Hawaiian and Canadian totem poles
Yuri Kuchinsky
Recently I've been searching the Net for some totem poles from Hawaii,
and from the Canadian Pacific coast. And I've been able to find quite
a few!
I was inspired by this website from Peter Marsh,
Polynesian Pathways
http://members.optusnet.com.au/~mkfenn/
And especially by this article,
Canadian Connection
http://members.optusnet.com.au/~mkfenn/page3.htm
According to Peter Marsh, the Canadian Haida Totem poles, are "almost
Hawai'ian in appearance". Well, I think he's basically correct. I've
found quite a few similarities there between many of these figures.
The following exploration of totem poles from Canada and from Hawaii
is mostly for those who are interested in these sorts of things. All
the links below are currently active, although they may change in the
future.
These comparisons will probably impress only those who have no prior
bias against these sorts of cultural connections. Those who are
inclined to deny them will probably keep on rejecting such evidence.
But of course such evidence must be taken in conjunction with much
other evidence to the same effect, as outlined, for example, in the
above site by Marsh...
In any case, one of the big scholarly authorities on Canadian totem
poles was Marius Barbeau (1883 - 1969),
Civilization.ca - Scholars - Marius Barbeau
http://www.civilization.ca/academ/barbeau/baareng.html
He published quite a few studies on this subject. And this is what he
wrote in his 1929 monograph TOTEM POLES OF THE GITKSAN,
"The totem poles, as fairly recently carved and erected on both sides
of the Pacific, offer the same compelling resemblance. The technique
for their erection was also identical."
THE CANADIAN TOTEMS
Great many Canadian totem poles can be found on the Net. This seems
like the best site, with lots of totem poles,
http://collections.ic.gc.ca/totems/exhibit/index.htm
And here are some selected images, with my comments. The Hawaiian
totems will come next.
KWAKIUTL
Kalugwis (Turnour Island)
http://collections.ic.gc.ca/totems/exhibit/kwak/kalugwis/pn_htm/15558.htm
A simple standing figure, just like in Hawaii.
"Welcome Figure" at K'we (Mt. Stephens)
http://collections.ic.gc.ca/totems/exhibit/kwak/kwintro.htm
This is an old Kwakiutl totem. A deity with a large animal-like head
-- similar to some Hawaiian figures. This woodcut by Walter Phillips
is the only record of this figure that we have.
KISPIOX TOTEMS
http://collections.ic.gc.ca/totems/exhibit/gitxsan/kispiox/pn_htm/03843b.htm
The totem in the background (the upper figure on it) has a similar
head-dress and face, compared to Hawaii totems.
http://collections.ic.gc.ca/totems/exhibit/gitxsan/kispiox/pn_htm/07035.htm
Also, this one seems to have a large head-dress.
http://collections.ic.gc.ca/totems/exhibit/gitxsan/kispiox/pn_htm/06974.htm
Similar to Hawaii totems.
Something like the Maori spirals and head-dresses are visible here on
some of the totems,
http://collections.ic.gc.ca/totems/exhibit/gitxsan/kiintro2.htm
HAIDA
http://collections.ic.gc.ca/totems/exhibit/haida/skid/pn_htm/05550.htm
This Canadian totem has similar mouth and eyes, compared to the
Hawaiian totems. Compare the following Hawaiian totem,
http://www.reefboiproductions.com/Scenes/Scenes5/1480_v.jpg
Totem Pole at Foster Gardens, O`ahu
HAWAII TOTEMS
It seems like most of these totems, known as ki'i, have been destroyed
by Christian missionaries, who first arrived to Hawaii in substantial
numbers in the 1820s, and by their local converts. But some of these
images still survive, because they were taken off the island by
foreign sailors and whalers as souvenirs. Also, some images remained
hidden in caves, and have been discovered more recently.
Here's a good account of traditional Hawaiian culture and religion,
Ancient Hawaii - Kahuna
http://www.hawaiiantrading.com/herb-kane/ah-book/c10.html
The definitive volume on old Hawaiian totems is,
Cox, J. Halley, William H. Davenport, HAWAIIAN SCULPTURE, Honolulu:
University of Hawaii Press, 1988 (1st edition, 1974).
This includes just about all available old Hawaiian totems. Some are
preserved in the Bishop Museum, Honolulu, but most of them, taken away
by early visitors, seem to be now scattered in museums around the
world.
The following are some traditional Hawaiian totems,
http://www.cr.nps.gov/history/online_books/kona/fig13.jpg
The layout of a traditional Hawaiian temple (known as "heiau"),
including the totems.
http://www.cr.nps.gov/history/online_books/kona/fig15.jpg
An old painting of a Hawaiian temple, portraying human-like totems.
http://www.cr.nps.gov/history/online_books/kona/fig17.jpg
A detailed portrayal of the Akua ka'ai image with a large head-dress,
plus another totem.
http://www.cr.nps.gov/history/online_books/kona/fig84.jpg
A picture of totems from the 1782 book by Ellis.
http://www.cr.nps.gov/history/online_books/kona/fig151.jpg
A Hawaiian temple with totems, from an old book.
http://www.cr.nps.gov/history/online_books/kona/fig152.jpg
An old Hawaiian totem (an image removed from Hale-o-Keawe by Henry
Bloxam).
___________________
The following are the Hawaiian totems that can be seen now at some
popular tourist sites in Hawaii.
http://www.richhavas.com/hawaii/PoR-Guardians.jpg
A collection of totems with large head-dresses, including a simple
standing figure. (Guardians: Place of Refuge, Kona, Hawaii.)
http://www.travelwithachallenge.com/Images/Travel_Article_Library/Hawaii/Refuge.jpg
Same group, but better quality photo.
http://www.litech.org/~carson/pictures/Hawaii/totems.jpg
Same totems as above.
http://raysweb.net/hawaii/images/2-totems-500vh.jpg
Two of the same totems as above.
http://www.travelwithachallenge.com/Images/Travel_Article_Library/Hawaii/Totems.jpg
"Along the Big Island's South Kona shore, traditional ki'i totems near
Captain Cook guard the place of refuge."
http://users.imag.net/~sry.jkramer/nativetotems/images/FT5)newzealand.jpg
Simple Maori totem. Traditional Hawaiian and Canadian totems are quite
similar.
The following are recent commercially produced images, that may be
based on some old prototypes,
http://www.planetware.com/photos/US/HIO208.HTM
Carved tikis for sale in Paradise Cove, Oahu.
All the best,
Yuri.
Yuri Kuchinsky -=O=- http://www.trends.ca/~yuku
Comparative studies of primitive art have probably been
jeopardized by the zeal of investigators of cultural contacts and
borrowings. But let us state in no uncertain terms that these
studies have been jeopardized even more by intellectual pharisees
who prefer to deny obvious relationships because science does not
yet provide an adequate method for their interpretation
-=- Claude Levi-Strauss, ANTHROPOLOGIE STRUCTURALE, 1958
benlizross
>
> Greetings, all,
>
> Recently I've been searching the Net for some totem poles from Hawaii,
> and from the Canadian Pacific coast. And I've been able to find quite
> a few!
Good work, Yuri, I'm sure this has been very educational for you.
> I was inspired by this website from Peter Marsh,
>
> Polynesian Pathways
> http://members.optusnet.com.au/~mkfenn/
>
> And especially by this article,
>
> Canadian Connection
> http://members.optusnet.com.au/~mkfenn/page3.htm
>
> According to Peter Marsh, the Canadian Haida Totem poles, are "almost
> Hawai'ian in appearance". Well, I think he's basically correct. I've
> found quite a few similarities there between many of these figures.
>
> The following exploration of totem poles from Canada and from Hawaii
> is mostly for those who are interested in these sorts of things. All
> the links below are currently active, although they may change in the
> future.
>
> These comparisons will probably impress only those who have no prior
> bias against these sorts of cultural connections. Those who are
> inclined to deny them will probably keep on rejecting such evidence.
> But of course such evidence must be taken in conjunction with much
> other evidence to the same effect, as outlined, for example, in the
> above site by Marsh...
Yes, of course it is as you suggest. Except I would word it a little
differently: Those who have no prior bias in favor of these sorts of
cultural connections will not be greatly impressed by the comparison.
Whereas those who are inclined to assert them will see this as striking
evidence.
> In any case, one of the big scholarly authorities on Canadian totem
> poles was Marius Barbeau (1883 - 1969),
>
> Civilization.ca - Scholars - Marius Barbeau
> http://www.civilization.ca/academ/barbeau/baareng.html
>
> He published quite a few studies on this subject. And this is what he
> wrote in his 1929 monograph TOTEM POLES OF THE GITKSAN,
>
> "The totem poles, as fairly recently carved and erected on both sides
> of the Pacific, offer the same compelling resemblance. The technique
> for their erection was also identical."
>
> THE CANADIAN TOTEMS
>
> Great many Canadian totem poles can be found on the Net. This seems
> like the best site, with lots of totem poles,
>
> http://collections.ic.gc.ca/totems/exhibit/index.htm
>
> And here are some selected images, with my comments. The Hawaiian
> totems will come next.
>
> KWAKIUTL
>
> Kalugwis (Turnour Island)
> http://collections.ic.gc.ca/totems/exhibit/kwak/kalugwis/pn_htm/15558.htm
> A simple standing figure, just like in Hawaii.
>
> "Welcome Figure" at K'we (Mt. Stephens)
> http://collections.ic.gc.ca/totems/exhibit/kwak/kwintro.htm
> This is an old Kwakiutl totem. A deity with a large animal-like head
> -- similar to some Hawaiian figures. This woodcut by Walter Phillips
> is the only record of this figure that we have.
I can't comment on every image or every comment, of course. But it is
worth noting that, whereas representations of birds and animals
proliferate everywhere on NW totem poles, they are conspicuously absent
in what you see as the Hawaiian equivalent.
>
> KISPIOX TOTEMS
>
> http://collections.ic.gc.ca/totems/exhibit/gitxsan/kispiox/pn_htm/03843b.htm
> The totem in the background (the upper figure on it) has a similar
> head-dress and face, compared to Hawaii totems.
>
> http://collections.ic.gc.ca/totems/exhibit/gitxsan/kispiox/pn_htm/07035.htm
> Also, this one seems to have a large head-dress.
>
> http://collections.ic.gc.ca/totems/exhibit/gitxsan/kispiox/pn_htm/06974.htm
> Similar to Hawaii totems.
>
> Something like the Maori spirals and head-dresses are visible here on
> some of the totems,
> http://collections.ic.gc.ca/totems/exhibit/gitxsan/kiintro2.htm
>
> HAIDA
>
> http://collections.ic.gc.ca/totems/exhibit/haida/skid/pn_htm/05550.htm
> This Canadian totem has similar mouth and eyes, compared to the
> Hawaiian totems. Compare the following Hawaiian totem,
>
> http://www.reefboiproductions.com/Scenes/Scenes5/1480_v.jpg
> Totem Pole at Foster Gardens, O`ahu
Now be careful here, Yuri. This actually does look like a NW Coast totem
pole. This image is probably a general picture of the same thing:
> http://community.webshots.com/photo/15677290/15817470yFNqgfDVAO
In looking around at other pictures from the same Botanical Garden, I
noticed a stone image of the Buddha, which I am pretty sure is not an
indigenous Hawaiian artefact. In fact, I would go so far as to bet you
that this is either a real NW coast totem or a pretty good imitation,
used as an exotic garden ornament. If you're not inclined to believe me,
perhaps you could email the people at the gardens and ask them.
> HAWAII TOTEMS
Now here's another thing I guess you've learned. And this is why, when
you talked about "Hawaiian totem poles", it did not immediately bring an
image to mind for me. Because although the word "totem" is liberally
used by you below in reference to these Hawaiian carvings, you only
found one tourist site that actually uses the word. (Apart from the
exotic object in the Botanical Gardens just discussed.)
Well, this link didn't work for me, but I can now guess what you are
going to mean by "totem". And again, nobody actually calls them
"totems", either in NZ or Hawaii, except you and possibly the odd
over-excited tour guide. Just as nobody calls NW coast carvings "tikis",
except you.
> The following are recent commercially produced images, that may be
> based on some old prototypes,
>
> http://www.planetware.com/photos/US/HIO208.HTM
> Carved tikis for sale in Paradise Cove, Oahu.
I think we'll just charitably overlook this one, Yuri. Let's say you
were tired. You don't really think airport art belongs in a serious
comparison like this, do you? No, I didn't think so.
>
> All the best,
>
> Yuri.
>
> Yuri Kuchinsky -=O=- http://www.trends.ca/~yuku
>
> Comparative studies of primitive art have probably been
> jeopardized by the zeal of investigators of cultural contacts and
> borrowings. But let us state in no uncertain terms that these
> studies have been jeopardized even more by intellectual pharisees
> who prefer to deny obvious relationships because science does not
> yet provide an adequate method for their interpretation
> -=- Claude Levi-Strauss, ANTHROPOLOGIE STRUCTURALE, 1958
A strange bedfellow for Yuri....
By the way, if you want to see some real Pacific totem poles, check out
the malangan culture of New Ireland, as in this image:
http://homepages.ius.edu/AEALLEN/STAT1.GIF
Unfortunately, it's in Melanesia, but I'm sure you can work it into your
theory somehow.
Ross Clark
Doug Weller
[SNIP]
> Well, this link didn't work for me, but I can now guess what you are
> going to mean by "totem". And again, nobody actually calls them
> "totems", either in NZ or Hawaii, except you and possibly the odd
> over-excited tour guide. Just as nobody calls NW coast carvings "tikis",
> except you.
Yuri has killfiled me, I presume, as he never responded to my post where I
wrote:
I wonder if you even know what a totem pole is?
http://users.imag.net/~sry.jkramer/nativetotems/fake.htm
Doug
benlizross
It's a nice page. I should also have referred Yuri to the Ainu poles --
there's a nice collection of them looking out over Vancouver from the
slopes of Burnaby Mountain, made by an Ainu carver in the 1980s.
Ross Clark
zolota
"benlizross" <benl...@ihug.co.nz> wrote in message
news:3FCFAF...@ihug.co.nz...
I sometimes walk my dog around the park where those Ainu poles are located
and IMHO they do not look anything like our PNW totem poles.
Z
Robert Fortune
"Yuri Kuchinsky" <yu...@clio.trends.ca> wrote in message
news:bVLzb.29$r17.8...@news.nnrp.ca...
> Greetings, all,
>
> Recently I've been searching the Net for some totem poles from Hawaii,
> and from the Canadian Pacific coast. And I've been able to find quite
> a few!
>
> I was inspired by this website from Peter Marsh,
>
> Polynesian Pathways
> http://members.optusnet.com.au/~mkfenn/
>
> And especially by this article,
>
> Canadian Connection
> http://members.optusnet.com.au/~mkfenn/page3.htm
>
> According to Peter Marsh, the Canadian Haida Totem poles, are "almost
> Hawai'ian in appearance". Well, I think he's basically correct. I've
> found quite a few similarities there between many of these figures.
>
> The following exploration of totem poles from Canada and from Hawaii
> is mostly for those who are interested in these sorts of things. All
> the links below are currently active, although they may change in the
> future.
Do you know the dates of these sculptures? Many Hawaiians emigrated to the
Pacific Northwest post discovery to work as traders, trappers and hunters.
Yuri Kuchinsky
: Yuri Kuchinsky wrote:
:>
:> Greetings, all,
:>
:> Recently I've been searching the Net for some totem poles from Hawaii,
:> and from the Canadian Pacific coast. And I've been able to find quite
:> a few!
: Good work, Yuri, I'm sure this has been very educational for you.
And I hope for some others too...
:> These comparisons will probably impress only those who have no prior
:> bias against these sorts of cultural connections. Those who are
:> inclined to deny them will probably keep on rejecting such evidence.
:> But of course such evidence must be taken in conjunction with much
:> other evidence to the same effect, as outlined, for example, in the
:> above site by Marsh...
: Yes, of course it is as you suggest. Except I would word it a little
: differently: Those who have no prior bias in favor of these sorts of
: cultural connections will not be greatly impressed by the comparison.
: Whereas those who are inclined to assert them will see this as striking
: evidence.
Actually, the striking evidence is here,
http://groups.google.com/groups?oi=djq&selm=an_432662444
:> "Welcome Figure" at K'we (Mt. Stephens)
:> http://collections.ic.gc.ca/totems/exhibit/kwak/kwintro.htm
:> This is an old Kwakiutl totem. A deity with a large animal-like head
:> -- similar to some Hawaiian figures. This woodcut by Walter Phillips
:> is the only record of this figure that we have.
: I can't comment on every image or every comment, of course. But it is
: worth noting that, whereas representations of birds and animals
: proliferate everywhere on NW totem poles, they are conspicuously absent
: in what you see as the Hawaiian equivalent.
The dissimilarities are not very relevant in the present context.
:> http://collections.ic.gc.ca/totems/exhibit/haida/skid/pn_htm/05550.htm
:> This Canadian totem has similar mouth and eyes, compared to the
:> Hawaiian totems. Compare the following Hawaiian totem,
:>
:> http://www.reefboiproductions.com/Scenes/Scenes5/1480_v.jpg
:> Totem Pole at Foster Gardens, O`ahu
: Now be careful here, Yuri. This actually does look like a NW Coast totem
: pole. This image is probably a general picture of the same thing:
:> http://community.webshots.com/photo/15677290/15817470yFNqgfDVAO
That's a good one! Thanks, Ross. Yes, it's the same totem pole.
: In looking around at other pictures from the same Botanical Garden, I
: noticed a stone image of the Buddha, which I am pretty sure is not an
: indigenous Hawaiian artefact. In fact, I would go so far as to bet you
: that this is either a real NW coast totem or a pretty good imitation,
: used as an exotic garden ornament.
My bet is that this is a Hawaiian production. But this is obviously a
modern production, that includes some modern elements.
The only question here is to what extent this modern production is based
on some traditional Hawaiian proto-types, if any.
: If you're not inclined to believe me,
: perhaps you could email the people at the gardens and ask them.
Maybe I will. But I'm already pretty sure what this pole is.
:> HAWAII TOTEMS
: Now here's another thing I guess you've learned. And this is why, when
: you talked about "Hawaiian totem poles", it did not immediately bring an
: image to mind for me. Because although the word "totem" is liberally
: used by you below in reference to these Hawaiian carvings, you only
: found one tourist site that actually uses the word. (Apart from the
: exotic object in the Botanical Gardens just discussed.)
I don't really care how to call them... whatever you call them, they are
still the same.
:> http://users.imag.net/~sry.jkramer/nativetotems/images/FT5)newzealand.jpg
:> Simple Maori totem. Traditional Hawaiian and Canadian totems are quite
:> similar.
: Well, this link didn't work for me,
Try cuting and pasting the link into your browser. The link is valid. I
think it's the bracket in the URL ")" that created a problem.
: but I can now guess what you are
: going to mean by "totem". And again, nobody actually calls them
: "totems", either in NZ or Hawaii, except you and possibly the odd
: over-excited tour guide. Just as nobody calls NW coast carvings "tikis",
: except you.
Google search on the keywords,
Hawaii totem
produces 17,200 hits.
:> The following are recent commercially produced images, that may be
:> based on some old prototypes,
:>
:> http://www.planetware.com/photos/US/HIO208.HTM
:> Carved tikis for sale in Paradise Cove, Oahu.
: I think we'll just charitably overlook this one, Yuri. Let's say you
: were tired. You don't really think airport art belongs in a serious
: comparison like this, do you? No, I didn't think so.
You missed some evident similarities between this "airport art" and the
Botanical Gardens totem that you've yourself posted.
The only question here is to what extent, if at all, this modern "airport
art" is based on some traditional Hawaiian designs.
:> Comparative studies of primitive art have probably been
:> jeopardized by the zeal of investigators of cultural contacts and
:> borrowings. But let us state in no uncertain terms that these
:> studies have been jeopardized even more by intellectual pharisees
:> who prefer to deny obvious relationships because science does not
:> yet provide an adequate method for their interpretation
:> -=- Claude Levi-Strauss, ANTHROPOLOGIE STRUCTURALE, 1958
: A strange bedfellow for Yuri....
Why?
: By the way, if you want to see some real Pacific totem poles, check out
: the malangan culture of New Ireland, as in this image:
: http://homepages.ius.edu/AEALLEN/STAT1.GIF
: Unfortunately, it's in Melanesia, but I'm sure you can work it into your
: theory somehow.
Why would I want to do this?
Yuri.
Yuri Kuchinsky -=O=- http://www.trends.ca/~yuku
"Believe nothing, Oh, monks, merely because you have been told it ... or
because it is traditional, or because you yourselves have imagined it. Do
not believe what your teacher tells you merely out of respect for the
teacher. But whatsoever, after due examination and analysis, you find to
be conducive to the good, the benefit, the welfare of all beings -- that
doctrine believe and cling to, and take it as your guide" -- Gautama
Buddha
t(nospam)kavanagh
<snip>
> Actually, the striking evidence is here,
>
> http://groups.google.com/groups?oi=djq&selm=an_432662444
>
his mentor.
tk
Yuri Kuchinsky
> Do you know the dates of these sculptures? Many Hawaiians emigrated to
> the Pacific Northwest post discovery to work as traders, trappers and
> hunters.
Hi, Robert,
The dates of these sculptures are easy enough to establish. I think there
are pretty good records for most of them.
Yes, I'm well aware that, post European contact, there were quite a few
Native Hawaiians coming to the Pacific Northwest, and vice versa. Thus,
some artistic ideas may have migrated either way.
But I think it's still possible to distinguish the early artistic styles
from the late accretions both in Hawaii and in Canada. In fact, I doubt
that, in Canada, there would be found much if any influence from the
Hawaiian art. But in Hawaii such an influence would be somewhat easier to
envision IMHO, especially during the last few decades, i.e. since the
increase in commercial tourism.
All the best,
Yuri.
Yuri Kuchinsky in Toronto -=O=- http://www.trends.ca/~yuku
Reality is that which, when you stop believing
in it, doesn't go away -=O=- Philip K. Dick
Yuri Kuchinsky
How was it rejected by his mentor?
How can such excellent art history be rejected by anyone?
benlizross
>
> In sci.archaeology benlizross <benl...@ihug.co.nz> wrote:
>
> : Yuri Kuchinsky wrote:
> :>
> :> Greetings, all,
> :>
> :> Recently I've been searching the Net for some totem poles from Hawaii,
> :> and from the Canadian Pacific coast. And I've been able to find quite
> :> a few!
>
> : Good work, Yuri, I'm sure this has been very educational for you.
>
> And I hope for some others too...
>
> :> These comparisons will probably impress only those who have no prior
> :> bias against these sorts of cultural connections. Those who are
> :> inclined to deny them will probably keep on rejecting such evidence.
> :> But of course such evidence must be taken in conjunction with much
> :> other evidence to the same effect, as outlined, for example, in the
> :> above site by Marsh...
>
> : Yes, of course it is as you suggest. Except I would word it a little
> : differently: Those who have no prior bias in favor of these sorts of
> : cultural connections will not be greatly impressed by the comparison.
> : Whereas those who are inclined to assert them will see this as striking
> : evidence.
>
> Actually, the striking evidence is here,
>
> http://groups.google.com/groups?oi=djq&selm=an_432662444
Huh? The striking evidence is in a post of yours from four years ago? So
what are we wasting our time with pictures of Hawaii for?
Actually, the post consists of Yuri referring to a book by somebody who
attempts to show a relation between NW coast art styles and NZ Maori art
styles. I know you have trouble concentrating one one thing at a time,
Yuri, but that is not what the present discussion is about.
> :> "Welcome Figure" at K'we (Mt. Stephens)
> :> http://collections.ic.gc.ca/totems/exhibit/kwak/kwintro.htm
> :> This is an old Kwakiutl totem. A deity with a large animal-like head
> :> -- similar to some Hawaiian figures. This woodcut by Walter Phillips
> :> is the only record of this figure that we have.
>
> : I can't comment on every image or every comment, of course. But it is
> : worth noting that, whereas representations of birds and animals
> : proliferate everywhere on NW totem poles, they are conspicuously absent
> : in what you see as the Hawaiian equivalent.
>
> The dissimilarities are not very relevant in the present context.
As just illustrated above, your notion of "relevance" is very peculiar.
Here, of course, it means no more than "I don't want to know that."
> :> http://collections.ic.gc.ca/totems/exhibit/haida/skid/pn_htm/05550.htm
> :> This Canadian totem has similar mouth and eyes, compared to the
> :> Hawaiian totems. Compare the following Hawaiian totem,
> :>
> :> http://www.reefboiproductions.com/Scenes/Scenes5/1480_v.jpg
> :> Totem Pole at Foster Gardens, O`ahu
>
> : Now be careful here, Yuri. This actually does look like a NW Coast totem
> : pole. This image is probably a general picture of the same thing:
>
> :> http://community.webshots.com/photo/15677290/15817470yFNqgfDVAO
>
> That's a good one! Thanks, Ross. Yes, it's the same totem pole.
>
> : In looking around at other pictures from the same Botanical Garden, I
> : noticed a stone image of the Buddha, which I am pretty sure is not an
> : indigenous Hawaiian artefact. In fact, I would go so far as to bet you
> : that this is either a real NW coast totem or a pretty good imitation,
> : used as an exotic garden ornament.
>
> My bet is that this is a Hawaiian production. But this is obviously a
> modern production, that includes some modern elements.
>
> The only question here is to what extent this modern production is based
> on some traditional Hawaiian proto-types, if any.
"Proto-types" which, for some reason, you have not been able to find any
other pictures of. Face it, Yuri, this object not only looks quite
different from any of the other Hawaiian images you have pictures of,
but unlike those, there is no reason to think it is of local
provenience, apart from the fact that it is located in Hawaii. Will you
apply the same logic to the Buddha? Could he be based on some lost
Hawaiian "prototype"?
> : If you're not inclined to believe me,
> : perhaps you could email the people at the gardens and ask them.
>
> Maybe I will. But I'm already pretty sure what this pole is.
>
> :> HAWAII TOTEMS
>
> : Now here's another thing I guess you've learned. And this is why, when
> : you talked about "Hawaiian totem poles", it did not immediately bring an
> : image to mind for me. Because although the word "totem" is liberally
> : used by you below in reference to these Hawaiian carvings, you only
> : found one tourist site that actually uses the word. (Apart from the
> : exotic object in the Botanical Gardens just discussed.)
>
> I don't really care how to call them... whatever you call them, they are
> still the same.
So you admit that your use of the terms is not normal, and is adopted
just to enhance the illusion that these things are "the same"?
> :> http://users.imag.net/~sry.jkramer/nativetotems/images/FT5)newzealand.jpg
> :> Simple Maori totem. Traditional Hawaiian and Canadian totems are quite
> :> similar.
>
> : Well, this link didn't work for me,
>
> Try cuting and pasting the link into your browser. The link is valid. I
> think it's the bracket in the URL ")" that created a problem.
OK, this is from the same site that Doug pointed us to. I hope you noted
the accompanying note on the dubious use of the term "totem" for these
Polynesian carvings.
> : but I can now guess what you are
> : going to mean by "totem". And again, nobody actually calls them
> : "totems", either in NZ or Hawaii, except you and possibly the odd
> : over-excited tour guide. Just as nobody calls NW coast carvings "tikis",
> : except you.
>
> Google search on the keywords,
>
> Hawaii totem
>
> produces 17,200 hits.
Now Yuri, even you know this sort of Google figure means nothing. In
fact you can get 33 hits by searching "Kuchinsky idiot". Do you suppose
that could mean something?
> :> The following are recent commercially produced images, that may be
> :> based on some old prototypes,
> :>
> :> http://www.planetware.com/photos/US/HIO208.HTM
> :> Carved tikis for sale in Paradise Cove, Oahu.
>
> : I think we'll just charitably overlook this one, Yuri. Let's say you
> : were tired. You don't really think airport art belongs in a serious
> : comparison like this, do you? No, I didn't think so.
>
> You missed some evident similarities between this "airport art" and the
> Botanical Gardens totem that you've yourself posted.
And why would you think there would be any significance in such
similarities?
> The only question here is to what extent, if at all, this modern "airport
> art" is based on some traditional Hawaiian designs.
A question to which you provide no answer. If it is so based, then we
can look at the traditional Hawaiian designs, and we don't need to waste
our time at the airport souvenir shop. This is ridiculous and you know
it.
> :> Comparative studies of primitive art have probably been
> :> jeopardized by the zeal of investigators of cultural contacts and
> :> borrowings. But let us state in no uncertain terms that these
> :> studies have been jeopardized even more by intellectual pharisees
> :> who prefer to deny obvious relationships because science does not
> :> yet provide an adequate method for their interpretation
> :> -=- Claude Levi-Strauss, ANTHROPOLOGIE STRUCTURALE, 1958
>
> : A strange bedfellow for Yuri....
>
> Why?
In many ways, not least that L-S's explanations for "obvious
relationships" normally involved, not ancient migrations of peoples, but
what used to be called the "psychic unity of mankind", a concept on
which you have repeatedly poured scorn.
> : By the way, if you want to see some real Pacific totem poles, check out
> : the malangan culture of New Ireland, as in this image:
>
> : http://homepages.ius.edu/AEALLEN/STAT1.GIF
>
> : Unfortunately, it's in Melanesia, but I'm sure you can work it into your
> : theory somehow.
>
> Why would I want to do this?
You mean you are willing to ignore the striking similarities between
these two areas, just because it doesn't fit into your pet migration
theory? I'm shocked.
Ross Clark
Doug Weller
He doesn't seem to want to mention that he is citing a Master's thesis, as
you pointed out:
This is my second repost it seems, as my earlier one has:
To quote Thomas Kavanag's article replying to you last this on this:
From: tkavanag <tkav...@indiana.edu>
Subject: Re: art parallels between Polynesia and NW Coast
Date: 14 Jan 1999 00:00:00 GMT
Message-ID: <369EDA...@indiana.edu>
Badner, Mino
1966 _The Protruding Tongue and Related Motifs in the Art Styles of the
American Northwest Coast, New Zealand and China_ Verlag Ferdinand
Berger& Sohne.
This short paper was originally done in fulfillment of a Master's degree
at Columbia, but no date for the degree is given, and no subject given,
although from internal evidence it appears to have been in Art History.
If so, it is of the classical form of pseudoethnographic Art History:
that is, lots of "it seems", " "there are similarities", "other
resemblances", etc., but with very little valid history or anthropology.
[Yes, I have sat on a number of Art History degree panels, and I have
voted against several candidates whose methodology, while classically
Art History, was just bad History or bad Anthropology.]
My basic problem with Badner is the absence of valid comparisons.
Despite the lists of alleged comparable elements, such as the
protruding tongues, as cited by Yuri, on page 26, or the more general
stylistic paradigm on page 8, Badner actually provides very little
comparative material.
For instance, while his "Part I" gives a "Survey of the Protuding Tongue
in the Sculpture of the Northwest Coast", with subsections "Grizzly
Bear", "Sea Lion and Sea Monster", "Tsonoqua", and "Sisiutl", in his
section "Parallels to the Northwest Coast Protruding Tongue Motif in New
Zealand", the focus of the subsections is not to subjects, such as
Grizzly Bear, Sea Lion , Sea Monster, etc., but is to artistic motifs,
"Extended Tongue", "Contected Tongue", etc. not to the cultural context
for the NZ materials. We are given no information as to which
indivuduals might be protrayed. [Are there bears, walruses[!], etc., in
NZ] Indeed, in one paragraph in the New Zealand section, Badner includes
a half-page paragraph titled "Tsonoqua", the "wild cannibal woman",
i.e. the Kwakiutl personage, but he does not name the Maori personage
depicted, and his Maori reference emphasizes the "archetectural"
function (i.e. as housepost) not to the personage represented.. Is there
indeed a Maori "wild cannibal woman"?
Badner is simply bad comparision.
END QUOTED ARTICLE BY TK
Doug
Daryl Krupa
> Yuri Kuchinsky wrote:
<snip>
> > Compare the following Hawaiian totem,
> >
> > http://www.reefboiproductions.com/Scenes/Scenes5/1480_v.jpg
> > Totem Pole at Foster Gardens, O`ahu
>
> Now be careful here, Yuri. This actually does look like a NW Coast totem
> pole. This image is probably a general picture of the same thing:
>
> > http://community.webshots.com/photo/15677290/15817470yFNqgfDVAO
Expert image analysis indicates that these are indeed images of teh
same object.
Both appear to be red cedar, unknown in Hawai'i.
<snip>
> > "Along the Big Island's South Kona shore, traditional ki'i totems near
> > Captain Cook guard the place of refuge."
> >
> > http://users.imag.net/~sry.jkramer/nativetotems/images/FT5)newzealand.jpg
> > Simple Maori totem. Traditional Hawaiian and Canadian totems are quite
> > similar.
>
> Well, this link didn't work for me, but I can now guess what you are
> going to mean by "totem".
<snip>
The link worked for me, and I can tell you that what he means by
"totem" in that image is more similar to West African sculpture than
West American.
It's a human figure with a head of exaggerated size
(as long as the torso, and longer than the legs)
on a pedastal carved into an impressionistic version of teh head of a
Maori warrior with his tongue out, which looks a _little_ bit like teh
head detail on the "Hawaiian" totem pole that Yuri shared with us
(cited above).
The figure on top, though, except for the exaggerated head size,
looks a lot like a West African child with Kwashiorkor. Not standard
West American zstyle at all.
> By the way, if you want to see some real Pacific totem poles, check out
> the malangan culture of New Ireland, as in this image:
>
> http://homepages.ius.edu/AEALLEN/STAT1.GIF
>
> Unfortunately, it's in Melanesia, but I'm sure you can work it into your
> theory somehow.
Here's my theory:
these "totem poles" in Melanesia were inspired by "Alley Oop" comic
books that American GIs left behind in the 40's.
http://www.kenpiercebooks.com/oop.gif
Hoping that this muddied the waters,
Daryl Krupa
Daryl Krupa
>
> Do you know the dates of these sculptures? Many Hawaiians emigrated to the
> Pacific Northwest post discovery to work as traders, trappers and hunters.
Robert:
Prior to the aquisition of hard metal tools through the fur trade,
many fewer totem poles were carved in the Pacific Northwest.
Almost all the examples we have date from the fur trade period.
So, almost all the examples we have were designed and carved after
European contact, and so cannot necessarily be considered to be
representative of designs created before European contact.
Cross-cultural influence on Pacific Northwest totem pole design
transmitted through Europeans cannot be ruled out as a major cause for
apparent similarites between designs from different parts of the
Pacific Ocean shores.
Therefore, the apparent evidence of contacts between the Pacific
Northwest and different cultures on different parts of the Pacific
Ocean shores may possibly all be the result of post-European-contact
cultural trasmission, and may not relate to pre-European contacts
between the Pacific Northwest and different cultures on different
parts of the Pacific Ocean shores at all.
Daryl Krupa
benlizross
I think maybe this is a little too skeptical. Certainly wooden artefacts
have a tendency to be short-lived. And certainly new technology and
cultural influences following on European contact did make a difference
in how and what people carved. But I think we have enough good early
descriptions, and specimens that were preserved one way or another, that
we can recognize traditional styles in each of these places.
I came across this, which has a number of comments on post-contact
influences between the NW coast and Hawaii:
http://www.alaskool.org/projects/traditionalife/monumentsincedar/MIC.html
Ross Clark
Yuri Kuchinsky
:>
:> : Yuri Kuchinsky wrote:
:> :>
:> :> Greetings, all,
:> :>
:> :> Recently I've been searching the Net for some totem poles from Hawaii,
:> :> and from the Canadian Pacific coast. And I've been able to find quite
:> :> a few!
:>
:> : Good work, Yuri, I'm sure this has been very educational for you.
:>
:> And I hope for some others too...
:>
:> :> These comparisons will probably impress only those who have no prior
:> :> bias against these sorts of cultural connections. Those who are
:> :> inclined to deny them will probably keep on rejecting such evidence.
:> :> But of course such evidence must be taken in conjunction with much
:> :> other evidence to the same effect, as outlined, for example, in the
:> :> above site by Marsh...
:>
:> : Yes, of course it is as you suggest. Except I would word it a little
:> : differently: Those who have no prior bias in favor of these sorts of
:> : cultural connections will not be greatly impressed by the comparison.
:> : Whereas those who are inclined to assert them will see this as striking
:> : evidence.
:>
:> Actually, the striking evidence is here,
:>
:> http://groups.google.com/groups?oi=djq&selm=an_432662444
: Huh? The striking evidence is in a post of yours from four years ago? So
: what are we wasting our time with pictures of Hawaii for?
Nobody is asking you to waste any of your precious time... Don't like the
subject, just skip it.
: Actually, the post consists of Yuri referring to a book by somebody who
: attempts to show a relation between NW coast art styles and NZ Maori art
: styles. I know you have trouble concentrating one one thing at a time,
: Yuri, but that is not what the present discussion is about.
Many people have noted the similarity between the Maoris and the native
Hawaiians. I guess you missed all that. Another gap in your education...
:> :> "Welcome Figure" at K'we (Mt. Stephens)
:> :> http://collections.ic.gc.ca/totems/exhibit/kwak/kwintro.htm
:> :> This is an old Kwakiutl totem. A deity with a large animal-like head
:> :> -- similar to some Hawaiian figures. This woodcut by Walter Phillips
:> :> is the only record of this figure that we have.
:>
:> : I can't comment on every image or every comment, of course. But it is
:> : worth noting that, whereas representations of birds and animals
:> : proliferate everywhere on NW totem poles, they are conspicuously absent
:> : in what you see as the Hawaiian equivalent.
:>
:> The dissimilarities are not very relevant in the present context.
: As just illustrated above, your notion of "relevance" is very peculiar.
: Here, of course, it means no more than "I don't want to know that."
How are dissimilarities relevant in the present context?
:> :> http://collections.ic.gc.ca/totems/exhibit/haida/skid/pn_htm/05550.htm
:> :> This Canadian totem has similar mouth and eyes, compared to the
:> :> Hawaiian totems. Compare the following Hawaiian totem,
:> :>
:> :> http://www.reefboiproductions.com/Scenes/Scenes5/1480_v.jpg
:> :> Totem Pole at Foster Gardens, O`ahu
:>
:> : Now be careful here, Yuri. This actually does look like a NW Coast totem
:> : pole. This image is probably a general picture of the same thing:
:>
:> :> http://community.webshots.com/photo/15677290/15817470yFNqgfDVAO
:>
:> That's a good one! Thanks, Ross. Yes, it's the same totem pole.
:>
:> : In looking around at other pictures from the same Botanical Garden, I
:> : noticed a stone image of the Buddha, which I am pretty sure is not an
:> : indigenous Hawaiian artefact. In fact, I would go so far as to bet you
:> : that this is either a real NW coast totem or a pretty good imitation,
:> : used as an exotic garden ornament.
:>
:> My bet is that this is a Hawaiian production. But this is obviously a
:> modern production, that includes some modern elements.
:>
:> The only question here is to what extent this modern production is based
:> on some traditional Hawaiian proto-types, if any.
: "Proto-types" which, for some reason, you have not been able to find any
: other pictures of.
Doesn't mean they don't exist.
: Face it, Yuri, this object not only looks quite
: different from any of the other Hawaiian images you have pictures of,
Not quite.
: but unlike those, there is no reason to think it is of local
: provenience, apart from the fact that it is located in Hawaii.
You want to bet?
: Will you
: apply the same logic to the Buddha? Could he be based on some lost
: Hawaiian "prototype"?
The Buddha is not very relevant in the present context.
:> : If you're not inclined to believe me,
:> : perhaps you could email the people at the gardens and ask them.
:>
:> Maybe I will. But I'm already pretty sure what this pole is.
:>
:> :> HAWAII TOTEMS
:>
:> : Now here's another thing I guess you've learned. And this is why, when
:> : you talked about "Hawaiian totem poles", it did not immediately bring an
:> : image to mind for me. Because although the word "totem" is liberally
:> : used by you below in reference to these Hawaiian carvings, you only
:> : found one tourist site that actually uses the word. (Apart from the
:> : exotic object in the Botanical Gardens just discussed.)
:>
:> I don't really care how to call them... whatever you call them, they are
:> still the same.
:
: So you admit that your use of the terms is not normal, and is adopted
: just to enhance the illusion that these things are "the same"?
No.
:> :> http://users.imag.net/~sry.jkramer/nativetotems/images/FT5)newzealand.jpg
:> :> Simple Maori totem. Traditional Hawaiian and Canadian totems are quite
:> :> similar.
:>
:> : Well, this link didn't work for me,
:>
:> Try cuting and pasting the link into your browser. The link is valid. I
:> think it's the bracket in the URL ")" that created a problem.
: OK, this is from the same site that Doug pointed us to. I hope you noted
: the accompanying note on the dubious use of the term "totem" for these
: Polynesian carvings.
I'm not interested in arguing about words.
:> : but I can now guess what you are
:> : going to mean by "totem". And again, nobody actually calls them
:> : "totems", either in NZ or Hawaii, except you and possibly the odd
:> : over-excited tour guide. Just as nobody calls NW coast carvings "tikis",
:> : except you.
:>
:> Google search on the keywords,
:>
:> Hawaii totem
:>
:> produces 17,200 hits.
: Now Yuri, even you know this sort of Google figure means nothing. In
: fact you can get 33 hits by searching "Kuchinsky idiot". Do you suppose
: that could mean something?
What does it mean?
:> :> The following are recent commercially produced images, that may be
:> :> based on some old prototypes,
:> :>
:> :> http://www.planetware.com/photos/US/HIO208.HTM
:> :> Carved tikis for sale in Paradise Cove, Oahu.
:>
:> : I think we'll just charitably overlook this one, Yuri. Let's say you
:> : were tired. You don't really think airport art belongs in a serious
:> : comparison like this, do you? No, I didn't think so.
:>
:> You missed some evident similarities between this "airport art" and the
:> Botanical Gardens totem that you've yourself posted.
: And why would you think there would be any significance in such
: similarities?
There's some significance in all similarities.
:> The only question here is to what extent, if at all, this modern "airport
:> art" is based on some traditional Hawaiian designs.
: A question to which you provide no answer. If it is so based, then we
: can look at the traditional Hawaiian designs, and we don't need to waste
: our time at the airport souvenir shop. This is ridiculous and you know
: it.
No it's not.
:> :> Comparative studies of primitive art have probably been
:> :> jeopardized by the zeal of investigators of cultural contacts and
:> :> borrowings. But let us state in no uncertain terms that these
:> :> studies have been jeopardized even more by intellectual pharisees
:> :> who prefer to deny obvious relationships because science does not
:> :> yet provide an adequate method for their interpretation
:> :> -=- Claude Levi-Strauss, ANTHROPOLOGIE STRUCTURALE, 1958
:>
:> : A strange bedfellow for Yuri....
:>
:> Why?
: In many ways, not least that L-S's explanations for "obvious
: relationships" normally involved, not ancient migrations of peoples, but
: what used to be called the "psychic unity of mankind", a concept on
: which you have repeatedly poured scorn.
The first step is to admit that these obvious relationships exist.
Levi-Strauss was honest enough to do so, unlike some other commentators.
He may have been wrong in providing an explanation for these
relationships, but this could have been an honest mistake, for which he
may be forgiven. OTOH dishonesty is more difficult to forgive.
:> : By the way, if you want to see some real Pacific totem poles, check out
:> : the malangan culture of New Ireland, as in this image:
:>
:> : http://homepages.ius.edu/AEALLEN/STAT1.GIF
:>
:> : Unfortunately, it's in Melanesia, but I'm sure you can work it into your
:> : theory somehow.
:>
:> Why would I want to do this?
: You mean you are willing to ignore the striking similarities between
: these two areas, just because it doesn't fit into your pet migration
: theory? I'm shocked.
Why should I want to ignore any striking similarities between these two
areas?
Yuri.
Yuri Kuchinsky in Toronto -=O=- http://www.trends.ca/~yuku
It is a far, far better thing to have a firm anchor in nonsense than
to put out on the troubled seas of thought -=O=- John K. Galbraith
Daryl Krupa
<snip>
> I came across this, which has a number of comments on post-contact
> influences between the NW coast and Hawaii:
>
> http://www.alaskool.org/projects/traditionalife/monumentsincedar/MIC.html
Ross Clark:
Nothing about Hawaii on that page.
What, exactly, are you pointing me too, please?
Daryl Krupa
benlizross
You are the one who brought in the Hawaiian pictures as evidence for a
claim you made.
>
> : Actually, the post consists of Yuri referring to a book by somebody who
> : attempts to show a relation between NW coast art styles and NZ Maori art
> : styles. I know you have trouble concentrating one one thing at a time,
> : Yuri, but that is not what the present discussion is about.
>
> Many people have noted the similarity between the Maoris and the native
> Hawaiians. I guess you missed all that. Another gap in your education...
That the Maori and the Hawaiians are related does not mean that the one
can stand in for the other at any point where your argument gets into
trouble.
>
> :> :> "Welcome Figure" at K'we (Mt. Stephens)
> :> :> http://collections.ic.gc.ca/totems/exhibit/kwak/kwintro.htm
> :> :> This is an old Kwakiutl totem. A deity with a large animal-like head
> :> :> -- similar to some Hawaiian figures. This woodcut by Walter Phillips
> :> :> is the only record of this figure that we have.
> :>
> :> : I can't comment on every image or every comment, of course. But it is
> :> : worth noting that, whereas representations of birds and animals
> :> : proliferate everywhere on NW totem poles, they are conspicuously absent
> :> : in what you see as the Hawaiian equivalent.
> :>
> :> The dissimilarities are not very relevant in the present context.
>
> : As just illustrated above, your notion of "relevance" is very peculiar.
> : Here, of course, it means no more than "I don't want to know that."
>
> How are dissimilarities relevant in the present context?
You are suggesting that in a comparison of this kind only points of
similarity are legitimate for discussion? Do you see the logical idiocy
of this?
>
> :> :> http://collections.ic.gc.ca/totems/exhibit/haida/skid/pn_htm/05550.htm
> :> :> This Canadian totem has similar mouth and eyes, compared to the
> :> :> Hawaiian totems. Compare the following Hawaiian totem,
> :> :>
> :> :> http://www.reefboiproductions.com/Scenes/Scenes5/1480_v.jpg
> :> :> Totem Pole at Foster Gardens, O`ahu
> :>
> :> : Now be careful here, Yuri. This actually does look like a NW Coast totem
> :> : pole. This image is probably a general picture of the same thing:
> :>
> :> :> http://community.webshots.com/photo/15677290/15817470yFNqgfDVAO
> :>
> :> That's a good one! Thanks, Ross. Yes, it's the same totem pole.
> :>
> :> : In looking around at other pictures from the same Botanical Garden, I
> :> : noticed a stone image of the Buddha, which I am pretty sure is not an
> :> : indigenous Hawaiian artefact. In fact, I would go so far as to bet you
> :> : that this is either a real NW coast totem or a pretty good imitation,
> :> : used as an exotic garden ornament.
> :>
> :> My bet is that this is a Hawaiian production. But this is obviously a
> :> modern production, that includes some modern elements.
> :>
> :> The only question here is to what extent this modern production is based
> :> on some traditional Hawaiian proto-types, if any.
>
> : "Proto-types" which, for some reason, you have not been able to find any
> : other pictures of.
>
> Doesn't mean they don't exist.
No, Yuri, just like all the other fantasy creatures you conjure up. We
can't make you believe they aren't real.
> : Face it, Yuri, this object not only looks quite
> : different from any of the other Hawaiian images you have pictures of,
>
> Not quite.
>
> : but unlike those, there is no reason to think it is of local
> : provenience, apart from the fact that it is located in Hawaii.
>
> You want to bet?
More mysteries, eh? You have some other reason to think it is Hawaiian,
but you're not going to tell us what it is? You're going to make us beg?
>
> : Will you
> : apply the same logic to the Buddha? Could he be based on some lost
> : Hawaiian "prototype"?
>
> The Buddha is not very relevant in the present context.
The Buddha is quite relevant as a reductio ad absurdum of your
reasoning.
> :> : If you're not inclined to believe me,
> :> : perhaps you could email the people at the gardens and ask them.
> :>
> :> Maybe I will. But I'm already pretty sure what this pole is.
> :>
> :> :> HAWAII TOTEMS
> :>
> :> : Now here's another thing I guess you've learned. And this is why, when
> :> : you talked about "Hawaiian totem poles", it did not immediately bring an
> :> : image to mind for me. Because although the word "totem" is liberally
> :> : used by you below in reference to these Hawaiian carvings, you only
> :> : found one tourist site that actually uses the word. (Apart from the
> :> : exotic object in the Botanical Gardens just discussed.)
> :>
> :> I don't really care how to call them... whatever you call them, they are
> :> still the same.
> :
> : So you admit that your use of the terms is not normal, and is adopted
> : just to enhance the illusion that these things are "the same"?
>
> No.
No, I didn't expect you to admit it.
>
> :> :> http://users.imag.net/~sry.jkramer/nativetotems/images/FT5)newzealand.jpg
> :> :> Simple Maori totem. Traditional Hawaiian and Canadian totems are quite
> :> :> similar.
> :>
> :> : Well, this link didn't work for me,
> :>
> :> Try cuting and pasting the link into your browser. The link is valid. I
> :> think it's the bracket in the URL ")" that created a problem.
>
> : OK, this is from the same site that Doug pointed us to. I hope you noted
> : the accompanying note on the dubious use of the term "totem" for these
> : Polynesian carvings.
>
> I'm not interested in arguing about words.
>
> :> : but I can now guess what you are
> :> : going to mean by "totem". And again, nobody actually calls them
> :> : "totems", either in NZ or Hawaii, except you and possibly the odd
> :> : over-excited tour guide. Just as nobody calls NW coast carvings "tikis",
> :> : except you.
> :>
> :> Google search on the keywords,
> :>
> :> Hawaii totem
> :>
> :> produces 17,200 hits.
>
> : Now Yuri, even you know this sort of Google figure means nothing. In
> : fact you can get 33 hits by searching "Kuchinsky idiot". Do you suppose
> : that could mean something?
>
> What does it mean?
It means exactly what 17,200 hits on "Hawaii totem" means.
>
> :> :> The following are recent commercially produced images, that may be
> :> :> based on some old prototypes,
> :> :>
> :> :> http://www.planetware.com/photos/US/HIO208.HTM
> :> :> Carved tikis for sale in Paradise Cove, Oahu.
> :>
> :> : I think we'll just charitably overlook this one, Yuri. Let's say you
> :> : were tired. You don't really think airport art belongs in a serious
> :> : comparison like this, do you? No, I didn't think so.
> :>
> :> You missed some evident similarities between this "airport art" and the
> :> Botanical Gardens totem that you've yourself posted.
>
> : And why would you think there would be any significance in such
> : similarities?
>
> There's some significance in all similarities.
OK, why would you think that the alleged similarities between tourist
souvenir objects for sale in Honolulu and a totem pole in a botanic
garden in Honolulu would have any relevance to the question of the
origins of the Hawaiians?
> :> The only question here is to what extent, if at all, this modern "airport
> :> art" is based on some traditional Hawaiian designs.
>
> : A question to which you provide no answer. If it is so based, then we
> : can look at the traditional Hawaiian designs, and we don't need to waste
> : our time at the airport souvenir shop. This is ridiculous and you know
> : it.
>
> No it's not.
What can I say in response to this powerful argument?
> :> :> Comparative studies of primitive art have probably been
> :> :> jeopardized by the zeal of investigators of cultural contacts and
> :> :> borrowings. But let us state in no uncertain terms that these
> :> :> studies have been jeopardized even more by intellectual pharisees
> :> :> who prefer to deny obvious relationships because science does not
> :> :> yet provide an adequate method for their interpretation
> :> :> -=- Claude Levi-Strauss, ANTHROPOLOGIE STRUCTURALE, 1958
> :>
> :> : A strange bedfellow for Yuri....
> :>
> :> Why?
>
> : In many ways, not least that L-S's explanations for "obvious
> : relationships" normally involved, not ancient migrations of peoples, but
> : what used to be called the "psychic unity of mankind", a concept on
> : which you have repeatedly poured scorn.
>
> The first step is to admit that these obvious relationships exist.
> Levi-Strauss was honest enough to do so, unlike some other commentators.
>
> He may have been wrong in providing an explanation for these
> relationships, but this could have been an honest mistake, for which he
> may be forgiven. OTOH dishonesty is more difficult to forgive.
Jesus, you sound more like Jesus all the time.
> :> : By the way, if you want to see some real Pacific totem poles, check out
> :> : the malangan culture of New Ireland, as in this image:
> :>
> :> : http://homepages.ius.edu/AEALLEN/STAT1.GIF
> :>
> :> : Unfortunately, it's in Melanesia, but I'm sure you can work it into your
> :> : theory somehow.
> :>
> :> Why would I want to do this?
>
> : You mean you are willing to ignore the striking similarities between
> : these two areas, just because it doesn't fit into your pet migration
> : theory? I'm shocked.
>
> Why should I want to ignore any striking similarities between these two
> areas?
So what is your explanation for these similarities?
Ross Clark
benlizross
Sorry. The main reference is in Chapter X, but there are passing
mentions of Hawaii in Chapters II and III.
Ross Clark
Daryl Krupa
Hokay. From Chapter X, at
http://www.alaskool.org/projects/traditionalife/monumentsincedar/MIC_ten.htm
we can lift this quote:
'Haidas say their inspiration for these quaint monuments
came from waterlogged totempole that drifted to their
beaches in Queen Charlotte Islands from parts unknown
many generations ago.'
Hmmm ... even if that was a Polynesian totem pole, there was
(according to Haida lore, apparently)
no requirement for actual contact with a Polynesian person for
cultural transfer to occur.
And further down, under "How Hawaiians Came To Northwest":
' ... the several cultural similarities between the Haida and
Hawaiian are easily accounted for by recent acculturation.
The record clearly shows that the phenomenal development of
art and architecture among the Haidas and Tsimshians closely
parallels the activity of Northwest Coast traders and their
predominantly Polynesian crews.
The Rev. Jonathan S. Green, missionary from Hawaii, who
visited the Northwest Coast in 1829 ... wrote,
"For more than forty years, our enterprising countrymen have
coasted these shores, and realized immense profits from their
commercial intercourse with the natives…."
In other words, long before the Russians established Sitka
(1799) Americans out of Boston and Salem and British as well,
were trading in the Alaska Panhandle and Coastal British Columbia
and perhaps in every instance coming via Hawaii.
Their crews were made up largely of Northwest Coast Indians and
Kanakas who intermingled freely, aboard and ashore, and
Kanakas married Indian girls and settled down.
Even today one can see their shadows in all Coastal Indian tribes
but especially in the Haida where some of the girls could pass
for Maoris and wavy-haired men resemble full-muscled Samoans and
Hawaiians.'
[Kanaka is the Hawaiian word for 'boy'.]
'Barbeau mentions a part Hawaiian totem-carver named Oyai
who was regarded as the best carver on the Nass.
Just which part of his ancestry contributed the most to his skill
is a moot question, for it is possible that the Kanakas
learned as much from the Indians as the Indians did from them.
Jonathan Green, for one, regarded the culture of the
Northwest Coast Indians on a higher plane that in any of the
South Sea Islands, including Hawaii and New Zealand.'
From Chapter II, 'Antiquity of the Totempole' at:
http://www.alaskool.org/projects/traditionalife/monumentsincedar/MIC_two.htm
'The Alaska or "Kaigani" Haidas are descended from a group
that originally lived on Langara Island and crossed Dixon's
Entrance to Dall Island over 200 years ago.
It is perhaps they who introduced the totempole to Alaska,
if not to the world.
These people have a legend to the effect that
the first totempole drifted ashore on Langara Island,
giving these natives a model from which all totempoles are
believed (by them) to have originated.
It is at least significant that totempoles
were observed at this spot when they were still
unreported by seamen who visited all the other native
settlements of any importance on the Coast.'
The time mentioned was around 1790, which would be ten years after
Green's claim for first contact with American traders.
Further down at that page:
'The foregoing accounts cover a period of exploration of
one hundred years duration and contain about all that has
been recorded concerning totempoles in that century.
From them we may infer that interior house posts were
in general use throughout the entire region before
the coming of white men; that the mortuary pole was common
in Tlingit and Haida villages; that the exterior house post
is Haida in origin, probably originating on Langara Island,
that the detached totempole must be of recent origin,
possibly not over a hundred years old—that totempoles
in general reached their highest development during the
period of white trade and occupation,
roughly between 1840 and 1880.'
And here's another mention of Hawaiian immigrants:
From a review of
'Kanaka: The Untold Story of Hawaiian Pioneers in British Columbia
and the Pacific Northwest':
http://www.utpjournals.com/product/chr/793/kanaka.html
'Hawaiian Islanders came to the area in answer to the fur trade's
demand for labour.
By the 1830s ‘Kanakas' were the single largest ethnic group in
the Hudson's Bay Company's employ on the West Coast, according to
Koppel, and by 1850 they made up fully half the labour force at
Fort Victoria.
By the 1870s Hawaiians had become subsistence farmers, loggers,
and fishers, with the largest settlement on Saltspring Island.'
It would seem that Yuri has discovered evidence that Europeans
travelled between Pacific isalands and the northwest coast of North
America.
Big whoop.
Daryl Krupa
benlizross
>
> benlizross <benl...@ihug.co.nz> wrote in message news:<3FD397...@ihug.co.nz>...
> > Daryl Krupa wrote:
> > >
> > > benlizross <benl...@ihug.co.nz> wrote in message news:<3FD2AE...@ihug.co.nz>...
> > >
> > > <snip>
> > > > I came across this, which has a number of comments on post-contact
> > > > influences between the NW coast and Hawaii:
So having brought this up, let me make a few corrections and comments.
Let's be clear here. They had the art and architecture before the
traders. The "phenomenal development" consists of making more and bigger
of the same. On another thread somebody's mentioned that the number and
size of ceremonial coppers increased as the metal became far more
abundant. Carving became much easier with metal tools, so people did
more of it. Large free-standing poles, which were apparently relatively
rare, became much more widespread and numerous.
> The Rev. Jonathan S. Green, missionary from Hawaii, who
> visited the Northwest Coast in 1829 ... wrote,
> "For more than forty years, our enterprising countrymen have
> coasted these shores, and realized immense profits from their
> commercial intercourse with the nativesů."
> In other words, long before the Russians established Sitka
> (1799) Americans out of Boston and Salem and British as well,
> were trading in the Alaska Panhandle and Coastal British Columbia
> and perhaps in every instance coming via Hawaii.
Well, "long before" would mean 14 years. Remember that it was only 20
years before 1799 that Europeans learned that Hawaii existed.
> Their crews were made up largely of Northwest Coast Indians and
> Kanakas who intermingled freely, aboard and ashore, and
> Kanakas married Indian girls and settled down.
> Even today one can see their shadows in all Coastal Indian tribes
> but especially in the Haida where some of the girls could pass
> for Maoris and wavy-haired men resemble full-muscled Samoans and
> Hawaiians.'
> [Kanaka is the Hawaiian word for 'boy'.]
Kanaka is the Hawaiian word for "person".
> 'Barbeau mentions a part Hawaiian totem-carver named Oyai
> who was regarded as the best carver on the Nass.
Now that's quite interesting.
> Just which part of his ancestry contributed the most to his skill
> is a moot question, for it is possible that the Kanakas
> learned as much from the Indians as the Indians did from them.
> Jonathan Green, for one, regarded the culture of the
> Northwest Coast Indians on a higher plane that in any of the
> South Sea Islands, including Hawaii and New Zealand.'
>
> From Chapter II, 'Antiquity of the Totempole' at:
> http://www.alaskool.org/projects/traditionalife/monumentsincedar/MIC_two.htm
> 'The Alaska or "Kaigani" Haidas are descended from a group
> that originally lived on Langara Island and crossed Dixon's
> Entrance to Dall Island over 200 years ago.
> It is perhaps they who introduced the totempole to Alaska,
> if not to the world.
> These people have a legend to the effect that
> the first totempole drifted ashore on Langara Island,
> giving these natives a model from which all totempoles are
> believed (by them) to have originated.
> It is at least significant that totempoles
> were observed at this spot when they were still
> unreported by seamen who visited all the other native
> settlements of any importance on the Coast.'
By which I think he means large free-standing poles.
> The time mentioned was around 1790, which would be ten years after
> Green's claim for first contact with American traders.
I'm not sure whether Green was American or British, so I don't know who
he means by "our countrymen". The first post-Cook fur trading vessel was
the British "Sea Otter" in 1785, and the first American was the
"Columbia Rediviva" in 1788. I don't see any particular significance to
this particular location or date. I certainly don't think the idea of
totem poles was brought by the Hawaiians. The Hawaiian carvings don't
even look particularly like the NW coast ones, pace Yuri. The
similarities simply aren't that impressive. If an idea or two passed
back and forth during the period of maximum interaction (say 1790-1850),
that didn't affect the basic styles of the two places, which you can see
quite well illustrated from Cook's voyages, before any of this stuff
took place.
Ross Clark
> Further down at that page:
> 'The foregoing accounts cover a period of exploration of
> one hundred years duration and contain about all that has
> been recorded concerning totempoles in that century.
> From them we may infer that interior house posts were
> in general use throughout the entire region before
> the coming of white men; that the mortuary pole was common
> in Tlingit and Haida villages; that the exterior house post
> is Haida in origin, probably originating on Langara Island,
> that the detached totempole must be of recent origin,
> possibly not over a hundred years oldŚthat totempoles
> in general reached their highest development during the
> period of white trade and occupation,
> roughly between 1840 and 1880.'
>
> And here's another mention of Hawaiian immigrants:
>
> From a review of
> 'Kanaka: The Untold Story of Hawaiian Pioneers in British Columbia
> and the Pacific Northwest':
> http://www.utpjournals.com/product/chr/793/kanaka.html
> 'Hawaiian Islanders came to the area in answer to the fur trade's
> demand for labour.
> By the 1830s ĹKanakas' were the single largest ethnic group in
Yuri Kuchinsky
> Daryl Krupa wrote:
...
> > The time mentioned was around 1790, which would be ten years after
> > Green's claim for first contact with American traders.
>
> I'm not sure whether Green was American or British, so I don't know who
> he means by "our countrymen". The first post-Cook fur trading vessel was
> the British "Sea Otter" in 1785, and the first American was the
> "Columbia Rediviva" in 1788. I don't see any particular significance to
> this particular location or date. I certainly don't think the idea of
> totem poles was brought by the Hawaiians. The Hawaiian carvings don't
> even look particularly like the NW coast ones, pace Yuri. The
> similarities simply aren't that impressive.
Which seems to refute what Krupa has been saying here...
After all, if we believe Krupa, then these similarities, due to recent
post-European contact, should be quite obvious.
> If an idea or two passed
> back and forth during the period of maximum interaction (say 1790-1850),
> that didn't affect the basic styles of the two places, which you can see
> quite well illustrated from Cook's voyages, before any of this stuff
> took place.
>
> Ross Clark
As long as these two parties disagree, they refute each other quite
nicely... So keep disagreeing, folks!
Regards,
Yuri.
Yuri Kuchinsky
> Yuri Kuchinsky wrote:
> > Many people have noted the similarity between the Maoris and the native
> > Hawaiians. I guess you missed all that. Another gap in your education...
>
> That the Maori and the Hawaiians are related does not mean that the one
> can stand in for the other at any point where your argument gets into
> trouble.
Which trouble?
> > How are dissimilarities relevant in the present context?
>
> You are suggesting that in a comparison of this kind only points of
> similarity are legitimate for discussion? Do you see the logical idiocy
> of this?
But I didn't say "legitimate". I said "relevant".
[Yuri:]
> > :> Google search on the keywords,
> > :>
> > :> Hawaii totem
> > :>
> > :> produces 17,200 hits.
>
> > : Now Yuri, even you know this sort of Google figure means nothing. In
> > : fact you can get 33 hits by searching "Kuchinsky idiot". Do you suppose
> > : that could mean something?
> >
> > What does it mean?
>
> It means exactly what 17,200 hits on "Hawaii totem" means.
It looks like the words "Hawaii" and "totem" are associated in
people's minds approximately 500 more often, as compared to the words
you've suggested.
> > There's some significance in all similarities.
>
> OK, why would you think that the alleged similarities between tourist
> souvenir objects for sale in Honolulu and a totem pole in a botanic
> garden in Honolulu would have any relevance to the question of the
> origins of the Hawaiians?
That's a difficult question... And I think it would be unwise for a
man of your limited expertise in this area to try to scale such
logical heights.
OTOH it's quite obvious that any such similarities would make it more
likely that that Honolulu Botanical Gardens totem pole was indeed
carved in Hawaii.
Yuri.
Yuri Kuchinsky -=O=- http://www.trends.ca/~yuku -=O=- Toronto
But scientists, who ought to know
Assure us that it must be so.
Oh, let us never, never doubt
What nobody is sure about.
-- Hilaire Belloc
benlizross
Yes, I'm afraid Yuri's ideas of logic have never gotten beyond the
children's puppet show level. "These two guys disagree, so they must
both be wrong." Good grief.
Ross Clark
benlizross
>
> benlizross <benl...@ihug.co.nz> wrote in message news:<3FD391...@ihug.co.nz>...
> > Yuri Kuchinsky wrote:
>
> > > Many people have noted the similarity between the Maoris and the native
> > > Hawaiians. I guess you missed all that. Another gap in your education...
> >
> > That the Maori and the Hawaiians are related does not mean that the one
> > can stand in for the other at any point where your argument gets into
> > trouble.
>
> Which trouble?
Well, the immediate presenting difficulty was that your Hawaiian-NW
Coast picture-show was not impressing your audience the way it was
supposed to. At which point you said, "Actually, the striking evidence
is here..." and introduced a comparison between NW coast and Maori
carving.
>
> > > How are dissimilarities relevant in the present context?
> >
> > You are suggesting that in a comparison of this kind only points of
> > similarity are legitimate for discussion? Do you see the logical idiocy
> > of this?
>
> But I didn't say "legitimate". I said "relevant".
Right. Cut and past "relevant" for "legitimate" and re-read what I
wrote.
>
> [Yuri:]
> > > :> Google search on the keywords,
> > > :>
> > > :> Hawaii totem
> > > :>
> > > :> produces 17,200 hits.
> >
> > > : Now Yuri, even you know this sort of Google figure means nothing. In
> > > : fact you can get 33 hits by searching "Kuchinsky idiot". Do you suppose
> > > : that could mean something?
> > >
> > > What does it mean?
> >
> > It means exactly what 17,200 hits on "Hawaii totem" means.
>
> It looks like the words "Hawaii" and "totem" are associated in
> people's minds approximately 500 more often, as compared to the words
> you've suggested.
No, it looks like they *occur on the same web page* approximately 500x
more often.
"Kuchinsky idiot" is relatively rare because you're neither very famous
nor part of a large family. "McTavish idiot" gets 496 hits. Heck, even
"Kuchinsky fool" does better at 120. And as for the totems, "Singapore
totem" gets 9,450. How do you suppose that "association in people's
minds" works? Oh, and "Hawaii igloo" gets 7,370. Isn't this fun?
> > > There's some significance in all similarities.
> >
> > OK, why would you think that the alleged similarities between tourist
> > souvenir objects for sale in Honolulu and a totem pole in a botanic
> > garden in Honolulu would have any relevance to the question of the
> > origins of the Hawaiians?
>
> That's a difficult question... And I think it would be unwise for a
> man of your limited expertise in this area to try to scale such
> logical heights.
Oh go ahead, try me, Yuri. So far your logical heights have not been
exactly terrifying. Try and explain the significance.
> OTOH it's quite obvious that any such similarities would make it more
> likely that that Honolulu Botanical Gardens totem pole was indeed
> carved in Hawaii.
So let me see. If the totem pole in the Foster Botanic Garden looks like
the souvenirs on sale at the Paradise Cove tourist market, then it is
more likely that the totem pole was carved in Hawaii? Is that the
argument? No, still doesn't make sense. You'll have to spell out the
logic more clearly.
But in any case, we are not arguing about where the pole was carved, but
whose carving tradition it represents.
Ross Clark
Yuri Kuchinsky
> Yuri Kuchinsky wrote:
> >
> > benlizross <benl...@ihug.co.nz> wrote in message news:<3FD391...@ihug.co.nz>...
> > > Yuri Kuchinsky wrote:
>
> > > > Many people have noted the similarity between the Maoris and the native
> > > > Hawaiians. I guess you missed all that. Another gap in your education...
> > >
> > > That the Maori and the Hawaiians are related does not mean that the one
> > > can stand in for the other at any point where your argument gets into
> > > trouble.
> >
> > Which trouble?
>
> Well, the immediate presenting difficulty was that your Hawaiian-NW
> Coast picture-show was not impressing your audience the way it was
> supposed to. At which point you said, "Actually, the striking evidence
> is here..." and introduced a comparison between NW coast and Maori
> carving.
Well, the only one who was "not impressed" is you... But that was a
forgone conclusion, in any case...
...
> > It looks like the words "Hawaii" and "totem" are associated in
> > people's minds approximately 500 more often, as compared to the words
> > you've suggested.
>
> No, it looks like they *occur on the same web page* approximately 500x
> more often.
>
> "Kuchinsky idiot" is relatively rare because you're neither very famous
> nor part of a large family. "McTavish idiot" gets 496 hits. Heck, even
> "Kuchinsky fool" does better at 120. And as for the totems, "Singapore
> totem" gets 9,450. How do you suppose that "association in people's
> minds" works? Oh, and "Hawaii igloo" gets 7,370. Isn't this fun?
But "Hawaii totem" gets 17,200 hits. That's almost 10,000 more...
So I win, anyway!
> > > > There's some significance in all similarities.
> > >
> > > OK, why would you think that the alleged similarities between tourist
> > > souvenir objects for sale in Honolulu and a totem pole in a botanic
> > > garden in Honolulu would have any relevance to the question of the
> > > origins of the Hawaiians?
> >
> > That's a difficult question... And I think it would be unwise for a
> > man of your limited expertise in this area to try to scale such
> > logical heights.
>
> Oh go ahead, try me, Yuri. So far your logical heights have not been
> exactly terrifying. Try and explain the significance.
>
> > OTOH it's quite obvious that any such similarities would make it more
> > likely that that Honolulu Botanical Gardens totem pole was indeed
> > carved in Hawaii.
>
> So let me see. If the totem pole in the Foster Botanic Garden looks like
> the souvenirs on sale at the Paradise Cove tourist market, then it is
> more likely that the totem pole was carved in Hawaii? Is that the
> argument? No, still doesn't make sense. You'll have to spell out the
> logic more clearly.
If you didn't get it already, maybe it's not worth trying to explain
it to you...
> But in any case, we are not arguing about where the pole was carved, but
> whose carving tradition it represents.
>
> Ross Clark
Yuri.
Yuri Kuchinsky -=O=- http://www.trends.ca/~yuku
The world is made up, for the most part, of fools or knaves, both
irreconcilable foes to truth; the first being slaves to a blind
credulity, which we may properly call bigotry, the last too jealous
of that power they have usurped over the folly and ignorance of the
others -- which the establishment of the empire of reason would
destroy -- George Villiers
Yuri Kuchinsky
:>
:> benlizross <benl...@ihug.co.nz> wrote in message news:<3FD567...@ihug.co.
: Ross Clark
Sometimes the most obvious conclusion also happens to be the correct one.
Yuri.
Yuri Kuchinsky in Toronto -=O=- http://www.trends.ca/~yuku
Reality is that which, when you stop believing
benlizross
>
> benlizross <benl...@ihug.co.nz> wrote in message news:<3FD637...@ihug.co.nz>...
> > Yuri Kuchinsky wrote:
> > >
> > > benlizross <benl...@ihug.co.nz> wrote in message news:<3FD391...@ihug.co.nz>...
> > > > Yuri Kuchinsky wrote:
> >
> > > > > Many people have noted the similarity between the Maoris and the native
> > > > > Hawaiians. I guess you missed all that. Another gap in your education...
> > > >
> > > > That the Maori and the Hawaiians are related does not mean that the one
> > > > can stand in for the other at any point where your argument gets into
> > > > trouble.
> > >
> > > Which trouble?
> >
> > Well, the immediate presenting difficulty was that your Hawaiian-NW
> > Coast picture-show was not impressing your audience the way it was
> > supposed to. At which point you said, "Actually, the striking evidence
> > is here..." and introduced a comparison between NW coast and Maori
> > carving.
>
> Well, the only one who was "not impressed" is you... But that was a
> forgone conclusion, in any case...
Only me? Really? That's amazing! The only one out of...uh, what was that
number you mentioned of the people who were impressed?
> > > It looks like the words "Hawaii" and "totem" are associated in
> > > people's minds approximately 500 more often, as compared to the words
> > > you've suggested.
> >
> > No, it looks like they *occur on the same web page* approximately 500x
> > more often.
> >
> > "Kuchinsky idiot" is relatively rare because you're neither very famous
> > nor part of a large family. "McTavish idiot" gets 496 hits. Heck, even
> > "Kuchinsky fool" does better at 120. And as for the totems, "Singapore
> > totem" gets 9,450. How do you suppose that "association in people's
> > minds" works? Oh, and "Hawaii igloo" gets 7,370. Isn't this fun?
>
> But "Hawaii totem" gets 17,200 hits. That's almost 10,000 more...
>
> So I win, anyway!
Oh no, game's not over yet!
"Chicago totem" 21,100
"Africa totem" 21,400
"Paris totem" 28,100
"Florida totem" 32,300
and the really big one
"New York totem" 57,400!
Gosh, this is revolutionizing my whole concept of totem poles!
> > > > > There's some significance in all similarities.
> > > >
> > > > OK, why would you think that the alleged similarities between tourist
> > > > souvenir objects for sale in Honolulu and a totem pole in a botanic
> > > > garden in Honolulu would have any relevance to the question of the
> > > > origins of the Hawaiians?
> > >
> > > That's a difficult question... And I think it would be unwise for a
> > > man of your limited expertise in this area to try to scale such
> > > logical heights.
> >
> > Oh go ahead, try me, Yuri. So far your logical heights have not been
> > exactly terrifying. Try and explain the significance.
> >
> > > OTOH it's quite obvious that any such similarities would make it more
> > > likely that that Honolulu Botanical Gardens totem pole was indeed
> > > carved in Hawaii.
> >
> > So let me see. If the totem pole in the Foster Botanic Garden looks like
> > the souvenirs on sale at the Paradise Cove tourist market, then it is
> > more likely that the totem pole was carved in Hawaii? Is that the
> > argument? No, still doesn't make sense. You'll have to spell out the
> > logic more clearly.
>
> If you didn't get it already, maybe it's not worth trying to explain
> it to you...
No, Yuri, when you resort to the "You're too dumb to understand" move,
it's an admission of defeat.
Ross Clark
Daryl Krupa
> :> As long as these two parties disagree, they refute each other quite
> :> nicely... So keep disagreeing, folks!
> In sci.archaeology benlizross <benl...@ihug.co.nz> wrote:
> : Yes, I'm afraid Yuri's ideas of logic have never gotten beyond the
> : children's puppet show level. "These two guys disagree, so they must
> : both be wrong." Good grief.
Yuri Kuchinsky <yu...@clio.trends.ca> wrote in message news:<ksLEb.312$i%7.205...@news.nnrp.ca>...
> Sometimes the most obvious conclusion also happens to be the correct one.
Don't tease, Yuri, which one of our
"obvious conclusions" do you now agree is correct?
As mine is more obvious, I would take it, in the absence of
clarification to the contrary, that resemblances between
a red cedar totem pole standing with other examples of sculpture
brought from across the Pacific Ocean in an ornamental garden in
Hawaii
and
a red cedar totem pole standing near a Native American village on the
west coast of North America
are the result of cultural transmission via technology invented and
exploited by Europeans after the first incursion of Europeans into the
Pacific Ocean.
In other words, you're trying to base speculations about prehistoric
culture on the activities of modern tourists.
You may as well claim that because
a large percentage of the people on Hawaii are red with white stripes
(i.e., hairless beach apes with tan lines),
Hawaiians are
obviously
descended from Red Indians with a bit of White ancestry.
Bah!
Humbug!
Yuri Kuchinsky
:> : Yuri Kuchinsky wrote:
:> :> As long as these two parties disagree, they refute each other quite
:> :> nicely... So keep disagreeing, folks!
:> In sci.archaeology benlizross <benl...@ihug.co.nz> wrote:
:> : Yes, I'm afraid Yuri's ideas of logic have never gotten beyond the
:> : children's puppet show level. "These two guys disagree, so they must
:> : both be wrong." Good grief.
: Yuri Kuchinsky <yu...@clio.trends.ca> wrote in message news:<ksLEb.312$i%7.205870
: 2...@news.nnrp.ca>...
:
:> Sometimes the most obvious conclusion also happens to be the correct one.
: Don't tease, Yuri, which one of our
: "obvious conclusions" do you now agree is correct?
When you and Ross disagreed, you refuted each other quite nicely.
: As mine is more obvious, I would take it, in the absence of
: clarification to the contrary, that resemblances between
: a red cedar totem pole standing with other examples of sculpture
: brought from across the Pacific Ocean in an ornamental garden in
: Hawaii and
: a red cedar totem pole standing near a Native American village on the
: west coast of North America
: are the result of cultural transmission via technology invented and
: exploited by Europeans after the first incursion of Europeans into the
: Pacific Ocean.
Sounds very Eurocentric...
: In other words, you're trying to base speculations about prehistoric
: culture
There were no speculations in anything I said.
: on the activities of modern tourists.
: You may as well claim that because
: a large percentage of the people on Hawaii are red with white stripes
: (i.e., hairless beach apes with tan lines),
: Hawaiians are
: obviously
: descended from Red Indians with a bit of White ancestry.
: Bah!
: Humbug!
Here's one more Eurocentrist who wants to ignore archaeological evidence.
Yuri.
Yuri Kuchinsky in Toronto -=O=- http://www.trends.ca/~yuku
It is a far, far better thing to have a firm anchor in nonsense than