Mihos Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I am familar with the feathersite article.If one
> looks closely,the website fails to use references
> and there are glaring ommisions and misspellings
> and what have you. Since you spent some time there
> perhaps you should post the photos. They say alot
> more than these words. I don't know the authors
> and didn't write their poorly documented papers.
> They look like poorly transcribed versions of the
> original Japanese work by non academics for non
> academics. I am familar with the Yamashina work
> and am currently working on translating some of
> the papers from the Yamashina institute of
> Ornithology on this specific topic.

I've no idea what you mean by "feathersite article". Are you actually replying to me, or confusing me with somebody else on this point?

> I find your tone a tad bit disrespectful.

As a Native American, I find most of this hyperdiffusionist "Native Americans couldn't invent their own culture & technology" nonsense HIGHLY disrespectful.

So I'm afraid that I've little sympathy for your ruffled feathers here. You have not cited credible or relevant data, you are arguing positions that do NOT match what I & other Ma'at folk have researched, and you cite Gavin Menzies in "support" of some of your points. Sorry, but the man is a total fraud... citing him HURTS your case!

> Working with the
> Japanese one learns something about honor and
> faith in a scientific setting. Barking loudly and
> clapping ones hands doesn't make for better
> science than hastily pasted references.

Yawn. I'm NA.... we're a VERY polite people. I've lived in Asia, and I've two Japanese sisters-in-law. (Wanna see some NICE pictures of the Imperial palace my brother just took in Japan? Although I have to admit I was more impressed by his incredibly detailed closeups of various small critters from a rice paddy.... I've GOT to find out what type of camera he was using!).

I've two "scientific degrees". And I've seen how often "honor and faith" have little to do with what is published or proclaimed, Japanese or otherwise. Sigh.... some pretty sad archaeological scandals there in recent years.


> I'll
> apologize for providing the forum with the two
> papers readily available that provide a good
> synopsis of the foundations of what is known about
> the migration of DIFFERENT SPECIES of domestic
> fowl and their hybrids throughout OCeania and the
> Pacific.

That wasn't what you did. You cited two papers, only ONE of which (the one NOT readily available) involved said migrations. The other (the one that IS readily available, and which has been sitting on my hard drive for several years... among various other such papers) involved chicken domestication ~8,000 years ago, NOT migrations since.

> My point is that until a researcher
> understands the basics of physiology and genetics
> of these oceanic fowls and their South American
> progeny one is in no position to chortle with such
> entitled presuppositional bias. Your statement
> that the prairie chicken and the chicken are
> identical is ridiculous.

Your persistance in insisting that I said "identical" is what is ridiculous. This does NOT bode well for the credibility of your scholarship, you realize?

Kenuchelover.

> If one thinks about the
> manner in which fowl are killed, cooked and eaten
> and by whom it suddenly occurs to Most people why
> it is very difficult to determine which avian
> species were consumed in ancient history as Ive
> written earlier.
>
> Pheasants and grouse have a different bone
> structure than Gallus and francolins.
> Guineafowl have even denser bones than grouse but
> are more similar in physiology the bones that is
> with the gallus francolinus group.