🚀 go-pugleaf

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...

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

Correct.

So now, we can continue this discussion and focus on the hypothetical
movement of plants _to_ America, since this is where your interest lies. 

	...

: 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. 

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... 

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 -----

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

bortiz@cms.cc.wayne.edu wrote:
: In article <5om5vo$fs9$1@trends.ca>,
:   yuku@mail.trends.ca (Yuri Kuchinsky) wrote:

: > 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.

Bernard, 

So now it seems like you're slipping from the Truth, unfortunately... Oh,
well... 

	:)

: (Corn in India has been dealt with satisfactorily
: some time ago in sci.archaeology.mesoamerican,

Well... how did I manage to miss that? Can you remind?

: and I posted mangelsdorf's
: comments on corn in the Old World already).

And you think posting outdated opinions will do?

	...

: 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.

I'm all for staying on topic! So how about you now give me a reason why
you don't like my evidence for sweet potato being brought from America to
Pacific islands long before Columbus? Even a little reason will do... You
would like to stay on topic, yes? 

	...

: > 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.

Yes.

: 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.?

And who sailed to Australia in 100,000 bc?

: Nobody in sub-Saharan Africa had
: domesticated anything by 9000 B.C. or 4000 B.C.

Why are you so sure about it? Donald Lathrap obviously disagrees.

: Why would a boat be
: loaded with inedible plants instead of food?

Because gourds had great religious importance, for one?

: Lagenaria siceraria is
: perfectly capable of floating over by itself and is fertile afterward.

Doesn't mean it did.

: 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.

Correct.

: Reed points out that there is no
: archaeological evidence for the human diffusion hypothesis

And what kind of evidence may this be?

: and that
: floating over and natural dispersion is a viable mechanism.

Doesn't mean it happened this way. Or did I say this before already?

: 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.

Yes, he was quite radical about his dates. But this in itself will not
alter his argument significantly. 

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

Now, Bernard, we've been discussing Lagenaria for a long time on the Net. 
I will post now a long file with relevant information for interested
people to get some background on this.

To state my position quite simply, I don't think Lagenaria case provides
irrefutable proof of human assisted diffusion. (Sweet potato does,
according to competent scholars.) Yet I believe that, on the whole, the
balance of probabilities is that it diffused with human assistance very
early. 

I will return to banana later, after we clear up these other important
issues.

Best,

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 -----

Greetings, all.

Below you will find material dealing with the history of the earliest
domestication of bottle gourd (Lagenaria), based on the work of Prof.
Lathrap. I've posted most of this before in assorted posts. I thought this
is relevant since Bernard is interested in this subject. 

We assume that bottle gourd was native to Africa and first domesticated
there. It was found in very early contexts in Asia and in America.

What can bottle gourd tell us about early cultures around the world? I
also try to tie this mateial in with some recent research about the
earliest pottery in the Americas. (I have files on this on my webpage, and
part of this article is taken out of these.)

---

Donald Lathrap is an anthropologist with a strong interest in
paleo-ethno-botany -- the study of the origins of domestication of
earliest agricultural plants. In 1977, he published a seminal work, OUR
FATHER THE CAYMAN, OUR MOTHER THE GOURD. It is included in the important
volume, ORIGINS OF AGRICULTURE, C. A. Reed, ed., Mouton (Proceedings of
the IX International Congress of Anthropological and Ethnological
Sciences). 

One should note that if theoreticians can argue about diffusionism vs.
parallelism forever, without the issues being ever resolved -- among the
botanists, the leeway for disagreement is a lot narrower. After all, a few
lab tests on the plants in question will prove which one comes from where
originally, what is the relationship of one to the other, etc.
Domestication of plants is something that can be studied with much greater
precision than the transmission of mythological motifs, or of artistic
traits. This is why the evidence from botany can be extremely important in
the matters of diffusion or non-diffusion. 

As regards the earliest Amazonian cultures, Lathrap proposed the
idea of the diffusion from Africa into S. America. He bases much of
his analysis on the case of the bottle gourd, the plant that was
extremely important for earliest societies around the world.

      What I will attempt is a model relating to the events
      which brought _Lagenaria siceraria_ (bottle gourd) to
      Ayacucho by 13,000 b.p., and to various points in
      Mesoamerica by 9,000 b.p. (op. cit, p. 725)

Further, he is saying that such an introduction of this plant was
the most likely to take place in northeastern Brazil (the Amazonian
region).

      A glance at the map should be enough to convince one of
      this, and Schwerin (1970) has published an excellent
      discussion of the relevant winds and currents which
      facilitate a crossing at this point. (ibid, p. 726)

In his article, Lathrap provides a detailed analysis of various
modes of diffusion for bottle gourd.

      ... Schwerin (1970), Whitaker (1971), and Richardson
      (1972) have all discussed the various agencies which
      might have effected the trans-Atlantic crossing of
      _Lagenaria_. ... While the gourd will reach the beaches
      of northeastern Brazil with its seeds still quite
      capable of terminating, the plant will not grow on the
      salt sands and some mechanism must get the seeds off the
      beach and into a more favourable environment.

 He then considers three possible mechanisms, and concludes:

      These considerations leave me with a most reluctant
      acceptance of the third alternative as the most
      probable: that a viable group of fishermen made the
      canoe voyage from western Africa to eastern Brazil
      bringing with them not only the bottle gourd and the
      leguminous fish poisons (Quigley 1956), but also the
      African linted cotton, _Gossypium herbaceum_ L., var.
      _africanum_. (pp. 726-7)

These are only small excerpts from a long article. I think the balance of
evidence for the case of the bottle gourd does point to human-assisted
diffusion. (Charles Heiser [1990] inclines to the opposite view in this
case, but his discussion of this in his book is quite brief, and he
carefully qualifies his language so as to leave the possibility of a
different interpretation.)

The importance of the bottle gourd is generally little known outside of
the narrow circle of specialists. It was probably the earliest
domesticated plant ever. It was important for both its utilitarian and its
symbolic/ritual/religious value. Besides the important symbolic use, the
earliest peoples used it for food, and also made containers out of it. It
is interesting that much of the earliest pottery was modelled on the
bottle gourd shape. 

Now, we can also bring in here the recent work of Anna Roosevelt on the
Amazonian pottery (1995). One clear indication from her work is that the
ceramic stage at the sites that she studied in the Amazon seems to appear
on sterile levels.

      ... preceramic cultures have not yet been scientifically
      documented at these sites. (op. cit., p. 120)

The earliest pottery manufacturing settlers at those sites were
fisher-folk who were obviously familiar with navigation. If we take
the work of Lathrap into account, these people may well have arrived
from Africa. And Roosevelt accepts this.

      Having the earliest known American pottery in tropical
      lowlands at the eastern edge of South America fit
      neither the Japanese fishermen theory nor the Andean
      invasion theory but was consonant with independent
      invention or Lathrap's African origins hypothesis. (p.
      116)

There may have been many hearths (diffusion matrices) for pottery in
S. America.

      The distinctive differences in pottery from region to
      region suggest that there must have been several
      hearths. (p. 128)

This of course will be in parallel with the usual several hearths for
pottery in other regions of the world. So, as we can see, Meggers' theory
about the origins of coastal Ecuadorian pottery may still be valid if we
can suppose that the ancient Amazonians did not interact with the
Ecuadorians. 

And Roosevelt does not make the claim of knowing if the early
Amazonian pottery cultures have influenced the Andean Valdivian
pottery. Obviously a lot of work needs to be done in this area, in
tracing possible connections. For all we know, the two cultures may
not have come into any productive contact with each other. A
parallel case for this exists, clearly, in western Asia; I have
mentioned the apparent inability of the Babylonian area agricultural
societies to learn for about 2000 years from the north African
pottery traditions.

Anna Roosevelt makes the following critique of Lathrap in her
article:

      ... Lathrap's idea that pottery-using horticultural
      people from Africa came into the Amazon at 13,000 years
      ago does not fit the fact that there is absolutely no
      pottery in the 11,200- to 9,800-year-old Paleoindian
      site. (p. 129)

True. But all we need to do here is bring Lathrap's dates closer to the
present. Lathrap's theories are not graven in stone. His is simply a
hypothesis that can be improved like any other.

Best,

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 -----

In article <5oorrh$bnh$1@trends.ca>,
  yuku@mail.trends.ca (Yuri Kuchinsky) wrote:
>
>
> Greetings, all.
>
> Below you will find material dealing with the history of the earliest
> domestication of bottle gourd (Lagenaria), based on the work of Prof.
> Lathrap. I've posted most of this before in assorted posts. I thought this
> is relevant since Bernard is interested in this subject.
>
[major snip]

Interesting that after chiding me for using old references, Yuri, uses
Lathrap's paper published in 1977 as his major source. Yuri does not,
after I have several times cited, point out that Charles Reed the editor
of the volume where Lathrap's paper appeared did a summary and conclusion
article in which he explictly disagreed with Lathrap on Lagenaria. Thus,
Lathrap's theory was not accepted even when it was proposed.

Yuri then cites Roosevelt (1995) and Charles Heizer (1990) but does not
provide the actual citations so that it is impossible to check them. It
may be that Yuri is citing Heizer's *Seeds to civilization* 2nd edition.
The first edition (San Francisco:W.H. Freeman 1973, p. 175) is not as
wishy-washy as Yuri would have us believe, " Some people have thought
that man may have been responsible for its wide dispersal in early times,
but since it has been shown that the gourds can remain in sea water for
long periods without damage to the seeds, it perhaps more likely that its
wide distribution is to be explained as the result of oceanic drifting of
the fruits."

Another contemporaneous review (H.G. Baker, 1970. *Plants and
civilization* Belmont: Wadsworth, p. 50) says, " ... it sems unlikely
that persons making transoceanic voyages would load their boats with such
bulky, nearly inedible fruits. Consequently, the calabash probably cannot
be used as an example of a species whose presence on both sides of the
Atlantic ocean speaks in favor of cultural contacts between the
hemispheres in ancient times."


Yuri cites Lathrap:

      "These considerations leave me with a most reluctant
      acceptance of the third alternative as the most
      probable: that a viable group of fishermen made the
      canoe voyage from western Africa to eastern Brazil
      bringing with them not only the bottle gourd and the
      leguminous fish poisons (Quigley 1956), but also the
      African linted cotton, _Gossypium herbaceum_ L., var.
      _africanum_. (pp. 726-7)"

But as I posted here-- Cotton hybridized Old World and New World species
to create the long-linted polyploidal species at least a million years
ago so that Lathrap is wrong on this plant, native fish poisons with
saponins are used all over the New World so that Lathrap is also wrong
here. 2 out of 3 so far.

Yuri updates by citing Anna Roosevelt (whose work is not universally
accepted) 1995 (but I cannot check the original citations)  "Having the
earliest known American pottery in tropical  lowlands at the eastern edge
of South America fit  neither the Japanese fishermen theory nor the
Andean	invasion theory but was consonant with independent  invention or
Lathrap's African origins hypothesis. (p.  116)."<

<
<
Yuri concludes:
"Anna Roosevelt makes the following critique of Lathrap in her
article:

      ... Lathrap's idea that pottery-using horticultural
      people from Africa came into the Amazon at 13,000 years
      ago does not fit the fact that there is absolutely no
      pottery in the 11,200- to 9,800-year-old Paleoindian
      site. (p. 129)

True. But all we need to do here is bring Lathrap's dates closer to the
present. Lathrap's theories are not graven in stone. His is simply a
hypothesis that can be improved like any other."

A couple of points:

Roosevelt herself is not citing Lathrap accurately. In his article
Lathrap was trying to explain gourd remains in Peru that were 13,000
years ago so that his presumed trip had to be older. He actually proposed
that Lagenaria arrived 16,000 years ago or earlier. Thus the discrepancy
between his dates and Roosevelt is even greater. Lathrap's proposals are
even more outrageous. He proposes that Lagenaria was domesticated 40,0000
years ago. This is tens of thousands of years before any other of the
well documented plants like wheat, barley, or rice. No anthropologist
will agree with this. Humans at this time were all hunter-gatherers and
not domesticating anything.

Another point that makes me very suspicious about either the quote or
Roosevelt's qualifications. Hunter-gatherers do not make pottery. We do
know that Jomon culture was making pottery in the period concerned which
is why Meggers Valdivia contact was originally even considered-- it has
now been pretty well discredited. However, exactly where in Sub-Saharan
Africa was there a culture that was making pottery 16,000,  13,0000, or
9000 years ago? So why would our poor benighted South Americans be taught
how to make pottery by some hypothetical African?

Please, Yuri-- provide complete citations

Bernard Ortiz de Montellano

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

Yuri, I went back to my files and found a previous post on Lagenaria that
cites a more recent work by Charles Heiser than the one you cited and
which takes a firmer stand against human diffusion. Peter Van Rossum
cites *The Gourd Book* 1979. I just ordered the book  from Amazon.com. It
has a 1993 publication date but it must be a reprint of the older edition
just as your Heiser 1990 must be a newer edition of the 1970 version.
What follows is Peter Van Rossum

From: pmv100@psu.edu (Peter van Rossum)
Newsgroups: sci.archaeology.mesoamerican,sci.bio.botany
Subject: Re: bottle gourd and sweet potato diffusion
Date: Wed, 27 Nov 1996 01:38:17 GMT
[snip]

Your [Yuri--BOM] statement that there is no persuasive model of
"auto-diffusion" of Lagenaria Siceraria and Ipomoea Batatas is just
incorrect (unless of course you mean "to me, Yuri, there is no persuasive
model...").

For Lagenaria siceraria [the bottle gourd], "Whitaker and Carter
demonstrated that gourds could float in sea water for at least 347
days - ample time to have crossed the Atlantic by floating - and that
the seeds still retain their viability.  In fact, these scientists
found that the seeds would still germinate after having remained in
these gourds for six years" (Heiser 1979:101).

And as Mr. Burglin has also posted for Ipomoea batatas, "Purseglove
(1968).. [showed]...the seeds are viable for more than 20 years, they
are hard and dormant unless scarified; they are impervious to salt
water; and they are not buoyant, but the capsule is." (Sauer 1993:41)

Modes of autodiffusion for both species have been presented, if they
were not persuasive then no botanists would even consider them.

Finally, while it is obviously ludicruous for an African swallow to
carry a coconut (the basis of the Monty Python skit) there is no reason
not to postulate birds as a dispersal mechanism for small seeds.  In
quotes below you will see that botanists regularly regard bird action
as one means of plant dispersal so you shouldn't just pooh pooh it away.

>Suppose the seeds did, somehow, arrive to new shores. First, the
>opponents of diffusion by humans would have to demonstrate that the
>plants in question can survive by themselves in the wild in the new
>area. This should be easy enough to do: prove that these plants
>exist now in the wilderness -- growing by themselves without human
>protection from encroaching jungle (highly unlikely, IMO). Have such
>evidence been available? Not to my knowledge.

Then read on and see that for both it has been shown that what they
require are disturbed environments, not necessarily human care.

>_If_ you find such
>back-up information, then you can further hypothesize that these
>former domesticates have been found in the wild and "re-
>domesticated" by natives. More reliance on chance
>
>For _lagenaria_ one possible scenario has been suggested: an African
>gourd has washed up on a beach in the Amazon delta area, was picked
>up by an inquiring native, and domesticated thereupon. Obviously,
>the chances of this happening don't seem very high, but such a
>possibility cannot be discounted offhand. Nevertheless, as
>agriculture was unknown in S America at that time, this would have
>been quite a feat! But a domestication could have been
>"involuntary", someone in these groups suggested. The seeds were
>thrown into a dump and grew... But this is still a "domestication"
>of sorts. So, our opponents wish to insist, the domestication of
>_lagenaria_ just happen to signify an independent invention of
>agriculture in the Americas. What an incredible coincidence!
>Lagenaria (that, on good evidence, was the first domesticated plant
>in Africa) ALSO became such a plant in the Americas -- but without
>any human contact! Wow!
>
>Again, what are the chances of a native FINDING a gourd on the
>beach? The chances of a gourd arriving at all are not that great to
>start with, but our opponents invite us to suppose that, on top of
>that remote chance, the natives would also patrol all the beaches
>all day long, so that they find it upon arrival! A Christmas present
>from Africa?

Your model that for Lagenaria siceraria to survive after a transoceanic
voyage it would need human action is just incorrect.  As you have
elsewhere noted, Heiser is not averse to accepting the possibility of
pre-16th  century Old/New World contacts, let's see what his model is:

"a large number of people believe that the gourd [Lagenaria siceraria]
must have floated across the ocean.  Many others, on the contrary, feel
that it must have been introduced by man.  To tally up the numbers who
hold one or the other of these views might be interesting, but it would
solve nothing."(p. 101-102)

"I do not think I have any preconceived ideas in regard to transoceanic
diffusion before Columbus.  In fact, I have sometimes been criticized
for straddling the fence." (p. 103-104)

pp. 105-110 Heiser summarizes Lathrap's arguments for why Lathrap
believes the gourd to be a human introduction from Africa to South
America.

"That a gourd soon disappears from a cultivated area, once cultivation is
abandoned, is probably not unlikely.  Gourds are dependant upon disturbed
areas...such disturbed areas today are usually created by man, but
natural disturbances such as river flooding, forest fires, earthquakes,
and landslides do occur without man's aid." (p. 113)

"Man has made it [Lagenaria siceraria] a domesticated plant, but even
so it does not require the pampering that many of our domesticates do.
In many places the plants are given no cultivation after the seeds are
started.  In this connection it is perhaps pertinent to mention that the
Indians of Virginia believed that it was unlucky to plant gourds, so they
simply scattered seeds on the ground to start new plantings." (p. 113)

"The botanist Henri Pittier collected a specimen, now in the United States
National Herbarium (4138), growing along a beach at Viento Frio in
Panama.  I am not claiming that this plant resulted from a transoceanic
voyage, only that it proves it will grow on a beach.  Moreover, I am not
sure it is necessary to prove this [although he just did], for strong
waves, perhaps the result of a hurricane, might carry gourds inland to a
suitable site for growth." (p. 115)

"the time has come for an alternative hypothesis [to Lathrap's].  Very
simply it is this - the gourd floated to America." (p. 114)

"Such a hypothesis of long-distance dispersal by natural means might
have caused raised eyebrows among past generations of botanists, who were
trying to explain all discontinuous distributions across oceans by means
of hypothetical land bridges or lost continentss.  Today, however, it is
widely accepted that there are many examples of long-distance dispersal
of plants by birds, wind, or water currents and subsequent establishment
in the New World." (p. 115)

"So I claim it is likely that a gourd, probably wild, became established
in the Americas after floating across the ocean." (p. 116)

So Heiser makes it clear that Lagenaria siceraria can survive without
man's aid - contrary to what you seem to be claiming above.

Heiser, Charles
  1979 "The Gourd Book." Norman: Univ. of Oklahoma Press.


Peter Van Rossum also dealt quite adequately with the question of sweet
potatoes (I'm sure you have his posts in your files) why should I run
around the track again?

Bernard Ortiz de Montellano

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

bortiz@cms.cc.wayne.edu wrote:

: Yuri, I went back to my files and found a previous post on Lagenaria that
: cites a more recent work by Charles Heiser than the one you cited and
: which takes a firmer stand against human diffusion. Peter Van Rossum
: cites *The Gourd Book* 1979.

Thanks for reposting this, Bernard. This was one of the more weighty posts
bu Peter.	:)

	...

: For Lagenaria siceraria [the bottle gourd], "Whitaker and Carter
: demonstrated that gourds could float in sea water for at least 347
: days - ample time to have crossed the Atlantic by floating - and that
: the seeds still retain their viability.  In fact, these scientists
: found that the seeds would still germinate after having remained in
: these gourds for six years" (Heiser 1979:101).

I accept this as valid.

Yes, it could have floated over by itself. The question is did it?

	...

: "That a gourd soon disappears from a cultivated area, once cultivation is
: abandoned, is probably not unlikely. 

This is indeed the case.

: Gourds are dependant upon disturbed
: areas...such disturbed areas today are usually created by man, but
: natural disturbances such as river flooding, forest fires, earthquakes,
: and landslides do occur without man's aid." (p. 113)

If we need to invoke natural disasters such as these, the case for the
gourd surviving upon its auto-arrival is weakened thereby.

	...

: "So I claim it is likely that a gourd, probably wild, became established
: in the Americas after floating across the ocean." (p. 116)

I disagree. Please note "probably". Why don't we know this for sure? In
what form did gourd arrive to America? This is _extremely_ important. I
will maintain that our studies to date are inadequate to come to a firm
conclusion. Genetics should be able to provide these answers in the
future. Genetics will be able to establish

a) when exactly gourd arrived, and
b) what kind of gourd arrived.

When we know this, everything else should become clear.

In the absence of the above data, of course, you can prove me wrong by
finding only _one case_ of another plant that auto-diffused from Africa at
the same or similar time that you think the gourd auto-diffused. Any
evidence for this that you may know of?

May I remind you also that most of the theories about gourd floating over
_assume_ that it floated over because it was used as a net flotation
device by early fisherfolk. So it must have been a cultigen, or at least a
cultivar by then. Otherwise, there's still a problem of how did it get in
the water _in the first place_! 

: So Heiser makes it clear that Lagenaria siceraria can survive without
: man's aid - contrary to what you seem to be claiming above.

That it can survive by itself is unlikely, in my opinion, especially if
one has to postulate uncommon events such as forest fires for this to
happen. 

: Heiser, Charles
:   1979 "The Gourd Book." Norman: Univ. of Oklahoma Press.

	...

: Peter Van Rossum also dealt quite adequately with the question of sweet
: potatoes

We have dealt with potato over a long period of time, and the last I've
heard from Peter about this, he just about gave up on his case. 

The fact that the names of sweet potato in Polynesia strongly indicate
human-assisted diffusion clinches the case. The double-rainbow motif of
god Lono adds to the case still further. I'm not aware of any authorities
in Polynesian ethnobotany who still defend "auto-diffusion" in this case.
Specialists consider this case of human-assisted diffusion of potato from
America as _proven_. I've given the citations.

Please note that this, the potato, is _only one case_ of many that Heiser
considers likely.

Best,

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 -----

bortiz@cms.cc.wayne.edu wrote:

	...

: Yuri then cites Roosevelt (1995) and Charles Heizer (1990) but does not
: provide the actual citations so that it is impossible to check them.

Bernard,

Sorry that in my haste I did not include the complete references. 

: It
: may be that Yuri is citing Heizer's *Seeds to civilization* 2nd edition.

This is corect, Bernard. I simply cite a new edition, and this part was
not changed at all as far as I can see.

: The first edition (San Francisco:W.H. Freeman 1973, p. 175) is not as
: wishy-washy as Yuri would have us believe, " Some people have thought
: that man may have been responsible for its wide dispersal in early times,
: but since it has been shown that the gourds can remain in sea water for
: long periods without damage to the seeds, it perhaps more likely that its
: wide distribution is to be explained as the result of oceanic drifting of
: the fruits."

Please note the "perhaps" above.

: Another contemporaneous review (H.G. Baker, 1970. *Plants and
: civilization* Belmont: Wadsworth, p. 50) says, " ... it sems unlikely
: that persons making transoceanic voyages would load their boats with such
: bulky, nearly inedible fruits.

But Lathrap has plenty of evidence in his article of important
_ritual/religious uses_ of gourd.

: Consequently, the calabash probably cannot
: be used as an example of a species whose presence on both sides of the
: Atlantic ocean speaks in favor of cultural contacts between the
: hemispheres in ancient times."

It certainly cannot provide, of itself, solid evidence for human-assited
diffusion at this point. But I believe the likelihood is that it diffused
with human assistance. 

	...

: native fish poisons with
: saponins are used all over the New World so that Lathrap is also wrong
: here. 2 out of 3 so far.

Well, Bernard, simply because they were used elsewhere is no proof they
didn't come there from the Amazon.

: Yuri updates by citing Anna Roosevelt (whose work is not universally :
accepted) 1995 (but I cannot check the original citations)  "Having the :
earliest known American pottery in tropical lowlands at the eastern edge :
of South America fit neither the Japanese fishermen theory nor the :
Andean invasion theory but was consonant with independent invention or :
Lathrap's African origins hypothesis. (p.  116)."<

This was the 1995 volume on pottery edited by John Hoopes, published by
Smithsonian.

: Roosevelt herself is not citing Lathrap accurately. In his article
: Lathrap was trying to explain gourd remains in Peru that were 13,000
: years ago so that his presumed trip had to be older. He actually proposed
: that Lagenaria arrived 16,000 years ago or earlier. Thus the discrepancy
: between his dates and Roosevelt is even greater. Lathrap's proposals are
: even more outrageous. He proposes that Lagenaria was domesticated 40,0000
: years ago. This is tens of thousands of years before any other of the
: well documented plants like wheat, barley, or rice. No anthropologist
: will agree with this. Humans at this time were all hunter-gatherers and
: not domesticating anything.

True, his theories are controversial. He is indeed trying to challenge the
prevailing idea that the primarily food plants were the earliest
domesticated. What can I say, I guess people will have to read him in
order to see if he may have a case.

: Another point that makes me very suspicious about either the quote or
: Roosevelt's qualifications. Hunter-gatherers do not make pottery.

But the settled fisherfolk, pre-agricultural, made the first pottery. This
is accepted now. 

: We do
: know that Jomon culture was making pottery in the period concerned which
: is why Meggers Valdivia contact was originally even considered-- it has
: now been pretty well discredited.

It's a solid case, and cannot really be discredited. Anyone who compared
the pottery shapes in Valdivia and in Japan will know what I mean.

: However, exactly where in Sub-Saharan
: Africa was there a culture that was making pottery 16,000,  13,0000, or
: 9000 years ago?

The earliest pottery in Africa comes from Sahara. 10,000 years ago or
earlier.

I will post a file from my webpage next with this and other relevant
info, and a complete citation for this material.

Best,

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 -----

This is the file from my webpage I promised.

Subject:      amazing Amazonian pottery (cont.)
From:         yuku@io.org (Yuri Kuchinsky)
Date:         1996/08/20
Newsgroups:   sci.archaeology,sci.anthropology

STRANGE GOINGS ON IN PRE-COLUMBIAN ARCHAEOLOGY: The emergence of
pottery and diffusionism.

By Yuri Kuchinsky -- yuku@trends.ca

[Part 2]

----

More generally, what can be said about these matters in light of the
new data about earliest American pottery?

The book that I mentioned in my previous post, THE EMERGENCE OF
POTTERY, John Hoopes and W. Barnett, eds, Smithsonian, 1995, can be
very useful in putting all those things in their proper
perspectives. This book talks generally, among many other things,
about the emergence of earliest pottery around the world, about the
connection of pottery with the origins of agriculture, and about
diffusionism. This is a collection of the most recent research by
respected scholars in the field.

One basic idea emerges from this volume. It seems that most scholars
currently believe that it is not necessary to postulate a single
source or matrix for the invention of pottery. The _idea_ of pottery
may not have been such an unusual idea for earliest peoples.
Surveying earliest pottery in various parts of the globe,
researchers conclude that it is quite likely that the invention of
pottery could have occurred in a number of places independently.
Here, for instance, A. M. T. Moore talking about the earliest
pottery in Western Asia (specifically the area around Babylonia):

      Indeed, the evidence does not support the idea of a
      single place of origin but suggests, rather, that
      pottery began to be made at about the same time over
      much of Western Asia. (THE INCEPTION OF POTTING IN
      WESTERN ASIA AND ITS IMPACT ON ECONOMY AND SOCIETY, op.
      cit., p. 44)

It is interesting that the earliest pottery in the African Sahara, and
around the Nile, goes back to about 10,000 years. Why did not the idea of
pottery manufacture travel west or north from there for such a long time?
An interesting question. 

In this connection, we may also ask a broader question, Why was
pottery invented at all? This is, perhaps surprisingly, a rather
complex matter. Debates are still going on regarding the role of the
earliest pottery in primitive societies. It is also quite possible
that pottery played a different role in different societies, and at
different times in the same societies.

It has been commonly believed previously that the invention of
pottery came hand in hand with the invention of agriculture. As
early societies were settling down to cultivate crops -- so the
thinking went -- a greater need, perhaps a necessity, arose for them
to use pottery. Clearly, for migrant tribes pottery would have been
difficult to transport.

Much of the work in this volume counters some of these suppositions.
For one thing, the link between the invention of agriculture and the
invention of pottery seems now to be in doubt. Many cases have now
come to light of agricultural societies that did not use pottery
(e.g. in the case of Western Asia).

      Their ancestors [i.e. the ancestors of the first potters
      of the Golden Crescent] had been farmers for up to 2,000
      years. (ibid, p. 44)

And vice versa, many pre-agricultural societies that used pottery
are now known.

But the link with _settled lifestyle_ does seem to be solid. Of
course, as we know from general pre-history, the earliest settled
societies that were not agricultural were the societies that emerged
around the utilisation of marine resources, i.e. the societies of
the earliest fisher-folk along the sea-coasts and near the rivers.
As it happens, the earliest known pottery in the world, the Jomon
potteries of southern Japan, were invented by such peoples.

The primary role of the most ancient pottery in various societies is
far from certain in all cases. Although we may _assume_ the most
utilitarian role for earliest pottery, i.e. in food preparation and
storage, this clearly was not always the case. There seems to have
been a lot of ritualistic/religious use in some societies at
earliest stages that was more important. Such was the case e.g. for
the earliest African pottery. The link with the utilitarian use
seems to be especially tenuous if we keep in mind that the use of
the earliest _ceramics_, going back around 30,000, was in the
manufacture of figurines and other ritual objects.

[Part 3 that concludes this article is on my webpage.]

Yuri.

References

   1. http://www.io.org/~yuku/dif/diff.htm

yuku@mail.trends.ca (Yuri Kuchinsky) wrote:

>bortiz@cms.cc.wayne.edu wrote:

<snip>

>
>: Another contemporaneous review (H.G. Baker, 1970. *Plants and
>: civilization* Belmont: Wadsworth, p. 50) says, " ... it sems unlikely
>: that persons making transoceanic voyages would load their boats with such
>: bulky, nearly inedible fruits.
>
>But Lathrap has plenty of evidence in his article of important
>_ritual/religious uses_ of gourd.

I don't know from ritual/religious uses, but it seems reasonable that
an object that is so waterproof would make a great storage container
for liquids or at the very least an effective cup, bowl, spoon or
ladle. Also useful for bailing water when your boat's going under. <g>


Frankly, if I were off on a stone or bronze age adventure, I wouldn't
"load the boat" with them, but if I were accustomed to using them, I
would very likely take a few seeds with me if I was planning on
staying at my destination for any length of time.


--
Garry Williams
 gdwill@earthlink.net or
 gdwill@william.salzo.cary.nc.us
 

yuku@mail.trends.ca (Yuri Kuchinsky) wrote:

>bortiz@cms.cc.wayne.edu wrote:
>
<snip>
>
>: Gourds are dependant upon disturbed
>: areas...such disturbed areas today are usually created by man, but
>: natural disturbances such as river flooding, forest fires, earthquakes,
>: and landslides do occur without man's aid." (p. 113)
>
>If we need to invoke natural disasters such as these, the case for the
>gourd surviving upon its auto-arrival is weakened thereby.

How so? Everyone knows that the Nile floods like clockwork every
year-or did until humans started building dams. I admit I don't know
how it goes there nowadays, but obviously river flooding is not an
uncommon event. Didn't you hear about the floods in various parts of
the US this spring and in years past? In some areas, natural fires are
also very common. Don't you ever see in the news where nearly every
year there are terrible fires in California when things are really dry
from lack of rain, plus the Santa Ana winds that suck additional
moisture out of everything and then fan the flames once they do get
started? Under those conditions it just takes a spark. And there are
plants that are adapted to this sort of conditions, requiring a fire
to pass over in order for the seeds to germinate. Moving along to the
next disaster, they seem to have a fair number of mudslides in
California, too, when it does rain, not to mention earthquakes. I'm
sure you can find similar conditions in many parts of the world. I
just mention Egyptian and US floods and Californian fires, mudslides
and earthquakes as examples showing that these events are not
uncommon.
 
<snip>

>May I remind you also that most of the theories about gourd floating over
>_assume_ that it floated over because it was used as a net flotation
>device by early fisherfolk. So it must have been a cultigen, or at least a
>cultivar by then. Otherwise, there's still a problem of how did it get in
>the water _in the first place_! 

A storm such as a hurricane? An animal, any animal (including a human)
simply discarding it uneaten/unused? Growing on a riverbank and
falling into the water at maturity?

>: So Heiser makes it clear that Lagenaria siceraria can survive without
>: man's aid - contrary to what you seem to be claiming above.
>
>That it can survive by itself is unlikely, in my opinion, especially if
>one has to postulate uncommon events such as forest fires for this to
>happen. 

See "disaster" discussion above.


--
Garry Williams
 gdwill@earthlink.net or
 gdwill@william.salzo.cary.nc.us
 

Garry Williams (gdwill@earthlink.net) wrote:
: yuku@mail.trends.ca (Yuri Kuchinsky) wrote:

: >If we need to invoke natural disasters such as these, the case for the
: >gourd surviving upon its auto-arrival is weakened thereby.
: 
: How so? Everyone knows that the Nile floods like clockwork every
: year-or did until humans started building dams. I admit I don't know
: how it goes there nowadays, but obviously river flooding is not an
: uncommon event. Didn't you hear about the floods in various parts of
: the US this spring and in years past? In some areas, natural fires are
: also very common.

Garry,

Your examples are valid, and yet we must clarify a couple of things right
from the beginning. What kind of gourd arrived to America and when? You
should clarify your position on this.

_If_ gourd arrived to America as a cultigen, at about the time when
agriculture began in America (ca. 10,000 bp), I believe that the chances
will be overwhelmingly that it was brought over by humans.

_If_ gourd arrived in its wild state much before that, then it was
probably domesticated here independently. Still, in such a case we will
have to explain _why_ the gourd was among the first domesticates in
America, as well as in Africa. Simply a coincidence?

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 -----


: Don't you ever see in the news where nearly every
: year there are terrible fires in California when things are really dry
: from lack of rain, plus the Santa Ana winds that suck additional
: moisture out of everything and then fan the flames once they do get
: started? Under those conditions it just takes a spark. And there are
: plants that are adapted to this sort of conditions, requiring a fire
: to pass over in order for the seeds to germinate. Moving along to the
: next disaster, they seem to have a fair number of mudslides in
: California, too, when it does rain, not to mention earthquakes. I'm
: sure you can find similar conditions in many parts of the world. I
: just mention Egyptian and US floods and Californian fires, mudslides
: and earthquakes as examples showing that these events are not
: uncommon.

Garry Williams wrote in article <33b4820f.2286472@news.earthlink.net>...
>yuku@mail.trends.ca (Yuri Kuchinsky) wrote:
>
>>May I remind you also that most of the theories about gourd floating
over
>>_assume_ that it floated over because it was used as a net flotation
>>device by early fisherfolk. So it must have been a cultigen, or at least
a
>>cultivar by then. Otherwise, there's still a problem of how did it get
in
>>the water _in the first place_!
>
>A storm such as a hurricane? An animal, any animal (including a human)
>simply discarding it uneaten/unused? Growing on a riverbank and
>falling into the water at maturity?

I know studies have shown that gourds can last quite a long time in sea
water, but weren't these tests conducted in tanks of seawater? There's any
number of animals in the sea that might find the gourd a tasty meal, like
the teredo worm loves wood, I think. Has anyone done studies on gourds
actually at sea? Considering some of the truly asinine projects that have
been funded by the government over the years, maybe a well-written grant
proposal could get funding for the dispersal of a million or so tagged
gourds off the African coast while numbers of us spend the next year or so
anxiously cruising the famous beaches of South America and the Caribbean
islands for successful ocean-crossing gourds.... :)

Of course, once the gourd got across, I'm not at all sure how it would get
to a suitable place to germinate. The beach doesn't seem too inviting from
the gourd's point of view. Perhaps carried by a swallow? European or
African?

Larry

yuku@mail.trends.ca (Yuri Kuchinsky) wrote:

<snip>

>Your examples are valid, and yet we must clarify a couple of things right
>from the beginning. What kind of gourd arrived to America and when? You
>should clarify your position on this.

Sorry to disappoint you, but I don't have a position on that yet. When
I have a chance to see more evidence ( in whatever direction), I might
be persuaded to take one, but right now I'm just at the observation
stage.  I'm one of those quirky people that think that theories should
account for all available facts, and that the more facts available,
the better shot one has at making a good theory. In the meantime, I
just take a wait-and-see attitude and try not to draw any conclusions
that can't be supported with the evidence available to me. I hope this
doesn't offend anyone's sensibilities.  :-)

>_If_ gourd arrived to America as a cultigen, at about the time when
>agriculture began in America (ca. 10,000 bp), I believe that the chances
>will be overwhelmingly that it was brought over by humans.

If the concept of agriculture had been imported, why would the
importers have only brought one or two familiar, inedible plants
(bottle gourds and cotton) instead of bringing a whole spectrum of
edible plants? Maybe there's an excellent reason, but I'm having
trouble imagining it. Perhaps if we just had some evidence, it would
be a little easier to explain. Or then again, maybe not. 

>_If_ gourd arrived in its wild state much before that, then it was
>probably domesticated here independently. Still, in such a case we will
>have to explain _why_ the gourd was among the first domesticates in
>America, as well as in Africa. Simply a coincidence?

Why not simply because it's a useful plant, and easy to grow, as well?
Why are cereals important domesticates all over the world? Simply
coincidence? Or is it because they're useful?

Then there's the discussion we just had of being naturally adapted to
growing in disturbed areas, something which humans are good at
providing.

OTOH, if the bottle gourd, Lagenaria siceraria (I haven't heard anyone
suggest yet that any other gourd species was transported between the
Old World and the New in prehistoric times, or are we including the
cucurbits, too? Please correct me if I've misunderstood.) arrived in
the Americas as a cultigen, I would assume that you don't think it
arrived via Berengia and that it arrived instead by boat. Do you know
of any evidence of ocean going boats (I mean direct evidence, ie,
remains of the boats themselves, or reliably dated drawings of boats,
etc) being found in the Americas that can be dated to the beginnings
of agriculture in the New World?

If memory serves, the first Australians and New Guineans (or Greater
Australians or whatever you want to call them) had to have arrived by
boat since there was always a certain amount of water separating them
from Southeast Asia even during the height of the ice ages. And I seem
to recall that humans arrived in Australia about 40 or 50,000 years
ago. How much do we really know about boat travel that long ago? The
problem here is the type of evidence; we can't go around making
circular arguments such as "we know there was boat travel to the
Americas because a certain gourd species is found there, and we know
that a certain gourd species is found there because there was boat
travel to the Americas".  OTOH, Easter Island wasn't settled by the
Polynesians until around 400 AD, I believe, much too late to explain
the bottle gourd coming that way. That leaves Africa. So where's the
"smoking gun"? Any direct evidence of ocean-going boats on either side
of the Atlantic 10,000 years (give or take a few) ago?


--
Garry Williams
 gdwill@earthlink.net or
 gdwill@william.salzo.cary.nc.us
 

"Larry Elmore" <ljelmore@montana.campus.mci.net> wrote:

>I know studies have shown that gourds can last quite a long time in sea
>water, but weren't these tests conducted in tanks of seawater? There's any
>number of animals in the sea that might find the gourd a tasty meal, like
>the teredo worm loves wood, I think. Has anyone done studies on gourds
>actually at sea? Considering some of the truly asinine projects that have

Sounds like a reasonable question, and one that we need answered.

>been funded by the government over the years, maybe a well-written grant
>proposal could get funding for the dispersal of a million or so tagged
>gourds off the African coast while numbers of us spend the next year or so
>anxiously cruising the famous beaches of South America and the Caribbean
>islands for successful ocean-crossing gourds.... :)

I'll volunteer! Free margaritas, too? 

>Of course, once the gourd got across, I'm not at all sure how it would get
>to a suitable place to germinate. The beach doesn't seem too inviting from
>the gourd's point of view. Perhaps carried by a swallow? European or
>African?
>

That depends on your favorite color, and what is the capital of
Assyria, anyways?  ;-)

Seriously though, a good storm might carry it inland to a suitable
spot, don't you think? Or perhaps a bird or other animal might find it
on the beach and eat it or the seeds, then take a crap further inland
leaving the seeds in organically fertilized soil. Any other
possibilities, or reasons why these two suggestions might not be
sound?


--
Garry Williams
 gdwill@earthlink.net or
 gdwill@william.salzo.cary.nc.us
 

On Sun, 29 Jun 1997 13:10:44 GMT, in sci.archaeology.mesoamerican, Garry
Williams wrote:


[SNIP]

>
>If memory serves, the first Australians and New Guineans (or Greater
>Australians or whatever you want to call them) had to have arrived by
>boat since there was always a certain amount of water separating them
>from Southeast Asia even during the height of the ice ages. And I seem

About 60 k

>to recall that humans arrived in Australia about 40 or 50,000 years
>ago. How much do we really know about boat travel that long ago? The

Well over 100 000 it would seem according to some work done last year.
See the current or last month's national geographic, or:

http://www.smh.com.au/daily/content/rocks/

Doug
-- 
Doug Weller  Moderator, sci.archaeology.moderated
Submissions to:sci-archaeology-moderated@medieval.org
Requests To: arch-moderators@ucl.ac.uk
Co-owner UK-Schools mailing list: email doug@ramtops.demon.co.uk for details

dweller@ramtops.demon.co.uk (Douglas Weller) wrote:

<snip>

>Well over 100 000 it would seem according to some work done last year.
>See the current or last month's national geographic, or:
>
>http://www.smh.com.au/daily/content/rocks/
>

Doug, thanks for the fascinating link, as well as for the corrections
of my chronology. That find in Australia just boggles the mind! 


--
Garry Williams
 gdwill@earthlink.net or
 gdwill@william.salzo.cary.nc.us