🚀 go-pugleaf

The nature of these discussions is such that we jump back and forth and do
not get a coherent sequence. Let me try to present one coherent
sequence.
Yuri continually cites chapters from *Man Across the Sea* a non-refereed
symposium by diffusionists published in 1971 although the papers were
presented earlier. I pointed out that (1) this is very outdated, (2) the
editors of the book themselves acknowledge that there is � *there is no
hard and fast evidence for any pre Columbian introduction of any single
plant* [emphasis in the original] across the ocean from the Old World to
the New World... (p. 452-453), (3) that diffusionists published more
articles in the 70�s but that by the end of the 70�s mainstream scholars
had dismissed their evidence (Reed, C. A. 1977. �Origins of Agriculture:
Discussion and Some Conclusions�. in *Origins of Agriculture*. edited by
C. A Reed. 917-955. The Hague: Mouton.), and (4) that a number of
authoritative recent texts on the origins of agriculture and the
domestication of plants (which I cited) have nothing to say about
diffusion of plants to the New World. I made a point of saying that I was
dealing with the diffusion of plants to the New World. This is only
significant to this thread if humans were involved which sets some time
limits on the events.

Yuri did not deal with my points. Instead he repeatedly asserted that I
was wrong, but presented no citations or evidence to support his
assertion. Yuri also ridiculed my citations as being out-of-date, but did
not explain why his continual citation of *Man Across the Sea (1971)*
differs and did not cite any of his �abundant� up-to-date sources
(remember we are talking about human assisted diffusion of plants to the
New World). What he did do is the following:

�>And here's a quote from a _recent_ source:

>David H. Kelley, AN ESSAY ON PRE-COLUMBIAN CONTACTS BETWEEN THE AMERICAS AND OTHER AREAS, in RACE, DISCOURSE, AND THE ORIGIN OF THE AMERICAS, Smithsonian, 1995�
i.e. Kelley is a *recent* source contrasted to my outdated sources.

and Yuri then dared me to:

�>Now, Bernard, since, you specialize in "African diffusion refutations",
perhaps you would like to have fun with the following, also from Kelley?

>[begin quote]
>Van Sertima discusses yams and bananas, both Old World crops, both prominent in Africa, both reported in Inca period graves in Peru. Against these reports are only three factors: the excavations were done prior to the development of modern excavating techniques; similar reports have not come from modern excavations (the most serious objection); and they are contrary to expectations. The latter is probably the most important factor in dismissing the reports, aside from ignorance of their existence. (p. 116)
>[end quote]�

Yuri is using Kelley to give a false impression that this is a source of
new up-to-date information. In reality, Kelley, has absolutely no new
information. The claim that bananas were brought by man to the New World
before Columbus is hoary and unsupported. Kelley is merely citing Van
Sertima (1976), Van Sertima, in turn, is merely copying Wiener (1922),
Wiener�s source is  A.T. de Rochebrunne, *Botanisches Centralblatt*
v.3,1633 (1880). Kelley is honest enough to point out that Van Sertima  is
basing his argument on data obtained BEFORE MODERN EXCAVATION TECHNIQUES
HAD BEEN DEVELOPED AND THAT NO SUBSEQUENT EXCAVATION HAS SUPPORTED THIS
SUPPOSITION.

In his reply, Yuri does not deal with his misrepresentation of Kelley as
an up-to-date source on bananas. He uses a lot of ink like the octopus to
obscure the point and then asks me

�Is it your opinion that bananas and yams were not grown in America before
Columbus? Are you sure you're right about this?�

But this is the wrong question to the wrong person. The proper question
is:
Yuri is there any good evidence that is more recent than 1880 proving that
bananas were brought to the New World before Columbus? Do not wave your
arms about claiming lots of references-- cite them. Do not drag in sweet
potatoes going to Polynesia. We were talking about diffusion of plants TO
the New World. It is not the establishment that has to prove that
something did not happen-- people who make extraordinary claims are the
ones who have the burden of extraordinary proof. Lets stay with bananas
for a while.  A paper from 1880 is not even less than ordinary evidence.
Cite your recent evidence for bananas.

Bernard Ortiz de Montellano

-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
      http://www.dejanews.com/     Search, Read, Post to Usenet