> >Payak, M.M., and Sachan, J.K.S. > 1993 "Maize Ears Not Sculpted in 13th Century Somnathpur > Temple in India." Economic botany. APR 01 1993, vol. 47 > no. 2, P. 202- > This article's abstract says: The contention that objects in the hands of male and female deities sculpted on the exterior of the Kesav Temple at Somnathpur near the city of Mysore, Karnataka State, India, represent maize ears is rejected on linguistic, religious, sculptural, archaeological, and botanical grounds. The stone inscriptions associated with the temple list items or commodities used in worship, maize is not included. We find no evidence for maize figuring in any kind of religious ritual or worship. The word for maize used currently in the Kannada language is "Musukin Jola" which refers to a kind of millet resembling sorghum (jola). This appelation is of recent origin and does not appear in any literary work contemporary with the period of construction of Somnathpur temple. The wall images do not fully simulate in form and proportion the actual human figures. The beaded ornamentation, likewise, of the hand-held object shows considerable variation and its comparison whether on qualitative or quantitative basis with actual maize kernels of both primitive and modern maize is inappropriate. The variation in form and proportion and stylistic features of these objects is ascribed to their being the work of different sculptors. Maize now grown near the temple comprises modern cultivars, especially hybrids released during the early 1960's. It is inconceivable that none of the primitive and advanced types of maize purported to be represented in the temple sculpture would have been considered worthy of cultivation from thirteenth century to the present time. We hold that these temple sculptures do not represent maize or its ear but an imaginary fruit bearing pearls known in Sanskrit as "Muktaphala" -- end of abstract. The article is very much to the point, for in less than three pages of text they just throw item after item of counterargumentation without too much adornment. Note also that Johannessen and Parker chose not to cite a previous brief exchange (in Nature) with the same authors on the same topic. What follows is a list of references that anybody interested in this issue would have to consult: Johannessen 1988 "Indian maize in the twelfth century B.C." Nature 332:587 (note that the date was worng: should have said A.D.) Payak and Sachan 1988 "Maize in Somnathpur, an Indian medioeval temple", Nature 335: 773-774 Johannessen and Parker 1989 "Maize ears sculptured..." Economic Botany Veena and Sigamani 1991 "Do objects in friezes of Somanthpur temple (1268 AD) in South India represent maize ears?" Current Science 61:395-396 And the one whose abstract is above. There seems to be nothing else in the topic. If I find it, I sure will post it. It seems to be one more fizzling gun, for a change. Domingo Martinez Castilla ___________________________________________________________________________ High genetic diversity of maize in Asia --------------------------------------- >And now, to continue with Jeffreys. He gives in his article plenty >of evidence for the antiquity of maize in India, in China, and in >the Philippines. Persuasive evidence, it seems to me. Here are the >quotes he gives from the Russian botanist N. N. Kuleshov who >published his work in 1928 (translated into English in 1954), > ...we arrived at the conclusion that in the maizes of Asia we > have observed an array of characters and peculiarities which > are unknown in America, or which are extremely rare in > America. (p. 380) Yup. Odd that Jeffreys used Kuleshov's 1928 work when he had the work of the foremost authority on corn in the world (at the time of his -- Jeffreys' -- writing) Paul Mangelsdorf. Mangelsdorf also had the benefit of a greater data base and an understanding of genetics based upon DNA (not known until the 50's, remember? After Kuleshov wrote.). The reference here is to the "waxy endosperm" varieties of corn present in Asia. And indeed, Mangelsdorf says of it ; "Varieties of corn pure for waxy endosperm are unknown among the races of maize in America -- (Mangelsdorf 1971:143)" But, he continues: . . . "-- but the waxy character itself has been discovered in non-waxy varieties: in a New England flint corn (Mangelsdorf, 1924) and in a South American variety (Breggar, 1928). Bear (1944) reports that waxy endosperm is not an uncommon mutant in Corn Belt dent varieties, he having found three separate mutations to waxy in three consecutive years in a total population of some 100,000 selfed ears. "The fact that waxy maize occurs so commonly in a part of the world that also posses waxy varieties of rice, sorghum, and millet can be attributed to artificial selection (Mangelsdorf 143)." It's silly to treat a cultivated plant as if it changes at the same rate as a naturally evolving one. I breed corn varieties as a hobby in my own garden -- I have a sweet corn I created by saving the one or two "shriveled" (that's how you know it is sweet) kernels I found on cobs of green Oaxacan dent corn I grew. After three years of this, I can now grow a small field of green-colored sweet corn. This did not exist as a "pure variety" in my original stock, but as a minority trait. I selected for it. People do that with crops. Four hundred years is plenty long enough to breed for a desired characteristic. In chapter 17, Mangelsdorf reviews the botanical evidence for pre-Columbian maize in Asia and Europe and finds it more than wanting -- most especially the claims that Asian corns simply had features not existing in America, as Jeffreys claims. He takes these claims individually and dissolves them. Note that Mangelsdorf was not an anthropologist or an archaeologist, but a plant systemist and a botanist. >Jeffreys continues, > Kuleshov reviewed the work of Vavilov and concluded that "the > striking facts ... inevitably lead to the idea that Asian > maize, if it be not viewed as native, Yep. What Kuleshov is alluding to here is that many of his contemporaries thought corn ORIGINATED in Asia and spread to America (And its clear here that he considers it a possibility). This is sort of an indication of how far off base they were. >at any rate is very > ancient. These characteristics which are seen in Asiatic maize > attest to this explanation... [I omit the technical details] > (ibid.) >Further, Jeffreys says, > Kuleshov stated the crux as he saw it: "Now concerning the > time interval in question, one must understand when and how > maize could have removed from America into this isolated wild > land [he is speaking here about a remote area in "Upper > Burmah" where he thought the origins of some specific Asian > breeds of maize may be found], given there a mutation, and as > a mutant diffused from the Philippines to Manchuria." He > offered a tentative solution: "... as a conjecture we should > suppose that likely there was an earlier cultivation of maize > in Asia than the time of the first landing by the Portuguese > on the shores of Asia in 1516.... The facts, which were established by us, return us anew to this supposition and this time with a great deal of conviction" (ibid.) Dealt with -- this is a common enough mutation in corn and a minority trait in varieties spread widely across the New World. If this doesn't satisfy, I can certainly continue. When I get back to the University next week I'll dig the more modern sources (I own Mangelsdorf's book, as it is a standard text on the subject). > I must say at >this point that Jeffreys, on the basis of his locating maize very >early in Asia Minor, in Turkey, comes to the conclusion that maize >came there from America very early pre-Columbus across the Atlantic, >and then spread to Asia and to Europe. Actually, Jeffreys first argued for an African-American connection through an Arab-Negro trade route (Jeffreys 1953, PRE-COLUMBIAN NEGROS IN AMERICA)) which he thought started around 900 AD or so. He didn't prove that one either, but by golly, he knew SOMETHING must have diffused SOMEWHERE, so he just kept on going. I'm happy for you that you can use his "evidence" for one diffusion for your own, other, different diffusion. It's good to have a nice, flexible argument. >that >India and America were linked very early by travellers across the >Pacific. Much evidence exists for this -- independent of the maize. >For instance, the strong indicators that Mesoamerican calendars and >day names are linked with the Indian calendars and zodiacs. On this, >the work of David H. Kelley is extremely instructive. See, for >instance, his DECIPHERING THE MAYAN SCRIPT, 1976, Austin. Well, maybe another thread for calendars and the script. But I will append to this another note by Mangelsdorf. He was here responding to Carter (our old friend from the Asian-American chicken) (Carter 1950: "Plant Evidence for Early Contacts with America" in Southwest J. of Anthropology 6) who, while admitting that the case for pre-Columbian maize (in Asia) might not be as strong as it could be,t once you linked it with the possibility of a pre-Columbian exchange of COTTON it became really convincing evidence. Mangelsdorf responded: " In the joint article with Oliver, I challenged the hypothesis on genetic and botanicalgrounds, concluding that the case for the trans-Pacific, pre-Columbian diffusion of Old World cultivated cottons is no better, in our opinion, than the case for an Asiatic origin or pre-Columbian diffusion of maize. To use the one as evidence to support the other, is to assume that two guesses have, through some strange alchemy, a greater validity than one (Mangelsdorf 1971:203).'" --Greg Keyes. _____________________________ >I don't know which photos you've seen. As you may know, the number of >those carvings is huge. The photos that I've seen in Johannessen's >ECONOMIC BOTANY article certainly look remarkably like maize to me. One >doesn't _need_ to be a botanist to say this. > >So the pictures look like sorghum to you. In spite of the fact that >sorghum grain grows in a panicle, and not in an ear. You're a botanist, >and your opinion should count for something. OK, let me ask you this, If >those carvings indeed obviously represent sorghum, how come other >botanists -- equally as well qualified as you -- clearly disagree with >you? Namely, they think the pictures are of Pandanus, of pomegranate, and >of who knows what else? How come you people cannot get your story >straight? The point here (as I see it) is that you are right - people can't get their story straight. When different people see the sculptures they see different things. The identification of the objects as corn is an identification that is subject to interpretation, and different people interpret those sculptures as representing different objects. That is why I do not accept Johannessen and Parker's identification as definite proof of Precolumbian maize in India. >Also, Kay, let me ask you this. As a botanist, you should be very >knowledgeable about what the implications of a great genetic variety of a >plant in a certain area are. This is an indication that the plant has >been growing in this area for a long time. The varieties of corn in India >are extremely many, and some of them are very rare. What does this >indicate? And why all of the critiques of Johannessen that I've seen so >far, including yours, diligently avoid this issue? I'd be interested to >see your take on this... >Yuri. Time depth is not the only factor related to the diversity of a plant in a given area: "Vavilov thought that areas of maximum genetic diversity represented centers of origin and that the origin of a crop could be identified by the simple procedure of analyzing variation patterns and plotting regions where diversity was concentrated. It turned out that centers of diversity are not the same as centers of origin, yet many crops do exhibit centers of diversity. The phenomenon is real and requires explanation. What causes variation to accumulate in secondary centers is not too well understood, but some observable factors are: 1. A long history of continuous cultivation 2. Ecological diversity, many habitats accomodate many races. 3. Human diversity, different tribes are attracted to different races of the crop. 4. Introgression with wild and weedy relatives or between different races of a crop." (Heiser 1990:137). So we see that just because an area has a wide diversity of a specific plant does not necessarily mean that we can in a straightforward manner adduce exactly when it was introduced to the area. This fact led another researcher to comment: "Although some attempt has been made to show that prehistoric maize reached South Asia from the west, it is much more likely that it arrived in Asia (none of the wild relatives of maize occurs in the natural floras of east Asia) via Spanish voyages from Mexico through the Phillipines and so west into south China, where its cultivation caused great destruction of natural forest cover and erosion on the hill and mountain slopes of Yunnan. When the first maize cultigens reached the highly contrasting monsoonal environment of north-east India (elevations 150 to 4,000 m, rainfall 1,000 to 5,000 mm) they manifested the great diversity noted by Bhag Singh in a secondary center of diversity." (Whyte 1985:263). So again, just as in Greg Keyes' recent posts regarding "waxy corn" in Asia, there are other researchers who don't seem to have any trouble reconciling the genetic diversity in Asian corn with a relatively recent introduction. Heiser, Charles Bixler 1990 "Seed to Civilization: The Story of Food." Cambridge: Harvard U. Press. Whyte, Robert Orr 1985 "Annual Crops of South and Southeast Asia," In Recent Advances in Indo-Pacific Prehistory." V.N. Misra & P. Bellwood, eds. New Delhi: Oxford & IBH Publishers Co. Peter van Rossum PMV100@PSU.EDU