Thursday, April 21, 2011

Ji-Huan He news tidbits

The latest stories about Fractal Wool Man.


Thermal Science guest editorship

According to http://thermalscience.vinca.rs/, He guest edited papers (selected papers presented at the Mini-symposium on Analytical Methods for Thermal Science held in the framework of the 3rd International Symposium on Nonlinear Dynamics, September 25-28, 2010, in Shangai, China - an event organized by He) for a special issue in Thermal Science. Although it's a one-off, for completeness we are making it number 56 in our Master list of Ji-Huan He's editorial positions.


Ji-Huan He leaves Donghua U for Soochow U

We have been wondering since our February 1 post Donghua University may have fired Ji-Huan He just what is the status of that affiliation. The Thermal Science link above refers to

Professor Ji-Huan He (now with National Engineering Laboratory of Modern Silk, Soochow University, Suzhow, China)

We don't know whether he was fired or quit, but he seems to have left Donghua.


Ji-Huan He in sericulture archeological dispute

This abstract boasts of an important new finding that

brings into question the traditional historical notion of sericulture as being an exclusively Chinese invention.

The article annoyed the nationalistic Professor He, who responded with SILK IS OF CHINA, AND CHINA IS OF SILK: A RESPONSE TO GOOD ET AL. Not willing to concede the point, I. Good, J.M. Kenoyer and R.H. Meadow issued A REPLY TO JI-HUAN HE. A reader provides this quote:

First, we wish to clarify a major point. Our paper does not argue for a non-Chinese origin for the domestication of silkworms. We reported evidence that silk from wild indigenous forms of silkworm was known in the Indus Civilization at an early date, roughly contemporary with some of the earliest clear archaeological evidence for silk in China.

Mr He points out that the earliest documentary evidence for silk in China comes from oracle bone inscriptions. These, however, date to the period of the Shang Dynasty (second half of the second millennium bc), which is later than the material discussed in our paper. Mr He also points our attention to depictions of what have been identified as silkworms on a c. 4900 bc engraved ivory basin from late middle Neolithic Hemedu, in Zhejiang province. Identifications of such depictions, however, remain interpretations. This carving is not silk, nor is it a depiction of sericulture activity, nor do we yet have extant silk textiles from this site or anywhere else at this early time period.

There the matter rests for now.

El Naschie Watch is often critical of He, but not in this case. For once he's talking about something he may know whereof. He's a textile scientist, and Donghua U and Soochow U are both centers of textile research. If only He would drop the E-infinity nonsense. Go to your loom, Ji-Huan.

Thanks to Shrink for the newsbites above, and to the reader for the quote in response to Ji-Huan He.


Translate English to Arabic
محمد النشائى El Naschie Watch محمد النشائي El Naschie News محمد النشائى محمد النشائي All El Naschie All The Time محمد النشائى
StumbleUpon.com

4 comments:

  1. You may be giving J.-H. He too much credit. The reply makes it seem He didn't have much of a point:

    "First, we wish to clarify a major point. Our paper does not argue for a non-Chinese origin for the domestication of silkworms. We reported evidence that silk from wild indigenous forms of silkworm was known in the Indus Civilization at an early date, roughly contemporary with some of the earliest clear archaeological evidence for silk in China.

    Mr He points out that the earliest documentary evidence for silk in China comes from oracle bone inscriptions. These, however, date to the period of the Shang Dynasty (second half of the second millennium bc), which is later than the material discussed in our paper. Mr He also points our attention to depictions of what have been identified as silkworms on a c. 4900 bc engraved ivory basin from late middle Neolithic Hemedu, in Zhejiang province. Identifications of such depictions, however, remain interpretations. This carving is not silk, nor is it a depic- tion of sericulture activity, nor do we yet have extant silk textiles from this site or anywhere else at this early time period."

    ReplyDelete
  2. Excellent, thank you! Updated with that quote.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Just for the record, Nature picked up the dispute in the news:

    Material witness: Trouble on the silk road

    ReplyDelete
  4. Oh, that's fantastic. Wish I had the whole article.

    ReplyDelete