Mihos Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> If one studies their archeology closely, there are
> very few if any attempts to classify bones that
> belong to fowl any older than a few centuries old
> in tropical countries even in countries where it
> is obvious they have been eaten in the region
> since time begins.

Not so in South America ... for the past twenty odd years the field of Andean archaeology has been dominated with discussing the Maritime Foundations of Andean Civilization. The debate over this theory of Michael Moseley's has caused a lot of focus on the subsistence patterns of the people. Midden AND coprolites are gone through extremely carefully to determine what the people were eating. Also since it rarely rains on the west coast of South America we have excellent preservation not only of textiles, reed matting, and wood but also that of their food supplies. Its not uncommon to even find easily recognizable desiccated vegetables. I remember watching Dr. Shady at Caral show off some desiccated squash! In most places squash would have NEVER survived!

Archaeologists frequently identify even the smallest fish bones and the bones of such small animals as guinea pigs, but there have been no chicken bones found in a pre-Columbian context despite the huge amount of attention paid to this area.

You do realize that the Spanish often got the names of animals wrong ...and called them by names THEY were familiar with…. for example they'd never seen a llama or alpaca before ... they called them sheep. Would you read that and believe that there were sheep here before the Spanish? The Spanish had never seen a turkey before coming to the Americas and called them chickens.


Kat

Ma'at Moderator

Founder and Director of The Hall of Ma'at

Contributing author to Archaeological Fantasies:
How pseudoarchaeology misrepresents the past and misleads the public
"If you panic, you're lost" -- W. T. 'Watertight' Southard