m in
response to the many pro-KRS postings over there which never answered
the basic question, "so what". [I do beleive the KRS thread could be
construed as peripherally relevant to scm. Someone, not me, cross-posted
it over here, a better forum, giving it the subtitle "Like Hell."]

Over on scm, Yuri posted a comment giving numerous vague generalities
about possible influences on the native populations, including fortified
villages, advanced agriculture, eastern Indians looking different from
western Indians, etc. I asked for specifics, which were not forthcoming.
Then Hu posted his "pre-columbian horse" note over here. Yuri quickly
lassoed it and rode off to read Roe's "Indian and the Horse," in the
process conveniently putting aside my request for specifics, saying he
could only do one thing at a time.

Please note that I did not ask about the horse.

I am still waiting for his specifics.

Thomas Kavanagh
Curator of Collections
W. H. Mathers Museum
Indiana University

http:/ezinfo.ucs.indiana.edu/~tkavanag/home.html

[Yuri Kuchinsky]

Hi there, Tom.

Thanks for this brief history of this discussion, but I'm afraid your
version is incorrect in several respects. Dear me, you do seem to have
such short memory... Or else, Paul Gans' uncalled for intervention seemed
to have made you to want to see all this in a somewhat different light? It
seems Paul is some sort of a heavy...

thomas kavanagh (tkav...@indiana.edu) wrote:

: Paul J. Gans wrote:
:
: > I e-mailed Yuri directly on this. His response basically
: > was that he'd post where he wanted and anyway "Tom"
: > (whoever that is) asked him to do it.
: >
:
: Hi there. I'm Tom. This is the history of the thread:
:
: I started the "So KRS is real, Big Deal" thread over on s.c.m in
: response to the many pro-KRS postings over there which never answered
: the basic question, "so what". [I do beleive the KRS thread could be
: construed as peripherally relevant to scm. Someone, not me, cross-posted
: it over here, a better forum, giving it the subtitle "Like Hell."]
:
: Over on scm, Yuri posted a comment giving numerous vague generalities
: about possible influences on the native populations, including fortified
: villages, advanced agriculture, eastern Indians looking different from
: western Indians, etc. I asked for specifics, which were not forthcoming.

And you didn't ask about the horse specifically? Then who wrote the
following? Perhaps you have a double masquerading as Thomas Kavanagh?

[begin quote:]

Subject: Re: So the KRS is real. Big Deal.
From: thomas kavanagh <tkav...@indiana.edu>
Date: 1997/09/05
Message-Id: <34105E...@indiana.edu>
Newsgroups: soc.history.medieval

...

[Yuri:]
> : > Take for example the > : > possibility that precolumbian Amerindians
had the horse. (Of course, we > : > all know that the indigenous American
horse became extinct during a very > : > early period.) Early explorers
remarked on this quite often. The horses > : > that the Natives apparently
had very early were seemingly quite different > : > from those the Spanish
brought over.

[Tom:]
> : Who? When? Where? Which explorers? which Natives? Citations please; page
> : references would be nice.

[Yuri:]
> Hu McCulloch has just posted some good evidence in sci.archaeology re:
> precolumbian horse in N. America. The date was ca 500 AD.

The evidencce HM cites is one horse skull excavated from a mound in NW
Wisconsin, with C-14 dates on other stuff from the mound having dates of
between AD 700 and 955.

Once again, which early explorers? which natives?

> As to the historical sources, I've already given some of my sources. One
> of them was Gunnar Thompson, AMERICAN DISCOVERY, 1994. In the future I
> will try to post a summary of this material.

I am new to this whole thread. Which sources have you posted?

expectantly,

tk

[end quote]

: Then Hu posted his "pre-columbian horse" note over here.

That's right he did. But AFTER Yuri brought this matter for discussion,
and not before as you imply in your post!

: Yuri quickly

: lassoed it and rode off to read Roe's "Indian and the Horse," in the
: process conveniently putting aside my request for specifics, saying he
: could only do one thing at a time.
:
: Please note that I did not ask about the horse.

My, my... Sure you didn't...

: I am still waiting for his specifics.

Presumably, all of a sudden, you lost interest in the horse already, and
not waiting "expectantly" any more? Funny, that...

As to Paul Gans, and his tin-pot dictator attempts to dictate which
subject should be discussed where, I have news for you, Paul. Nobody
appointed you to be the high and allmighty judge of subject relevance in
shm or any other ng. Any such delusions are purely in your own little
mind.

The subject of precolumbian horses in America will fall very comfortably
into the time period of the middle ages. If you disagree, give valid
arguments, or else stay away from real scholars who want to discuss real
history, and not to engage in endless snide ad hominems you favour so
much. You probably wrote a whole book by now about Yuri and what kind of a
guy he is. Too bad it has nothing to do with the subject matter of these
ngs. YOU ARE THE ONE who is being OUT OF ORDER HERE, Paul.

Pathetic.

Yours as always,

Yuri.

Yuri Kuchinsky in Toronto -=O=- http://www.io.org/~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

[thomas kavanagh]

Yuri Kuchinsky wrote:
>
> Hi there, Tom.
>
> Thanks for this brief history of this discussion, but I'm afraid your
> version is incorrect in several respects. Dear me, you do seem to have
> such short memory...

Oh, I am sorry. But thank you for your quick reminder.

> Presumably, all of a sudden, you lost interest in the horse already, and
> not waiting "expectantly" any more? Funny, that...

No, not at all. Last night I got out my copy of Roe and started
re-reading it, it has been some years.

Not snide remarks here.

tk

[ELurio]

Tom said:
>>I started the "So KRS is real, Big Deal" thread over on s.c.m in
response to the many pro-KRS postings over there which never answered
the basic question, "so what". [I do beleive the KRS thread could be
construed as peripherally relevant to scm. Someone, not me, cross-posted
it over here, a better forum, giving it the subtitle "Like Hell."] <<

Yuri crossposted the "So KRS is real, Big Deal" thread to sci. archeology
and I changed the title of the thread afterwards. The "precolumbian
Amerindian horse?" thread was a spinoff of that.

eric l.

[Jeffrey L Baker]

On 10 Sep 1997, Yuri Kuchinsky 17784 wrote:

> Another thing that is very clear is that, as many early European
> eyewitnesses reported repeatedly, many Native tribes had the
> horse, and were expert horsemen extremely early in the game, in
> fact suspiciously early to square with the mainstream view that
> their horse came from the Spanish sources. This holds true for
> the Indian tribes both in the South and in the North.

How long would it take someone to become an expert horsemen? I suspect one
generation might be enough time (about twenty years).

> Who may have brought the horse to America before the Spanish? One
> feature of his book is that Roe has not asked this question even
> once in it. This question never seems to have occurred to him!

Did it really come to the America's before the Spanish?

The following are dates Yuri provided for early horses in North America
(rearranged in chronological order)

Sonoran Valley in 1567
In Virginia, about 1669
among the Shoshoni by 1700
In the southern U.S. about 1719
Rocky Mountains in 1750-2.
West of Hudson Bay in 1754

The following is a list of known explorations in North America:

John Cabot, Newfoundland 1497 (L)
Sebastion Cabot, Newfoundland (and mainland?), 1501-1509
Gaspar Cortez Real, Newfoundland, 1502
Cortez, central Mexico, 1519 (L, H)
Ponce de Leon, Florida, 1521 (L)
Lucas Vasques de Allyum, Atlantic coast north of Florida 1521
Verrazzano Carolinas to New England, 1523 (L)
Esterao Gomez, East Coast 1525
John Rut, New England area, 1527
Richard Hare, New England area, 1536,
Cartier and Roberval, St. Lawrence River, Montreal, 1534-1543 (L)
De Soto, southwestern U.S. and Mississippi River Vally, 1541 (L, H)

These explorations (particularly DeSoto) provided ample opportunities for
the introduction of horses prior to the dates provided by Roe (and Yuri)
for horses. In Mexico, Butzer and Butzer (1993) note that by 1555, there
were 60 cattle and horse estancias (ranches) in th Valley of Toluca. by
1582, over 10,000 horses were present in the Queretera and San Juan del
Rio valleys (on Spanish ranches). Initially for the Spaniards, stock
raising (particularly cattle) was much more important than agricultural
activities. By the 1550's cattle were so prevalent in central Mexico (and
causing so much damage to crops) that they were forced out of central
Mexico to the east (towards Veracruz) and north (towards the Sonoran
Valley). The cattle ranchers were intitially engaging in transhumant
activities (moving the cattle between summer and winter), often as much as
250 to 400 km. Horses were a requisite part of this activity. There is
ample opportunity for the horse to have appeared in the Sonoran Valley
well before 1567.

DeSoto's explorations extended from Florida up to the Ohio River Valley
(into Indiana), across the Mississippi River, and as far west as modern
day San Antonio. He came directly into contact with some groups who were
not contacted again for 100 years. He did have horses with him on his
travels. As Hu McCulloch noted, horses can be quite prolific breeders.
A map of DeSoto's route is available on the web at:
http:www.floridahistory.com/inset78.html

The observations of horses by the early explorers Roe mentions do not
require a pre-Columbian introduction of the horse.

In regard to the horses being different from European horses, the
descriptions given by Yuri are relatively vague. Are they different from
18th and 19th century European horses or 16th century European horses?

It is worth pointing out that the Iberrian Peninsula was only recently
reconquered by Christians from the Muslims, who may have had different
breeds of horses. The Spanish surely would have inherited some of these.

Yuri claims that "the Spanish who were very particular that their horses
should be of a uniform color."

What is your source for this claim?

What I know about 14th and 15th century European warfare, and the
composition of the Spanish armies (and colonists) would suggest to me
that Yuri's statement is not accurate.

References

Butzer, Karl and Elisabeth K. Butzer, 1993, The Sixteenth Century
Environment of the Central Mexican Bajio: Archival Reconstruction from
Colonial Land Grants and the Question of Spanish Ecological Impacts. In
Culture, Form and Place: Essays in Cultural and Historical Geography,
edited by Kent Mathewson, pp. 89-124.. Geoscience and Man, vol. 32, Dept.
of Geography and Anthropology, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge,
La.

Allen, 1992, From Cabot to Cartier: The Early Exploration of Eastern North
America, 1497-1543. Annals of the American Association of Geographers
82(3): 500-521.

Jeff Baker

[Paul J. Gans]

thomas kavanagh (tkav...@indiana.edu) wrote:

>Paul J. Gans wrote:

>> I e-mailed Yuri directly on this. His response basically
>> was that he'd post where he wanted and anyway "Tom"
>> (whoever that is) asked him to do it.
>>

>Hi there. I'm Tom. This is the history of the thread:

>I started the "So KRS is real, Big Deal" thread over on s.c.m in

>response to the many pro-KRS postings over there which never answered
>the basic question, "so what". [I do beleive the KRS thread could be
>construed as peripherally relevant to scm. Someone, not me, cross-posted
>it over here, a better forum, giving it the subtitle "Like Hell."]

I've been a regular on soc.history.medieval (not s.c.m) since
it was created about a year ago. The only KRS postings I
ever saw there were cross-posted from sci.archaeology.
But the KRS is vaguely on-topic there, it is medieval (if
true).

But the Pre-Columbian horse bit has no purpose in soc.history.
medieval at all. And, as far as I know, nobody over there
has even responded to it. And, more importantly, the first
posts on the thread I saw were by your friend and mine,
good ol' Yuri.

He's got a longstanding habit of adding newsgroups in an
effort to spread the Gospel around.

>Over on scm, Yuri posted a comment giving numerous vague generalities
>about possible influences on the native populations, including fortified
>villages, advanced agriculture, eastern Indians looking different from
>western Indians, etc. I asked for specifics, which were not forthcoming.

>Then Hu posted his "pre-columbian horse" note over here. Yuri quickly

>lassoed it and rode off to read Roe's "Indian and the Horse," in the
>process conveniently putting aside my request for specifics, saying he
>could only do one thing at a time.

>Please note that I did not ask about the horse.

>I am still waiting for his specifics.

As far as I know, the first posting we saw in soc.history.medieval
was Yuri's Roe article. That's the one I jumped on right away.

By the way, you keep saying s.c.m. Are you thinking of another
group?

In any event, finger pointing isn't the point. The point
is, please, folks, don't crosspost the pre-Columbian horse
thread to a medieval history group. Or we'll unleash the
Templar thread on you again.... ;-)

[tom kavanagh]

Paul J. Gans wrote:

> By the way, you keep saying s.c.m. Are you thinking of another
> group?

Yes, once again, I misspoke. I am used to replying to soc.culture.native
that it just slipped out.

tk

[Doug Weller]

On Fri, 12 Sep 1997 15:57:16 -0700, in sci.archaeology.mesoamerican, Jeffrey L
Baker wrote:

a comparison of Yuri's dates and dates for European explorations,
which I've SNIPPED.

Thanks very much for this, much needed. I wonder why Yuri didn't see it as
something he should have done in his search for truth? (Some cynics might see
his 'search' as for something else, but ...)

One other thing -- for which I sadly lack any references, but... -- if people
needed a supply of horses, wouldn't they have simply tried to establish a
self-supporting horse colony, with obvious consequences?

Doug
--
Doug Weller Moderator, sci.archaeology.moderated
Submissions to:sci-archaeol...@medieval.org
<Admin address: arch-mo...@ucl.ac.uk>
Co-owner UK-Schools mailing list: email do...@ramtops.demon.co.uk for details

[Dawn L. Martinez-Byrne]

Doug Weller wrote:

> One other thing -- for which I sadly lack any references, but... -- if
> people
> needed a supply of horses, wouldn't they have simply tried to
> establish a
> self-supporting horse colony, with obvious consequences?

After a lifetime with horses, I can tell you this: Horses are
notoriously slow reproducers. The rate of successful reproduction
is @ 50%, much lower than other domestic animals. Gestation
is 11 months, sexual maturity occurs sometime after 15 months(on
average) and sterility is not uncommon. Given the difficulties
involved with horse keeping, the chances of a pregnant mare foaling
a stud colt (50%) and then successfully reproducing for some
time are small. Should she have a filly, there are no chances of
reproduction.

BTW--are the horse skulls male or female? Males have more teeth.

Dawn

[Brame]

In sci.archaeology Jeffrey L Baker <jba...@U.Arizona.EDU> wrote:

[....]

: DeSoto's explorations extended from Florida up to the Ohio River Valley

: (into Indiana), across the Mississippi River, and as far west as modern
: day San Antonio. He came directly into contact with some groups who were
: not contacted again for 100 years. He did have horses with him on his
: travels. As Hu McCulloch noted, horses can be quite prolific breeders.
: A map of DeSoto's route is available on the web at:
: http:www.floridahistory.com/inset78.html

There are problems with this. First and least, while Soto's exact
route remains controversial (cf. Swanton 1939; Brain 1985; Hudson 1987),
it isn't likely Soto got any further north than what is now Tennessee.
Secondly, according to the primary documents of the Soto entrada (Clayton
et. al. 1993) Soto's horses were all slain. Also, there's simply no
evidence that Native Southeasterners possessed horses following Soto's
invasion, and much evidence to the contrary: see "Horses," pp. 346-350, in
Swanton's _The Indians of the Southeastern States_.

In sum, the Soto entrada isn't a credible source for the
introduction of horses to the Southeast.

All best,
Will

References

Brain, Jeffrey P. "Introduction: Update of de Soto Studies Since the
United States de Soto Expedition Commission Report." _Final
Report of the United States de Soto Expedition Commission_, by
John R. Swanton, pp. xi-ixxii. Smithsonian Institution Press
(Washington D.C., 1985). Reprint of the 1939 report.

Clayton, Lawrence A., Vernon James Knight, Jr. and Edward C. Moore, eds.,
Buckingham Smith, trans.
_The De Soto Chronicles: The Expedition of Hernando de Soto to
North America in 1539-1543_. University of Alabama Press
(Tuscaloosa, 1993).

Hudson, Charles.
"The Uses of Evidence in Reconstructing the Route of the Hernando
de Soto Expedition." _De Soto Working Paper #1_. Alabama De
Soto Commission, University of Alabama, State Museum of Natural
History (Tuscaloosa, 1987).

Swanton, John R.
_Final Report of the United States de Soto Expedition
Commission._ United States House of Representatives Document no.
71, 76th Cong., 1st Session, 1939. Reprint. Smithsonian
Institution Press (Washington, D.C., 1985).

----- _The Indians of the Southeastern United States_. Classics of
Smithsonian Anthropology, 1946. Reprint. Smithsonian Institution
Press (Washington, D.C., 1979).

[Thomas Burglin]

Hmm,

perhaps with the horses you are used to. You might be talking
about specially inbread selected stocks, which would explain
the high sterility. I would suggest that 15th and 16th century
Spanish horses were probably still a lot less inbread and less
sterile. There were probably many mixes of Arabian and European
horses in Spain. The only data to support this notion is what
was previously posted by Jeff Baker:

" In Mexico, Butzer and Butzer (1993) note that by 1555, there
were 60 cattle and horse estancias (ranches) in th Valley of Toluca. by
1582, over 10,000 horses were present in the Queretera and San Juan del
Rio valleys (on Spanish ranches)."

Now, so from 1519 to 1582, we go from 0 to 10000 horses in just one area.
I doubt that these horses were all imported from Spain, they are
grown on the ranches. So, within a few decades you can get very large
amounts of animals.

Thomas

[George Black]

In article <341954...@indiana.edu>, tkav...@indiana.edu wrote:
>
>Paul J. Gans wrote:
>
>> I e-mailed Yuri directly on this. His response basically
>> was that he'd post where he wanted and anyway "Tom"
>> (whoever that is) asked him to do it.
>>
>
>Hi there. I'm Tom. This is the history of the thread:
>
>I started the "So KRS is real, Big Deal" thread over on s.c.m in
>response to the many pro-KRS postings over there which never answered
>the basic question, "so what". [I do beleive the KRS thread could be
>construed as peripherally relevant to scm. Someone, not me, cross-posted
>it over here, a better forum, giving it the subtitle "Like Hell."]
>

>Over on scm, Yuri posted a comment giving numerous vague generalities
>about possible influences on the native populations, including fortified
>villages, advanced agriculture, eastern Indians looking different from
>western Indians, etc. I asked for specifics, which were not forthcoming.
>Then Hu posted his "pre-columbian horse" note over here. Yuri quickly
>lassoed it and rode off to read Roe's "Indian and the Horse," in the
>process conveniently putting aside my request for specifics, saying he
>could only do one thing at a time.
>
>Please note that I did not ask about the horse.
>
>I am still waiting for his specifics. >

From Yuri??
I'm awaiting the next back to bannanas or the well echoed Pineapple in
parts foreign.
Or Patch the wandering Kumera.

This sig is a sine of the thymes

[tom kavanagh]

Yuri Kuchinsky has posted a commentary based on his reading of Frank
Roe's "The Indian and the Horse," including some quotations from Roe. A
few hours in the library -- my own and the university's -- spent
checking those quotations and citations produced the following.

I.
What Yuri wrote (quoting Roe):

Be this as it may, in Virginia, about 1669, wild horses ... [originally

imported from England?] ... were a pest. (p. 67,quoting Wissler,
INFLUENCE OF THE HORSE)

What Roe wrote:
Be this as it may, in Virginia, about 1669, wild horses, originally
imported by the "cavalier element" (presumably from England), were a
pest.

What Wissler wrote:
The English colonies imported horses moderately, except Virginia, where
the cavalier element, as among the Spaniards, brought in the horse, and
where in 1669 wild horses became a pest.

tk comment:
Wissler does not give a citation. It is therefore at best only a
secondary source.

II.
What Yuri wrote (quoting Roe):

Le Page du Pratz (1719) and others speak of horses being "numerous" in
the South, and seemingly "different from the European horse". (p. 69)

[citing Wissler]

What Roe wrote:
With the coming of the eighteenth century, the horse had apparently
acquired a firm foothold in the Southereast. Le Page du Pratz (1719) and

others speak of horses being "numerous" in the South, and seemingly

"different from the European horse." This, in Wissler's opinion,
suggests a resemblance to Indian horses, and perhaps indicates a cross
hailing from Hispano-Indian, trans-Mississippian sources.

What Wissler wrote:
According to Swanton, Du Pratz and others speak of horses numerous in
the south and note that they seem a different variety from the European
horse, which suggests the Indian horse of the west.

tk comment:
First, note that Roe snipped the first three words from Wissler,
implying that he had read Du Pratz, and he added a date, implying a
documentary citation. But it was not. Although Le Page was in Louisiana
from 1718 to 1734, he did not publish until the 1750s, beginning with
several articles in the Paris "Journal Oeconomique" ca 1751, then with
his three volume "Histoire de la Louisiane" in 1758, with a two volume
English edition in 1763, followed by a one volume edition in 1774.

That is, What Roe had read was Wissler, not Du Pratz. But Wissler gave
no specific citation to any of Swanton's writings, and a search of the
nine publications on the Southeastern peoples by Swanton before 1914
(the year of Wissler's article) turns up no such statement. Indeed, in
Swanton's first monograph -- his "Indian Tribes of the Lower Mississippi
Valley" (BAE bulletin 43, 1911) -- while Du Pratz is well cited, the
word 'horse' does not appear in the index, and a quick browse found no
mention.

But Du Pratz did mention horses. In the index to the 1976 reprinting of
the 1774 edition of his "Histoire de la Louisiane", there are seven
mentions. Three of these are in the section reprinting of Etienne
Veneart de Bourgmont's 1724 journal of his trip acros the Plains, and
merely mention mounted Indians. Two refer to the "Avoyelles" nation on
the Red River below Natchitoches, "known only for the services they have
done for the colony by the horses, oxen, and cows they have brought from
New Mexico .... By means of this nation we have in Louisiana very
beautiful horses, of the species of those of Old Spain ... "(p 166),
while another states, "These are the people who bring our settlers
horses, oxen, and cows. ... The Spaniards of New Spain have such numbers
of them that they do not know what to do with them, and are obliged to
those who will take them off their hands" (p 317). One states, "Before I
speak of the animals which the first settlers found in Louisiana, it is
proper to observe, that all those which were brought thither from France
... such as horses, oxen, sheep ... have multiplied and thriven
perfectly well" (p 254), while the last, speaking of the Choctaw
campaign of 1736, notes, first, that "the new Commandant of the Illinois
[gathered] all that he could bring together, with a great number of
horses. ... [but] Provisions, which at first were in great plenty, came
at last to be so scarce that they were obliged to eat the horses which
were to draw the artillery" (p 102).

The result: unless Swanton found something in Du Pratz' preliminary
articles in the Paris "Journal Oeconomique" ca 1751, or in the materials
from the French version of 1758 cut by the English editors of 1763 and
1774 and published it in an article unnoticed by bibliographer Frances
Nichols, ultimately, those "numerous" and "different" horses cannot be
reliably traced earlier than Wissler's 1914 reference to Swanton and his
otherwise uncited "other" writers. They are thus also secondary if not
tertiary sources.

III.

What Yuri wrote:
The earliest hypothetical date in Wissler's paper is where he considers
that many tribes should have had horses before 1600. This opinion is
endorsed by Walter Prescott Webb, a high authority on Plains history.
(p. 72)

What Roe wrote:
Denhardt observes with reference to the essay of Francis Haines ... that
Haines brought out the fact that Wissler placed horses with the Indians
a trifle too early. The earliest hypothetical date in Wissler's paper

is where he considers that many tribes should have had horses before
1600. This opinion is endorsed by Walter Prescott Webb, a high authority
on Plains history.

tk comment:
While the quotation given by Yuri suggests that Webb endorsed Wissler's
view that many tribes "should have had horses before 1600", it is not
clear from the full quotation which opinion Webb indeed "endorsed":
Wissler, or Haines's view that Wissler was "a trifle too early." I have
not had a chance to check this latter point.

IV.

What Yuri wrote:
And here is another amazingly early date, in reference to the testimony
coming from Francisco de Ibarra who was in the Sonora Valley in 1567,

(quoting Roe)

In that account we find the tribes -- or some of them -- in that
territory not merely acquainted with the horse, but practiced horsemen
at that date. (p. 73, quoting Denhardt, HORSE OF THE AMERICAS)

What Roe wrote:
Denhardt has overlooked his own reference to Franciso de Ibarra in the
Sonora Valley about 1567. In that account we find the tribes -- or some

of them -- in that territory not merely acquainted with the horse, but
practiced horsemen at that date.

tk comment:
This and the preceding quotation are from the same paragraph in Roe,
whose general purpose is to point out the irony in Denhardt's critique
of Wissler for being "a trifle too early" when he (Denhardt) had an even
earlier date. The use of them as distinct references is problematic
mostly from an editorial standpoint. But at the same time, it should be
noted that Wissler's "early date" was speaking of North American Plains
peoples, not Mexican peoples.

V

What Yuri wrote:
So this was the situation in the South. How was it possible that the
Natives close to Spanish areas could have horses so early, and a
_different kind of a horse_, the one that the Spanish were strongly
prejudiced against, and probably did not introduce? These are very
difficult questions...

tk comment:
Two of the four citations refer only peripherally to Spanish areas. One
is to Virginia, and speaks of the descendants of imported horses, the
other is to greater French Louisiana, and speaks of horses "of the
species of Old Spain" brought from New Mexico where there was an excess.
[It must be noted that the Spanish Archives of New Mexico note much
effort to repress any such trade.]

At the same time, the immediate context of Roe's comments in II seems
aimed at raising doubts about the usefulness of the cited report about
different horses-- Roe: "We do not know whether the somewhat vague term
European horse specifically recognized and and included the Andalusian
or semi-Arab breed of Cordoba in the European category. This is doubtful
unless our observer was both exceptionally well informed and very
precise in his terms. American-bred horses even containing Spanish
ancestry could conceivably look quite unlike the (Northern) European
horse without any admixture ... arising from Indian cross-breeding."
Moreover, bibliographic research cannot trace the specifics of the
reference -- "different from the European horse" -- any earlier than
Wissler's 1914 reference to Swanton.

Therefore the "_different kind of a horse_" reference must remain in the
limbo of a secondary, if not tertiary, source.

Further, since there seems to be no reference to a "_different kind of a
horse_", there can be no "strong prejudice" against it. Indeed, there
seems to be nothing of the kind
in either Roe or Wissler's discussion of du Pratz.

VI
What Yuri wrote (citing Roe):

A very interesting account was supplied by an explorer Jacques de
Saint-Pierre in 1750-52. He describes some tribes in the far interior in
the Rocky Mountains area that were expert horse breeders and traders (p.
97). No Europeans had penetrated there at this point!

What Roe wrote:
These descrepant circumstances taken together with the impossible jumble
of directions., leave Saint-Pierre's carelessness, essential ignorance,
or deliberate mis-representation of the geography of the country as
practically the only tangible conclusion which emerges from all this
welter of confusion.

tk comment:
While some (such as Wissler) have accepted Saint-Pierre, Roe marshalls
significant arguments against him. Yuri does not cite them.

Conclusion:
Of the five quotations from Roe quoted by Yuri discussed here, along
with Yuri's summation, most are problematic from an historiographic
perspective. The one quotation from Roe that is not of itself
problematic -- Francisco de Ibarra -- is explicable from Roe's own
perspective that Indians quickly learned the skills necessary to ride.

It should be noted that Roe himself was not an academic scholar. He was
widely read, but as evidenced by the citations examined here, his
sources were primarily secondary: what someone else said about what
someone else wrote. Scholarship lies in the tracking down of sources, of
checking their veracity, of asking "were they there?", of comparing one
source against another. Roe has done some of this--as evidenced by his
critique of Wissler in light of Ibarra. But he also failed to follow the
Wissler-Swanton-Du Pratz thread, which lead to Yuri's picking up on the
"different horses" motif which was based on Wissler's unreferenced
citation to Swanton.

If I have time this weekend, I will look into the other Roe quotations
cited by Yuri.

Please note: in both of my immediately previous postings, I have been
shown to be incorrect in detail, and I have acknowledged such. I am open
to differing interpretations of the above.

tk

thomas kavanagh
curator of collections
mathers museum
indiana university

http://ezinfo.ucs.indiana.edu/tkavanag/home.html

[Paul J. Gans]

Dawn L. Martinez-Byrne (dlmb...@pacbell.net) wrote:
>Doug Weller wrote:
>
>> One other thing -- for which I sadly lack any references, but... -- if
>> people
>> needed a supply of horses, wouldn't they have simply tried to
>> establish a
>> self-supporting horse colony, with obvious consequences?

> After a lifetime with horses, I can tell you this: Horses are
> notoriously slow reproducers. The rate of successful reproduction
> is @ 50%, much lower than other domestic animals. Gestation
> is 11 months, sexual maturity occurs sometime after 15 months(on
> average) and sterility is not uncommon. Given the difficulties
> involved with horse keeping, the chances of a pregnant mare foaling
> a stud colt (50%) and then successfully reproducing for some
> time are small. Should she have a filly, there are no chances of
> reproduction.

> BTW--are the horse skulls male or female? Males have more teeth.

Are you arguing that there are no overbreeding self-perpetuating
wild horses in the American southwest?

[Brame]

tom kavanagh <tkav...@indiana.edu> wrote:

[....]

: That is, What Roe had read was Wissler, not Du Pratz. But Wissler gave

: no specific citation to any of Swanton's writings, and a search of the
: nine publications on the Southeastern peoples by Swanton before 1914
: (the year of Wissler's article) turns up no such statement. Indeed, in
: Swanton's first monograph -- his "Indian Tribes of the Lower Mississippi
: Valley" (BAE bulletin 43, 1911) -- while Du Pratz is well cited, the
: word 'horse' does not appear in the index, and a quick browse found no
: mention.

[....]

A quote from Swanton's 1946 _The Indians of the Southeastern
United States_ may narrow this search:

"Du Pratz informs us that horses, and he adds cattle, were being
brought into Louisiana via the Caddo Indians and the Avoyel tribe
on Red River (Le Page du Pratz, 1758, vol. 2, pp. 241-242;
Swanton, 1911, p. 273)." --p. 349.

Swanton is citing from his BAE bulletin 43, "Indian tribes of the
lower Mississippi Valley and adjacent coast of the Gulf of Mexico," 1911.
Perhaps this also points to the page in bulletin 43 that Wissel loosely
references in 1914.

All best,
Will

[tom kavanagh]

Brame wrote:
> A quote from Swanton's 1946 _The Indians of the Southeastern
> United States_ may narrow this search:
>
> "Du Pratz informs us that horses, and he adds cattle, were being
> brought into Louisiana via the Caddo Indians and the Avoyel tribe
> on Red River (Le Page du Pratz, 1758, vol. 2, pp. 241-242;
> Swanton, 1911, p. 273)." --p. 349.
>
> Swanton is citing from his BAE bulletin 43, "Indian tribes of the
> lower Mississippi Valley and adjacent coast of the Gulf of Mexico," 1911.
> Perhaps this also points to the page in bulletin 43 that Wissel loosely
> references in 1914.

No, not really, for that citation is to the two original citations from
Du Pratz
which I cited (from the 1774 English edition):

>>Two refer to the "Avoyelles" nation on
>>the Red River below Natchitoches, "known only for the services they have
>>done for the colony by the horses, oxen, and cows they have brought from
>>New Mexico .... By means of this nation we have in Louisiana very
>>beautiful horses, of the species of those of Old Spain ... "(p 166),
>>while another states, "These are the people who bring our settlers
>>horses, oxen, and cows. ... The Spaniards of New Spain have such numbers
>>of them that they do not know what to do with them, and are obliged to
>>those who will take them off their hands" (p 317).

Remember, the immediate problem is to find a citation in Du Pratz which
describes horses that are somehow 'different' from European horses and
so could be the source of Swanton's -- and Wissler's, and Roe's and
Yuri's -- conclusions.

tk

[Yuri Kuchinsky 17784]

Jeffrey L Baker (jba...@U.Arizona.EDU) wrote:
: On 10 Sep 1997, Yuri Kuchinsky 17784 wrote:

: > Another thing that is very clear is that, as many early European

: > eyewitnesses reported repeatedly, many Native tribes had the
: > horse, and were expert horsemen extremely early in the game, in
: > fact suspiciously early to square with the mainstream view that
: > their horse came from the Spanish sources. This holds true for
: > the Indian tribes both in the South and in the North.

: How long would it take someone to become an expert horsemen? I suspect one

: generation might be enough time (about twenty years).

Well, Jeffrey, so according to you the Natives will just embrace any new
cultural influence at a drop of a hat, and will run with it? OTOH, people
like you are telling everybody that while the Vikings were in America for
a few generations, presumably, NOTHING AT ALL from their culture EVER was
learned by the Natives. At the same time, as soon as the Spanish appeared
on the scene, the Natives just went into an orgy of cultural borrowing? Do
you see some inconsitency there?

: > Who may have brought the horse to America before the Spanish? One

: > feature of his book is that Roe has not asked this question even
: > once in it. This question never seems to have occurred to him!

: Did it really come to the America's before the Spanish?

The very question I'm wondering about...

: The following are dates Yuri provided for early horses in North America
: (rearranged in chronological order)

: Sonoran Valley in 1567
: In Virginia, about 1669
: among the Shoshoni by 1700
: In the southern U.S. about 1719
: Rocky Mountains in 1750-2.
: West of Hudson Bay in 1754

: The following is a list of known explorations in North America:

: John Cabot, Newfoundland 1497 (L)
: Sebastion Cabot, Newfoundland (and mainland?), 1501-1509
: Gaspar Cortez Real, Newfoundland, 1502
: Cortez, central Mexico, 1519 (L, H)
: Ponce de Leon, Florida, 1521 (L)
: Lucas Vasques de Allyum, Atlantic coast north of Florida 1521
: Verrazzano Carolinas to New England, 1523 (L)
: Esterao Gomez, East Coast 1525
: John Rut, New England area, 1527
: Richard Hare, New England area, 1536,
: Cartier and Roberval, St. Lawrence River, Montreal, 1534-1543 (L)
: De Soto, southwestern U.S. and Mississippi River Vally, 1541 (L, H)

Yes, Jeffrey, this is correct. But let me point out to you that this
pattern, as you portray it, is somewhat deceptive. Because the Europeans
SIMPLY WERE NOT SO EARLY IN THE NORTH-WEST, so how can you expect them to
report on anything in the North-West if they were not there?

The pattern that I see is that the Europeans kept going further and
further into the interior of America, and everywhere they went the horse
was seemingly there already before them.

So the big question is, Did the horse spread "with lightning speed" "by
itself" ahead of them, or was their later reporting of horse from the
interior simply the result of the fact that they got to the interior
later?

I don't have the answer for this as yet -- I just think that we should be
more careful with the way we interpret our data.

: These explorations (particularly DeSoto) provided ample opportunities for
: the introduction of horses prior to the dates provided by Roe (and Yuri)
: for horses. In Mexico, Butzer and Butzer (1993) note that by 1555, there

: were 60 cattle and horse estancias (ranches) in th Valley of Toluca. by
: 1582, over 10,000 horses were present in the Queretera and San Juan del

: Rio valleys (on Spanish ranches). Initially for the Spaniards, stock

: raising (particularly cattle) was much more important than agricultural
: activities. By the 1550's cattle were so prevalent in central Mexico (and
: causing so much damage to crops) that they were forced out of central
: Mexico to the east (towards Veracruz) and north (towards the Sonoran
: Valley). The cattle ranchers were intitially engaging in transhumant
: activities (moving the cattle between summer and winter), often as much as
: 250 to 400 km. Horses were a requisite part of this activity. There is
: ample opportunity for the horse to have appeared in the Sonoran Valley
: well before 1567.

: DeSoto's explorations extended from Florida up to the Ohio River Valley

: (into Indiana), across the Mississippi River, and as far west as modern
: day San Antonio. He came directly into contact with some groups who were
: not contacted again for 100 years. He did have horses with him on his
: travels. As Hu McCulloch noted, horses can be quite prolific breeders.
: A map of DeSoto's route is available on the web at:
: http:www.floridahistory.com/inset78.html

This URL you give appears to be incorrect. But I found such a map at

http://www.floridahistory.com/inset77m.html

Brame already remarked in a separate thread that you appear to have made a
few errors in your account of DeSoto's expedition.

: The observations of horses by the early explorers Roe mentions do not

: require a pre-Columbian introduction of the horse.

Perhaps not. But we should still examine all the available options,
because at this time the chronology is far from clear.

: In regard to the horses being different from European horses, the

: descriptions given by Yuri are relatively vague. Are they different from
: 18th and 19th century European horses or 16th century European horses?

Is there a big difference between the European horses in these centuries?

: It is worth pointing out that the Iberrian Peninsula was only recently

: reconquered by Christians from the Muslims, who may have had different
: breeds of horses. The Spanish surely would have inherited some of these.

Yes, and I believe that the Spanish horse was nearly identical to the
Moorish horse.

: Yuri claims that "the Spanish who were very particular that their horses

: should be of a uniform color."

: What is your source for this claim?

I will try to find the exact quotation soon.

: What I know about 14th and 15th century European warfare, and the

: composition of the Spanish armies (and colonists) would suggest to me
: that Yuri's statement is not accurate.

Well, it remains to be seen. I based what I said on a number of sources I
have read over time, and I'm sure I can track down the exact quote soon
enough.

Regards,

Yuri.

Yuri Kuchinsky in Toronto -=O=- http://www.io.org/~yuku

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

: References

[William Wallace]

On Sat, 13 Sep 1997 01:14:30 -0700, "Dawn L. Martinez-Byrne"
<dlmb...@pacbell.net> wrote:

>Doug Weller wrote:

>> One other thing -- for which I sadly lack any references, but... -- if
>> people
>> needed a supply of horses, wouldn't they have simply tried to
>> establish a
>> self-supporting horse colony, with obvious consequences?

> After a lifetime with horses, I can tell you this: Horses are
> notoriously slow reproducers. The rate of successful reproduction
> is @ 50%, much lower than other domestic animals. Gestation
> is 11 months, sexual maturity occurs sometime after 15 months(on
> average) and sterility is not uncommon. Given the difficulties
> involved with horse keeping, the chances of a pregnant mare foaling
> a stud colt (50%) and then successfully reproducing for some
> time are small. Should she have a filly, there are no chances of
> reproduction.

Is this maintaining a breed or wild? One generally gets a
difference.

=====
Any sufficiently convoluted argument can be made to appear to be science
as the layman equates incomprehensibility with science.

[SEN...@argo.rhein-neckar.de]

Paul J. Gans wrote:

> >> I e-mailed Yuri directly on this. His response basically
>

> I've been a regular on soc.history.medieval (not s.c.m) since
> it was created about a year ago. The only KRS postings I
> ever saw there were cross-posted from sci.archaeology.
> But the KRS is vaguely on-topic there, it is medieval (if
> true).
>
> But the Pre-Columbian horse bit has no purpose in soc.history.
> medieval at all. And, as far as I know, nobody over there
> has even responded to it. And, more importantly, the first
> posts on the thread I saw were by your friend and mine,
> good ol' Yuri.
>
> He's got a longstanding habit of adding newsgroups in an
> effort to spread the Gospel around.

Paul, I`m somewhat disapointed by your treatment of Yuris
posting. He seems one of the few citing sources on his claims.
Wheras most others only contribute just meanings with no sources
at all. For some its the typical social usenet behavior of geting
fun. But I assumed at least from a sholar like you more support
if anyone adds less known sources on his claims. The question
of precolumbian horses and the Kensington runestone are certainly
worth further archaeological and medieval discussion. That a lot
of people here dont think so is due to their lack of knowledge on
the subject. But your public reply on Yuris message ("Gospel" and
such like) is not assisting the spread of knowledge.
Here is my contribution.

Richard Hennig: Terrae Incognitae, Vol. 3, Leiden 1953, p. 324ff:
------------------------------------------------------------------

(...)

Report of priest Ivar Bardsen about his expedition to Vesterbygd
[northern norse settlement on Greenland] (1342).
In a danish writing of the 16. century (original lost), in Gronlands
Historiske Mindesmaerker III (1845), 259, and F. Jonsson: Gronlands
gamle Topografi efter Kilderne, in Meddelelser om Gronland XX,
Kopenhagen 1899, 328:

"...Item from Osterbygd [southern settlement on Greenland] to Vesterbygd
there are 12 sailing days and all solitude. And in Vesterbygd is a
large church, named Stensnesschurch. And the church was for some time
Domchurch and Bishop-place (?). Now Skraelinger [= Inuit] have robed
all out of Vesterbygd. Still there are _horses_, goats, cattle and
sheeps, but all are wild. Nevertheless no people, neither christs nor
pagans."

(...)

Gisle Oddson`s Icelandic Annales to the year 1342, according
Gustav Storm: Om Biskop Gisle Oddsons Annaler, in: Arkiv for
Nordisk Filologi VI, Lund 1890, 355ff.:

"In free will, the inhabitants of Greenland fell away of the true
beliving and of christian religion. And after losing all god moral
and real virtue, they went facing the people of America (ad Americae
populos se converterunt). There is usual assumption that Greenland
is quite close neighbouring the western lands. Thats the reason
christians abstained sailing to Greenland"

[Note: Text dealing with 1342, but time of writing it probably 16.
century based on older records]

-------------------------------------------------------------------

At the deteriorating climatic conditions in Greenland the people
there left their northern settlement and went to the american
continent. Perhaps to Vinland or some other place. And they
took their expensive horses and other animals with them. Only
some remaind in Vesterbygd for later transfer if necessary. And
the deccison to emgiree was not out of a sudden mood but
discussed with other in Osterbygd before. Otherwise the
chronist above would not be aware of a certain emigration
to the west. But the Greenland colony was an importand
producer of agricultural and other goods to norway for the
king. He was certainly not willing to suspend his taxation
on half of the people there, where ever they were now.

The events above usually were linked to an Nov/3/1352 order of
King Magnus Erikson of Norway. He ordered Paul Knutson to a
expedition to Greenland and authorized him to select expediton
members even out of his own guard. Indicating a military intention.
Official purpose of the mission was to support (enforce?)
"christianity" in greenland. Now Eriksons family was of swedish
(= Gots) origin and swede high in his ranks, one even chancelor.
Thats the link to the Kensington rune stone of 1362 and the Newport Tower.
The KRS says:

"We are 8 gots (= swede) and 22 norsmen on a discovery
mission from Vinland over the west..."

It was never any other expedition to Greenland or further
with swede and norsemen together.

Hennig and a lot other scientists assuming a search expedition
of Knutson further to the west to find the lost people of Vesterbygd
in Vinland or west/northwest of it. During the time of that
expedition the Newport Tower in Vinland (= Massachusetts and
Rhode Island) was build. The Tower was later (1677) used as a
windmill for some time, but certainly was never build for such
purpose. Its a large stone tower resting on 8 stone pillars with
roman arches oriented to north/south-east/west. No doupt its the
remain of a fortified church like the St. Olafs Church in Tunsberg,
Norway around 1300. Any archeological excavation report claiming a
14. century church as a 17. century windmill should be read very
carefully.

Greetings

SENECA

## CrossPoint v3.1 ##

[Brame]

tom kavanagh <tkav...@indiana.edu> wrote:

: Brame wrote:
: > A quote from Swanton's 1946 _The Indians of the Southeastern
: > United States_ may narrow this search:
: >
: > "Du Pratz informs us that horses, and he adds cattle, were being
: > brought into Louisiana via the Caddo Indians and the Avoyel tribe
: > on Red River (Le Page du Pratz, 1758, vol. 2, pp. 241-242;
: > Swanton, 1911, p. 273)." --p. 349.
: >
: > Swanton is citing from his BAE bulletin 43, "Indian tribes of the
: > lower Mississippi Valley and adjacent coast of the Gulf of Mexico," 1911.
: > Perhaps this also points to the page in bulletin 43 that Wissel loosely
: > references in 1914.

: No, not really, for that citation is to the two original citations from
: Du Pratz
: which I cited (from the 1774 English edition):

As you've elided the text to which I was responding, let me make
it clear that I'm not addressing interpretations (or misinterpretations)
of du Pratz, but rather an ambiguity in the chain of citations from du
Pratz through Swanton through Wissel through Roe and, ultimately, through
Yuri to the newsgroup. I'm only suggesting that it is possible Swanton
mentioned and cited horses on page 273 of BAE bulletin 43 and that you
missed it in quickly browsing the monograph. If so, the open question of
why Wissel referenced his claim to Swanton could then be closed, and
further strengthen the identification of du Pratz as the primary source,
inasmuch as Swanton cites du Pratz as his source.

: >>Two refer to the "Avoyelles" nation on

: >>the Red River below Natchitoches, "known only for the services they have
: >>done for the colony by the horses, oxen, and cows they have brought from
: >>New Mexico .... By means of this nation we have in Louisiana very
: >>beautiful horses, of the species of those of Old Spain ... "(p 166),
: >>while another states, "These are the people who bring our settlers
: >>horses, oxen, and cows. ... The Spaniards of New Spain have such numbers
: >>of them that they do not know what to do with them, and are obliged to
: >>those who will take them off their hands" (p 317).

: Remember, the immediate problem is to find a citation in Du Pratz which

: describes horses that are somehow 'different' from European horses and
: so could be the source of Swanton's -- and Wissler's, and Roe's and
: Yuri's -- conclusions.

The immediate problem is finding the citation used, and whether it
supports latter-day conclusions or not is the next question at hand. If
Swanton specifically cites du Pratz in his 1911 monograph, then the
immediate problem is resolved.

All best,
Will

[Doug Weller]

On Sat, 13 Sep 1997 18:20:20 -0700, in sci.archaeology, tom kavanagh wrote:
[SNIP]

>
>What Yuri wrote (citing Roe):
>A very interesting account was supplied by an explorer Jacques de
>Saint-Pierre in 1750-52. He describes some tribes in the far interior in
>the Rocky Mountains area that were expert horse breeders and traders (p.
>97). No Europeans had penetrated there at this point!
>
>What Roe wrote:
>These descrepant circumstances taken together with the impossible jumble
>of directions., leave Saint-Pierre's carelessness, essential ignorance,
>or deliberate mis-representation of the geography of the country as
>practically the only tangible conclusion which emerges from all this
>welter of confusion.

Thanks very much for this. We've had this problem with Yuri before. His search
for truth doesn't preclude careful editing of his sources to help his cause.

Yuri, what happened here? You often accuse others of reading comprehension
problems, but I don't think this will be your excuse.

Also, what has happened to your search for truth and concern for scholarship?
Why are you leaving the search to others? I would have thought that you would
have wanted to do some checking yourself before posting such a 'carefully'
edited article.

By the way, in what way was Roe peer reviewed? Can I remind you of something you
once said --

"Isn't this whole thing about scholarship, Will? Aren't we supposed to be
objective? When was the last time I've posted here anything outside of
peer-reviewed scholarship?"

Objectivity requires more than saying 'I trust Carter', or casual quotings from
Roe without any attempt to go any further.

And for those who have missed it, one reason I am harping on a bit about Yuri's
cavalier approach to scholarship is because of a false claim about me he made
recently:

>: >Obviously you DON'T CARE AT ALL about the value of scholarship. This is
>: >truly pathetic, Doug. Right now you have admitted that you despise
>: >scholarly process.

I, of course, never said anything of the kind. I've called Yuri out on this
several times, but he still can't find where I made this admission. And yet he
freely calls others liars when they are simply mistaken.

Yuri, are you going to do any more research on the Cowry shells, or are you
leaving that to others to do also and if no one bothers will say it must be a
valid argument as no one has refuted it?

Doug

[tom kavanagh]

Doug Weller wrote:

> By the way, in what way was Roe peer reviewed?

To quote from the dust cover:

Frank Gilbert Roe, a native of Sheffield, England, came to Canada in
1894 and has worked as a farmer, ranch hand, and locomotive engineer
inthe Canadian west. He holds an honorary LL.D. degree frtom Alberta
University, and his articles for scholarly publications and his notable
book, The North American Buffalo, published in 1951 has established him
as one of the most gifted present-day scholars.

The "Civilization of the American Indian" series of OU press, of which
'The Indian and the Horse' was #41, was a popular series. We can assume
that it underwent the same kind of review as others in the series.

tk

[Hu McCulloch]

Jeffrey L Baker <jba...@U.Arizona.EDU> writes:

>The following are dates Yuri provided for early horses in North America
>(rearranged in chronological order)

>Sonoran Valley in 1567
>In Virginia, about 1669
>among the Shoshoni by 1700
>In the southern U.S. about 1719
>Rocky Mountains in 1750-2.
>West of Hudson Bay in 1754

>The following is a list of known explorations in North America:

>John Cabot, Newfoundland 1497 (L)
>Sebastion Cabot, Newfoundland (and mainland?), 1501-1509
>Gaspar Cortez Real, Newfoundland, 1502
>Cortez, central Mexico, 1519 (L, H)
>Ponce de Leon, Florida, 1521 (L)
>Lucas Vasques de Allyum, Atlantic coast north of Florida 1521
>Verrazzano Carolinas to New England, 1523 (L)
>Esterao Gomez, East Coast 1525
>John Rut, New England area, 1527
>Richard Hare, New England area, 1536,
>Cartier and Roberval, St. Lawrence River, Montreal, 1534-1543 (L)
>De Soto, southwestern U.S. and Mississippi River Vally, 1541 (L, H)

What happened to l'Anse aux Meadows, circa 11th c? We don't
have a specifc name to associate with it, but is now quite well
established that the Norse were in Greater N. Am. long before
your dates. Furthermore, these Norse had horses in Greenland
and Iceland, and so could well have brought them west if they
were sufficiently determined.

While it is true that l'Anse aux Meadows is not on the mainland,
your first Cabot and Real citations are also to
merely insular Newfoundland explorations. If the
Norse were settling at l'Anse aux Meadows, it seems safe to
assume that they were at least aware of the coast of Labrador.
In any event, the Vinland sagas, now confirmed by l'Anse, seem
to relate to settlements further south and probably on the
mainland.

Are you denying the Norsity of l'Anse aux Meadows?

>Jeff Baker

-- Hu McCulloch

[Doug Weller]

On 14 Sep 1997 04:34:00 +0200, in sci.archaeology, SEN...@argo.rhein-neckar.de
wrote:

>
>Paul, I`m somewhat disapointed by your treatment of Yuris
>posting. He seems one of the few citing sources on his claims.

If you note, it's not that simple. Too often he only cites secondary sources and
won't go beyond them. At other times he quotes extremely selectively from them.
And he never seems to check to see if there could be anything doubtful about his
sources, if there are counter arguments, etc.

[snip]

>
>Hennig and a lot other scientists assuming a search expedition
>of Knutson further to the west to find the lost people of Vesterbygd
>in Vinland or west/northwest of it. During the time of that
>expedition the Newport Tower in Vinland (= Massachusetts and
>Rhode Island) was build. The Tower was later (1677) used as a
>windmill for some time, but certainly was never build for such
>purpose. Its a large stone tower resting on 8 stone pillars with
>roman arches oriented to north/south-east/west. No doupt its the
>remain of a fortified church like the St. Olafs Church in Tunsberg,
>Norway around 1300. Any archeological excavation report claiming a
>14. century church as a 17. century windmill should be read very
>carefully.
>

Here you're assuming that you are right, and everyone else is wrong. So it's
probably not worth my time quoting any archaeological reports, is it? If it's a
round tower, it must be a fortified Scandinavian church, despite lack of any
evidence. (Of course others claim it to be a Templar structure, so you may have
to battle it out with them).

By coincidence, today I visited a large stone tower resting on 6 pillars with
roman arches. It looks *very* much like the Newport Tower. It's the Chesterton
Windmill in Warwickshire, and no one doubts that it is a 17th century windmill.
(It was working today, by the way).

I presume you know a colonial footprint was found under the stone foundation of
the Newport Tower, and nothing has been found to suggest it is any earlier than
the 17th century (yes, I know the fireplace is in an earlier style, but what of
it?).

But that's not the end of it. An archaeologist at Chesterton told me he's
reading a report on the Newport Tower published earlier this year in the Journal
of the Newport Historical Society. He hasn't read all of it, but it appears that
they have now dated the mortar -- 17th century.

So what do we have now? NO evidence except an old style fireplace that it isn't
17th century, and evidence that it is. But I'm sure this won't be enough to
convince a lot of people, who will just ignore anything inconvenient.

Ah -- one last thing -- I do trust that Yuri in his search for truth and
devotion to scholarship will find the article and look at it objectively.

Doug

[Doug Weller]

Thanks. Although Yuri doesn't think it's valuable, this information is some clue
as to how much time one should spend on it -- but NOT altogether reliable. I
don't doubt non-peer reviewed literature can be useful, and some peer reviewed
stuff is nonsense.

[Paul J. Gans]

SEN...@argo.rhein-neckar.de wrote:

> Paul J. Gans wrote:

>> >> I e-mailed Yuri directly on this. His response basically
>>
>> I've been a regular on soc.history.medieval (not s.c.m) since
>> it was created about a year ago. The only KRS postings I
>> ever saw there were cross-posted from sci.archaeology.
>> But the KRS is vaguely on-topic there, it is medieval (if
>> true).
>>
>> But the Pre-Columbian horse bit has no purpose in soc.history.
>> medieval at all. And, as far as I know, nobody over there
>> has even responded to it. And, more importantly, the first
>> posts on the thread I saw were by your friend and mine,
>> good ol' Yuri.
>>
>> He's got a longstanding habit of adding newsgroups in an
>> effort to spread the Gospel around.

>Paul, I`m somewhat disapointed by your treatment of Yuris
>posting. He seems one of the few citing sources on his claims.

>Wheras most others only contribute just meanings with no sources
>at all. For some its the typical social usenet behavior of geting
>fun. But I assumed at least from a sholar like you more support
>if anyone adds less known sources on his claims. The question
>of precolumbian horses and the Kensington runestone are certainly
>worth further archaeological and medieval discussion. That a lot
>of people here dont think so is due to their lack of knowledge on
>the subject. But your public reply on Yuris message ("Gospel" and
>such like) is not assisting the spread of knowledge.

[deletions]

Yuri's "sources" on this have been completely and
totally demolished on sci.archaeology, as have every
single one of his other claims. He spreads to other
groups to catch folks, such as yourself, who are not
aware of how wrong his claims are. Go check the past
few weeks of postings on sci.archaeology and see for
yourself. Don't take my word for it.

And in any event, discussion of the extinction of
horses in North America twenty thousand or so years
ago are NOT on-topic for this newsgroup.

[Paul J. Gans]

No. We're just doubting the Horsity of l'Anse aux Meadows.

----- Paul J. Gans [ga...@scholar.chem.nyu.edu]

[Jeffrey L Baker]

On Sun, 14 Sep 1997, Hu McCulloch wrote:

> What happened to l'Anse aux Meadows, circa 11th c? We don't
> have a specifc name to associate with it, but is now quite well
> established that the Norse were in Greater N. Am. long before
> your dates. Furthermore, these Norse had horses in Greenland
> and Iceland, and so could well have brought them west if they
> were sufficiently determined.
>
> While it is true that l'Anse aux Meadows is not on the mainland,
> your first Cabot and Real citations are also to
> merely insular Newfoundland explorations. If the
> Norse were settling at l'Anse aux Meadows, it seems safe to
> assume that they were at least aware of the coast of Labrador.
> In any event, the Vinland sagas, now confirmed by l'Anse, seem
> to relate to settlements further south and probably on the
> mainland.

I am not, nor have I ever denied the nature of l'Anse aux Meadows. If my
memory is correct of the excavations there (it has been ten years since I
read anything on that site), no horse bones were found at that site.
I was not aware that the Norse had horses in Greenland. Do you have a
reference for this?

I was pointing out that there was ample opportunity for a postcolumbian
introduction of horses, given the known dates of exploration in North
America (it should be pointed out that my list also left
off such European colonies as Roanoke and Jamestown).

I would not be surprised to learn that some of the expeditions I listed
did not even have horses with them. I did not mean for that list to be
taken as an exhaustive summary of European contact with North America.
It was something I was able to compile with references I had at hand.

Someone else has already noted problems with the DeSoto information I
provided.

Jeff Baker

[Yuri Kuchinsky]

Here we can find more distortions from Doug.

Doug Weller (dwe...@ramtops.demon.co.uk) wrote:
: On Sat, 13 Sep 1997 18:20:20 -0700, in sci.archaeology, tom kavanagh wrote:
: [SNIP]
: >
: >What Yuri wrote (citing Roe):

: >A very interesting account was supplied by an explorer Jacques de
: >Saint-Pierre in 1750-52. He describes some tribes in the far interior in
: >the Rocky Mountains area that were expert horse breeders and traders (p.
: >97). No Europeans had penetrated there at this point!

This is correct. He did describe what I said he described.

: >What Roe wrote:
: >These descrepant circumstances taken together with the impossible jumble
: >of directions., leave Saint-Pierre's carelessness, essential ignorance,
: >or deliberate mis-representation of the geography of the country as
: >practically the only tangible conclusion which emerges from all this
: >welter of confusion.

Roe doesn't like Saint-Pierre. Big deal. Roe's interpretation is not the
only one possible. The fact is Saint-Pierre was there and he gave the
above account.

: Thanks very much for this. We've had this problem with Yuri before.

His search : for truth doesn't preclude careful editing of his sources to
help his cause.

I edit sources for clarity. Doug does not provide any sources except for
distortions, innuendo, and personal attacks.

Shameful.

Yuri.

Yuri Kuchinsky in Toronto -=O=- http://www.io.org/~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

[Doug Weller]

On 14 Sep 1997 15:07:31 GMT, in sci.archaeology, Yuri Kuchinsky wrote:

>Doug Weller (dwe...@ramtops.demon.co.uk) wrote:
>: On Sat, 13 Sep 1997 18:20:20 -0700, in sci.archaeology, tom kavanagh wrote:
>: [SNIP]
>: >

>: >What Yuri wrote (citing Roe):

>: >A very interesting account was supplied by an explorer Jacques de
>: >Saint-Pierre in 1750-52. He describes some tribes in the far interior in
>: >the Rocky Mountains area that were expert horse breeders and traders (p.
>: >97). No Europeans had penetrated there at this point!
>

>This is correct. He did describe what I said he described.
>

>: >What Roe wrote:
>: >These descrepant circumstances taken together with the impossible jumble
>: >of directions., leave Saint-Pierre's carelessness, essential ignorance,
>: >or deliberate mis-representation of the geography of the country as
>: >practically the only tangible conclusion which emerges from all this
>: >welter of confusion.
>

>Roe doesn't like Saint-Pierre. Big deal. Roe's interpretation is not the
>only one possible. The fact is Saint-Pierre was there and he gave the
>above account.

Have you read Saint-Pierre, Yuri? If not, how do you justify your comment on
Roe's interpretation? And you say 'Saint-Pierre was there' while Roe appears to
be saying 'where?'.

[SNIP]

>I edit sources for clarity. Doug does not provide any sources except for
>distortions, innuendo, and personal attacks.

Well, there's editing and editing. Yuri's left off bits before that didn't suit
him.

I see no distortions or innuendo on my part, but then I guess I wouldn't, would
I? And I'm glad to hear Yuri deplores personal attacks, I presume we won't see
any more from him. But as long as he continues to call people he disagrees with
liars, accuse them of not being interested in the truth, etc, I will continue to
point out his hypocrisy.

As for sources, I admit the only sources I've posted today were the ones for
the Newport Tower, the Vinland map, and several sources concerning stone
structures in New England to a mailing list.

[Yuri Kuchinsky]

ga...@panix.com (Paul J. Gans) wrote on 14 Sep 1997 14:11:22 -0400

> Yuri's "sources" on this have been completely and
> totally demolished on sci.archaeology, as have every
> single one of his other claims.

This is an obvious lie.

The notorious liar Paul Gans has no shame whatsoever.

> He spreads to other
> groups to catch folks, such as yourself, who are not
> aware of how wrong his claims are.

Very few, if any, of my claims have ever been disproven.

> Go check the past
> few weeks of postings on sci.archaeology and see for
> yourself. Don't take my word for it.

It would be indeed a mistake to take a word of the very dishonest Prof.
Gans for anything...

Regards,

[Yuri Kuchinsky]

Doug Weller (dwe...@ramtops.demon.co.uk) wrote:
: On 14 Sep 1997 15:07:31 GMT, in sci.archaeology, Yuri Kuchinsky wrote:

: >Roe doesn't like Saint-Pierre. Big deal. Roe's interpretation is not the

: >only one possible. The fact is Saint-Pierre was there and he gave the
: >above account.

: Have you read Saint-Pierre, Yuri?

Don't be stupid, Doug. I had no time to read him. But I read the quote
from him that you haven't read.

: If not, how do you justify your comment on : Roe's interpretation?

Because I read the original quote.

: And you say 'Saint-Pierre was there' while Roe appears to : be saying
'where?'.

This is ridiculous. You have read neither Roe nor the quote, and you claim
to know what is going on. This is pathetic presumption on your part.

: >I edit sources for clarity. Doug does not provide any sources except for

: >distortions, innuendo, and personal attacks.

: Well, there's editing and editing. Yuri's left off bits before that
didn't suit : him.

You're a sick man, Doug. To everyone else except you, in your morbid
obsession with Yuri and everything he says, and in your absurd insistence
on putting every word of mine under the microscope, this thing must appear
exactly for what it is: Doug trying to work out some of his unmentionable
personal problems by launching a grotesque personal vendetta against me.

Is this really the only way you know how to get your kicks? Your life must
be pretty boring then...

: I see no distortions or innuendo on my part, but then I guess I
wouldn't, would : I?

Sure, you don't see it... I guess this proves conclusively justs how slow
witted you really are...

: And I'm glad to hear Yuri deplores personal attacks,

Well you just love it, don't you, when once in a while I will pay
attention to your abundant and meaningless rants? Your pathetic attempts
to launch a personal crusade against me have finally succeeded in so far
I've decided that I will ignore your tripe no more. I will point out every
lie and distortion that you make from now on.

: I presume we won't see : any more from him.

Just one more time, Doug, because you richly deserve it.

: Doug Weller Moderator, sci.archaeology.moderated

: Submissions to:sci-archaeol...@medieval.org
: <Admin address: arch-mo...@ucl.ac.uk>

Yes, you boring and power-hungry pathetic creature. You've moderated the
moderated group to the point where it now gets perhaps one post a week.
That's one tough job for you Doug, to moderate in such heavy traffic...
Watch out you don't get overworked...

You want more personal compliments from Yuri? Just let me know, and
I'll be happy to oblige...

[Jonathan Stone]

In article <5vhqv0$e5i$3...@news.trends.ca>, yu...@mail.trends.ca (Yuri Kuchinsky) writes:

> Very few, if any, of my claims have ever been disproven.

* Yuri (unless I have the attribution wrong) claimed that
feather costumes and feather head-dresses were unknown in
Asia in `ancient times'.
This was refuted in truly gory detail.

* Yuri did not *make* the claim that outriggers were unknown
in New Zealand, but he certainly supported it.

The claim is preposterous; and Larry Elmore has had the good
grace to retreat from it. Yuri (to my notice) has not, but
I weclcome corrections.

* Yuri repeated a claim of Heyerdahl's of ancient visitations
to Pacific Islands by Meso-American or Peruvian rulers.

One of our colleagues in New Zealnd had the good graces to
check the source which Heyerdahl cited. What was reported, and
claimed by Yuri (quoting Heyerdahl?) as a verbal historical record
of a visit from the Americas was revealed to be a typical mixture of
history and mythos (early mariner creates portions of the local landscape)
combined with a standard Western polynesian origin myth referring to
Hawaii'iki-nui. (That counts as close enough to disproof of the claim
for me: the cited source doesn't say what Heyerdahl et. al's
inept scholarship claims they were saying).

* _Yuri's_ claim what Roe (a secondary source) says, is disproven by
the simple expedient of reading Roe and examining what Roe actually
said about Roe's primary sources.

This, to me, is the most telling: Yuri's claims of what those
(secondary) sources actually *say* has been clearly disproven. Yuri
cannot be trusted to give accurate, representative report of the
sources Yuri himself uses.

Many of Yuri's claims have been disproved. (hm, that disproves Yuri's
claim that few, if any, of his claims have been disproved!)

Moreover, the text I snipped:

> ga...@panix.com (Paul J. Gans) wrote on 14 Sep 1997 14:11:22 -0400
>
> > Yuri's "sources" on this have been completely and
> > totally demolished on sci.archaeology, as have every
> > single one of his other claims.

is entirely accurate.

In so many instances where participants in this NG have gone to
Heyrdahl, and read Heyerdahl's sources, those sources are either
long-discredited (even in the 1950s when Heyerdahl used them), are
references to secondary or tertiary sources of dubious provenance, or
to sources who simply _do not say what Heyerdahl et. al claims they say_.

References to Heyerdahl are worthless. They _have_ been completely and
totally demolished. Heyerdahl's basic thesis of South American
settlement of Polynesia is disproven by the genetic data -- as if the
lingusitic and morphological evidence (rocker jaws) weren't enough on
their own.

[Yuri Kuchinsky]

Jonathan Stone (jona...@DSG.Stanford.EDU) wrote:

: In article <5vhqv0$e5i$3...@news.trends.ca>, yu...@mail.trends.ca (Yuri Kuchinsky) writes:
:
: > Very few, if any, of my claims have ever been disproven.
:
:
: * Yuri (unless I have the attribution wrong) claimed that
: feather costumes and feather head-dresses were unknown in
: Asia in `ancient times'.
: This was refuted in truly gory detail.

This is a lie. I have never made such a claim.

: * Yuri did not *make* the claim that outriggers were unknown

: in New Zealand, but he certainly supported it.
:
: The claim is preposterous; and Larry Elmore has had the good
: grace to retreat from it. Yuri (to my notice) has not, but
: I weclcome corrections.

This is a lie. I have never made such a claim.

: * Yuri repeated a claim of Heyerdahl's of ancient visitations : to

Pacific Islands by Meso-American or Peruvian rulers. : : One of our
colleagues in New Zealnd had the good graces to : check the source which
Heyerdahl cited. What was reported, and : claimed by Yuri (quoting
Heyerdahl?) as a verbal historical record : of a visit from the Americas
was revealed to be a typical mixture of : history and mythos (early
mariner creates portions of the local landscape) : combined with a
standard Western polynesian origin myth referring to : Hawaii'iki-nui.
(That counts as close enough to disproof of the claim : for me: the cited
source doesn't say what Heyerdahl et. al's : inept scholarship claims
they were saying).

This is an idiotic assertion that has no basis in fact.

: * _Yuri's_ claim what Roe (a secondary source) says, is disproven by :

the simple expedient of reading Roe and examining what Roe actually :
said about Roe's primary sources.

This is a lie. Nothing I said was inaccurate.

: This, to me, is the most telling: Yuri's claims of what those :

(secondary) sources actually *say* has been clearly disproven. Yuri :
cannot be trusted to give accurate, representative report of the : sources
Yuri himself uses.

This is a baseless personal attack.

: Many of Yuri's claims have been disproved. (hm, that disproves Yuri's

: claim that few, if any, of his claims have been disproved!)

This is a baseless personal attack.

: Moreover, the text I snipped:

:
: > ga...@panix.com (Paul J. Gans) wrote on 14 Sep 1997 14:11:22 -0400
: >
: > > Yuri's "sources" on this have been completely and
: > > totally demolished on sci.archaeology, as have every
: > > single one of his other claims.
:
: is entirely accurate.

This is a lie and a baseless personal attack

: In so many instances where participants in this NG have gone to :

Heyrdahl, and read Heyerdahl's sources, those sources are either :
long-discredited (even in the 1950s when Heyerdahl used them), are :
references to secondary or tertiary sources of dubious provenance, or : to
sources who simply _do not say what Heyerdahl et. al claims they say_.

A baseless personal attack.

You should be ashamed of yourself because of your pathetic lies.

[Yuri Kuchinsky]

I'm quite concerned about the despicable tendency of late by a number of
posters in this ng to lie brazenly. I think there really should be some
limits to their deviousness and dishonesty, but recently all such limits
have been exceeded. Jonathan here appeared to have set a record of how
many lies can fit into one post. And of course he supports Paul Gans in
similar activities.

Jonathan Stone (jona...@DSG.Stanford.EDU) wrote:
: In article <5vhqv0$e5i$3...@news.trends.ca>, yu...@mail.trends.ca (Yuri Kuchinsky) writes:
:
: > Very few, if any, of my claims have ever been disproven.

: * Yuri did not *make* the claim that outriggers were unknown

: in New Zealand, but he certainly supported it.

This is just one lie. And he thinks that Paul Gans is doing a good thing
by lying also.

: > ga...@panix.com (Paul J. Gans) wrote on 14 Sep 1997 14:11:22 -0400
: >
: > > Yuri's "sources" on this have been completely and
: > > totally demolished on sci.archaeology, as have every
: > > single one of his other claims.
:
: is entirely accurate.

"Every single claim" of mine has been demolished? Do these people have no
shame at all, and no respect for facts? To give just a few very important
examples of discussions I've participated in, where NEW AND GROUNDBREAKING
EVIDENCE was presented by me and others, and where my views have been
validated by a number of posters, and where all opposition ran away
eventually.

1. Maize in precolumbian India.
2. Precolumbian banana in America.
3. Sweet potato travelling from America precolumbus.

So who "demolished" these theories and when? Are you going to defend
yourself, Paul, or are you going to apologize?

I'm afraid neither. Like a coward he will most likely just pretend he
never saw this post...

: In so many instances where participants in this NG have gone to
: Heyrdahl, and read Heyerdahl's sources, those sources are either
: long-discredited (even in the 1950s when Heyerdahl used them), are
: references to secondary or tertiary sources of dubious provenance, or
: to sources who simply _do not say what Heyerdahl et. al claims they say_.

If they can lie so boldly about my posts, which are all available in
DejaNews, is it any wonder that they will also lie brazenly about the
books of Heyerdahl, most of which are not read in our Universities because
of the de facto blacklist on studying the research of this great
archaeological pioneer?

Please, people, let us have some minimum standards of honesty in this ng.

Yuri.

Yuri Kuchinsky in Toronto -=O=- http://www.io.org/~yuku

It is a far, far better thing to have a firm anchor in nonsense than

[Yuri Kuchinsky]

Doug Weller (dwe...@ramtops.demon.co.uk) wrote:
: On 14 Sep 1997 15:16:41 GMT, in soc.history.medieval, Yuri Kuchinsky wrote:

: >This is a baseless personal attack, Jeff. You should be ashamed of
: >yourself. I quote primary sources ALL THE TIME. I NEVER refuse to cite
: >such sources if they are available to me.

: It's not baseless, Yuri, although I agree it is exaggerated. You have
quoted : primary sources heavily in some threads, hardly at all in others.
Recently : though you've been relying much more on secondary sources which
many people find : dubious,

This is baseless innuendo, typical for Doug.

: and you *appear* to be happy to accept them without reading the primary
: sources.

More of the same.

: Thus in the thread on horses you criticise Roe's
characterisation of : someone's report (which characterisation you had
left out of your original : post), although you haven't read the original.

More innuendo. I'm quite happy with my post the way I wrote it. Some
people may disagree, after they compared my post with the original text
from which I quoted. You haven't. So why are you in such a haste to
present your uninformed opinion here? Because you are an arrogant and
pompous know-it-all with the penchant for bullying honest researchers who
are actually doing the work?

: Your posts on cowry shells were : annoying to some simply because you
didn't seem aware of the shortcomings of : your sources

This is a baseless personal attack. If you think I'm unaware of such
things, you must be pretty naive indeed.

: or keen to do any further research.

And this is a distortion that borders on lying.

: People ask for primary : references from Heyerdahl, and expect you to
find them also.

And I expect you to have some decency and stop this campaign of harassment
and persecution on which you seemed to have launched. It is clear that
these personal attacks on your part have nothing to do with true
scholarship. I have presented some valid evidence on this subject. So far
you have presented zero evidence, while harassing those who do. This is of
course one way to suppress discussions of these important, challenging,
and also very difficult subjects.

Shame on you, Doug.

[Doug Weller]

On 14 Sep 1997 22:57:57 GMT, in sci.archaeology, Yuri Kuchinsky wrote:

>
>
>Yes, you boring and power-hungry pathetic creature. You've moderated the
>moderated group to the point where it now gets perhaps one post a week.
>That's one tough job for you Doug, to moderate in such heavy traffic...
>Watch out you don't get overworked...

Whoops! Lie or just a bad server?
--

Doug Weller Moderator, sci.archaeology.moderated
Submissions to:sci-archaeol...@medieval.org
<Admin address: arch-mo...@ucl.ac.uk>

[Jonathan Stone]

In article <5vi8v1$6ou$1...@news.trends.ca>, yu...@mail.trends.ca (Yuri Kuchinsky) writes:

The poster with the honesty problem isn't me, and it isn't Doug
Weller. And don't think you can get away from defending your the
*C. Moneta* claim with this smoke-screen about honesty, either.

First things first, although Yuri puts them last:

> Please, people, let us have some minimum standards of honesty in this ng.

Yuri, that is *precisely* what we are asking for: that you provide
primary sources for your claims, or withdraw them. In this instance,
the claim for solid archaeolical evidence for *C. Moneta* with a clear
pre-Cooumbian provenance. As a secondary point, perhaps I should
insist that you also acknowledge when your claims have been
*dis*proven, for you are telling less than the whole truth about that.

You made a claim that few, if any, of your claims in this newsgroup
have been disproven. Here is that claim again:

>In article <5vhqv0$e5i$3...@news.trends.ca>, yu...@mail.trends.ca (Yuri Kuchinsky) writes:
>
> Very few, if any, of my claims have ever been disproven.

I listed three such claims, and one which you did not originate,
but most certainly supported:

Jonathan Stone (jona...@DSG.Stanford.EDU) wrote:

: * Yuri did not *make* the claim that outriggers were unknown
: in New Zealand, but he certainly supported it.

And then you snipped out the *THREE* claims you *DID* make which
*HAVE* been disproven, and responded:

>: * Yuri did not *make* the claim that outriggers were unknown
>: in New Zealand, but he certainly supported it.

>This is just one lie. And he thinks that Paul Gans is doing a good thing
>by lying also.

:OK. You have conceded, then, that the other three points I listed
*are* claims you have made, in this newsgroup that have been disproven?
Yes? If so, why carp on about the other claim?

Because it is *not* a lie. The claim was made (based on a claim made
by Heyerdahl.) It has been disproven beyond a reasonable doubt. I've
given Larry Elmore references to Beaglehole; Larry has been given
other references and quotes from the journal of Nichols; if Larry
wishes to consult Cooks' diaries in the original, well, that's
certainly his prerogative. I suppose the Beagleholes' reputation is,
after all, a local thing.

The only loophole I see here is that Yuri may choose to re-interpret
his postings, after the fact, as `not supporting' Larry's claim.
Again, that exchange is in DejaNews for anyone who cares to read it--
including the ad-hominems advising those disagreeing with Larry to
``get informed.''

And even if we grant that, there are the three claims that you made
but did not choose to answer. To me, this looks like a deliberate
attempt by Yuri to smear the truth-- perhaps in an attempt to escape
from producing any primary sources to substantiate his *C. Moneta*
claim.

: this is just one lie. And he thinks that Paul Gans is doing a good thing
: by lying also.

No, it's the truth. The claim was made, you supported it, and it was
disproven. Please don't insult the intelligence of the entire group by
claiming otherwise.

> 1. Maize in precolumbian India.

> 2. Precolumbian banana in America.

> 3. Sweet potato travelling from America precolumbus.

None of these are proven. They've been demolished to my satisfaction.
but Yuri, please remember *you* are the one who insists, repeatedly,
on this newsgroup that `negative evidence is not valid'.
The onus is on *you* to prove these claims; and extraordinary claims
require extraordinary evidence.

> yourself, Paul, or are you going to apologize?

> : In so many instances where participants in this NG have gone to
> : Heyrdahl, and read Heyerdahl's sources, those sources are either
> : long-discredited (even in the 1950s when Heyerdahl used them), are
> : references to secondary or tertiary sources of dubious provenance, or
> : to sources who simply _do not say what Heyerdahl et. al claims they say_.
>
> If they can lie so boldly about my posts,

I'm not aware of any lies about your posts outside that set itself.

> which are all available in
> DejaNews, is it any wonder that they will also lie brazenly about the
> books of Heyerdahl, most of which are not read in our Universities because
> of the de facto blacklist on studying the research of this great
> archaeological pioneer?

Heyerdahl doesn't always cite his sources accurately, and Heyerdahl's
sources are often discredited or out-of-date secondary sources. One
thing I value Larry Elmore for is pointing that out. Those flaws
makes Heyerdahl worthless as an archaeological reference. End of
story. What Heyerdahl says is worthless, because we can't trust him,
and have to go and see who *his* sources are, and what *they* said.

For the same reasons we are asking *you* for primary sources on the
claim that *C. Montea* from the Indian Ocean (not a similar species)
was found in an unquestioned pre-Columbian context in South America.

To quote two other posters, ``Put up, or shut up.''

[Jonathan Stone]

In article <5vhqv0$e5i$3...@news.trends.ca>, yu...@mail.trends.ca (Yuri Kuchinsky) writes:

> Very few, if any, of my claims have ever been disproven.

OK, how about this one:

:
: [Yuri:]
: : }People should try to move away from this preconception that balsa rafts
: : }were somehow "inferior" ocean-going craft. Nothing could be further from
: : }the truth. These were very sophisticated ships far superiour in their
: : }sailing abilities to what Columbus had.
:
: : Am I misreading, or is Yuri _does_ claim that balsa rafts were far
: : superior to caravels?
:
: Yes, Jonathan, I said it, I've given refs for it, and I still stand by
: what I said.

Which has been repeatedly disproven right here.

If that's not enough, how about the claim that Archimedes' principle
is an ``irrelevancy'' to the relative qualities of rafts and hulled
ships as ocean-going cargo vessels?

[Jonathan Stone]

In article <5vik70$jql$1...@news.trends.ca>, yu...@mail.trends.ca (Yuri Kuchinsky) writes:
> Jonathan Stone (jona...@DSG.Stanford.EDU) wrote:

> : In article <5vi8v1$6ou$1...@news.trends.ca>, yu...@mail.trends.ca (Yuri Kuchinsky) writes:
>
> ...
>
> : >: * Yuri did not *make* the claim that outriggers were unknown

> : >: in New Zealand, but he certainly supported it.
> :
> : >This is just one lie. And he thinks that Paul Gans is doing a good thing
> : >by lying also.
>

> Jonathan, this is a lie. I have not supported the claim that outriggers

> were unknown in New Zealand,
>

> Please substantiate your accusation or apologize. Your other lies have
> also been pointed out.

Yuri,

I find that rather puzzling, since you yourself neither substantiate
your claims nor retract them (let alone apologize) when they are shown
to be wrong. That is, after all, what we're asking for: that you
substantiate your *C.Moneta* claim, or withdraw it.

Perhaps that could be an object lesson to you, hmm??

Anyone who cares can look through DejaNews and see the threads on "Re:
Heyerdahl", "reed boats" and elsewhere. But if you want to get
precise about the *exact* positions that you took over the several
weeks that thread lasted, how about this: I leave the claim that you
supported the `Maori did not know about outriggers', and I stipulate
that I'll take Larry Elmore's judgment on whether you supported
Larry's position. If Larry says you didn't support his side of the
argument, I'll withdraw the claim.
And you can have an apology now, on account.

Now, will you grant the rest of us the same courtesy and either

(a) present, yourself, primary sources for your claim that
Indian-Ocean *C. Moneta* (and not a similar species) was found in
Adena mounds in a clear pre-Columbian context, or

(b) withdraw the claim.

This is the same courtesy I've shown you.
And if you don't do this, by your own standards, you're a liar.

Yuri, do you see **now** why we insist on primary sources????
If not, I give up. Seek help.

[Jonathan Stone]

In article <5vi5bb$1i1$1...@news.trends.ca>, yu...@mail.trends.ca (Yuri Kuchinsky) writes:
>
> : In so many instances where participants in this NG have gone to :
> Heyrdahl, and read Heyerdahl's sources, those sources are either :
> long-discredited (even in the 1950s when Heyerdahl used them), are :
> references to secondary or tertiary sources of dubious provenance, or : to
> sources who simply _do not say what Heyerdahl et. al claims they say_.
>

> A baseless personal attack.

No, it's not a personal attack, and it's not baseless.

The words I used are a fairly close paraphrase of the description of
Heyerdahl's linguistics sources I read in this newsgroup. And the
basis of Heyerdahl not accurately reporting what his sources say is
from (if memory serves) Ross Clark checking the source which (if
memory serves) you quotes as evidence for an expedition to Polynesia
from South America.

[Jonathan Stone]

In article <5vi5bb$1i1$1...@news.trends.ca>, yu...@mail.trends.ca (Yuri Kuchinsky) writes:

> Jonathan Stone (jona...@DSG.Stanford.EDU) wrote:
> : In article <5vhqv0$e5i$3...@news.trends.ca>, yu...@mail.trends.ca (Yuri Kuchinsky) writes:
> :
> : > Very few, if any, of my claims have ever been disproven.
> :
> :
> : * Yuri (unless I have the attribution wrong) claimed that
> : feather costumes and feather head-dresses were unknown in
> : Asia in `ancient times'.
> : This was refuted in truly gory detail.
>
> This is a lie. I have never made such a claim.

I *did* have the attribution wrong. I rechecked, and it turns out
this was one of Larry Elmore's disproven claims. Not Yuri's.
My sincere apologies for that mistake.

> : * Yuri did not *make* the claim that outriggers were unknown
> : in New Zealand, but he certainly supported it.
> :

> : The claim is preposterous; and Larry Elmore has had the good
> : grace to retreat from it. Yuri (to my notice) has not, but
> : I weclcome corrections.
>

> This is a lie. I have never made such a claim.

But the text you quote *says* you didn't make it originally, but that
you did support it, and it's been disproven.

> : * Yuri repeated a claim of Heyerdahl's of ancient visitations : to
> Pacific Islands by Meso-American or Peruvian rulers. : : One of our
> colleagues in New Zealnd had the good graces to : check the source which
> Heyerdahl cited. What was reported, and : claimed by Yuri (quoting
> Heyerdahl?) as a verbal historical record : of a visit from the Americas
> was revealed to be a typical mixture of : history and mythos (early
> mariner creates portions of the local landscape) : combined with a
> standard Western polynesian origin myth referring to : Hawaii'iki-nui.
> (That counts as close enough to disproof of the claim : for me: the cited
> source doesn't say what Heyerdahl et. al's : inept scholarship claims
> they were saying).
>
> This is an idiotic assertion that has no basis in fact.

It's not idiotic at all. It's an accurate description of what was
found when someone from this newsgroup went and checked Heyerdahl's
sources. Do you need article references?

> : * _Yuri's_ claim what Roe (a secondary source) says, is disproven by :
> the simple expedient of reading Roe and examining what Roe actually :
> said about Roe's primary sources.
>
> This is a lie. Nothing I said was inaccurate.

It is not a lie at all. What you about Saint-Pierre was not an
accurate rendition of what Roe actually wronte. Other quotes from Roe
elsewhere in the ng show Roe as saying that the one thing clear from
Saint-Pierre's account is that we can't tell *where* he was--let alone
conclude the Rockies.

> : This, to me, is the most telling: Yuri's claims of what those :
> (secondary) sources actually *say* has been clearly disproven. Yuri :
> cannot be trusted to give accurate, representative report of the : sources
> Yuri himself uses.
>

> This is a baseless personal attack.

No, it's not baseless, it's based firmly on the description of what
Roe says elsewhere in the newsgroup. As Doug Weller observes, there's
editing, and then there's editing.

> : Many of Yuri's claims have been disproved. (hm, that disproves Yuri's
> : claim that few, if any, of his claims have been disproved!)
>

> This is a baseless personal attack.

No, it says that your claims have been disproven, and *that* disproves
your claim that few, if any, of your claims have been disproven. It
is neither baseless nor a personal attack.

> : Moreover, the text I snipped:
> :

> : > ga...@panix.com (Paul J. Gans) wrote on 14 Sep 1997 14:11:22 -0400
> : >
> : > > Yuri's "sources" on this have been completely and
> : > > totally demolished on sci.archaeology, as have every
> : > > single one of his other claims.
> :
> : is entirely accurate.
>

> This is a lie and a baseless personal attack

No, it's not a lie, it's not baseless, and it's not a personal attack.
It's a statement about your *claims*, not about *you*.

Please stick to the fact at hand. You made a claim of *proof* for
pre-Columbian transpacific voyages; *C. moneta*>.

Either present some real archaeologial evidence -- primary sources --
that say that Indian-Ocean *C. Moneta*, not some similar species, was
found in Aruba culture mounds with a clear pre-Columbian provenance;
or retract your claim of proof.

It's that simple.

> : In so many instances where participants in this NG have gone to :
> Heyrdahl, and read Heyerdahl's sources, those sources are either :
> long-discredited (even in the 1950s when Heyerdahl used them), are :
> references to secondary or tertiary sources of dubious provenance, or : to
> sources who simply _do not say what Heyerdahl et. al claims they say_.
>
> A baseless personal attack.

No, Yuri, that is *not* a personal attack. It's a simple recognition
that citing Heyerdahl is worthless, with the reasons that stand behind
that evaluation.

At this point, it's your choice to either provide primary sources for
the claim for *C. Moneta*, or not. Call whoever you choose a liar.
What we will remeber is whether or not you provide a primary soruce
for the *C. Moneta* claim. All the rest is just bluster.

[George Black]

>
>>Are you denying the Norsity of l'Anse aux Meadows?
>

>No. We're just doubting the Horsity of l'Anse aux Meadows.

I know that I'm milking the subject but they did, according to the Vinland
Sagas, have cows.
No bull :-)))

This sig is a sine of the thymes

[Yuri Kuchinsky]

Jonathan Stone (jona...@DSG.Stanford.EDU) wrote:
: In article <5vi8v1$6ou$1...@news.trends.ca>, yu...@mail.trends.ca (Yuri Kuchinsky) writes:

...

: >: * Yuri did not *make* the claim that outriggers were unknown

: >: in New Zealand, but he certainly supported it.
:

: >This is just one lie. And he thinks that Paul Gans is doing a good thing
: >by lying also.

Jonathan, this is a lie. I have not supported the claim that outriggers

were unknown in New Zealand,

Please substantiate your accusation or apologize. Your other lies have
also been pointed out.

Yuri.

[Michael McNeil]

Jeffrey L Baker <jba...@U.Arizona.EDU> writes:

[snip]

>The following are dates Yuri provided for early horses in North America
>(rearranged in chronological order)
>
>Sonoran Valley in 1567
>In Virginia, about 1669
>among the Shoshoni by 1700
>In the southern U.S. about 1719
>Rocky Mountains in 1750-2.
>West of Hudson Bay in 1754

[snip]

I'd like to add a few additional comments to Jeff's excellent posting.

First of all, both Spanish and Portuguese ships during the 15th and 16th
centuries would leave horses, cattle, and swine on islands that they
discovered, in the hopes they would increase and become a resource for
later mariners -- and indeed, later explorers commented on and made use
of these animals on islands up and down the coasts of the Americas for
centuries thereafter [1, 2]. It could well be that the horses noted in
Virginia came from such a source. (Of course, 1669 is more than sixty
years after the Jamestown colony was established, so there was plenty of
time for horses imported from England to have also increased and spread.)

I won't comment on the Mexican item, which Jeff has handled well. Yuri's
dates for tribes in the far west and south of the U.S. possessing horses
would seem to be impressive -- until one remembers a couple of things.

The Spanish conquered the Pueblo towns of the upper Rio Grande valley
in New Mexico during the 16th century, and then -- even though Spanish
officials outlawed trafficking in horses to the Indians -- the Pueblo
peoples became experienced in breeding and caring for horses through
services they provided to the colonizers. In 1680, the Pueblo villages
revolted, expelling the Spaniards, and simultaneously hundreds of horses
fell into native hands. The _Atlas_of_the_North_American_Indian_ writes:

After 1680, equine trade advanced rapidly northward. Southern
nomadic peoples, now horse-mounted, bartered horses and products
of the hunt with seminomadic or horticultural tribes to the north.
Kiowas traded horses to Wichitas, Pawnees, Cheyennes, and
Arapahos. Utes traded to Commanches and Shoshonis. Shoshonis
traded to Crows and to Columbia Plateau tribes, such as the Nez
Perce, Cayuse, and Palouse. (The Cayuse people, who refined the
art of horse breeding, passed their name to a kind of pony, and
the Palouses gave their name to the *appaloosa* breed.) Mandan
and Arikara villages became northern trading centers. Before
long, the Sioux and other tribes east of the Missouri River at
the time were also mounted, as were northern tribes such as
Blackfoot, Assiniboine, Plains Cree, and Plains Ojibway. Some
tribal members took on the specific role of horse merchants.
An intertribal sign language evolved to facilitate commerce,
and Indians held yearly intertribal horse fairs. By the latter
part of the 18th century, the use of the horse was widespread. [3]

Given this boom in horses, starting at Santa Fe, which occurred among
the North American natives during the 18th century, it certainly seems
understandable how horses spread to the tribes that Yuri lists years
before European explorers managed to reach the area from the east.

However, to address any residual questions as to whether horses were
previously known in what is now the southern U.S. during, say, the early
16th century, let's consider the case of the Narvaez saga of 1527-1536,
where an expedition beginning with 600 men and five ships on a mission
to explore Florida, was stranded as a large landing party, followed by
a stage where diminishing hundreds of men fought light boats they'd built
from Florida along the Gulf coast as far as about Galveston, Texas, after
which, years later, the saga ended with four surviving men *walking* --
stark naked -- from eastern Texas to Mexico City, accompanied by thousands
of Indians who had come to accept the four foreigners as healing wizards.

One of these men, Cabeza de Vaca, later wrote up their adventures, which
Samuel Eliot Morison's _The_European_Discovery_of_America:_The_Southern_
_Voyages_ describes very well. Cebeza de Vaca came to like and respect
the Indians, and concerning de Vaca and the others' original continental
hosts, the Charucco, among whom they lived until 1533, Morison writes:

Although practicing their alleged cures, Cabeza de Vaca and the
other three survivors were practically slaves to their hosts,
required to do the hard labor of the camp such as carrying water
and cutting and hauling firewood. The natives thought nothing of
going three or four days without food; but, wrote Cabeza de Vaca,
"They are a merry race, considering the hunger they suffer....
To them the happiest part of the year is the season of eating
prickly pears; they have hunger then no longer, pass all the time
in dancing and eating, day and night." Later he mentions seeing
herds of wild buffalo, but does not seem to have been much
impressed, and certainly enjoyed no buffalo steaks; these natives
killed them only for their pelts. Catching and killing a deer was
a big community operation, seldom performed. Our medicine men
were often given slices of venison by grateful patients; but, as
Cabeza de Vaca tells us, they had to gobble it up raw, or someone
not so grateful would snatch it away and broil it for himself.
Finally, the four survivors of the Narvaez expedition decided,
literally, to walk for their lives.... [2]

As de Vaca's account makes clear, many of the Indians they met during that
journey were willing to give their "magical" visitors everything they had:

At one village the people had nothing to give the four
"physicians" but leaves and the green fruit of the prickly pear.
Yes, says he, "They did this with kindness and good will, and
were happy to be without anything to eat, that they might have
food to give us."

(Then, of course, once they got to Mexico, the first Spaniards they
encountered tried to *enslave* the Indians accompanying the "healers",
which de Vaca fought hard and successfully: "'We had many high words'
on this subject, wrote the intrepid traveler," as Morison quotes him.)

It would seem quite likely both that the Charucco would have been much
more effective hunters (against, e.g., the buffalo) and there would have
been no need to *walk* to Mexico had there been horses around at the time.

>Jeff Baker

--
Michael McNeil
memcneil@netcom

References

[1] Samuel Eliot Morison, _The_European_Discovery_of_America:_The_
_Northern_Voyages_, 1971, Oxford University Press, New York, p. 480 et al.

[2] Samuel ELiot Morison, _The_European_Discovery_of_America:_The_
_Southern_Voyages_, 1974, Oxford University Press, New York, pp. 519-525,
et al.

[3] Carl Waldman, maps by Molly Braun, _Atlas_of_the_North_American_
_Indian_, 1985, Facts on File Publications, New York, p. 56.

[thomas kavanagh]

Brame wrote:

> : > A quote from Swanton's 1946 _The Indians of the Southeastern
> : > United States_ may narrow this search:
> : >
> : > "Du Pratz informs us that horses, and he adds cattle, were being
> : > brought into Louisiana via the Caddo Indians and the Avoyel tribe
> : > on Red River (Le Page du Pratz, 1758, vol. 2, pp. 241-242;
> : > Swanton, 1911, p. 273)." --p. 349.

<snip>
> The immediate problem is finding the citation used, and whether it
> supports latter-day conclusions or not is the next question at hand. If
> Swanton specifically cites du Pratz in his 1911 monograph, then the
> immediate problem is resolved.

The immediate citation on page 273 of Swanton 1911 is to the second Du
Pratz quotation noted in my earlier post:

"These are the people who bring our settlers horses, oxen, and cows. ...
The Spaniards of New Spain have such numbers of them that they do not
know what to do with them, and are obliged to those who will take them
off their hands" (p 317).

That settled, we can go back to the problem of finding a citation in Du
Pratz which
describes horses that are somehow 'different' from European horses and
so could be the source of Swanton's -- and Wissler's, and Roe's and
Yuri's -- conclusions.

[Please note the spelling of Clark Wissler's name.]

tk

[Yuri Kuchinsky]

Jonathan Stone (jona...@DSG.Stanford.EDU) wrote:
: In article <5vi5bb$1i1$1...@news.trends.ca>, yu...@mail.trends.ca (Yuri Kuchinsky) writes:

: And the

: basis of Heyerdahl not accurately reporting what his sources say is
: from (if memory serves) Ross Clark checking the source which (if
: memory serves) you quotes as evidence for an expedition to Polynesia
: from South America.

This is such utter nonsense, Jonathan. The Inca expedition to Pacific
islands is based on solid historical sources. Nobody has discredited this.

This "if memory serves" stuff of yours is not fooling anyone. If your
memory is so full of holes, why do you insist on launching baseless and
deceitful personal attacks on me? You think you found someone who's so
easy to trample over with your lies? Well, think again...

Yuri.

Yuri Kuchinsky in Toronto -=O=- http://www.io.org/~yuku

You never need think you can turn over any old falsehoods

[Jonathan Stone]

In article <5vjne8$8gu$1...@news.trends.ca>, yu...@mail.trends.ca (Yuri Kuchinsky) writes:
> Jonathan, please stop your ridiculous lies and obfuscation. An apology
> would be nice too, but perhaps this is too much to expect from you...
>
> Jonathan Stone (jona...@DSG.Stanford.EDU) wrote:

> This is an obvious and demonstrable lie. I have not supported this
> position. In fact I don't know the first thing about Maori outriggers,
> and NEVER claimed to be an expert in this area.

You don't have to be an expert to come to Larry Elmore (and
Heyerdahl's) defense by casting ad-hominems and insults at those who
point out Heyerdahl's factual errors, both on factual points of
Polynesian navigation, or of Archimedes principle.

> : Now, will you grant the rest of us the same courtesy and either

> :
> : (a) present, yourself, primary sources for your claim that
> : Indian-Ocean *C. Moneta* (and not a similar species) was found in
> : Adena mounds in a clear pre-Columbian context, or
>

> As I said a number of times already (can you read???) I'm working on
> finding more evidence at this time as this literature is not readily
> available.

So Yuri, you finally admit that you do *not* have the *proof* he
claimed. This whole thread started as ``proof of transPacific
voyages''.

If you don't have proof, why did you make the claim that you did?
Are you standards for truth and scholarship that low?
How is this different in any way from what you yourself describe as
telling lies?

>
> : (b) withdraw the claim.
>
> This is bizarre obfuscation. WHY FOR GOD'S SAKE SHOULD I WITHDRAW
> SOMETHING THAT SEEMS VALID TO ME???

Well, look, it seems pretty simple to *me*.

You don't withdraw your preposterous claims or apologize for your own
very clear and months-old ad-hominems (over such well-established
facts as Archimedes' principle, no less). So why should anyone *else*
withdraw claims that seem valid to them, just because *you* object to
them?

Yuri, seek help.

[Hu McCulloch]

In article <5vhii7$3...@panix2.panix.com> ga...@panix.com (Paul J. Gans) writes:
>Path: magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu!news.cis.ohio-state.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!news-peer.sprintlink.net!news.sprintlink.net!Sprint!news-peer.gsl.net!news.gsl.net!gip.net!panix!news.panix.com!not-for-mail
>From: ga...@panix.com (Paul J. Gans)
>Newsgroups: sci.archaeology.mesoamerican,sci.archaeology
>Subject: Re: precolumbian Amerindian horse?
>Followup-To: sci.archaeology.mesoamerican,sci.archaeology
>Date: 14 Sep 1997 16:48:07 -0400
>Organization: PANIX Public Access Internet and UNIX, NYC
>Lines: 50
>Message-ID: <5vhii7$3...@panix2.panix.com>
>References: <5v6bf8$c26$1...@titan.globalserve.net> <Pine.A41.3.96.970911...@mustique.u.arizona.edu> <hmccullo.2...@pop.service.ohio-state.edu>
>NNTP-Posting-Host: panix2.panix.com
>X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2]
>Xref: magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu sci.archaeology.mesoamerican:7622 sci.archaeology:74794

>Hu McCulloch (hmcc...@pop.service.ohio-state.edu) wrote:
>>Jeffrey L Baker <jba...@U.Arizona.EDU> writes:

>>>The following are dates Yuri provided for early horses in North America
>>>(rearranged in chronological order)

>>>Sonoran Valley in 1567
>>>In Virginia, about 1669
>>>among the Shoshoni by 1700
>>>In the southern U.S. about 1719
>>>Rocky Mountains in 1750-2.
>>>West of Hudson Bay in 1754

>>>The following is a list of known explorations in North America:

>>>John Cabot, Newfoundland 1497 (L)
>>>Sebastion Cabot, Newfoundland (and mainland?), 1501-1509
>>>Gaspar Cortez Real, Newfoundland, 1502
>>>Cortez, central Mexico, 1519 (L, H)
>>>Ponce de Leon, Florida, 1521 (L)
>>>Lucas Vasques de Allyum, Atlantic coast north of Florida 1521
>>>Verrazzano Carolinas to New England, 1523 (L)
>>>Esterao Gomez, East Coast 1525
>>>John Rut, New England area, 1527
>>>Richard Hare, New England area, 1536,
>>>Cartier and Roberval, St. Lawrence River, Montreal, 1534-1543 (L)
>>>De Soto, southwestern U.S. and Mississippi River Vally, 1541 (L, H)

>>What happened to l'Anse aux Meadows, circa 11th c? We don't

>>have a specifc name to associate with it, but is now quite well
>>established that the Norse were in Greater N. Am. long before
>>your dates. Furthermore, these Norse had horses in Greenland
>>and Iceland, and so could well have brought them west if they
>>were sufficiently determined.

>>While it is true that l'Anse aux Meadows is not on the mainland,
>>your first Cabot and Real citations are also to
>>merely insular Newfoundland explorations. If the
>>Norse were settling at l'Anse aux Meadows, it seems safe to
>>assume that they were at least aware of the coast of Labrador.
>>In any event, the Vinland sagas, now confirmed by l'Anse, seem
>>to relate to settlements further south and probably on the
>>mainland.

>>Are you denying the Norsity of l'Anse aux Meadows?

>No. We're just doubting the Horsity of l'Anse aux Meadows.

> ----- Paul J. Gans [ga...@scholar.chem.nyu.edu]

Hor, hor, hor, Paul. But seriously, is it known that l'Anse aux
Meadows had no horses? I gather no horse remains or horse
equipment were recovered, but is the community sufficiently
well reconstructed that it is known that there could not have
been any horses?

-- Hu.

[thomas kavanagh]

Please people, take soc.culture.native out of the address header.

tk

[Yuri Kuchinsky]

Jonathan, please stop your ridiculous lies and obfuscation. An apology
would be nice too, but perhaps this is too much to expect from you...

Jonathan Stone (jona...@DSG.Stanford.EDU) wrote:

...

: But if you want to get

: precise about the *exact* positions that you took over the several
: weeks that thread lasted, how about this: I leave the claim that you
: supported the `Maori did not know about outriggers',

This is an obvious and demonstrable lie. I have not supported this

position. In fact I don't know the first thing about Maori outriggers,
and NEVER claimed to be an expert in this area.

...

: Now, will you grant the rest of us the same courtesy and either
:
: (a) present, yourself, primary sources for your claim that
: Indian-Ocean *C. Moneta* (and not a similar species) was found in
: Adena mounds in a clear pre-Columbian context, or

As I said a number of times already (can you read???) I'm working on
finding more evidence at this time as this literature is not readily
available.

: (b) withdraw the claim.

This is bizarre obfuscation. WHY FOR GOD'S SAKE SHOULD I WITHDRAW
SOMETHING THAT SEEMS VALID TO ME???

Are you that dense? This theory is still valid AFAIAC and I'm working to
find more evidence in its support. Things don't happen in a day,
especially seeing that this research is so new (well, not really, but new
to our mainstream scholars, anyway) that nobody here has heard about it
before I mentioned it.

[Jonathan Stone]

In article <5vjlnc$65o$1...@news.trends.ca>, yu...@mail.trends.ca (Yuri Kuchinsky) writes:
> Jonathan Stone (jona...@DSG.Stanford.EDU) wrote:
> : In article <5vi5bb$1i1$1...@news.trends.ca>, yu...@mail.trends.ca (Yuri Kuchinsky) writes:
>
> : And the
> : basis of Heyerdahl not accurately reporting what his sources say is
> : from (if memory serves) Ross Clark checking the source which (if
> : memory serves) you quotes as evidence for an expedition to Polynesia
> : from South America.
>
> This is such utter nonsense, Jonathan. The Inca expedition to Pacific
> islands is based on solid historical sources. Nobody has discredited this.

Nonsense. Go look in DejaNews. Heyerdahl et. al's source doesn't say
quite what Heyerdahl says it does.

> This "if memory serves" stuff of yours is not fooling anyone. If your
> memory is so full of holes, why do you insist on launching baseless and
> deceitful personal attacks on me? You think you found someone who's so
> easy to trample over with your lies? Well, think again...
>

Personal attacks? Baseless? But Yuri, I've presented just as much
evidence for my observations as you have for *C Moneta*.

Nothing gives *you* the right to present any old text you happen to
dig up somewhere as undisputed evidence, which the rest must take on
faith till we disprove it; while anything said against you or your pet
theories is a baseless personal attack which must be proved to your
satisfaction or its taken as a personal slight. *Nothing*.

Which part of that do you not understand???

[Doug Weller]

On 15 Sep 1997 04:08:34 GMT, in sci.archaeology, Yuri Kuchinsky wrote:

>Doug Weller (dwe...@ramtops.demon.co.uk) wrote:
>: On 14 Sep 1997 15:16:41 GMT, in soc.history.medieval, Yuri Kuchinsky wrote:
>
>: >This is a baseless personal attack, Jeff. You should be ashamed of
>: >yourself. I quote primary sources ALL THE TIME. I NEVER refuse to cite
>: >such sources if they are available to me.
>
>: It's not baseless, Yuri, although I agree it is exaggerated. You have
>quoted : primary sources heavily in some threads, hardly at all in others.
>Recently : though you've been relying much more on secondary sources which
>many people find : dubious,
>
>This is baseless innuendo, typical for Doug.

Calm down, Yuri. I said Jeff's statement was exaggerated, remember? You should
look for support where you find it, not make silly comments about nonexistent
innuendo. I clearly say you've quoted a lot of primary sources. I was, believe
it or not, trying to be positive.

>: and you *appear* to be happy to accept them without reading the primary
>: sources.
>
>More of the same.

Nonsense. I'm talking about appearances here, ie how you come across. That's not
innuendo, that's simply noticing how people respond to you.

>: Thus in the thread on horses you criticise Roe's
>characterisation of : someone's report (which characterisation you had
>left out of your original : post), although you haven't read the original.
>
>More innuendo. I'm quite happy with my post the way I wrote it. Some
>people may disagree, after they compared my post with the original text
>from which I quoted. You haven't.

I haven't been able to find an entire quote about Jacques de
Saint-Pierre in anything I've read. I may have missed it, but I still want to
know why Roe questions his geography and why you support it. You seem unwilling
to clarify any of this.

> So why are you in such a haste to
>present your uninformed opinion here? Because you are an arrogant and
>pompous know-it-all with the penchant for bullying honest researchers who
>are actually doing the work?

Nope, because I really want an answer to the problem. Why do you disagree with
Roe? Why didn't you post the Roe quote about Saint-Pierre in context?

>
>: Your posts on cowry shells were : annoying to some simply because you
>didn't seem aware of the shortcomings of : your sources
>
>This is a baseless personal attack. If you think I'm unaware of such
>things, you must be pretty naive indeed.

Seem, Yuri, seem. That's the way some people view you. It's a comment on how
people see you. If you aren't explicitly clear about their shortcomings then how
can people read your mind? I'm not saying this happens all the time, just that
it isn't infrequent.

>: or keen to do any further research.
>
>And this is a distortion that borders on lying.

Then please, please, prove me wrong. Find Saint Pierre's report. Do more work on
cowries. Post some references from Heyerdahl, and read some yourself. AND don't
tell me to do the work, I'm not trying to prove anything here.

>
>: People ask for primary : references from Heyerdahl, and expect you to
>find them also.
>
>And I expect you to have some decency and stop this campaign of harassment
>and persecution on which you seemed to have launched.

Yuri, the reason I post is the way you treat other posters. In the past few
weeks or months your posts have become increasingly personal, increasingly
bitter, and you've begun to call people liars for what I consider no good
reason. Why can't I treat you the way you treat others?

[SNIP]

>Shame on you, Doug.

And when will you post the article where I supposedly admitted I despise the
scholarly process? Don't you think there's something a bit shameful about
claiming someone has said something they didn't?

Finally -- my response was to 1 newsgroup, you've crossposted again. Followups
set to sci.archaeology.

Doug

[Bernard Ortiz de Montellano]

In article <5vi8v1$6ou$1...@news.trends.ca>, yu...@mail.trends.ca (Yuri

Kuchinsky) wrote:

> I'm quite concerned about the despicable tendency of late by a number of
> posters in this ng to lie brazenly. I think there really should be some
> limits to their deviousness and dishonesty, but recently all such limits
> have been exceeded. Jonathan here appeared to have set a record of how
> many lies can fit into one post. And of course he supports Paul Gans in
> similar activities.
>

>[snip].

>
> "Every single claim" of mine has been demolished? Do these people have no
> shame at all, and no respect for facts? To give just a few very important
> examples of discussions I've participated in, where NEW AND GROUNDBREAKING
> EVIDENCE was presented by me and others, and where my views have been
> validated by a number of posters, and where all opposition ran away
> eventually.
>

> 1. Maize in precolumbian India.
> 2. Precolumbian banana in America.
> 3. Sweet potato travelling from America precolumbus.
>

> So who "demolished" these theories and when? Are you going to defend

> yourself, Paul, or are you going to apologize?
>
>

Yuri,
How soon you forget. I, personalluy demolished your claims to
pre-columbian bananas in the New World. Interested parties are welcome to
see for themselves in DejaNews. I also demolished your claims to cotton
diffusion, diffusion of tyrian purple, Heyerdahl's claims about
Mesoamerican culture, the diffusion of bottle gourd to mention a few. The
latest one, is your claim about money cowrie for which *you still have not
posted the primary sources on which the clims are based.
Bernard Ortiz de Montellano

[Steve Whittet]

>>>>The following are dates Yuri provided for early horses in North America
>>>>(rearranged in chronological order)

I like this list but as Hu points out l'Anse aux Meadows,
circa 11th c had a blacksmiths forge and some evidence
of smelting bog iron including as I recall some cut nails
of the size used for horseshoes.

Also the accounts of the explorations of Sinclair
and some of the norse sagas mention horses in Markland.
The Eyrbyggia saga tells of Gudleif Gunnlangson encountering
a tall old white haired man on horseback in an unknown land

There is also the story of a stolen necklace (frenum)
which translates as a bit of horse tack.

All the rest come after the Spanish had already lost some
horses in the south. As late as the French and Indian War
here is little or no mention of horses in the possession
of indiginous Americans in the east.

>
>>>>Sonoran Valley in 1567
>>>>In Virginia, about 1669
>>>>among the Shoshoni by 1700
>>>>In the southern U.S. about 1719
>>>>Rocky Mountains in 1750-2.
>>>>West of Hudson Bay in 1754
>
>>>>The following is a list of known explorations in North America:

There are a couple of known expeditions with unknown results
prior to Cabot. putting St Brendan and the Welsh prince Madoc
aside as mythical, despite the fact that Morrison accepts Brendan
was a real person making a voyage or voyages to places unknown,

There is the story of the Zeno Brothers and Zichmni. The Zeni
brothers were Venetians shipwrecked in 1380 on Frislandia who hearing
of a place called Estotiland sailed there with the local prince
named Zichmni. To my ear "Estotiland" sounds a bit like "Scotland"

Zichmni is later identified with Henry Sinclair, but Morrisson
discounts this and says he was probably the Pirate Wichmann
killed in 1401. He figures the Zenos went pirating with
Wichmann under the guise of 'exploring".

Morrisson also mentions Pining and Pothorst more pirates raiding
out of an imaginary Hvitsark halfway between Iceland and Greenland;
and Sclovus, a pilot supposed to have arrived at Labrador in 1476.

>
>>>>John Cabot, Newfoundland 1497 (L)
>>>>Sebastion Cabot, Newfoundland (and mainland?), 1501-1509
>>>>Gaspar Cortez Real, Newfoundland, 1502
>>>>Cortez, central Mexico, 1519 (L, H)
>>>>Ponce de Leon, Florida, 1521 (L)
>>>>Lucas Vasques de Allyum, Atlantic coast north of Florida 1521
>>>>Verrazzano Carolinas to New England, 1523 (L)
>>>>Esterao Gomez, East Coast 1525
>>>>John Rut, New England area, 1527
>>>>Richard Hare, New England area, 1536,
>>>>Cartier and Roberval, St. Lawrence River, Montreal, 1534-1543 (L)
>>>>De Soto, southwestern U.S. and Mississippi River Vally, 1541 (L, H)
>
>>>What happened to l'Anse aux Meadows, circa 11th c? We don't
>>>have a specifc name to associate with it, but is now quite well
>>>established that the Norse were in Greater N. Am. long before
>>>your dates. Furthermore, these Norse had horses in Greenland
>>>and Iceland, and so could well have brought them west if they
>>>were sufficiently determined.
>

I think that even if you take this as a given it is still
necessary to show why if there were many horses escaped
and about strayed or stolen shortly shortly after the
Spanish arrived, there would not have been many horses
escaped and about strayed or stolen shortly after the
Vikings arrived.

The Vikings brought horses to Greenland to plow fields.
Markland was being exploited for timber. If they had
brought horses wouldn't the animals have likely been draft
horses they could use to haul trees out of the woods?

Indeed how would they haul trees out of the woods without horses?

>>>While it is true that l'Anse aux Meadows is not on the mainland,
>>>your first Cabot and Real citations are also to
>>>merely insular Newfoundland explorations. If the
>>>Norse were settling at l'Anse aux Meadows, it seems safe to
>>>assume that they were at least aware of the coast of Labrador.
>>>In any event, the Vinland sagas, now confirmed by l'Anse, seem
>>>to relate to settlements further south and probably on the
>>>mainland.
>
>>>Are you denying the Norsity of l'Anse aux Meadows?
>
>>No. We're just doubting the Horsity of l'Anse aux Meadows.

>> ----- Paul J. Gans

>is it known that l'Anse aux

>Meadows had no horses? I gather no horse remains or horse
>equipment were recovered, but is the community sufficiently
>well reconstructed that it is known that there could not have
>been any horses?

Even if you get horses to the Rocky shores of Maine
what you are dealing with is a land of forests full
of horse predators, bears, mountain lions, even
native americans. Its a different story if you let
a horse loose on the Great Plains.

Your idea of someone finding a skull on the coast
and transporting it inland along with other shell
wampum works better.

>
>-- Hu.

steve

[Hu McCulloch]

thomas kavanagh <tkav...@indiana.edu> writes:

>Brame wrote:

I thought it was common knowledge that the mustang or cayuse looks
very different from the Spanish or English horse. Robert Ritzenthaler,
for example, speaks of the identification of the Spencer Lake horse
skull as a "western mustang" (Wisc. Archaeologist, vol. 45, #2, June
1964, p. 117). Although it is interesting to know whether or not Du Pratz
commented on this difference at an early date, the issue is not whether
these horses have a distinctive look to them, but whether or not they
could plausibly have descended from typical Spanish stock,
per the conventional story.

A.J. Clemens ("Who Brought the Horse to America", _Ancient American_,
#13, July/Aug 1996, pp. 20-23) argues that the cayuse or mustang fits
the general description of the Icelandic pony, in terms of small
stature, large squarish heads, stout necks, floor-length tails,
heavy manes, thick bodies, and small fee, and contends that
the Norse introduced them to N. Am.. His map would have
them start in southern Labrador opposite l'Anse aux Meadows,
and then migrate west, to the north of the St.
Laurence and Great Lakes, to appear in Sioux/Blackfoot country west of
Lake Superior. Sounds at least as plausible to me as the Spanish mutant
story, particularly in light of Steve Whittet's report of horseshoe-like nails
at l'Anse aux M.

Can Steve find his "primary source"?

-- Hu McCulloch

[Brian M. Scott]

On Mon, 15 Sep 1997 21:12:10 +0200, Thomas Burglin
<bur...@nixspam.ubaclu.unibas.ch> wrote:

>Jonathan Stone wrote:

>> Yuri, seek help.

>Anything he reads
>here on usenet, in particular all the refutations of his claims
>just disappear into nothing once they pass through his eyes...

Literally.

Brian M. Scott

[Doug Weller]

On 14 Sep 1997 22:57:57 GMT, in sci.archaeology, Yuri Kuchinsky wrote:

>Doug Weller (dwe...@ramtops.demon.co.uk) wrote:
>: On 14 Sep 1997 15:07:31 GMT, in sci.archaeology, Yuri Kuchinsky wrote:
>
>: >Roe doesn't like Saint-Pierre. Big deal. Roe's interpretation is not the
>: >only one possible. The fact is Saint-Pierre was there and he gave the
>: >above account.
>
>: Have you read Saint-Pierre, Yuri?
>
>Don't be stupid, Doug. I had no time to read him. But I read the quote
>from him that you haven't read.

Yes, Yuri, that's right. You haven't posted it, and don't seem to want to or
else you would have posted it when the issue first came up instead of sticking
to personalities.

>: If not, how do you justify your comment on : Roe's interpretation?
>
>Because I read the original quote.

And? Don't keep us in suspense. Justify your opinion.

>
>: And you say 'Saint-Pierre was there' while Roe appears to : be saying
>'where?'.
>
>This is ridiculous. You have read neither Roe nor the quote, and you claim
>to know what is going on. This is pathetic presumption on your part.

Er, what did I read then? Roe questions Saint-Pierre's geography unless he's
been misquoted.

>

Come on Yuri. Tell us why you support Saint Pierre over Roe. Are you sure that
Roe quotes enough from Saint Pierre for you to consider your judgement superior
to his?

And if you don't have enough time to follow things up that you post, perhaps you
should concentrate on other things where you do have the time?

Doug

[Thomas Burglin]

Jonathan Stone wrote:

>
> In article <5vjne8$8gu$1...@news.trends.ca>, yu...@mail.trends.ca (Yuri Kuchinsky) writes:
> > Jonathan, please stop your ridiculous lies and obfuscation. An apology
> > would be nice too, but perhaps this is too much to expect from you...
> >
> > Jonathan Stone (jona...@DSG.Stanford.EDU) wrote:
>
> > This is an obvious and demonstrable lie. I have not supported this
> > position. In fact I don't know the first thing about Maori outriggers,
> > and NEVER claimed to be an expert in this area.
>

> You don't have to be an expert to come to Larry Elmore (and
> Heyerdahl's) defense by casting ad-hominems and insults at those who
> point out Heyerdahl's factual errors, both on factual points of
> Polynesian navigation, or of Archimedes principle.
>

> > : Now, will you grant the rest of us the same courtesy and either
> > :
> > : (a) present, yourself, primary sources for your claim that
> > : Indian-Ocean *C. Moneta* (and not a similar species) was found in
> > : Adena mounds in a clear pre-Columbian context, or
> >
> > As I said a number of times already (can you read???) I'm working on
> > finding more evidence at this time as this literature is not readily
> > available.
>

> So Yuri, you finally admit that you do *not* have the *proof* he
> claimed. This whole thread started as ``proof of transPacific
> voyages''.
>
> If you don't have proof, why did you make the claim that you did?
> Are you standards for truth and scholarship that low?
> How is this different in any way from what you yourself describe as
> telling lies?
>
> >

> > : (b) withdraw the claim.
> >
> > This is bizarre obfuscation. WHY FOR GOD'S SAKE SHOULD I WITHDRAW
> > SOMETHING THAT SEEMS VALID TO ME???
>

> Well, look, it seems pretty simple to *me*.
>
> You don't withdraw your preposterous claims or apologize for your own
> very clear and months-old ad-hominems (over such well-established
> facts as Archimedes' principle, no less). So why should anyone *else*
> withdraw claims that seem valid to them, just because *you* object to
> them?
>
> Yuri, seek help.

Yes, anything that critizises his logic is an ad hominem, but
any slur that he utters is a valid statement, not an ad-hominem,
how absurd. Anything he reads

here on usenet, in particular all the refutations of his claims
just disappear into nothing once they pass through his eyes...

Thomas

[Thomas Burglin]

I testify that Bernard Ortiz de Montellano is speaking the truth!
He invested much time to investigate Yuri's claims, to
look at the original material, only to find it full of holes.

Bernard is an excellent example of a solid scientist, unlike
fantasizing Yuri. Even Heyderdahl would run away from him in
horror....

Thomas

[tom kavanagh]

Yuri Kuchinsky wrote:

> : On Sat, 13 Sep 1997 18:20:20 -0700, in sci.archaeology, tom kavanagh wrote:
> : [SNIP]
> : >
> : >What Yuri wrote (citing Roe):
> : >A very interesting account was supplied by an explorer Jacques de
> : >Saint-Pierre in 1750-52. He describes some tribes in the far interior in
> : >the Rocky Mountains area that were expert horse breeders and traders (p.
> : >97). No Europeans had penetrated there at this point!

<snip dweller comment>

> This is correct. He did describe what I said he described.

Minor note. Saint-Pierre did *write* what you said he wrote. However,
the point Roe was making was that S-P could not have been where he said
he was. That is, S-P says that within sight of the Rockies, he--or an
associate--founded Fort La Jonquiere. However, since the site of Fort La
Jonquiere has been established, Roe says "considerably over four hundred
miles by either branch [of the Saskatchewan] from the point where the
Rockies can first be seen", S-P could not have been where he said he
was.

Therefore, to establish the veracity of S-P one must show that (1) the
established site of Fort La Jonquiere is incorrect; and/or (2) it is
somewhere else.

==
For what its worth, my friend, John C. Ewers, dean of Blackfoot studies,
student of Clark Wissler, and who passed away this past summer, wrote
(1955: The Horse in Blackfoot Indian Culture):

"Wissler (1914:3-4) attributed to S-P (1751) the first historic mention
of horses among the Blackfoot. The S-P testimony is tantilizingly
indefinite. He does mention horses received in trade from Europeans (who
he termed French, but who probably were Spanish) by Indians living on
the Plains beyond the French posts on the lower Saskachewan. He did not
identify these Indians by tribe. As Roe (1939, "From dogs to horses
among the Western Indian Tribes." Trans. Roy. Soc. Canada) has pointed
out, it is impossible to identify these horse Indians as Blackfoot on
the basis of S-P's confused statement."

Note that the reference is to "horses received in trade," not to horses
possessed.

Damn, I suppose I will have to go find the "Journal of Legardeur de
Saint-Pierre" in Rep. Canada Archives. 1886)

[hint hint, nudge nudge. I'm not the only one with access to a library.
Some of you may even be in Canada.]

tk

[Paul J. Gans]

Jonathan Stone (jona...@DSG.Stanford.EDU) wrote:

>In article <5vhqv0$e5i$3...@news.trends.ca>, yu...@mail.trends.ca (Yuri Kuchinsky) writes:

>> Very few, if any, of my claims have ever been disproven.

>OK, how about this one:

>:
>: [Yuri:]
>: : }People should try to move away from this preconception that balsa rafts
>: : }were somehow "inferior" ocean-going craft. Nothing could be further from
>: : }the truth. These were very sophisticated ships far superiour in their
>: : }sailing abilities to what Columbus had.
>:
>: : Am I misreading, or is Yuri _does_ claim that balsa rafts were far
>: : superior to caravels?
>:
>: Yes, Jonathan, I said it, I've given refs for it, and I still stand by
>: what I said.

>Which has been repeatedly disproven right here.

>If that's not enough, how about the claim that Archimedes' principle
>is an ``irrelevancy'' to the relative qualities of rafts and hulled
>ships as ocean-going cargo vessels?

That doesn't count because I said it (as did others). Since
it is well-known that I lie (see Yuri's posts) it is clear
that my statement about Archimedes' principle *must* be
wrong. On the other hand, were I to admit that I lie,
the logical cunundrum this created would destroy Yuri's
brain. This would be unkind, so I refrain from any such
admission. I trust Yuri will thank me for this.

------ Paul J. Gans [ga...@scholar.chem.nyu.edu]

[Paul J. Gans]

Hu McCulloch (mccul...@osu.edu) wrote:

>In article <5vhii7$3...@panix2.panix.com> ga...@panix.com (Paul J. Gans) writes:
>>Path: magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu!news.cis.ohio-state.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!news-peer.sprintlink.net!news.sprintlink.net!Sprint!news-peer.gsl.net!news.gsl.net!gip.net!panix!news.panix.com!not-for-mail
>>From: ga...@panix.com (Paul J. Gans)
>>Newsgroups: sci.archaeology.mesoamerican,sci.archaeology
>>Subject: Re: precolumbian Amerindian horse?
>>Followup-To: sci.archaeology.mesoamerican,sci.archaeology
>>Date: 14 Sep 1997 16:48:07 -0400
>>Organization: PANIX Public Access Internet and UNIX, NYC
>>Lines: 50
>>Message-ID: <5vhii7$3...@panix2.panix.com>
>>References: <5v6bf8$c26$1...@titan.globalserve.net> <Pine.A41.3.96.970911...@mustique.u.arizona.edu> <hmccullo.2...@pop.service.ohio-state.edu>
>>NNTP-Posting-Host: panix2.panix.com
>>X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2]
>>Xref: magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu sci.archaeology.mesoamerican:7622 sci.archaeology:74794

>>Hu McCulloch (hmcc...@pop.service.ohio-state.edu) wrote:
>>>Jeffrey L Baker <jba...@U.Arizona.EDU> writes:

>>>>The following are dates Yuri provided for early horses in North America
>>>>(rearranged in chronological order)

>>>>Sonoran Valley in 1567

>>>>In Virginia, about 1669
>>>>among the Shoshoni by 1700
>>>>In the southern U.S. about 1719
>>>>Rocky Mountains in 1750-2.
>>>>West of Hudson Bay in 1754

>>>>The following is a list of known explorations in North America:

>>>>John Cabot, Newfoundland 1497 (L)

>>>>Sebastion Cabot, Newfoundland (and mainland?), 1501-1509
>>>>Gaspar Cortez Real, Newfoundland, 1502
>>>>Cortez, central Mexico, 1519 (L, H)
>>>>Ponce de Leon, Florida, 1521 (L)
>>>>Lucas Vasques de Allyum, Atlantic coast north of Florida 1521
>>>>Verrazzano Carolinas to New England, 1523 (L)
>>>>Esterao Gomez, East Coast 1525
>>>>John Rut, New England area, 1527
>>>>Richard Hare, New England area, 1536,
>>>>Cartier and Roberval, St. Lawrence River, Montreal, 1534-1543 (L)
>>>>De Soto, southwestern U.S. and Mississippi River Vally, 1541 (L, H)

>>>What happened to l'Anse aux Meadows, circa 11th c? We don't
>>>have a specifc name to associate with it, but is now quite well
>>>established that the Norse were in Greater N. Am. long before
>>>your dates. Furthermore, these Norse had horses in Greenland
>>>and Iceland, and so could well have brought them west if they
>>>were sufficiently determined.

>>>While it is true that l'Anse aux Meadows is not on the mainland,

>>>your first Cabot and Real citations are also to
>>>merely insular Newfoundland explorations. If the
>>>Norse were settling at l'Anse aux Meadows, it seems safe to
>>>assume that they were at least aware of the coast of Labrador.
>>>In any event, the Vinland sagas, now confirmed by l'Anse, seem
>>>to relate to settlements further south and probably on the
>>>mainland.

>>>Are you denying the Norsity of l'Anse aux Meadows?

>>No. We're just doubting the Horsity of l'Anse aux Meadows.

>> ----- Paul J. Gans [ga...@scholar.chem.nyu.edu]

>Hor, hor, hor, Paul. But seriously, is it known that l'Anse aux

>Meadows had no horses? I gather no horse remains or horse
>equipment were recovered, but is the community sufficiently
>well reconstructed that it is known that there could not have
>been any horses?

Of course there *could have been* horses. But, I'm not
sure that there were horses in Greenland at that time and
it isn't clear that horses would have been of any use to
the Norse in Newfoundland. Indeed, there is no evidence
that l'Anse aux Meadows was a full-time base or meant to
be the start of a settlement. As I recall the evidence
there is no sign of anything but a peaceful abandonment
of the place. It is possible that there was an annual
abandonment of the place followed by a re-occupation
the next year.

The Portuguese established similar temporary "settlements"
while fishing the Grand Banks. They were used for beach
drying of fish and "abandoned" every year.

But that's not the point. In the absence of any evidence,
we can't assume that the Norse had horse.

Sorry. I couldn't help it.

[Jeffrey L Baker]

On 13 Sep 1997, Yuri Kuchinsky 17784 wrote:

> Jeffrey L Baker (jba...@U.Arizona.EDU) wrote:

> : How long would it take someone to become an expert horsemen? I suspect one
> : generation might be enough time (about twenty years).
>
> Well, Jeffrey, so according to you the Natives will just embrace any new
> cultural influence at a drop of a hat, and will run with it? OTOH, people

No, I'm not saying that. If it is useful to them, and can be readily
incorporated into their lifestyle (and they have the technology to
continue manufacturing the trait or can access it by trade), then yes it
will be adopted.

We don't have a good understanding of why certain traits were adopted and
others were not.

> Yes, Jeffrey, this is correct. But let me point out to you that this
> pattern, as you portray it, is somewhat deceptive. Because the Europeans
> SIMPLY WERE NOT SO EARLY IN THE NORTH-WEST, so how can you expect them to
> report on anything in the North-West if they were not there?

Indigineous trade networks in North America were quite extensive.

>
> The pattern that I see is that the Europeans kept going further and
> further into the interior of America, and everywhere they went the horse
> was seemingly there already before them.

Michael McNeill has already followed up my post with an excellent
discussion of the introduction of horses into the New World by the Spanish
and Portuguese.

> : A map of DeSoto's route is available on the web at:
> : http:www.floridahistory.com/inset78.html
>
> This URL you give appears to be incorrect. But I found such a map at
>
> http://www.floridahistory.com/inset77m.html

Thanks for the correction on the URL.

> : Yuri claims that "the Spanish who were very particular that their horses
> : should be of a uniform color."
>
> : What is your source for this claim?
>
> I will try to find the exact quotation soon.

I will be waiting for it.

Jeff Baker

[Jonathan Stone]

In article <5vkm3r$7...@panix2.panix.com>, ga...@panix.com (Paul J. Gans) writes:
> Jonathan Stone (jona...@DSG.Stanford.EDU) wrote:
> >In article <5vhqv0$e5i$3...@news.trends.ca>, yu...@mail.trends.ca (Yuri Kuchinsky) writes:
>
> >> Very few, if any, of my claims have ever been disproven.
>
> >OK, how about this one:

> >: : Am I misreading, or is Yuri _does_ claim that balsa rafts were far
> >: : superior to caravels?
> >:
> >: Yes, Jonathan, I said it, I've given refs for it, and I still stand by
> >: what I said.
>
> >Which has been repeatedly disproven right here.
>
> >If that's not enough, how about the claim that Archimedes' principle
> >is an ``irrelevancy'' to the relative qualities of rafts and hulled
> >ships as ocean-going cargo vessels?

> That doesn't count because I said it (as did others).

But I thought it was two claims: one about the caravels, and one about
hydrostatics. I'm aware other posters said both. Since those posters
were showered in ad-hominems too, I guess that means neither counts
with Yuri as a disproven claim. Is that your point?

> Since
> it is well-known that I lie (see Yuri's posts) it is clear
> that my statement about Archimedes' principle *must* be
> wrong.

But I thought the hydrostatics was the *proof* that you're a liar?
I think I need another briefing by the Eurocentric Conspiracy.

> On the other hand, were I to admit that I lie,
> the logical cunundrum this created would destroy Yuri's
> brain. This would be unkind, so I refrain from any such
> admission. I trust Yuri will thank me for this.

Are all those who beleive in Archimedian hydrostatics liars, then? Or
does belief in hydrostatics automagically make one a member of the
IAC? I never got my cut; can I claim back-interest on payments?
It goes back to elementary school...

[Jonathan Stone]

In article <5vkvar$qog$2...@titan.globalserve.net>, yu...@globalserve.net (Yuri Kuchinsky 17784) writes:
> Jonathan Stone (jona...@DSG.Stanford.EDU) wrote:

> : In article <5vjne8$8gu$1...@news.trends.ca>, yu...@mail.trends.ca (Yuri Kuchinsky) writes:
>
> ...
>
> : > This is an obvious and demonstrable lie. I have not supported this

> : > position. In fact I don't know the first thing about Maori outriggers,
> : > and NEVER claimed to be an expert in this area.
>
> : You don't have to be an expert to come to Larry Elmore (and
> : Heyerdahl's) defense by casting ad-hominems and insults at those who
> : point out Heyerdahl's factual errors, both on factual points of
> : Polynesian navigation, or of Archimedes principle.
>

> Jonathan,
>
> Your obfuscations are both meaningless and pathetic. So you and your
> dishonest pal Paul wish to slay me with junior high school physics? Only a
> true pinhead would try to use _that_ weighty line of argument...

Do I have this right? Yuri is saying all those who beleive Archimedes'
principle in preference to claims that balsa rafts are better ships
than Caravels are pinheads.

If so, I know which category I'd rather be in.

> You have the following choice,
>
> 1. Demonstrate that your lie I pointed out above (re: me making some
> absurd and non-existent claims something about outriggers) is not a lie.

Just because you disagree with something does *NOT* make it a lie.

> 2. If you cannot, please apologize for lying.

Yuri,

I've said that I will wait and accept Larry Elmore's judgement on
whether or not you came to his defense in that drawn-out exchange.
That is neither more nor less a ``lie'' than your refusal to either
substantiate or withdraw your claim of ``proof' for transPacific
contact: *C.Moneta* from the Indian Ocean (in (Adena mounds) with a
clear pre-Columbian provenance. Otherwise, *YOU* are a liar, by the
asinine standards you're applying to me.

I've already said that I'm prepared to accept even a somewhat partisan
third party's judgement. If you don't want to wait, contact Larry
Elmore and see what he says. If larry says you didn't support his
claims in that argument, I'll apologize.

If *you* want to get all high-and-mighty about honesty, you should
apologise for claiming that you had proof of trans-Pacific raft
voyages, when all you really had is a tertiary or quaternary source
citing Wilfrid Jackson. We're not so stupid that your ad-hominems
have startd this, Yuri.

As Doug Weller observes, in Yuri's world, either you agree with Yuri,
you're stupid, or you're a liar. (There isn't room for much else,
like being wrong). I'm not stupid, and I don't agree with Yuri. :)

And I'm not the one using post-and-run tactics as a smokescreen to
cover up my ad-hominems and refuted arguments. Anyone who wishes to
consult DejaNews can judge who' throwing out ad-hominems to anyone who
disagrees with them, and who isn't.

[Yuri Kuchinsky]

Thomas Burglin (bur...@nixspam.ubaclu.unibas.ch) wrote:
: Bernard Ortiz de Montellano wrote:

: > Yuri, : > How soon you forget. I, personalluy demolished your claims

to : > pre-columbian bananas in the New World. Interested parties are
welcome to : > see for themselves in DejaNews. I also demolished your
claims to cotton : > diffusion, diffusion of tyrian purple, Heyerdahl's
claims about : > Mesoamerican culture, the diffusion of bottle gourd to
mention a few. The : > latest one, is your claim about money cowrie for
which *you still have not : > posted the primary sources on which the
clims are based. : > Bernard Ortiz de Montellano

: I testify that Bernard Ortiz de Montellano is speaking the truth!

Welcome to all the growing company of liars and false accusers, Thomas.
I'm sure you will be happy there with all your dishonest friends. I'm also
sure that you guys will believe everything you will say to each other...

My detailed reply to Bernard is posted in a separate thread.

Yuri.

Yuri Kuchinsky in Toronto -=O=- http://www.io.org/~yuku

Reality is that which, when you stop believing
in it, doesn't go away -=O=- Philip K. Dick

[Yuri Kuchinsky]

Jonathan Stone (jona...@DSG.Stanford.EDU) wrote:

...

: I've said that I will wait and accept Larry Elmore's judgement on

: whether or not you came to his defense in that drawn-out exchange.

Jonathan, for the last time, and this is _really_ the last time.

Me coming to the defence of Larry on a _somewhat_ related matter = me
making some nonexistent claim about outriggers????

Have you no shame? Are you so sure you're so clever after all? Who do you
think you're fooling?

Plese reread my previous post and make appropriate conclusions. Until I
receive a satisfactory reply, I will have nothing further to say to you.

Yuri.

[Jonathan Stone]

In article <5vkufj$qog$1...@titan.globalserve.net>, yu...@globalserve.net (Yuri Kuchinsky 17784) writes:

> Bernard Ortiz de Montellano (bor...@earthlink.net) wrote:
> : In article <5vi8v1$6ou$1...@news.trends.ca>, yu...@mail.trends.ca (Yuri
> : Kuchinsky) wrote:
>

> ...
>
> : > "Every single claim" of mine has been demolished? Do these people have no

> : > shame at all, and no respect for facts? To give just a few very important
> : > examples of discussions I've participated in, where NEW AND GROUNDBREAKING
> : > EVIDENCE was presented by me and others, and where my views have been
> : > validated by a number of posters, and where all opposition ran away
> : > eventually.
> : >
> : > 1. Maize in precolumbian India.
> : > 2. Precolumbian banana in America.
> : > 3. Sweet potato travelling from America precolumbus.
> : >
> : > So who "demolished" these theories and when?
>

> : Yuri,
> : How soon you forget.
>

> My memory appears to be better than yours, Bernard.
>
> : I, personalluy demolished your claims to

> : pre-columbian bananas in the New World.
>

> Either you missed my last very long and trenchant post in that thread, or
> you're being dishonest. Which one is it, Bernard?

Here we go again.
To Yuri, disagreeing with one of Yuri's posts is dishonsety.

Yuri, seek help.

[Jonathan Stone]

[soc.culture.native snipped on request of participants there.]

In article <5vl2ch$bqj$1...@news.trends.ca>, yu...@mail.trends.ca (Yuri Kuchinsky) writes:
> Jonathan Stone (jona...@DSG.Stanford.EDU) wrote:
>
> ...
>
> : I've said that I will wait and accept Larry Elmore's judgement on
> : whether or not you came to his defense in that drawn-out exchange.
>
> Jonathan, for the last time, and this is _really_ the last time.
>
> Me coming to the defence of Larry on a _somewhat_ related matter = me
> making some nonexistent claim about outriggers????
>
> Have you no shame? Are you so sure you're so clever after all? Who do you
> think you're fooling?

Nobody. I stand what I say. I sincerely beleive you supported Larry
in that thread. If Larry says you didn't, I'll take Larry's word for
it, and I'll retract my claim.

Meanwhile I've and others pointed out several claims you made which
are widely agreed to be false. You continue to ignore the fact that
so many of your own repuduiated claims have been brougth up here --

* That balsa rafts are better vessels than caravels

* That balsa rafts could sail closer to the wind than Columbus' caravels

* pre-Columbian bananas in the Americas

* Several Other claims which Bernard Ortiz de Montellano claims to
have documented (which has been affirmed by Thomas Burglin)

And yet you focus on this *one* contentious point made, as if I've
impugned your sacred honour. As if our attention span is so short,
we'll forget that:

* a good half-dozen of your claims have shown to be baseless;

* that you do not accurately report what you have *STILL* not
your own sources (e.g., Roe, and now Ingram) actually say;

* You *STILL* presented any primary sources for you own
extraordinary claims about *C. Moneta*

* the ad-hominems you dish out at those who disagree with you;

And then you call *everyone* else who disagrees with your claims a
liar.

Yuri, seek help. Go show a friend you truly trust what you wrote to
Bernard: that either Bernard had not seen what you wrote, or Bernard
is a liar. Ask your friend for advice.

Yuri, seek help.

[Doug Weller]

On Mon, 15 Sep 1997 19:40:14 -0700, in sci.archaeology, tom kavanagh wrote:

> However, since the site of Fort La
>Jonquiere has been established, Roe says "considerably over four hundred
>miles by either branch [of the Saskatchewan] from the point where the
>Rockies can first be seen", S-P could not have been where he said he
>was.
>
>Therefore, to establish the veracity of S-P one must show that (1) the
>established site of Fort La Jonquiere is incorrect; and/or (2) it is
>somewhere else.

Thanks. I'm looking forward to Yuri's explanation of why, given this, he thinks
Roe is wrong.

Doug

[Peter Van Rossum]

Below I delete lots of stuff from a recent Bernard Ortiz vs. Yuri
Kuchinsky exchange to get at one simple (in my opinion) point.

Bernard wrote:
"I also demolished your claims to cotton diffusion, diffusion of

tyrian purple,..."

To which Yuri responded:
"Never made any such claim. Your memory is full of holes, Bernard.
Seems like quite a common problem with certain people nowdays. Never
made such claim..."

I just had to check this one out on Dejanews.

On June 21, 1997 Yuri says:

>From: yu...@mail.trends.ca (Yuri Kuchinsky)
>Date: 1997/06/21
>Message-Id: <5ogrdj$645$1...@trends.ca>
>Of course I think both the Vikings and the Phoenicians may have left an
>impact. But to determine what it would have been for sure is not easy. One
>possible clue is the purple dye (the royal purple) that was highly prised
>both by the Phoenicians and the Aztecs. Yes, I know, there's the
>chronology problem, but the purple may have been valued in mesoamerica for
>many centuries before the Aztecs.
>
>Yuri.

And again on July 26, 1997 Yuri wrote:

>From: yu...@io.org (Yuri Kuchinsky)
>Date: 1996/07/26
>Message-Id: <4tars6$r...@news1.io.org>
>Nevertheless, I have seen some theories that the purple dye that was so
>important for the Atzecs, the manufacture of which was a very complex
>process, and that had equal importance for the Romans, came to the Atzecs
>from the Mediterranean (most likely from the Phoenicians).
>
>Historically,
>
>Yuri.

That brought about the following exchange with Mary Beth Williams:

>Subject: Re: Why only Romans/Vikings/Celts/Punics? & Summary of (Re: Romans in the New World?)
>From: yu...@io.org (Yuri Kuchinsky)
>Date: 1996/07/28
>Message-Id: <4tg4sc$c...@news1.io.org>
>
>Mary Beth Williams (mbwi...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
>: So why is it necessary that the process [of creating purple dye], albeit
>: complex, came from the Phoenicians and was not independently invented in
>: the Americas?
>
>It's not "necessary", and certainly not to me. The task of scholarship
>is to evaluate the balance of probabilities. No?
>
>: Because it _was_ complex, and thus Mezoamericans were too simple to
>: invent it, or because the theoretical framework (hyperdiffusionism?)
>: under which these people operate don't allow for independent invention?
>
>Well, I am a diffusionist, because this hypothesis explains the evidence
>best, IMO.
>
>Yuri.

See where Yuri says above that in his opinion the similarity of
purple dye in Phoenician and Aztec cultures is best explained by a
diffusionist hypothesis. I don't know how you interpret the word
"claim" but to me it does appear that at one time Yuri claimed that
he thought there was a diffusion of Tyrian purple dye between the
Old World and the New.

No doubt Yuri's response would be to try to shift blame by saying
something like "I didn't claim it, someone else did; I just said
I agreed with them, that doesn't mean I ever made a claim, I just
parroted someone else's words...." But remember above he clearly
states that he thinks "...this [diffusionist] hypothesis explains
the evidence best, IMO."

Peter van Rossum
PMV...@PSU.EDU

[George Black]

In article <5vjrjr$8...@fridge-nf0.shore.net>, whi...@shore.net (Steve

Whittet) wrote:
>
>>>>>The following are dates Yuri provided for early horses in North America
>>>>>(rearranged in chronological order)
>
>I like this list but as Hu points out l'Anse aux Meadows,
>circa 11th c had a blacksmiths forge and some evidence
>of smelting bog iron including as I recall some cut nails
>of the size used for horseshoes.

In them there days the blacksmith was concerned with tool making. The forge
(and the coal) would be an expected part of any settlement.
Even without horses

>Also the accounts of the explorations of Sinclair
>and some of the norse sagas mention horses in Markland.
>The Eyrbyggia saga tells of Gudleif Gunnlangson encountering
>a tall old white haired man on horseback in an unknown land
>
>There is also the story of a stolen necklace (frenum)
>which translates as a bit of horse tack.

>I think that even if you take this as a given it is still

>necessary to show why if there were many horses escaped
>and about strayed or stolen shortly shortly after the
>Spanish arrived, there would not have been many horses
>escaped and about strayed or stolen shortly after the
>Vikings arrived.

They had cows. The sagas mention the Indians being terrified of cows and milk
was given them.

>Indeed how would they haul trees out of the woods without horses?

The strongarm patent

This sig is a sine of the thymes

[Yuri Kuchinsky 17784]

Jonathan Stone (jona...@DSG.Stanford.EDU) wrote:
: In article <5vjne8$8gu$1...@news.trends.ca>, yu...@mail.trends.ca (Yuri Kuchinsky) writes:

...

: > This is an obvious and demonstrable lie. I have not supported this
: > position. In fact I don't know the first thing about Maori outriggers,
: > and NEVER claimed to be an expert in this area.

: You don't have to be an expert to come to Larry Elmore (and
: Heyerdahl's) defense by casting ad-hominems and insults at those who
: point out Heyerdahl's factual errors, both on factual points of
: Polynesian navigation, or of Archimedes principle.

Jonathan,

Your obfuscations are both meaningless and pathetic. So you and your
dishonest pal Paul wish to slay me with junior high school physics? Only a
true pinhead would try to use _that_ weighty line of argument...

You have the following choice,

1. Demonstrate that your lie I pointed out above (re: me making some
absurd and non-existent claims something about outriggers) is not a lie.

2. If you cannot, please apologize for lying.

I will not reply to any of your posts in the future unless you at least
make some effort to act in an honest manner. Certain minimum standards of
honesty are of utmost importance. Without them, all else is an illusion.

I refuse to waste my time on dealing with brazen liars.

Yours truly,

Yuri.

Yuri Kuchinsky in Toronto -=O=- http://www.io.org/~yuku

You never need think you can turn over any old falsehoods without a

[Jonathan Stone]

In article <5vl1d3$n3m$1...@nntp.Stanford.EDU>, jona...@DSG.Stanford.EDU (Jonathan Stone) writes:

> If *you* want to get all high-and-mighty about honesty, you should
> apologise for claiming that you had proof of trans-Pacific raft
> voyages, when all you really had is a tertiary or quaternary source
> citing Wilfrid Jackson. We're not so stupid that your ad-hominems
> have startd this, Yuri.

Oops, I meant, we're not so stupid that Yuri's ad-hominems have made
us forget what started this thread: Yuri's unsubstantiated of proof of
transpacific raft voyages in the form of *C. Moneta* from the Indian
ocean (not some similar species) in South America in a clear
pre-Columbian context.

Call everyone in the newsgroup who disagrees with you stupid or a
liar; it won't help your case, and we won't forget that the claim you
made is unsubstantiated.

[J. B. Stephen (Buck)]

Dear Yuri,
I am voluntering for your list.
Please welcome me, and set the default to "liar"
so that the rest of us can save some time.

Buck.

In article <5vl1mh$9im$2...@news.trends.ca>,
Yuri Kuchinsky <yu...@mail.trends.ca> wrote:

>Welcome to all the growing company of liars and false accusers, Thomas.
>I'm sure you will be happy there with all your dishonest friends. I'm also
>sure that you guys will believe everything you will say to each other...

>Yuri.

[Yuri Kuchinsky 17784]

Bernard Ortiz de Montellano (bor...@earthlink.net) wrote:
: In article <5vi8v1$6ou$1...@news.trends.ca>, yu...@mail.trends.ca (Yuri
: Kuchinsky) wrote:

...

: > "Every single claim" of mine has been demolished? Do these people have no
: > shame at all, and no respect for facts? To give just a few very important
: > examples of discussions I've participated in, where NEW AND GROUNDBREAKING
: > EVIDENCE was presented by me and others, and where my views have been
: > validated by a number of posters, and where all opposition ran away
: > eventually.
: >
: > 1. Maize in precolumbian India.
: > 2. Precolumbian banana in America.
: > 3. Sweet potato travelling from America precolumbus.
: >
: > So who "demolished" these theories and when?

: Yuri,
: How soon you forget.

My memory appears to be better than yours, Bernard.

: I, personalluy demolished your claims to
: pre-columbian bananas in the New World.

Either you missed my last very long and trenchant post in that thread, or
you're being dishonest. Which one is it, Bernard?

: Interested parties are welcome to

: see for themselves in DejaNews.

Yes, that post of mine, in which I pointed out your numerous errors, is
there.

: I also demolished your claims to cotton
: diffusion,

Never made any such claim. Your memory is full of holes, Bernard. Seems

like quite a common problem with certain people nowdays.

: diffusion of tyrian purple,

Never made such claim.

: Heyerdahl's claims about
: Mesoamerican culture,

No claims of mine re: Heyerdahl have been refuted. I'm aware that
sometimes some inaccuracies are found in his work, so I usually check him
out before claiming anything based on his work. Nevertheless, overall, his
work is loaded with much solid and UNIQUE research and is indispensable
for any true and serious scholar of early civilizations.

: the diffusion of bottle gourd to mention a few.

Nothing I claimed was refuted.

You're welcome to prove me wrong, Bernard. Can't wait to see you fumble
once again...

[Yuri Kuchinsky]

Doug Weller (dwe...@ramtops.demon.co.uk) wrote:

: Thanks. I'm looking forward to Yuri's explanation of why, given this, he
thinks : Roe is wrong.

Mr. Weller, your poisoning the wells in this ng has made it impossible for
real scholarship to be discussed here at this time. I suggest you stop
pretending you care about scholarship. Your oversized ego is far more
important to you.

[Yuri Kuchinsky]

How nice to see Peter, my old friend, back here...

Peter Van Rossum (pmv...@psu.edu) wrote:

: Below I delete lots of stuff from a recent Bernard Ortiz vs. Yuri

: Kuchinsky exchange to get at one simple (in my opinion) point.
:
: Bernard wrote:

: "I also demolished your claims to cotton diffusion, diffusion of

: tyrian purple,..."
:
: To which Yuri responded:

: "Never made any such claim. Your memory is full of holes, Bernard.
: Seems like quite a common problem with certain people nowdays. Never
: made such claim..."

Yes, Peter, these were my words.

: I just had to check this one out on Dejanews.

:
: On June 21, 1997 Yuri says:
:
: >From: yu...@mail.trends.ca (Yuri Kuchinsky)
: >Date: 1997/06/21
: >Message-Id: <5ogrdj$645$1...@trends.ca>

: >Of course I think both the Vikings and the Phoenicians may have left an
: >impact. But to determine what it would have been for sure is not easy.
One : >possible clue is the purple dye (the royal purple) that was highly
prised : >both by the Phoenicians and the Aztecs. Yes, I know, there's the
: >chronology problem, but the purple may have been valued in mesoamerica
for : >many centuries before the Aztecs.

Please note how carefully I worded the above suggestion IN MY RECENT POST.
Certainly this cannot be considered as a "claim" by any stretch of
imagination. (Only Bernard, with his rather overactive imagination, may
have seen it as such.)

: >From: yu...@io.org (Yuri Kuchinsky)
: >Date: 1996/07/26
: >Message-Id: <4tars6$r...@news1.io.org>

: >Nevertheless, I have seen some theories that the purple dye that was so
: >important for the Atzecs, the manufacture of which was a very complex :
>process, and that had equal importance for the Romans, came to the Atzecs
: >from the Mediterranean (most likely from the Phoenicians).

Again, what I said above applies here.

: That brought about the following exchange with Mary Beth Williams:

:
: >Subject: Re: Why only Romans/Vikings/Celts/Punics? & Summary of (Re: Romans in the New World?)
: >From: yu...@io.org (Yuri Kuchinsky)
: >Date: 1996/07/28
: >Message-Id: <4tg4sc$c...@news1.io.org>

: >Mary Beth Williams (mbwi...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:

: >: So why is it necessary that the process [of creating purple dye],
albeit : >: complex, came from the Phoenicians and was not independently
invented in : >: the Americas? : >

: >It's not "necessary", and certainly not to me. The task of scholarship
: >is to evaluate the balance of probabilities. No?

: >: Because it _was_ complex, and thus Mezoamericans were too simple to :
>: invent it, or because the theoretical framework (hyperdiffusionism?) :
>: under which these people operate don't allow for independent invention?

: >Well, I am a diffusionist, because this hypothesis explains the evidence
: >best, IMO.

No claim is made here. But THIS IS A VERY OLD POST. I have changed my
position on "diffusionism" since then, as I stipulated repeatedly. I AM
NOT A DIFFUSIONIST. Not any longer. So Peter's old posts are not really
appropriate to make any kind of point at this time.

Bernard certainly DID NOT SEE THAT POST FROM LAST YEAR when he falsely
accused me of making any sort of claims about the Purple RECENTLY.

I hope this clarifies,

[Peter van Rossum]

In article <5vm48d$13o$1...@news.trends.ca> yu...@mail.trends.ca (Yuri Kuchinsky) writes:
>How nice to see Peter, my old friend, back here...

Yup, I recently got back from about 4 months of archaeological field work in
Georgia and Mexico. Of course since I'm planning on going back for more in
Nov. or Dec. you probably won't see that much of me.

>Peter Van Rossum (pmv...@psu.edu) wrote:

>: I just had to check this one out on Dejanews.
>:
>: On June 21, 1997 Yuri says:
>:
>: >From: yu...@mail.trends.ca (Yuri Kuchinsky)
>: >Date: 1997/06/21
>: >Message-Id: <5ogrdj$645$1...@trends.ca>

>: >Of course I think both the Vikings and the Phoenicians may have left an
>: >impact. But to determine what it would have been for sure is not easy.
>One : >possible clue is the purple dye (the royal purple) that was highly
>prised : >both by the Phoenicians and the Aztecs. Yes, I know, there's the
>: >chronology problem, but the purple may have been valued in mesoamerica
>for : >many centuries before the Aztecs.
>
>Please note how carefully I worded the above suggestion IN MY RECENT POST.
>Certainly this cannot be considered as a "claim" by any stretch of
>imagination. (Only Bernard, with his rather overactive imagination, may
>have seen it as such.)

[old posts from 1996 deleted.]

>No claim is made here. But THIS IS A VERY OLD POST. I have changed my
>position on "diffusionism" since then, as I stipulated repeatedly. I AM
>NOT A DIFFUSIONIST. Not any longer. So Peter's old posts are not really
>appropriate to make any kind of point at this time.
>
>Bernard certainly DID NOT SEE THAT POST FROM LAST YEAR when he falsely
>accused me of making any sort of claims about the Purple RECENTLY.

So, let me see if I get this straight. About a year ago you thought you
were a diffusionist and thought purple dye looked like a good indicator
of contact. Later you changed your mind, you're no longer a diffusionist
and you don't think purple dye is a good indicator of contact. Is
that correct? If it is correct then why did you again in 1997 mention
a hypothesis which even you don't believe in? All this does is
create confusion. If this is not correct then could you please
clarify again.

I believe that is a similar thing you have done in the past with cotton.
You don't believe it is a good indicator of contact yet at times you
will put it in with a laundry list of other things people have put
forward as indicators of contact. If that's what you're doing then
it is easy to see how people get confused about your position.

To me Bernard's conclusion seems quite logical - you put out a post where
you say "One possible clue [to transoceanic contact] is the purple dye

(the royal purple) that was highly prised both by the Phoenicians and

the Aztecs..." To me it is very logical to conclude that you think
purple dye might be a good indicator of contact.

Maybe in the future you should refrain from listing hypotheses you
don't believe in, unless of course you explicitely say something like
"but I don't believe this hypothesis is valid." That might help clear
up a lot of possible confusion and save some wasted bandwidth.

Peter van Rossum
PMV...@PSU.EDU

[Thomas Burglin]

Yuri Kuchinsky wrote:
>
> Doug Weller (dwe...@ramtops.demon.co.uk) wrote:
>
> : Thanks. I'm looking forward to Yuri's explanation of why, given this, he
> thinks : Roe is wrong.
>
> Mr. Weller, your poisoning the wells in this ng has made it impossible for
> real scholarship to be discussed here at this time. I suggest you stop
> pretending you care about scholarship. Your oversized ego is far more
> important to you.
>
> Yuri.
>

We all can but laugh at this. The one who needs serious
help understanding what scholarship really means is a person
who starts with a Y...

Thomas

[Thomas Burglin]

Yuri Kuchinsky wrote:
>
> How nice to see Peter, my old friend, back here...
>

> Peter Van Rossum (pmv...@psu.edu) wrote:
>

> : Below I delete lots of stuff from a recent Bernard Ortiz vs. Yuri
> : Kuchinsky exchange to get at one simple (in my opinion) point.
> :
> : Bernard wrote:
> : "I also demolished your claims to cotton diffusion, diffusion of
> : tyrian purple,..."
> :
> : To which Yuri responded:
> : "Never made any such claim. Your memory is full of holes, Bernard.
> : Seems like quite a common problem with certain people nowdays. Never
> : made such claim..."
>
> Yes, Peter, these were my words.
>

> : I just had to check this one out on Dejanews.
> :
> : On June 21, 1997 Yuri says:
> :
> : >From: yu...@mail.trends.ca (Yuri Kuchinsky)
> : >Date: 1997/06/21
> : >Message-Id: <5ogrdj$645$1...@trends.ca>
>
> : >Of course I think both the Vikings and the Phoenicians may have left an
> : >impact. But to determine what it would have been for sure is not easy.
> One : >possible clue is the purple dye (the royal purple) that was highly
> prised : >both by the Phoenicians and the Aztecs. Yes, I know, there's the
> : >chronology problem, but the purple may have been valued in mesoamerica
> for : >many centuries before the Aztecs.
>
> Please note how carefully I worded the above suggestion IN MY RECENT POST.
> Certainly this cannot be considered as a "claim" by any stretch of
> imagination. (Only Bernard, with his rather overactive imagination, may
> have seen it as such.)

Hear, hear, now he is hidding behind semantics...
But then at some later point he will come up again
with statements that nobody proved him false,
that all his claims still stand, blah, blah...

> No claim is made here. But THIS IS A VERY OLD POST. I have changed my
> position on "diffusionism" since then, as I stipulated repeatedly. I AM
> NOT A DIFFUSIONIST. Not any longer. So Peter's old posts are not really
> appropriate to make any kind of point at this time.
>
> Bernard certainly DID NOT SEE THAT POST FROM LAST YEAR when he falsely
> accused me of making any sort of claims about the Purple RECENTLY.
>

Yuri's words from above:
> Never
> : made such claim..."

I don't see the word recently there... Never is pretty absolute.

> I hope this clarifies,
>
> Yuri.
>

Yes, this clarifies it, Yuri is thus a non-existing entity.
According to Yuri, we are all isolationists, while he
used to be a diffusionist. Not any longer, he is not
nothing anymore, since he can't be an isolationist...

Thomas

[J. B. Stephen (Buck)]

In article <pmv100.7...@psu.edu>,
Peter van Rossum <pmv...@psu.edu> makes a fine point concerning
Yuri.

The point of Peter van Rossum, below,
corresponds well with the comments of Bernard, re: Tompkins.
That is, the extent of our willingness to accept claimed factual
details and supposed well considered analysis is dependent upon
our past experience with the person making the claim.

A poster with a long history of putting forth well considered
arguments, with a faithful approach to the record, will
have less trouble finding a non-hostile audience than one who
1) Puts forth incomplete notions of possibilities,
2) defends them with the popular literature, and refuses
to consider the inconsistancies of the data, and
3) who argues, after demonstration of the futility of their position,
that the position was just an exercise in possibilities.

To many of our high volume posters assume that shear verbosity
is a substitute for scholarship and attention to first principals.
Of course, to those of us with an understanding of scientific
principals, this is mere contentless padding.

One of the most egregous conceits is the one commonly
employed by Yuri, who will participate in vitriolic
exchanges over one of his ideas, and then, when reduced to
a position of futility, claim that the thread was an
investigation of possibilities, not fact.

Yuri (and others who agree that Doug Weller is
unwelcome here) should consider the formation of a
new newsgroup

alt.arch.what-if

This will have several bandwidth and intellectual advantages.
1) We won't have to argue with Yuri about the *impression*
that he is arguing from a position of belief. We can, by default,
assume that he is throwing unsubstantiated claims around, and
seeing where they lead. (The buckshot approach to explaining
the world.)
2) Innocent readers will not be put in the position of choosing sides.
This is at the crux of Bernard's careful disection of Yuri's
claims. An unsubstatiated claim is not musch different than
dis-information, except it has a possibility of being correct.

Buck

J Stephen
Dept Math Sci
NIU

PS - I was directly asked by Jiri what I thought of his
work. Jiri, I think you are interested in some fascinating
stuff, but I think your approach is not scientific enough.
Even in the developement of a theory of proto-science,
one must apply the scientific method to verify the
quality of one's observations and conclusions. I find
not enough science, and not enough hypothesis testing
in your work.

As for your claims of being able to construct mathematically
meaningful numbers from the proportions that
you encounter, this is meaningless. It is a common game
among undergraduate math students to produce such lists
out of, essentially, random, lists of raw data. In fact,
there has been a discussion recently on sci.math concerning
just such a scheme.

In article <pmv100.7...@psu.edu>,
Peter van Rossum <pmv...@psu.edu> makes a fine point concerning
Yuri.

>So, let me see if I get this straight. About a year ago you thought you
>were a diffusionist and thought purple dye looked like a good indicator
>of contact. Later you changed your mind, you're no longer a diffusionist
>and you don't think purple dye is a good indicator of contact. Is
>that correct? If it is correct then why did you again in 1997 mention
>a hypothesis which even you don't believe in? All this does is
>create confusion. If this is not correct then could you please
>clarify again.
>
>I believe that is a similar thing you have done in the past with cotton.
>You don't believe it is a good indicator of contact yet at times you
>will put it in with a laundry list of other things people have put
>forward as indicators of contact. If that's what you're doing then
>it is easy to see how people get confused about your position.
>
>To me Bernard's conclusion seems quite logical - you put out a post where

>you say "One possible clue [to transoceanic contact] is the purple dye

>(the royal purple) that was highly prised both by the Phoenicians and

[Yuri Kuchinsky]

Peter van Rossum (pmv...@psu.edu) wrote:
: In article <5vm48d$13o$1...@news.trends.ca> yu...@mail.trends.ca (Yuri Kuchinsky) writes:

...

: So, let me see if I get this straight. About a year ago you thought you

: were a diffusionist and thought purple dye looked like a good indicator
: of contact.

Yes.

: Later you changed your mind, you're no longer a diffusionist

Correct.

: and you don't think purple dye is a good indicator of contact. Is
: that correct?

Not quite.

What I think is that the Purple can still be a reasonable indicator of
contact. And yet I have not made any _claims_ that it is.

The truth is simply that I have not researched this matter in detail as
yet. Bernard spent a long time researching this subject, and he thinks he
has discredited claims of some diffusionists in this area. I have looked
at his research, and I don't think it proves conclusively that the Purple
does not indicate contact. But I don't have enough expertise as yet to
deal with this. I have not made any claims.

Can you understand now?

Yuri.

[Doug Weller]

On 16 Sep 1997 13:59:19 GMT, in sci.archaeology, Yuri Kuchinsky wrote:

>Doug Weller (dwe...@ramtops.demon.co.uk) wrote:
>
>: Thanks. I'm looking forward to Yuri's explanation of why, given this, he
>thinks : Roe is wrong.
>
>Mr. Weller, your poisoning the wells in this ng has made it impossible for
>real scholarship to be discussed here at this time.

You've avoided answering this more than once now. If you think the way I worded
the above is unpleasant, I apologise. I admit it was a bit of a taunt, as a
straightforward request had only resulted in more discussion of personalities.

However, if you really won't answer what is a serious question, please don't ask
people to take you seriously.

You might also ask yourself why people treat Hu McCulloch with respect while you
apparently feel you must always defend yourself against some enemy. Most
people here would be extremely sorry to see Hu leave. How many would feel the
same way if you stopped posting?

Doug

[thomas kavanagh]

Brame wrote:

> I've begun re-reading du Pratz (the English edition) in light of
> this problem. As I only have access to a non-circulating copy at a
> distant library, this could take quite a long time. If I find such a
> citation I will post it here.

I have just encountered another minor "problem" with Du Pratz/Swanton.

The sentences I cited were :

> : >"These are the people who bring our settlers horses, oxen, and cows. ...
> : >The Spaniards of New Spain have such numbers of them that they do not
> : >know what to do with them, and are obliged to those who will take them
> : >off their hands" (p 317).

However, what Swanton quoted was, "The Spaniards of New Mexico have such
a great number of them that they do not know what to do with them and it
gives them pleasure to releive them of them."

What Swanton cited was the 1754 3 volume French edition, what I cited
was the 1975 facsimile reproduction of the 1774 one volume English
edition. Furthermore, in the introduction of the reproduction, the
editors say, "the british editors , in addition, were determined to
correct more than le Page's nomenclature, and the translation represents
in fact a total reordering of the works content and plan of
organization. ... Many extended passages of the work are expunged in the
English version, others are severely compressed, and whole sections are
rearranged in a relationship not envisioned by their author."

Therefore to really determine what Du Pratz may have said about horses,
we will have to examine the "primary source", the French edition.
Unfortunately, the library here does not have it.

===
On the other matter, re horses and horseshoe nails at L'Anse aux
Meadows.

http://www.heureka.fi/en/x/nxwallace.html

is a very interesting site in Finland about L'Anse aux Meadows. Among
other things, they do note the piles of nails, but specifically call
them boat nails. Furthermore, they note that

"One interesting consideration of the L'Anse aux Meadows site is that
the
site was not a normal Norse community, or the type of settlement
established as a result of emigration. First, its location on the outer
exposed coast differs from that of the Greenland settlements, which were
all in the protected inner parts of the fjords. Second, there are no
barns
or byres for livestock, the normal focus of Norse sustenance."

tk

[Brame]

Hu McCulloch <mccul...@osu.edu> wrote:
: thomas kavanagh <tkav...@indiana.edu> writes:

: >Brame wrote:

[....]

: >> The immediate problem is finding the citation used, and
: >>whether it supports latter-day conclusions or not is the next
: >>question at hand. If Swanton specifically cites du Pratz in his
: >>1911 monograph, then the immediate problem is resolved.

Kavanagh wrote:

: >The immediate citation on page 273 of Swanton 1911 is to the second Du
: >Pratz quotation noted in my earlier post:

: >"These are the people who bring our settlers horses, oxen, and cows. ...
: >The Spaniards of New Spain have such numbers of them that they do not
: >know what to do with them, and are obliged to those who will take them
: >off their hands" (p 317).

: >That settled, we can go back to the problem of finding a citation in Du
: >Pratz which describes horses that are somehow 'different' from
: >European horses and so could be the source of Swanton's -- and
: >Wissler's, and Roe's and Yuri's -- conclusions.

I've begun re-reading du Pratz (the English edition) in light of
this problem. As I only have access to a non-circulating copy at a
distant library, this could take quite a long time. If I find such a
citation I will post it here.

McCulloch wrote:

: I thought it was common knowledge that the mustang or cayuse looks
: very different from the Spanish or English horse. Robert Ritzenthaler,
: for example, speaks of the identification of the Spencer Lake horse
: skull as a "western mustang" (Wisc. Archaeologist, vol. 45, #2, June
: 1964, p. 117). Although it is interesting to know whether or not Du Pratz
: commented on this difference at an early date, the issue is not whether
: these horses have a distinctive look to them, but whether or not they
: could plausibly have descended from typical Spanish stock,
: per the conventional story.

Actually, the issue under discussion was finding the primary
source(s) for the conclusions of Swanton et. al.

: A.J. Clemens ("Who Brought the Horse to America", _Ancient American_,
: #13, July/Aug 1996, pp. 20-23) argues that the cayuse or mustang fits
: the general description of the Icelandic pony, in terms of small
: stature, large squarish heads, stout necks, floor-length tails,
: heavy manes, thick bodies, and small fee, and contends that
: the Norse introduced them to N. Am.. His map would have
: them start in southern Labrador opposite l'Anse aux Meadows,
: and then migrate west, to the north of the St.
: Laurence and Great Lakes, to appear in Sioux/Blackfoot country west of
: Lake Superior. Sounds at least as plausible to me as the Spanish mutant
: story, particularly in light of Steve Whittet's report of horseshoe-like
: nails at l'Anse aux M.

What evidence does Clemens cite to support his contention that the
Norse introduced Icelandic ponies to North America? For example, are
horse remains found in pre-Columbian contexts along this route of
migration?

: Can Steve find his "primary source"?

This handily illustrates how succeeding interpretations alter
claims. Steve wrote of a forge where nails the size of horseshoe nails
were found; you've interpreted this as a report of 'horsehoe-like nails;'
explicit claims of horsehoe nails being found at l'Anse aux Meadows will
surely soon follow. It would indeed be useful to see the primary source.

All best,
Will

[J. B. Stephen (Buck)]

Yuri:

I admit that I am dishonest by your standards.
I have already volunteered for the label "liar"
and I simply wanted to prove that I was worthy.
My acceptance of the fact that I will not be
able to change your opinion on this matter
of honesty will save me a great deal of time.

Buck

J Stephen
Dept Math Sci
NIU

In article <5vmjoq$o8o$1...@news.trends.ca>,
Yuri Kuchinsky <yu...@mail.trends.ca> wrote:
>
>J. B. Stephen (Buck) (bu...@shuksan.math.niu.edu) wrote:
> ...
>: One of the most egregous conceits is the one commonly

>: employed by Yuri, who will participate in vitriolic
>: exchanges over one of his ideas, and then, when reduced to
>: a position of futility,
>: claim that the thread was an
>: investigation of possibilities, not fact.
>

>Please give me one instance when I was reduced "to a position of
>futility". If you cannot do this, I will assume you're being dishonest.
>
>Yuri.

[Brame]

<341EF1...@indiana.edu>:
Organization: CRL Dialup Internet Access (415) 705-6060 [Login: guest]
Distribution:

thomas kavanagh <tkav...@indiana.edu> wrote:

[....]

: What Swanton cited was the 1754 3 volume French edition, what I cited

: was the 1975 facsimile reproduction of the 1774 one volume English
: edition. Furthermore, in the introduction of the reproduction, the
: editors say, "the british editors , in addition, were determined to
: correct more than le Page's nomenclature, and the translation represents
: in fact a total reordering of the works content and plan of
: organization. ... Many extended passages of the work are expunged in the
: English version, others are severely compressed, and whole sections are
: rearranged in a relationship not envisioned by their author."

: Therefore to really determine what Du Pratz may have said about horses,
: we will have to examine the "primary source", the French edition.
: Unfortunately, the library here does not have it.

I've been reading the J.S.W. Harmanson (New Orleans) edition
printed in 1947. As it comprises three volumes, perhaps this is a
separate translation. Hopefully this week I'll find time to get to the
library and see if there is any point in further reading.

: ===

: On the other matter, re horses and horseshoe nails at L'Anse aux
: Meadows.

: http://www.heureka.fi/en/x/nxwallace.html

: is a very interesting site in Finland about L'Anse aux Meadows. Among
: other things, they do note the piles of nails, but specifically call
: them boat nails. Furthermore, they note that

: "One interesting consideration of the L'Anse aux Meadows site is that
: the
: site was not a normal Norse community, or the type of settlement
: established as a result of emigration. First, its location on the outer
: exposed coast differs from that of the Greenland settlements, which were
: all in the protected inner parts of the fjords. Second, there are no
: barns
: or byres for livestock, the normal focus of Norse sustenance."

: tk

All best,
Will

[Jeffrey L Baker]

> : Can Steve find his "primary source"?
>
> This handily illustrates how succeeding interpretations alter
> claims. Steve wrote of a forge where nails the size of horseshoe nails
> were found; you've interpreted this as a report of 'horsehoe-like nails;'
> explicit claims of horsehoe nails being found at l'Anse aux Meadows will
> surely soon follow. It would indeed be useful to see the primary source.

I'm currently looking at several excavation reports on Norse occupations
at l'Anse aux Meadows and Greenland.

A forge is present at l'AaM, but no horse bones or horseshoes were found.

Horse bones have been found in excavations on Greenland.

A more thorough discussion will be posted (with references) will be posted
within a day or two.

Jeff Baker

[Yuri Kuchinsky]

J. B. Stephen (Buck) (bu...@shuksan.math.niu.edu) wrote:

...

: One of the most egregous conceits is the one commonly
: employed by Yuri, who will participate in vitriolic
: exchanges over one of his ideas, and then, when reduced to
: a position of futility,

Please give me one instance when I was reduced "to a position of

futility". If you cannot do this, I will assume you're being dishonest.

: claim that the thread was an
: investigation of possibilities, not fact.

Yuri.

Yuri Kuchinsky in Toronto -=O=- http://www.io.org/~yuku

We should always be disposed to believe that that which
appears white is really black, if the hierarchy of the
Church so decides -=O=- St. Ignatius of Loyola

[Yuri Kuchinsky 17784]

Jeffrey L Baker (jba...@U.Arizona.EDU) wrote:
: On 13 Sep 1997, Yuri Kuchinsky 17784 wrote:

: > : Yuri claims that "the Spanish who were very particular that their
horses : > : should be of a uniform color."

: > : What is your source for this claim?
: >
: > I will try to find the exact quotation soon.

: I will be waiting for it.

Jeff,

Here is one place where this can be found.

Frank Gilbert Roe writes in THE INDIAN AND THE HORSE, p. 144,

"Francis Haines quotes a S. American authority on the horses of Argentina,
Pedro Sarciat. This scholar states that the spotted horses of the country
are a modern importation... He deplores their present popularity as a
color fad, not in the true Spanish tradition."

There's more about this on the same page, and about spotted horses being
disliked by the Arabs. The Spanish horses were to a large extent a breed
based on the Moorish horses.

Regards,

Yuri.

Yuri Kuchinsky in Toronto -=O=- http://www.io.org/~yuku

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

[Peter van Rossum]

In article <5vmguo$iuq$1...@news.trends.ca> yu...@mail.trends.ca (Yuri Kuchinsky) writes:
[deletions..]

>What I think is that the Purple can still be a reasonable indicator of
>contact. And yet I have not made any _claims_ that it is.
>
>The truth is simply that I have not researched this matter in detail as
>yet. Bernard spent a long time researching this subject, and he thinks he
>has discredited claims of some diffusionists in this area. I have looked
>at his research, and I don't think it proves conclusively that the Purple
>does not indicate contact. But I don't have enough expertise as yet to
>deal with this. I have not made any claims.
>
>Can you understand now?
>
>Yuri.

So you weren't making a claim, you were just engaging in speculation about
a topic on which you are insufficiently informed to make an accurate
judgement of its merits (or lack thereof). That seems possible but you
should also be able to realize why others interpreted your post to mean that
this was a hypothesis that you thought had considerable merit.

Peter van Rossum
PMV...@PSU.EDU

[tom kavanagh]

Brame wrote:

> I've been reading the J.S.W. Harmanson (New Orleans) edition
> printed in 1947. As it comprises three volumes, perhaps this is a
> separate translation. Hopefully this week I'll find time to get to the
> library and see if there is any point in further reading.

Oooh, I did not know of this edition. You said it was in English, no?
What does the preface/introduction say: is it from the French 1754, or
from one of the English editions? ... No, if it is in "three volumes" it
has to be a translation of the original French.

Oh, damn! The editors of the repro of the 1774/1975 one volume edition
did note a few places where *they* noted differences between the
editions, but nothing which seems immediately relevant to our question,
altough they may guide a search. Now that I know that there is may be
another edition, I will try an ILL.

Thank you

tk