>Below, you will find Peter bringing up the idea of carbon-testing the >finds. Well, it turns out that this has been done already! [my post deleted, Yuri accurately summarized it.] > >(Peanuts were tested together with some other plant remains found at this >and the other site.) I think you are misreading this, it is not at all clear that the peanut remains were used for C-14 dating as I suggested. If you look in Chang 1979 (p. 45), you will see that for both the P'ao-ma-ling and Ch'ien- shan-yang sites, only a single (i.e. one) radiocarbon date was obtained. There is no indication from any of Chang's volumes that the dates were obtained from peanut remains. Unfortunately the original reports are written in Chinese so I cannot verify that they weren't used for dating but the likelihood, given early 1960's radiocarbon limitations, is that they were not. So I repeat again that maybe Needham should come up with a few hundred bucks to try to submit a portion of one of the actual peanuts for AMS C-14 dating. >Here's the information about the peanut that was requested by Peter and >others. It seems that the peanut satisfies Peter's definition for a >"smoking gun" even better than I thought possible before I looked up these >references, myself. (I'm talking about the "smoking gun" type of evidence >that would indicate that ancient peoples were exchanging cultural traits >across the Pacific well before Columbus.) > >I have two references for the discovery that peanut, originally native to >S. America, was present in ancient China before Columbus. This discovery >was made in the process of legitimate and monitored archaeological >excavations. There are actually _two_ separate finds. The peanuts were >found in undisturbed strata. > >"Because it was thought that peanuts ... should not be found in China at >such great antiquity, according to our present knowledge of their ... >histories of cultivation, Ho (1969: 205-9) questions the stratigraphy of >the remains at the Ch'ien-shan-yang site. This obviously is not a question >that can be settled by reading or interpreting the original report, which >gives no reasonable ground for doubt in stratigraphical issues. Note that >peanuts were also found in Hsiu-shui from the same cultural level and time >period." (Chang 1977, p. 45) >Yuri. There is no indication again, that the peanuts came from undisturbed strata. If you read the Chang quote more carefully you will see that he doesn't say that the strata were undisturbed only that you can't figure it out from the original site report. From a source cited in Chang, I found this: "Integrated evidence from a variety of sources indicates the peanut originated as a crop in South America, where it is not at present documented archaeologically until *after* Lungshanoid times. Furthermore, the introduction of the peanut into China is rather well documented historically, and there is no mention of it in Chinese literature until the 1530s (Ho 1955). Its appearance in the Chinese Neolithic is suspect to say the least. According to Ho (personal communication), the site report of the Ch'ien-shan-yang indicates a stratigraphy so confused and unreliable that there is essentially no evidence for early peanut at all. Yet the report is repeatedly cited as if this item of evidence bore as much weight as an integrated body of evidence." (Harlan & de Wet 1973:54). So at least some Chinese archaeologists are claiming that the Ch'ien-shan-yang stratigraphy *is* mixed. Also the type of mixing I mentioned due to natural or animal action moving just a small number of small objects can be very difficult to pick up while an excavation is in progress. So even if there is good evidence of largescale non-mixing of a stratum the possibility of an intrusive small object still exists. In Sauer I found the following: "The only report of archaeological peanut material in Mexico is from the Tehuacan caes where some peanut shells were found in the top levels, which may date from after the Spanish conquest. One seed was found in a lower level, dated before 750 A.D. Standing alone, this must be suspected of being intrusive through disturbance." (Sauer 1993:81). See how easily Sauer (and I'd go along with him) is willing to accept disturbance rather than diffusion for a region which is land-linked to South America because it stands out as an anomaly. Without a direct date on the peanut in question, or a wider body of corroborating evidence the possibility of disturbance rather than spread seems more likely (to me and Sauer at least). Also the other objection in the quote above is that *if* the Chinese dates are correct, then people have found domesticated peanuts in a Chinese context which are OLDER than the dates we so far have for the earliest domesticated peanuts in the New World. Maybe someone will find an earlier date for the peanut in the New World, but at present it does seem strange to find a domesticated plant EARLIER in a DIFFUSION context, than in its supposed hearth of domestication. Here's my final objection (at least so far) to Needham's conclusion. Chang has written at least 3 revisions of "The Archaeology of Ancient China." In version one (1968) he wrote of the peanut "At Ch'ien-shan-yang...the peanut, a well know early American species" [was found] (p. 157). In this draft there is no questioning the accuracy of this find. In version two (1977) he wrote, "At the P'ao-ma-ling site, four peanut seeds were reported..." (p. 167), and "At Ch'ien-shan-yang"...the peanut, a well know early American species" [was found] (p. 181). But now he also adds the footnote "The stratigraphy of the remains of the peanuts has been questioned - rightly it now seems from the radiocarbon disconformity - by a number of scholars who are skeptical of the early date of peanuts in China....But see the earlier discussion of peanuts at P'ao-ma-ling in Kiangsi." (p. 181) So now Chang seems to be quibbling with the accuracy of the find, although he's not out-and-out rejecting it. In verion three (1986) I couldn't find any mention of the peanut in the index or in the body of the text. The only mention of the peanut is now in a footnote: "the original report [of Ch'ien-shan-yang] lists, in addition, the peanut, sesame, and beans. The provenance of these finds, as well as the remains of silk, has been questioned; see..." (footnote on p. 254). You can draw your own conclusions but to me it appears that as more time passes, without the appearance of more corroborating evidence, Chang is becoming much more equivocal of his acceptance of the idea of an early peanut introduction. Admittedly this last objection is not real strong, but it looks like Needham is relying on Chang for his data on this topic but Chang is does not appear to have the same strong convictions as Needham. Given that Chang seems to have read the original reports and followed the discussion, he appears (IMO) to be in a better position to judge its quality than Needham. So now it looks like the ball is back in your court Yuri. I think you'll need to find some new material than Needham to refute this stuff. Good luck, Peter van Rossum PMV100@PSU.EDU Chang, Kwang-Chih, 1968 THE ARCHAEOLOGY OF ANCIENT CHINA, Yale UP, 1977 THE ARCHAEOLOGY OF ANCIENT CHINA, Yale UP, 1986 THE ARCHAEOLOGY OF ANCIENT CHINA, Yale UP, Chang, Kwang-Chih, 1976 EARLY CHINESE CIVILIZATION: ANTHROPOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVES, Harvard UP, Harlan, Jack R. & J.M.J. de Wet 1973 "On the Quality of Evidence for Origin and Dispersal of Cultivated Plants, " CURRENT ANTHROPOLOGY, vol. 14, no. 1-2, pp. 51-62. Sauer, Jonathan D. 1993 HISTORICAL GEOGRAPHY OF CROP PLANTS: A SELECT ROSTER. Boca Raton: CRC Press.