🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <5om5vo$fs9$1@trends.ca>,
  yuku@mail.trends.ca (Yuri Kuchinsky) wrote:
>
>
> Welcome back, Bernard.
>
> bortiz@cms.cc.wayne.edu wrote:
>
> 	...
>
> : I made a point of saying that I was
> : dealing with the diffusion of plants to the New World.
>
> And since you passed without comment my quote from a recent source
> indicating that some plants diffused _from_ the Americas to the Old World,
> I assume that you accept this as valid, and that thereby you now accept
> that transoceanic contacts in ancient times were real. Congratulations! I
> knew that as an objective scholar you would see the validity of all that
> evidence...
>

Not at all- I do not think that there is sufficient evidence for the
human- assisted movement of plants *from* the New World to the Old World
before 1492 either. (Corn in India has been dealt with satisfactorily
some time ago in sci.archaeology.mesoamerican, and I posted mangelsdorf's
comments on corn in the Old World already). What I was attempting,
unsuccessfully, was to keep you focused on one topic until we dealt with
it and avoid introducing others as a distraction.

> : This is only
> : significant to this thread if humans were involved which sets some time
> : limits on the events.
>
> Correct.
 [snip]

> : Yuri is using Kelley to give a false impression that this is a source of
> : new up-to-date information.
>
> Not quite, Bernard. I gave this quote only to indicate that Kelley
> _currently_ believes that there's something to the diffusion of these
> plants. That perhaps they were in the Americas precolumbus. And I was
> interested in your opinion about this.
>
> : In reality, Kelley, has absolutely no new
> : information.
>
> Correct, but _I_ may have some...
>
> : The claim that bananas were brought by man to the New World
> : before Columbus is hoary and unsupported.
>
> Not yet, in this forum. But just wait. I have some interesting information
> that bananas were precolumbian in Brazil.
>
> : 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.
>
> [Yuri asked Bernard before:]
> : 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?
>
> Yes. I will post it soon.
>
> : 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.
>
> OK, Bernard, I will now state openly why I asked you this question about
> yams and bananas. I asked you to clarify your position because there's an
> apparent inaccuracy in Kelley. You see, I consulted some reference books
> recently, and found out that a number of species of yams are NATIVE to the
> Americas (and some are also native to the Old World)!
>
> So Kelley was obviously right about yams being a precolumbian crop in
> America. What he neglected to mention was that it was a specie native to
> America. (This does not exclude the possibility that some varieties of
> yams may have diffused with human assistance across the oceans in ancient
> times.) So I was just wondering if you noticed this inaccuracy in Kelley?
>
> Thus, people who may wish to refute Kelley (and I just did, up to a point)
> should really research this material before venturing into refutations.
> This subject matter is quite complex.
>

No, Yuri, I am well aware that there are native yam species in the New
World, but that is not sufficient. What must be specified is the species
name and these are different in various areas of the world. Kelley and
other diffusionists are not referring to native species but rather argue
that yams were brought to the New World-- as usual with little or no
evidence other than their belief that it * must have* happened because
diffusion took place. I did not take the yam bait because I wanted us to
keep focused on bananas. Where are the references? Be sure they are
credible (none of this George Carter business).



> There's one more thing I want to mention now. When talking about
> hypothetical ancient Africa-America transoceanic connections, the question
> of bottle gourd diffusion is very important. You mention this in the
> article you co-authored in CURRENT ANTHROPOLOGY. (But this is not directly
> relevant to Sertima.)
>
> The history of domestication of the bottle gourd (Lagenaria) is quite
> interesting. It may have been the first domesticated plant ever. It may
> have diffused to America with human assistance ca. 9,000 years ago. Have
> you researched these theories? I read the CURRENT ANTHRO article, and you
> may have dismissed the Lagenaria all too easily there. If Sertima wanted
> to look for Africa connections, this is where he should have looked
> (nothing to do with the Olmecs, though). Too bad he is quite
> incompetent...
>

Yuri, remember above that we said that human transport put some limits on
plant diffusion. We have just had an exhausting discussion (re:Ancient
Navigation) where even Phoenician sailing to the NewWorld in say 800 B.C.
was seriously questioned. Exactly, who would have brought Lagenaria
siceraria to the New World 9000 B.C.? Nobody in sub-Saharan Africa had
domesticated anything by 9000 B.C. or 4000 B.C. Why would a boat be
loaded with inedible plants instead of food? Lagenaria siceraria is
perfectly capable of floating over by itself and is fertile afterward.
Reed (1977), the editor, discussing this  in a summary of the conference,
points out that these gourds can float in salt water for a year, be
stored for 6 years and still be fertile. Reed points out that there is no
archaeological evidence for the human diffusion hypothesis and that
floating over and natural dispersion is a viable mechanism. By the way,
the proposal by Lathrap being discussed by Reed proposed that humans
brought the gourds over by 16,000 B.C. not 9000 B.C.

Reed, C.A. 1977 "Origins of Agriculture: Discussion and some
Conclusions," in * Origins of Agriculture* the Hague: Mouton ,pp.
917-953.

Bernard Ortiz de Montellano
> Regards,
>
> Yuri.
>
> Yuri Kuchinsky   | "Where there is the Tree of Knowledge, there
>      -=-         | is always Paradise: so say the most ancient
>  in Toronto 	 | and the most modern serpents."  F. Nietzsche
>  ----- my webpage is for now at: http://www.io.org/~yuku -----

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