Subject:      Re: chicken in America: from Asia? (cont.)
From:         yuku@io.org (Yuri Kuchinsky)
Date:         1996/12/20
Newsgroups:   sci.archaeology.mesoamerican,sci.archaeology,sci.agriculture


I think this discussion about the strong possibility of prehispanic
chickens in America has been very useful and enlightening in many
respects. We have succeeded in pointing out some real and apparent
shortcomings in Carter's arguments.

For example, more could be done to delineate the hypothetical spread of
prehispanic chickens, especially outside of S. America. Carter is not too
clear about it, although he may accept that chickens were not in Mexico. 
[LATER NOTE: Actually I was wrong on this. Carter believes the chickens 
were in Mexico and also in the Southern US. I was somewhat confused 
about this at the time since then I didn't have access to the more recent 
sources. The thing is, Carter doesn't mention Mexico or the US in his 
MAN ACROSS THE SEA article, so it was rather easy to misconstrue his 
arguments. -- Yuri.]

There's some apparent confusion in Carter about the Asian chickens. He
does not point out very clearly that white chickens (often described by
the Spanish, probably erroneously, as "Castille chickens") surely could
have been introduced from Asia, as the evidence from Polynesia indicates.
The Inca chickens were mostly white, apparently. (Although he does suggest
that there must have been distinct waves of introduction of different
kinds of chickens from Asia, and he does mention white chickens from
Asia.)

Certainly more needs to be done about gathering more early eyewitness
accounts. This has been a point often criticised. What kinds of chickens
did the earliest observers observe? Capa is one source that needs to be
looked at for more leads.

The Incas' chickens are especially curious, and their connection with the
Emperor's name. This is one place where archaeological evidence should be
easy to come by, if anyone was looking for it...

In general, great advances in genetics in recent years can easily add to
our understanding of these matters.

Carter has something of a controversial reputation among archaeologists.
His collaborations with Barry Fell couldn't have done much to cement his
scholarly credentials among many specialists. Perhaps these considerations
have prevented wider acceptance of his thesis about the chickens.
Certainly it doesn't seem like much follow-up has been done on his
interesting findings. Interpret this as you will.

But I certainly believe that he presented a very strong case. I hope this
investigation will continue. I also hope our discussions have created some
more awareness about these important matters, and they can help to move
scholarship further on this.

Perhaps if archaeologists were really seriously looking for chicken bones,
they could be found, and then we shall have the irrefutable proof. Such is
not in evidence yet, agreed.

Thank you to all contributors who presented their serious comments and
criticisms here.

Best regards,

Yuri.

            =O=    Yuri Kuchinsky in Toronto    =O=
  --- a webpage like any other...  http://www.io.org/~yuku ---

Diffusionist studies are not, as they are sometimes said to be,
attempts to depreciate the creativity of peoples; rather they are
efforts to locate and specify this creativity. D. Frazer,
THEORETICAL ISSUES IN THE TRANS-PACIFIC CONTROVERSY, Social
Research, 32 (1965) p. 454, as quoted by J. Needham.