Katherine Reece Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> 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

Minor correction, Kat, as I recall they more often called them peacocks!

Kenuchelover.