[two posts are combined here] Subject: Re: bananas again (as requested by Bernard) From: firstname.lastname@example.org (Yuri Kuchinsky) Date: 1997/11/25 Message-ID: <email@example.com> Newsgroups: sci.archaeology Peter van Rossum (firstname.lastname@example.org) wrote: : In article <email@example.com> firstname.lastname@example.org (Yuri Kuchin sky) writes: :Click here to go one level up in the directory.
: >I don't understand what you mean here. Early Europeans on the scene say : >pretty clearly that Musa was there before them. What else may you want in : >the way of evidence? : >Yuri. : : Yuri, when you speak of early Europeans documenting Musa plants in : South America, are you referring to the sources (Garcilaso de la Vega, : Jose Acosta, Andre Thevet, Jean de Lery & Gabriel Soares de Sousa) : referenced in Smole's article or are you including other sources as well? Other sources as well, Peter. : If you are only referring to the ones Smole references then he seems to : be stating that these are different than the European varieties, Now, now, Peter... I'm puzzled. Which exactly "European varieties" of bananas might you mean? : hence : probably not due to human transmission. Seems like a non sequitur. Really can't figure out what you may mean here... Smole's early observers reported a variety of Musa that they thought were precolumbian. : If you are also including other : sources could you please list them? If I missed other sources I apologize, : but if you don't have additional sources then the ones listed in Smole's : article lend no support to the idea of a pre-Columbian human transmission : of Musa plants. Peter, you have to make up your mind exactly what are you going to be arguing here. 1. If you wish to argue that no Musa was precolumbian, you're not doing a good job so far. 2. If you accept that some Musa were precolumbian, then you should say so. Then we can discuss further if some Musa are or are not _also_ an indication of transoceanic contacts precolumbus. It would certainly be highly illogical to argue that Musa were native to America while not being precolumbian... : Smole seems to be concluding that if Musa was in the : New World prior to the 16th century A.D. then it was due to natural, : not human, processes. This is incorrect. Smole merely wishes to establish that some Musa were precolumbian. Further, he leaves open the possibility that Musa _also_ may be an indication of contact. He merely tried to direct the attention of researchers to a whole set of neglected problems. He did not succeed, as far as I know, since this area is still neglected after so many years. Here is an old article with more historical data. Bernard tried to debunk it in his usual rambunctious way, but didn't quite get to the bottom of it... [the old post that followed here originally, based on the book by Forbes, is available elsewhere on my page] ===================== Subject: Re: bananas again (as requested by Bernard) From: email@example.com (Yuri Kuchinsky) Date: 1997/11/26 Message-ID: <firstname.lastname@example.org> Newsgroups: sci.archaeology Peter, In reply to your latest post, all I can say is that you really have to try to make up your mind about which position you will hold. I wrote before: >Smole merely wishes to establish that some Musa were >precolumbian. Further, he leaves open the possibility that Musa _also_ may >be an indication of contact. He merely tried to direct the attention of >researchers to a whole set of neglected problems. He did not succeed, as >far as I know, since this area is still neglected after so many years. And this is still my interpretation of Smole's article. Smole, to my mind, does not take a clear position as to how Musa got to S. America before Columbus. He merely says it was there. If you will agree that Musa were precolumbian and _native to S. America_, then I'm partly right, and Bernard is wrong on two accounts. First, he condemned Prof. David Kelley for having the temerity to suggest that Musa were precolumbian. Second, he erroneously condemned Smole and dismissed his evidence for Musa being native. Thus, Bernard doesn't know what he's talking about. So far so good. As far as I can see, you're tending to the view that Musa were precolumbian and native to S. America. If you finally make up your mind about this, then we will both agree that Bernard doesn't know what he's talking about. Later we can discuss if banana/Musa is a good indicator of contact. I still think it is. What you certainly cannot do is to maintain BOTH that Musa were native AND that the historical sources were wrong. But you're not doing this, as far as I can see, you're just vassilating... And don't forget that the position that some Musa were native was violently attacked by Bernard, so you're tending to oppose yourself to him... Regards, Yuri. Yuri Kuchinsky in Toronto -=O=- http://www.io.org/~yuku Reading made Don Quixote a gentleman, but believing what he read made him mad -=O=- George Bernard Shaw _________________________________________________________________