Rat genes solve mystery of great Pacific odyssey
Doug Weller
"A genetic analysis of ancient and modern rat populations throughout
South-East Asia and Polynesia has indicated that the Pacific islands were
colonised by the seafaring Lapita culture of the western Pacific — but only
after a slow and complex expansion."
"A more complex scenario is likely, in which the Lapita culture arose as
the result of new immigration from Asia, coupled with the advancing
civilisation of the indigenous peoples of Near Oceania."
Doug
benlizross
>
> http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-1138123,00.html
>
> "A genetic analysis of ancient and modern rat populations throughout
> South-East Asia and Polynesia has indicated that the Pacific islands were
> after a slow and complex expansion."
>
> "A more complex scenario is likely, in which the Lapita culture arose as
> the result of new immigration from Asia, coupled with the advancing
> civilisation of the indigenous peoples of Near Oceania."
>
> Doug
Can this be accessed without a password? I am fed up with
password-demanding sites. If the article is based on something new in a
journal, perhaps you would be good enough to pass on the reference.
Ross Clark
Eric Stevens
wrote:
>Doug Weller wrote:
>>
>> http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-1138123,00.html
>>
>> "A genetic analysis of ancient and modern rat populations throughout
>> South-East Asia and Polynesia has indicated that the Pacific islands were
>> colonised by the seafaring Lapita culture of the western Pacific ?X but only
>> after a slow and complex expansion."
>>
>> "A more complex scenario is likely, in which the Lapita culture arose as
>> the result of new immigration from Asia, coupled with the advancing
>> civilisation of the indigenous peoples of Near Oceania."
>>
>> Doug
>
>Can this be accessed without a password? I am fed up with
>password-demanding sites. If the article is based on something new in a
>journal, perhaps you would be good enough to pass on the reference.
>
Try this one from on your own doorstep :-)
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/storydisplay.cfm?thesection=news&thesubsection=&storyID=3571193
Eric Stevens
benlizross
Thanks, Eric. Unfortunately the Herald does not reach our doorstep any
more, but this is tomorrow morning's! I figured this was the latest from
the Matisoo-Smith project (from my former academic doorstep). And for
anyone who's really keen, the ultimate reference is to "today's"
Proceedings of the (US) National Academy of Sciences -- viewer
discretion advised ;-)
E. Matisoo-Smith and J. H. Robins
Origins and dispersals of Pacific peoples: Evidence from mtDNA
phylogenies of the Pacific rat
PNAS published June 7, 2004, 10.1073/pnas.0403120101 (
Anthropology , Population Biology )
I'll try to get my hands on it in the morning. Meanwhile the Herald will
have to do.
Ross Clark
Doug Weller
> Doug Weller wrote:
>>
>> http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-1138123,00.html
>>
>> "A genetic analysis of ancient and modern rat populations throughout
>> South-East Asia and Polynesia has indicated that the Pacific islands were
>> colonised by the seafaring Lapita culture of the western Pacific !X but only
>> after a slow and complex expansion."
>>
>> "A more complex scenario is likely, in which the Lapita culture arose as
>> the result of new immigration from Asia, coupled with the advancing
>> civilisation of the indigenous peoples of Near Oceania."
>>
>> Doug
>
> Can this be accessed without a password? I am fed up with
> password-demanding sites. If the article is based on something new in a
> journal, perhaps you would be good enough to pass on the reference.
You're in luck, it's on the BBC site now.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3784759.stm
Doug
Yuri Kuchinsky
It is often said that science is like looking in a dark room
for a black cat which may be there.
Well, Dr. Elizabeth Matisoo-Smith seems to be looking for
that black cat in a dark room where there are probably quite
a few black cats prowling abound...
But she's making sure not to find any of those black cats
that are not advisable to find.
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
benlizross
Oh my, Yuri's playing philosopher of science again.
And his judgment (is anyone surprised?): that another scientist is
confused and dishonest.
Or am I misinterpreting his mysterious cat parable?
Perhaps for the benefit of the average reader he could enlarge on what
Dr Matisoo-Smith has done wrong.
Ross Clark
Yuri Kuchinsky
It is perfectly clear that the Polynesian cultures have links with the
cultures all around the Pacific. Including both South and North
America.
It is rather silly to look very hard for those links in the West,
while completely disregarding the rather obvious links in the East
(i.e. the Americas). Especially because all the prevailing winds and
ocean currents come to Polynesia from the East most of the time.
benlizross
Matisoo-Smith's research concerned the genetics of Rattus exulans. Now,
just to bring you up to speed, this species does not exist in North or
South America. It is found only in Southeast Asia and the Pacific
islands. Therefore the absence of references to North and South America
in Dr Matisoo-Smith's paper is scientifically quite justified, and your
criticism of her work is without foundation.
For the rest, you appear to be simply reiterating the creed of Blessed
Thor Heyerdahl (may he rest in peace), adding the falsehood that the
links with the Americas have been "completely disregarded". We have
surely been over this ground more than enough times, unless you have
some actual new evidence.
Ross Clark
Seppo Renfors
Apparently an attempt is made by Ross to use the rat gene issue as
some form of mysterious universal "truth" - which it cannot be used
for. The rat gene ONLY shows the movement of the rat - not people, not
even if/when the rat had been used as a food source.
--
SIR - Philosopher unauthorised
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The one who is educated from the wrong books is not educated, he is
misled.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
benlizross
Sep, it looks like you're even further behind the play than Yuri.
First, the "mysterious universal truth" stuff is pure invention on your
part -- I have no idea what you can be referring to. So far in this
discussion we have hardly done more than take note of a recent
publication.
Second, if you had any idea at all of the issues here, you would know
that Rattus exulans is a notoriously poor swimmer. Indeed, if we find
any (non-human) land mammal in a place like Easter Island, one thing we
can be pretty sure of is that it did not get there by its own efforts.
If we rule out long-distance transportation by birds or on the backs of
turtles, we are left with the conclusion that the rat got around thanks
to human voyaging. It might have stowed away on Polynesian canoes (much
as European rats did on European ships), but since the little critters
are apparently good to eat, it's quite possible they were deliberately
transported along with other food plants and animals. And the nice thing
about R.exulans is that, unlike the other domesticates (pigs, dogs,
chickens), it's a distinct species that does not interbreed with
European rats. So studying the rats really does promise to give us some
interesting clues as to where the people went.
Ross Clark
Yuri Kuchinsky
(in reply to Seppo Renfors)
> Second, if you had any idea at all of the issues here, you would know
> that Rattus exulans is a notoriously poor swimmer. Indeed, if we find
> any (non-human) land mammal in a place like Easter Island, one thing we
> can be pretty sure of is that it did not get there by its own efforts.
> If we rule out long-distance transportation by birds or on the backs of
> turtles,
Yes, we'd better do that... :)
Otherwise, it would get rather too close to Monty Python
science.
> we are left with the conclusion that the rat got around thanks
> to human voyaging. It might have stowed away on Polynesian canoes (much
> as European rats did on European ships),
And anyone who'd believe that... would believe anything.
> but since the little critters
> are apparently good to eat, it's quite possible they were deliberately
> transported along with other food plants and animals.
Yes, that's more realistic.
> And the nice thing
> about R.exulans is that, unlike the other domesticates (pigs, dogs,
> chickens), it's a distinct species that does not interbreed with
> European rats. So studying the rats really does promise to give us some
> interesting clues as to where the people went.
>
> Ross Clark
But not necessarily about the original homeland of these
people... And that's where Dr. Elizabeth Matisoo-Smith seems
to have her weak spot.
Yuri.
Yuri Kuchinsky -=O=- http://www.trends.ca/~yuku -=O=-
Toronto
For every credibility gap, there is a gullibility fill.
benlizross
>
> benlizross wrote:
>
> (in reply to Seppo Renfors)
>
> > Second, if you had any idea at all of the issues here, you would know
> > that Rattus exulans is a notoriously poor swimmer. Indeed, if we find
> > any (non-human) land mammal in a place like Easter Island, one thing we
> > can be pretty sure of is that it did not get there by its own efforts.
> > If we rule out long-distance transportation by birds or on the backs of
> > turtles,
>
> Yes, we'd better do that... :)
>
> Otherwise, it would get rather too close to Monty Python
> science.
>
> > we are left with the conclusion that the rat got around thanks
> > to human voyaging. It might have stowed away on Polynesian canoes (much
> > as European rats did on European ships),
>
> And anyone who'd believe that... would believe anything.
Really? Why do you find that so hard to believe?
> > but since the little critters
> > are apparently good to eat, it's quite possible they were deliberately
> > transported along with other food plants and animals.
>
> Yes, that's more realistic.
>
> > And the nice thing
> > about R.exulans is that, unlike the other domesticates (pigs, dogs,
> > chickens), it's a distinct species that does not interbreed with
> > European rats. So studying the rats really does promise to give us some
> > interesting clues as to where the people went.
> >
> > Ross Clark
>
> But not necessarily about the original homeland of these
> people... And that's where Dr. Elizabeth Matisoo-Smith seems
> to have her weak spot.
And just what do you have in mind when you say "original homeland", as
distinct from where people started from and where they went to?
Ross Clark
Yuri Kuchinsky
> Yuri Kuchinsky wrote:
> > It is perfectly clear that the Polynesian cultures have links with the
> > cultures all around the Pacific. Including both South and North
> > America.
> >
> > It is rather silly to look very hard for those links in the West,
> > while completely disregarding the rather obvious links in the East
> > (i.e. the Americas). Especially because all the prevailing winds and
> > ocean currents come to Polynesia from the East most of the time.
>
> Yuri, if you'll refer back to the news item, you will notice that Dr
> Matisoo-Smith's research concerned the genetics of Rattus exulans. Now,
> just to bring you up to speed, this species does not exist in North or
> South America. It is found only in Southeast Asia and the Pacific
> islands. Therefore the absence of references to North and South America
> in Dr Matisoo-Smith's paper is scientifically quite justified, and your
> criticism of her work is without foundation.
As Seppo already noted, the history of the rat in the
Pacific isn't the same as the history of the peoples of the
Pacific. It doesn't seem like Dr. Elizabeth Matisoo-Smith
has paid enough attention to this distinction.
> For the rest, you appear to be simply reiterating the creed of Blessed
> Thor Heyerdahl (may he rest in peace), adding the falsehood that the
> links with the Americas have been "completely disregarded". We have
> surely been over this ground more than enough times, unless you have
> some actual new evidence.
>
> Ross Clark
Well, perhaps the links with the Americas have been
un-completely disregarded.
Happy now?
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
>
> benlizross wrote:
> > Yuri Kuchinsky wrote:
>
> > > It is perfectly clear that the Polynesian cultures have links with the
> > > cultures all around the Pacific. Including both South and North
> > > America.
> > >
> > > It is rather silly to look very hard for those links in the West,
> > > while completely disregarding the rather obvious links in the East
> > > (i.e. the Americas). Especially because all the prevailing winds and
> > > ocean currents come to Polynesia from the East most of the time.
> >
> > Yuri, if you'll refer back to the news item, you will notice that Dr
> > Matisoo-Smith's research concerned the genetics of Rattus exulans. Now,
> > just to bring you up to speed, this species does not exist in North or
> > South America. It is found only in Southeast Asia and the Pacific
> > islands. Therefore the absence of references to North and South America
> > in Dr Matisoo-Smith's paper is scientifically quite justified, and your
> > criticism of her work is without foundation.
>
> As Seppo already noted, the history of the rat in the
> Pacific isn't the same as the history of the peoples of the
> Pacific. It doesn't seem like Dr. Elizabeth Matisoo-Smith
> has paid enough attention to this distinction.
I would think that the distinction between people and rats would be
sufficiently clear to the readership of a scientific journal as not to
require extended comment. What else did you have in mind?
Ross Clark
Yuri Kuchinsky
>
> Yuri Kuchinsky wrote:
> >
> > benlizross wrote:
> >
> > (in reply to Seppo Renfors)
> >
> > > Second, if you had any idea at all of the issues here, you would know
> > > that Rattus exulans is a notoriously poor swimmer. Indeed, if we find
> > > any (non-human) land mammal in a place like Easter Island, one thing we
> > > can be pretty sure of is that it did not get there by its own efforts.
> > > If we rule out long-distance transportation by birds or on the backs of
> > > turtles,
> >
> > Yes, we'd better do that... :)
> >
> > Otherwise, it would get rather too close to Monty Python
> > science.
> >
> > > we are left with the conclusion that the rat got around thanks
> > > to human voyaging. It might have stowed away on Polynesian canoes (much
> > > as European rats did on European ships),
> >
> > And anyone who'd believe that... would believe anything.
>
> Really? Why do you find that so hard to believe?
Primarily because of the much smaller size of the Polynesian
canoes.
> > > but since the little critters
> > > are apparently good to eat, it's quite possible they were deliberately
> > > transported along with other food plants and animals.
> >
> > Yes, that's more realistic.
> >
> > > And the nice thing
> > > about R.exulans is that, unlike the other domesticates (pigs, dogs,
> > > chickens), it's a distinct species that does not interbreed with
> > > European rats. So studying the rats really does promise to give us some
> > > interesting clues as to where the people went.
> > >
> > > Ross Clark
> >
> > But not necessarily about the original homeland of these
> > people... And that's where Dr. Elizabeth Matisoo-Smith seems
> > to have her weak spot.
>
> And just what do you have in mind when you say "original homeland", as
> distinct from where people started from and where they went to?
Whatever... You knew perfectly well what I meant. Maybe it's
the difference between the British English and British
Swedish?
Yuri.
Yuri Kuchinsky -=O=- http://www.trends.ca/~yuku
Students achieving Oneness will move on to Twoness.
--- W. Allen
Steve Marcus
"Yuri Kuchinsky" <yu...@trends.ca> wrote in message
news:40CF56F7...@trends.ca...
> benlizross wrote:
>
> (in reply to Seppo Renfors)
>
> > Second, if you had any idea at all of the issues here, you would know
> > that Rattus exulans is a notoriously poor swimmer. Indeed, if we find
> > any (non-human) land mammal in a place like Easter Island, one thing we
> > can be pretty sure of is that it did not get there by its own efforts.
> > If we rule out long-distance transportation by birds or on the backs of
> > turtles,
>
> Yes, we'd better do that... :)
>
> Otherwise, it would get rather too close to Monty Python
> science.
>
> > we are left with the conclusion that the rat got around thanks
> > to human voyaging. It might have stowed away on Polynesian canoes (much
> > as European rats did on European ships),
>
> And anyone who'd believe that... would believe anything.
Why, pray tell, would you have trouble believing that rats stowed away on
Plynesian canoes?
>
> > but since the little critters
> > are apparently good to eat, it's quite possible they were deliberately
> > transported along with other food plants and animals.
>
> Yes, that's more realistic.
>
> > And the nice thing
> > about R.exulans is that, unlike the other domesticates (pigs, dogs,
> > chickens), it's a distinct species that does not interbreed with
> > European rats. So studying the rats really does promise to give us some
> > interesting clues as to where the people went.
> >
> > Ross Clark
>
> But not necessarily about the original homeland of these
> people... And that's where Dr. Elizabeth Matisoo-Smith seems
> to have her weak spot.
Why? What makes you think that the rats wouldn't, almost of necessity, have
been brought from the original homeland, particularly since you agree that
it's likely that they were brought along as a food supply?
It seems to me that you are, yet again, sinking to new depths of scholarship
and special pleading.
>
> Yuri.
>
> Yuri Kuchinsky -=O=- http://www.trends.ca/~yuku -=O=-
> Toronto
>
> For every credibility gap, there is a gullibility fill.
Steve
--
The above posting is neither a legal opinion nor legal advice,
because we do not have an attorney-client relationship, and
should not be construed as either. This posting does not
represent the opinion of my employer, but is merely my personal
view. To reply, delete _spamout_ and replace with the numeral 3
Steve Marcus
Why would rats have had trouble stowing away on "smaller size" canoes?
Perhaps you'll tell us what you mean by "smaller size"; do you even know the
size of the typical canoe used on an ocean going voyage of the sort that the
Polynesians made?
>
> > > > but since the little critters
> > > > are apparently good to eat, it's quite possible they were
deliberately
> > > > transported along with other food plants and animals.
> > >
> > > Yes, that's more realistic.
> > >
> > > > And the nice thing
> > > > about R.exulans is that, unlike the other domesticates (pigs, dogs,
> > > > chickens), it's a distinct species that does not interbreed with
> > > > European rats. So studying the rats really does promise to give us
some
> > > > interesting clues as to where the people went.
> > > >
> > > > Ross Clark
> > >
> > > But not necessarily about the original homeland of these
> > > people... And that's where Dr. Elizabeth Matisoo-Smith seems
> > > to have her weak spot.
> >
> > And just what do you have in mind when you say "original homeland", as
> > distinct from where people started from and where they went to?
>
> Whatever... You knew perfectly well what I meant. Maybe it's
> the difference between the British English and British
> Swedish?
>
> Yuri.
>
> Yuri Kuchinsky -=O=- http://www.trends.ca/~yuku
>
> Students achieving Oneness will move on to Twoness.
> --- W. Allen
Steve
Steve Marcus
> benlizross wrote:
> > Yuri Kuchinsky wrote:
>
> > > It is perfectly clear that the Polynesian cultures have links with the
> > > cultures all around the Pacific. Including both South and North
> > > America.
> > >
> > > It is rather silly to look very hard for those links in the West,
> > > while completely disregarding the rather obvious links in the East
> > > (i.e. the Americas). Especially because all the prevailing winds and
> > > ocean currents come to Polynesia from the East most of the time.
> >
> > Yuri, if you'll refer back to the news item, you will notice that Dr
> > Matisoo-Smith's research concerned the genetics of Rattus exulans. Now,
> > just to bring you up to speed, this species does not exist in North or
> > South America. It is found only in Southeast Asia and the Pacific
> > islands. Therefore the absence of references to North and South America
> > in Dr Matisoo-Smith's paper is scientifically quite justified, and your
> > criticism of her work is without foundation.
>
> As Seppo already noted, the history of the rat in the
> Pacific isn't the same as the history of the peoples of the
> Pacific. It doesn't seem like Dr. Elizabeth Matisoo-Smith
> has paid enough attention to this distinction.
The fact that Seppo "noted" (read: invented) something surprises no one.
You should be more cautious in citing sources; Seppo is hardly a fountain of
knowledge on archaeological topics.
>
> > For the rest, you appear to be simply reiterating the creed of Blessed
> > Thor Heyerdahl (may he rest in peace), adding the falsehood that the
> > links with the Americas have been "completely disregarded". We have
> > surely been over this ground more than enough times, unless you have
> > some actual new evidence.
> >
> > Ross Clark
>
> Well, perhaps the links with the Americas have been
> un-completely disregarded.
>
> Happy now?
That's it, Yuri; defend the almighty Thor to the death, notwithstanding that
his work has been pretty thoroughly discredited. And you pretend to be
interested in science ... what a fraud you are.
>
> 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
Steve
Gib Bogle
to take the opportunity to educate myself a bit. I understand that from
blood type data, DNA data (particularly mitochondrial studies) and other
sources it is now conclusive that Polynesians came from Asia (maybe
Taiwan was the jump-off point). Dear old Heyerdahl, who told a great
story, is debunked.
I'm intrigued, though, about possible contact between the Polynesians
and South Americans (Peruvians?) that might have left some marks in the
Polynesian culture. The relative size of the populations involved,
especially since only a tiny number of Polynesians could ever have made
it to SA, means that such contact would have had a much bigger effect on
Polynesia than on SA.
I'm aware of four pieces of information that suggest the possibility of
contact. (1) The kumara or sweet potato is indigenous to Peru, and the
Quechua name for it is apparently similar to "kumara". (2) The hangi
cooking method is known in Peru. (3) There are old totemic wood
carvings from the coast of Peru that you would guess were Polynesian (we
have some copies) (4) According to some Maori investigators, there are
similarities between some Maori religious ideas and rituals and those
found in Peru (I personally know almost nothing about this issue).
I'd like to know if any of these suggestive bits of information are
taken seriously by researchers in the field. Are there other reasons to
think contact might have taken place? What is the status of the whole idea?
BTW, it seems obvious that any contact would have been the result of
ocean voyages from Polynesia (Easter Island?) to SA, not the other way
around.
Thanks
Gib
Philip Deitiker
news:cansh4$3vj$1...@lust.ihug.co.nz:
> Since someone here seems to be knowledgeable about
> Polynesia, I'd like to take the opportunity to educate
> myself a bit. I understand that from blood type data, DNA
> data (particularly mitochondrial studies) and other sources
> it is now conclusive that Polynesians came from Asia (maybe
> Taiwan was the jump-off point). Dear old Heyerdahl, who
> told a great story, is debunked.
>
> I'm intrigued, though, about possible contact between the
> Polynesians and South Americans (Peruvians?) that might
> have left some marks in the Polynesian culture. The
> relative size of the populations involved, especially since
> only a tiny number of Polynesians could ever have made it
> to SA, means that such contact would have had a much bigger
> effect on Polynesia than on SA.
Polynesians appear to have both similarities to Tiawan
aboriginals and Papua New Guineans in terms of nodal centers in
which the admixture is representative. To be more specific there
is a line of relationship along the west pacific rim that
appears to have arisen from papua new guinea and extends all the
way to south america, via Korea and Japan, However the
polynesians have a more recent relationship with Papua New
Guinea, and some of the same haplotypes found in the Moari and
shared by Tiawan aboriginals are also specifically shared by
Japanese and Koreans, but not other asia groups. IOW the
polynesian migration did not neccesarily originate from taiwan
or spread specifically in the direction of polynesia, and even
at that is not entirely from taiwan region.
> I'm aware of four pieces of information that suggest the
> possibility of contact. (1) The kumara or sweet potato is
> indigenous to Peru, and the Quechua name for it is
> apparently similar to "kumara". (2) The hangi cooking
> method is known in Peru. (3) There are old totemic wood
> carvings from the coast of Peru that you would guess were
> Polynesian (we have some copies) (4) According to some
> Maori investigators, there are similarities between some
> Maori religious ideas and rituals and those found in Peru
> (I personally know almost nothing about this issue).
There are similarities between early ecuadorian pottery and
early Jomon pottery in Japan. There are 'marked' genetic
similarities between the Non-Korean components in Japanese HLA
and south american lowlanders. Certain peruvians carry the same
susceptibility to retroviral infections as those carried by
Japanese on the island of Kyushu. The overall similarities of
southamerican lowlanders to preYayoi Japanese far exceeds any
connection that can be made to polynesia.
However, the kook squad never seems to want to discuss these,
why is that? The journey from kyushu to south america is sort of
long and boring, many stops, no grandious sea voyages. Consider
this, however, 10,000 years before polynesians made it to easter
Island, the incipient Jomonese were somehow collecting large
deep sea tuna bones in their middens.
> I'd like to know if any of these suggestive bits of
> information are taken seriously by researchers in the
> field. Are there other reasons to think contact might have
> taken place? What is the status of the whole idea?
Contact probably took place after the settlement of easter
Island, although its effect in the new world was probably
minimal. You missed the discussion about ropes a while back.
> BTW, it seems obvious that any contact would have been the
> result of ocean voyages from Polynesia (Easter Island?) to
> SA, not the other way around.
However the impact of this is not obvious, the genetic
contribution is minimal to nonexistent.
--
Philip
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Mol. Anth. Group http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DNAanthro/
Mol. Evol. Hominids http://home.att.net/~DNAPaleoAnth/
Evol. of Xchrom.
http://home.att.net/~DNAPaleoAnth/xlinked.htm
Pal. Anth. Group http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Paleoanthro/
Sci. Arch. Aux
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/sciarchauxilliary/
Doug Weller
[SNIP]
> Why would rats have had trouble stowing away on "smaller size" canoes?
> Perhaps you'll tell us what you mean by "smaller size"; do you even know the
> size of the typical canoe used on an ocean going voyage of the sort that the
> Polynesians made?
I wonder if you'll get an answer. :-)
[SNIP]
Doug
Gib Bogle
> Contact probably took place after the settlement of easter
> Island, although its effect in the new world was probably
> minimal. You missed the discussion about ropes a while back.
That is what I was thinking of.
>>BTW, it seems obvious that any contact would have been the
>>result of ocean voyages from Polynesia (Easter Island?) to
>>SA, not the other way around.
>
>
> However the impact of this is not obvious, the genetic
> contribution is minimal to nonexistent.
You wouldn't expect genetic impact from the tiny numbers presumably
involved. I was thinking of cultural effects, of SA on Polynesia.
Gib
NZed
would also explain it too.
Chinese rats ? Or rats picked up on the way through the americas ?
NZed
"Steve Marcus" <smarcus_...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:qhKzc.167$WI2.79@lakeread05...
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.706 / Virus Database: 462 - Release Date: 14/06/2004
benlizross
>
> benlizross wrote:
> >
> > Yuri Kuchinsky wrote:
> > >
> > > benlizross wrote:
> > >
> > > (in reply to Seppo Renfors)
> > >
> > > > Second, if you had any idea at all of the issues here, you would know
> > > > that Rattus exulans is a notoriously poor swimmer. Indeed, if we find
> > > > any (non-human) land mammal in a place like Easter Island, one thing we
> > > > can be pretty sure of is that it did not get there by its own efforts.
> > > > If we rule out long-distance transportation by birds or on the backs of
> > > > turtles,
> > >
> > > Yes, we'd better do that... :)
> > >
> > > Otherwise, it would get rather too close to Monty Python
> > > science.
> > >
> > > > we are left with the conclusion that the rat got around thanks
> > > > to human voyaging. It might have stowed away on Polynesian canoes (much
> > > > as European rats did on European ships),
> > >
> > > And anyone who'd believe that... would believe anything.
> >
> > Really? Why do you find that so hard to believe?
>
> Primarily because of the much smaller size of the Polynesian
> canoes.
Maybe, but the rats are smaller too. And the canoes would be big double
hulled voyaging canoes, with lots of people and lots of food aboard.
>
> > > > but since the little critters
> > > > are apparently good to eat, it's quite possible they were deliberately
> > > > transported along with other food plants and animals.
> > >
> > > Yes, that's more realistic.
> > >
> > > > And the nice thing
> > > > about R.exulans is that, unlike the other domesticates (pigs, dogs,
> > > > chickens), it's a distinct species that does not interbreed with
> > > > European rats. So studying the rats really does promise to give us some
> > > > interesting clues as to where the people went.
> > > >
> > > > Ross Clark
> > >
> > > But not necessarily about the original homeland of these
> > > people... And that's where Dr. Elizabeth Matisoo-Smith seems
> > > to have her weak spot.
> >
> > And just what do you have in mind when you say "original homeland", as
> > distinct from where people started from and where they went to?
>
> Whatever... You knew perfectly well what I meant.
No, I perfectly well don't. Try explaining yourself.
Ross Clark
benlizross
(1) is solid, accepted by everyone. Somebody brought the kumara from
South America to Polynesia at least 1000 years ago.
(2) The hangii (earth oven, more widely known as umu) is used throughout
Oceania, so if it was of South American origin it must have spread
pretty widely. I hadn't heard about its use in Peru, but to me it seems
like a pretty simple basic idea that could have been developed
independently in any number of places.
(3) Who's "we" that has these copies? I'd be interested to see them if
they're accessible on a web site or something. But similarities in art
styles are hard to evaluate. We've had long discussions here about
similarities between Maori wood carving and the styles of the northwest
coast of North America. Some people find this compelling evidence,
others don't.
(4) Yes, interestingly, I talked to someone about a month ago who had
strong views on this. But since I know little about Maori religion, and
even less about Peruvian, again it's hard to evaluate. Particularly
because the Maori side was based on rather esoteric beliefs and
practices known only to a few people in a small area.
Your reasoning about numbers is quite right, of course, and one would
not have expected the Polynesians to establish empires or overturn whole
cultures in South America. Nevertheless, even a small number of people
can introduce an idea, or an invention, or a plant, that makes a
difference.
As for who did the voyaging, I think you are with the majority in
thinking that it was most likely the Polynesians, but even there you
will get an argument from some people on this group. ;-)
Ross Clark
Steve Marcus
"Doug Weller" <dwe...@ramtops.thisremove.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1d00bp1bdwm5a$.1i2q1ytjyh7yy$.dlg@40tude.net...
Of course I'm not expecting an answer. What Yuri doesn't know, yet is
willing to open his big, stupid mouth about, would fill several volumes. He
is never hesitant to let facts get in the way of his prejudiced views.
For the record, there is evidence tending to show that early "Polynesian"
canoes were longer than Columbus' Pinta (which was approximately 55 feet,
that is, 17 meters, in length) :
http://www.pvs-hawaii.com/newsletters/nl_ancient_canoe.htm
>
> [SNIP]
>
> Doug
benlizross
>
> One theory from Gavin Menzies "1421" book
> would also explain it too.
> Chinese rats ? Or rats picked up on the way through the americas ?
> NZed
I think we can rule the latter out. This rat has never lived in the
Americas. The former will probably be eliminated by Matisoo-Smith's
studies. But there are also the celebrated bones of Rattus exulans from
circa 2000 years ago found in heaps left by birds of prey, which imply
the presence of humans (from Asia) in New Zealand at that date, but
have so far not been associated with any direct human traces of similar
age. A real puzzle as to who brought them, but it certainly was not
Zheng He in 1421.
Ross Clark
Yuri Kuchinsky
>
> Since someone here seems to be knowledgeable about Polynesia, I'd like
> to take the opportunity to educate myself a bit. I understand that from
> blood type data, DNA data (particularly mitochondrial studies) and other
> sources it is now conclusive that Polynesians came from Asia (maybe
> Taiwan was the jump-off point).
This may well be so, Gib.
> Dear old Heyerdahl, who told a great story, is debunked.
Not necessarily. You see, nothing of what you said above
really contradicts dear old Heyerdahl...
> I'm intrigued, though, about possible contact between the Polynesians
> and South Americans (Peruvians?) that might have left some marks in the
> Polynesian culture. The relative size of the populations involved,
> especially since only a tiny number of Polynesians could ever have made
> it to SA, means that such contact would have had a much bigger effect on
> Polynesia than on SA.
>
> I'm aware of four pieces of information that suggest the possibility of
> contact. (1) The kumara or sweet potato is indigenous to Peru, and the
> Quechua name for it is apparently similar to "kumara". (2) The hangi
> cooking method is known in Peru. (3) There are old totemic wood
> carvings from the coast of Peru that you would guess were Polynesian (we
> have some copies)
Actually, you should take a look at some of the totemic wood
carvings from the Canadian West Coast. They look even closer
to the Polynesian carvings. What Heyerdahl actually said was
that the Polynesians came from there.
> (4) According to some Maori investigators, there are
> similarities between some Maori religious ideas and rituals and those
> found in Peru (I personally know almost nothing about this issue).
Again, there are much better matches on the Canadian West
Coast.
> I'd like to know if any of these suggestive bits of information are
> taken seriously by researchers in the field.
Not really. There's way too much confusion among the
researchers in the field. They only seem to agree that
"Heyerdahl is bad", but otherwise they bicker and fight
endlessly about everything.
But also, none of them seem to have actually read Heyerdahl!
:)
> Are there other reasons to
> think contact might have taken place? What is the status of the whole
> idea?
There's plenty of reason to think that contact had taken
place. In fact, to deny this is rather foolish.
Nobody really denies anymore that contact had taken place,
because the kumara evidence is really quite strong. But it
seems like the professional researchers in the field are
simply unable to admit that Heyerdahl might have figured it
all out 50 years ago, and that they have been in a deep
denial ever since...
> BTW, it seems obvious that any contact would have been the result of
> ocean voyages from Polynesia (Easter Island?) to SA, not the other way
> around.
No, this is far from obvious. Keep in mind that the ancient
Americans were already skilful navigators at the time when
the Polynesians are believed to have been settling their
islands.
> Thanks
> Gib
All the best,
Yuri Kuchinsky
...
> As for who did the voyaging, I think you are with the majority in
> thinking that it was most likely the Polynesians,
The majority is pretty ignorant about such things.
The Polynesians certainly didn't invent the boat _after_
they got to Polynesia. This must have happened before.
> but even there you
> will get an argument from some people on this group. ;-)
>
> Ross Clark
Yuri.
Yuri Kuchinsky
>
> NZed wrote:
> >
> > One theory from Gavin Menzies "1421" book
> > would also explain it too.
> > Chinese rats ? Or rats picked up on the way through the americas ?
> > NZed
>
> I think we can rule the latter out. This rat has never lived in the
> Americas. The former will probably be eliminated by Matisoo-Smith's
> studies. But there are also the celebrated bones of Rattus exulans from
> circa 2000 years ago found in heaps left by birds of prey, which imply
> the presence of humans (from Asia) in New Zealand at that date, but
> have so far not been associated with any direct human traces of similar
> age. A real puzzle as to who brought them, but it certainly was not
> Zheng He in 1421.
It was obviously some peoples who brought them there. And
they most likely settled down in NZ, as well, together with
their rats. But then this already becomes "the forbidden
archaeology"... (In other words, politically inconvenient.)
Yuri.
Yuri Kuchinsky -=O=- http://www.trends.ca/~yuku
Re: LOOSE COMPANY PREFERRED BY HERETICS. UNGODLINESS THE
EFFECT OF THEIR TEACHING:
"It has also been a subject of remark, how extremely
frequent is the intercourse which heretics hold with
magicians, with mountebanks, with astrologers, with
philosophers; and the reason is, that they are men who
devote themselves to curious questions. "Seek, and ye shall
find," is everywhere in their minds. Thus, from the very
nature of their conduct, may be estimated the quality of
their faith. In their discipline we have an index of their
doctrine." -=O=- Tertullian -=O=- THE PRESCRIPTION AGAINST
HERETICS, Ch. 43
benlizross
>
> benlizross wrote:
> >
> > NZed wrote:
> > >
> > > One theory from Gavin Menzies "1421" book
> > > would also explain it too.
> > > Chinese rats ? Or rats picked up on the way through the americas ?
> > > NZed
> >
> > I think we can rule the latter out. This rat has never lived in the
> > Americas. The former will probably be eliminated by Matisoo-Smith's
> > studies. But there are also the celebrated bones of Rattus exulans from
> > circa 2000 years ago found in heaps left by birds of prey, which imply
> > the presence of humans (from Asia) in New Zealand at that date, but
> > have so far not been associated with any direct human traces of similar
> > age. A real puzzle as to who brought them, but it certainly was not
> > Zheng He in 1421.
>
> It was obviously some peoples who brought them there.
Yes, we know that.
And
> they most likely settled down in NZ, as well, together with
> their rats.
Indeed, but as to what sort of people they were, where and for how long
they lived here, we have, so far, no evidence at all.
> But then this already becomes "the forbidden
> archaeology"... (In other words, politically inconvenient.)
Only in your poor fevered imagination.
Ross Clark
benlizross
>
> benlizross wrote:
>
> ...
>
> > As for who did the voyaging, I think you are with the majority in
> > thinking that it was most likely the Polynesians,
>
> The majority is pretty ignorant about such things.
Well, I think it would be a majority of people who are well informed
about such things, too.
>
> The Polynesians certainly didn't invent the boat _after_
> they got to Polynesia. This must have happened before.
At last something we can all agree on! And your point is...?
Ross Clark
benlizross
Yuri, by contrast, has read hardly anything else. He likes to give the
impression that he is fully aware of what goes on in the Polynesian
field, but you only have to read him for a while to see through this.
> :)
>
> > Are there other reasons to
> > think contact might have taken place? What is the status of the whole
> > idea?
>
> There's plenty of reason to think that contact had taken
> place. In fact, to deny this is rather foolish.
>
> Nobody really denies anymore that contact had taken place,
I'm pleased to see that Yuri is finally willing to admit this, after
years of asserting the contrary. My work has not been in vain.
> because the kumara evidence is really quite strong. But it
> seems like the professional researchers in the field are
> simply unable to admit that Heyerdahl might have figured it
> all out 50 years ago, and that they have been in a deep
> denial ever since...
Heyerdahl was not the first to theorize about American-Polynesian
contacts. He was not the first to note the implications of the kumara,
nor did he add anything to the evidence. His vast theory is still mostly
wrong, which is why people don't think he "figured it all out 50 years
ago".
>
> > BTW, it seems obvious that any contact would have been the result of
> > ocean voyages from Polynesia (Easter Island?) to SA, not the other way
> > around.
>
> No, this is far from obvious. Keep in mind that the ancient
> Americans were already skilful navigators at the time when
> the Polynesians are believed to have been settling their
> islands.
And there is nothing Yuri loves better than to wax lyrical about the
"ancient Americans", glossing over all differences among them, in
particular as to which of them were "skilful navigators" and which were
not. Anyone who questions his views is accused of racist prejudice
against "ancient Americans".
Ross Clark
Doug Weller
[SNIP]
> (2) The hangii (earth oven, more widely known as umu) is used throughout
> Oceania, so if it was of South American origin it must have spread
> pretty widely. I hadn't heard about its use in Peru, but to me it seems
> like a pretty simple basic idea that could have been developed
> independently in any number of places.
Earth ovens may have been used 300 000 years ago:
http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/wrangham/wrangham_p3.html
The Bedouin still use them, and of course they are a great tourist
attraction in the Pacific. They are found in north and south america,
here's a mention of old North American ones:
http://home.ncn.com/~gilsen/webdoc7.htm
I can't see this being used to show cultural links.
[SNIP]
Doug
Doug Weller
[SNIP]
> And there is nothing Yuri loves better than to wax lyrical about the
> "ancient Americans", glossing over all differences among them, in
> particular as to which of them were "skilful navigators" and which were
> not. Anyone who questions his views is accused of racist prejudice
> against "ancient Americans".
And remember, his 'ancient Americans' can include Hittites, etc. -- once
they are in 'ancient America' they become 'ancient Americans'.
[SNIP]
Doug
George
> benlizross wrote:
> >
> > NZed wrote:
> > >
> > > One theory from Gavin Menzies "1421" book
> > > would also explain it too.
> > > Chinese rats ? Or rats picked up on the way through the americas ?
> > > NZed
> >
> > I think we can rule the latter out. This rat has never lived in the
> > Americas. The former will probably be eliminated by Matisoo-Smith's
> > studies. But there are also the celebrated bones of Rattus exulans from
> > circa 2000 years ago found in heaps left by birds of prey, which imply
> > the presence of humans (from Asia) in New Zealand at that date, but
> > have so far not been associated with any direct human traces of similar
> > age. A real puzzle as to who brought them, but it certainly was not
> > Zheng He in 1421.
>
> It was obviously some peoples who brought them there. And
> they most likely settled down in NZ, as well, together with
> their rats. But then this already becomes "the forbidden
> archaeology"... (In other words, politically inconvenient.)
>
Pasted:
There have, latterly, been a number of claims made as to the length of
time that the islands of New Zealand have been populated. The 2000 B.P
year arose from a claim that rat bones were found in situ beneath ash
from a dated volcanic event..However the provenance of the find has
been placed under very close scrutiny and, latterly, been found
wanting.
FURTHER
.Letter printed in the local free handout newspaper:
RAT DATE ERROR.
It is always good to find that scientific work is presented in the
popular press.
But regarding your interview with Dr Fiona Petchy (August 21, ancient
feather emerges from bog), what was not made clear for the general
reader is rather important to know.
I did the rat dates for material sourced and published by the noted
New Zealand scientist Dr Richard Holdaway as part of his extensive
work on the ancient history of New Zealand.
The rat dates of up to 2000 years old which caused the original
controversy amongst archaeologists did not come from archaeological
sites. That is sites where ancient birds of prey regurgitated bones
from meals.
Dr Petchy seems to have mixed these results up with radiocarbon dates
which came from two archaeological sites in the South Island.
In 2001 I published a paper in the Journal of the Royal Society of New
Zealand for one of those sites showing the varied and too-old
radiocarbon dates on rat bone were from diet.
Dr Nancy Beaven-Athfield
Lower Hutt...
benlizross
Thanks, George. The 2001 paper ought to be findable anyway. Which local
free handout was this in? And what's the source of the paragraph before
FURTHER?
Ross Clark
George
Either the This Week or the Hamilton Press.
The magic word here is gizzard with accent upon the known problems to
do with maritime C14.....
Gib Bogle
No argument there.
Gib
Peter Ashby
>
> I would think that the distinction between people and rats would be
> sufficiently clear to the readership of a scientific journal as not to
> require extended comment. What else did you have in mind?
Yup, the difference is you don't need to get signed consent forms for
samples when you work with rats. Their paws can't hold a pen properly
you see.
Peter
--
Add my middle initial to email me. It has become attached to a country
Peter Ashby
Ah well, if its land locked Hittites then they must have learned ocean
going techniques from someone. the obvious answer is that some
Austronessians on their way down to Madagascar stopped off in Anatolia
by dint of sailing up the Eupharates and passed this piece of advanced
high tech onto those primitive Hittites. After all who needs metal? have
boat will travel ;-)
Peter Metcalfe
pas...@blueyonder.co.ruk says...
> Yup, the difference is you don't need to get signed consent forms for
> samples when you work with rats. Their paws can't hold a pen properly
> you see.
You are being unfair. Numerous politicians, lawyers and journalists
are capable of signing consent forms.
--Peter Metcalfe
Peter Ashby
so maybe we should classify such as being one with the rats then?
John Cawston
Peter Ashby wrote:
> Peter Metcalfe <metc...@quicksilver.net.nz> wrote:
>
>> In article <1gfioei.151i5ff4cm9p0N%pas...@blueyonder.co.ruk>,
>> pas...@blueyonder.co.ruk says...
>>
>>> Yup, the difference is you don't need to get signed consent
>>> forms for samples when you work with rats. Their paws can't
>>> hold a pen properly you see.
>>
>> You are being unfair. Numerous politicians, lawyers and
>> journalists are capable of signing consent forms.
>
> so maybe we should classify such as being one with the rats
> then?
Great democrats even. They treat rats like equals.
JC
>
> Peter
Brian Dooley
Ashby) wrote:
>Doug Weller <dwe...@ramtops.thisremove.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 17 Jun 2004 09:19:03 +1200, benlizross wrote:
>> [SNIP]
>> > And there is nothing Yuri loves better than to wax lyrical about the
>> > "ancient Americans", glossing over all differences among them, in
>> > particular as to which of them were "skilful navigators" and which were
>> > not. Anyone who questions his views is accused of racist prejudice
>> > against "ancient Americans".
He's still at it is he?
--
Brian Dooley
Wellington New Zealand
Peter Ashby
Uncle StoatWarbler
>>(3) There are old totemic wood
>> carvings from the coast of Peru that you would guess were Polynesian (we
>> have some copies)
> (3) Who's "we" that has these copies? I'd be interested to see them if
> they're accessible on a web site or something. But similarities in art
> styles are hard to evaluate. We've had long discussions here about
> similarities between Maori wood carving and the styles of the northwest
> coast of North America. Some people find this compelling evidence,
> others don't.
FWIW: When I was was in Sandakan (eastern Malaysia) a couple of
years ago, the gravemarkers on hillside plots looked almost identical to
those on old maori plots in the East Cape/ruatoria/poverty bay area
It was rather spooky really.
Seppo Renfors
benlizross wrote:
>
> Seppo Renfors wrote:
> >
> > benlizross wrote:
> > >
> > > Yuri Kuchinsky wrote:
[..]
> > > Yuri, if you'll refer back to the news item, you will notice that Dr
> > > Matisoo-Smith's research concerned the genetics of Rattus exulans. Now,
> > > just to bring you up to speed, this species does not exist in North or
> > > South America. It is found only in Southeast Asia and the Pacific
> > > islands. Therefore the absence of references to North and South America
> > > in Dr Matisoo-Smith's paper is scientifically quite justified, and your
> > > criticism of her work is without foundation.
> >
> > Apparently an attempt is made by Ross to use the rat gene issue as
> > some form of mysterious universal "truth" - which it cannot be used
> > for. The rat gene ONLY shows the movement of the rat - not people, not
> > even if/when the rat had been used as a food source.
>
> Sep, it looks like you're even further behind the play than Yuri.
>
> First, the "mysterious universal truth" stuff is pure invention on your
> part -- I have no idea what you can be referring to.
...and you attempt to demean my abilities... Shheeeezzz.....
> So far in this
> discussion we have hardly done more than take note of a recent
> publication.
You made a claim rat genes proved the movement of people. It doesn't
as PEOPLE have "people genes" not "rat genes", to put it simply.
>
> Second, if you had any idea at all of the issues here, you would know
> that Rattus exulans is a notoriously poor swimmer.
It is completely and utterly irrelevant if they couldn't swim at all.
Wild life of all kinds have been known to to be transported on
floating debris. That isn't the issue either.
The implied claim by you (and the article) that Rattus Exulans =
people and; NO Rattus Exulans = NO people. That is what you pointed to
in your criticism. It is something Dr Matisoo-Smith suggests too (or
the article does) - "Dr Matisoo-Smith found no evidence that Pacific
rats ever lived in Taiwan, at least until recently, blowing apart the
so-called "express train to Polynesia" theory that people moved
quickly southwards from Taiwan..." Couldn't it just be possible that
the people found other things more tasteful/filling than rats? Perhaps
they hadn't discovered the "delicacy" of the rat till later -eg after
they already left Taiwan? It is no proof at all about the origins of
the people - or the limits they travelled to.
I refute ANY suggestion that a movement of rats (no matter how) is
synonymous with the movement of people, that includes the absence of
the said rats indicates an absence of people. IS that too hard to
understand?
[..]
--
SIR - Philosopher unauthorised
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The one who is educated from the wrong books is not educated, he is
misled.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Seppo Renfors
Steve Marcus wrote:
>
> "Yuri Kuchinsky" <yu...@trends.ca> wrote in message
> news:40CF5F9E...@trends.ca...
> > benlizross wrote:
> > > Yuri Kuchinsky wrote:
> >
[..]
> > As Seppo already noted, the history of the rat in the
> > Pacific isn't the same as the history of the peoples of the
> > Pacific. It doesn't seem like Dr. Elizabeth Matisoo-Smith
> > has paid enough attention to this distinction.
>
> The fact that Seppo "noted" (read: invented) something surprises no one.
> You should be more cautious in citing sources; Seppo is hardly a fountain of
> knowledge on archaeological topics.
Lets face it, the ambulance chasing Shyster isn't known for having a
capability for logical thinking - this is an example of why that is
so. What the Shyster does have a reputation for is being a habitual
liar - as the passage above is evidence of as well!
Yuri Kuchinsky
A personal attack.
I was wondering how long it would take for Dr. Clark to get
there, and I didn't have to wait very long...
> He likes to give the
> impression that he is fully aware of what goes on in the Polynesian
> field, but you only have to read him for a while to see through this.
>
> > :)
> >
> > > Are there other reasons to
> > > think contact might have taken place? What is the status of the whole
> > > idea?
> >
> > There's plenty of reason to think that contact had taken
> > place. In fact, to deny this is rather foolish.
> >
> > Nobody really denies anymore that contact had taken place,
>
> I'm pleased to see that Yuri is finally willing to admit this, after
> years of asserting the contrary. My work has not been in vain.
Duh.
I was the one who had to hammer that point home for years in
sci.arch before this was finally accepted by other posters.
So this just shows how far we can trust Dr. Clark's accounts
of such things...
> > because the kumara evidence is really quite strong. But it
> > seems like the professional researchers in the field are
> > simply unable to admit that Heyerdahl might have figured it
> > all out 50 years ago, and that they have been in a deep
> > denial ever since...
>
> Heyerdahl was not the first to theorize about American-Polynesian
> contacts. He was not the first to note the implications of the kumara,
> nor did he add anything to the evidence.
Hmm... So then why do you keep bringing his name up all the
time, I wonder?
> His vast theory is still mostly wrong,
How so?
I would like to see some specifics here, if you don't mind.
> which is why people don't think he "figured it all out 50 years
> ago".
>
> >
> > > BTW, it seems obvious that any contact would have been the result of
> > > ocean voyages from Polynesia (Easter Island?) to SA, not the other way
> > > around.
> >
> > No, this is far from obvious. Keep in mind that the ancient
> > Americans were already skilful navigators at the time when
> > the Polynesians are believed to have been settling their
> > islands.
>
> And there is nothing Yuri loves better than to wax lyrical about the
> "ancient Americans", glossing over all differences among them, in
> particular as to which of them were "skilful navigators" and which were
> not. Anyone who questions his views is accused of racist prejudice
> against "ancient Americans".
>
> Ross Clark
"Differences among them"? And why would you care?
I had to explain all that to you for quite some time... But
I guess you already forgot.
Yuri.
Yuri Kuchinsky -=O=- http://www.trends.ca/~yuku
The one good thing about repeating your mistakes
is that you know when to cringe.
Seppo Renfors
Gib Bogle wrote:
>
> Since someone here seems to be knowledgeable about Polynesia, I'd like
> to take the opportunity to educate myself a bit. I understand that from
> blood type data, DNA data (particularly mitochondrial studies) and other
> sources it is now conclusive that Polynesians came from Asia (maybe
> Taiwan was the jump-off point).
A NZ study showed mtDNA evidence that the Maori are related/originated
from a native people from Taiwan (females) and also to people from PNG
(the males).
Yuri Kuchinsky
>
> Yuri Kuchinsky wrote:
> >
> > benlizross wrote:
> > >
> > > NZed wrote:
> > > >
> > > > One theory from Gavin Menzies "1421" book
> > > > would also explain it too.
> > > > Chinese rats ? Or rats picked up on the way through the americas ?
> > > > NZed
> > >
> > > I think we can rule the latter out. This rat has never lived in the
> > > Americas. The former will probably be eliminated by Matisoo-Smith's
> > > studies. But there are also the celebrated bones of Rattus exulans from
> > > circa 2000 years ago found in heaps left by birds of prey, which imply
> > > the presence of humans (from Asia) in New Zealand at that date, but
> > > have so far not been associated with any direct human traces of similar
> > > age. A real puzzle as to who brought them, but it certainly was not
> > > Zheng He in 1421.
> >
> > It was obviously some peoples who brought them there.
>
> Yes, we know that.
>
> And
> > they most likely settled down in NZ, as well, together with
> > their rats.
>
> Indeed, but as to what sort of people they were, where and for how long
> they lived here, we have, so far, no evidence at all.
Well, it's not clear to me if any professional
archaeologists are really looking for this evidence.
I know OTOH that quite a few amateurs are interested, and
came up with various claims.
> > But then this already becomes "the forbidden
> > archaeology"... (In other words, politically inconvenient.)
>
> Only in your poor fevered imagination.
Thank you for confirming what I said.
Yuri.
Yuri Kuchinsky -=O=- http://www.trends.ca/~yuku -=O=-
Toronto
For every credibility gap, there is a gullibility fill.
Yuri Kuchinsky
>
> Yuri Kuchinsky wrote:
> >
> > benlizross wrote:
> >
> > ...
> >
> > > As for who did the voyaging, I think you are with the majority in
> > > thinking that it was most likely the Polynesians,
> >
> > The majority is pretty ignorant about such things.
>
> Well, I think it would be a majority of people who are well informed
> about such things, too.
Are you informed?
> > The Polynesians certainly didn't invent the boat _after_
> > they got to Polynesia. This must have happened before.
>
> At last something we can all agree on! And your point is...?
I thought it was rather obvious.
The Polynesians must have come to Polynesia from some
mainland. Thus, they had brought their navigational skills
with them from some mainland, where such skills must have
been common knowledge.
So, based on the above, it makes little sense to assume that
only the Polynesians had the navigational skills to make
contacts with a mainland.
Yuri.
Yuri Kuchinsky -=O=- http://www.trends.ca/~yuku
The one good thing about repeating your mistakes
R.Schenck
> http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-1138123,00.html
>
> "A genetic analysis of ancient and modern rat populations throughout
> South-East Asia and Polynesia has indicated that the Pacific islands were
> colonised by the seafaring Lapita culture of the western Pacific — but only
> after a slow and complex expansion."
>
> "A more complex scenario is likely, in which the Lapita culture arose as
> the result of new immigration from Asia, coupled with the advancing
> civilisation of the indigenous peoples of Near Oceania."
>
> Doug
anyone have a copy of the references to this the matisoo-smith paper
that this is all about? I am very interested in this use of the
genetics of associated animals to reconstruct the movement of peoples.
Anyone familiar with other notable papers along these lines,
specifically ones involving the distribution of Proto-Indo-Europeans?
(I'm reading mallory now and its got my interests piqued)
benlizross
Actually I made no such claim, Sep. However, the point of
Matisoo-Smith's research, as explained in the article referenced, and in
this thread, is that because the rats were dependent on people to get
from island to island, the history of their migrations (as inferred from
their genes) may give us some important clues about the history of
people's migrations. Nobody, not Matisoo-Smith, not me, and least of all
you, thinks that rats are people. Just what is your problem here?
> >
> > Second, if you had any idea at all of the issues here, you would know
> > that Rattus exulans is a notoriously poor swimmer.
>
> It is completely and utterly irrelevant if they couldn't swim at all.
> Wild life of all kinds have been known to to be transported on
> floating debris. That isn't the issue either.
The "floating debris" hypothesis might occasionally be necessary for
some organisms (e.g. the Fiji iguana), but I suspect that such incidents
are pretty rare, and limited by ocean current patterns. To invoke this
mechanism for all the islands to which the rat spread would be straining
probability.
> The implied claim by you (and the article) that Rattus Exulans =
> people
Not so, as explained above.
>and; NO Rattus Exulans = NO people.
I cannot imagine what this would mean
>That is what you pointed to
> in your criticism. It is something Dr Matisoo-Smith suggests too (or
> the article does) - "Dr Matisoo-Smith found no evidence that Pacific
> rats ever lived in Taiwan, at least until recently, blowing apart the
> so-called "express train to Polynesia" theory that people moved
> quickly southwards from Taiwan..."
That part strikes me as a non-sequitur, and the whole "express train"
notion exists largely in the minds of journalists. All the absence of
R.exulans in Taiwan means is that the rat evidence will not take us all
the way back to Proto-Austronesian, if that's where the
Proto-Austronesians lived.
> Couldn't it just be possible that
> the people found other things more tasteful/filling than rats?
It wasn't a matter of choice, the species simply didn't live there.
Perhaps
> they hadn't discovered the "delicacy" of the rat till later -eg after
> they already left Taiwan? It is no proof at all about the origins of
> the people - or the limits they travelled to.
I agree, as indicated above.
> I refute ANY suggestion that a movement of rats (no matter how) is
> synonymous with the movement of people,
Nobody says they are synonymous, but reasoning from one fact to another
is a basic part of science.
that includes the absence of
> the said rats indicates an absence of people. IS that too hard to
> understand?
Not at all. Why do you have to make such an uproar about it?
Ross Clark
benlizross
I see you still don't understand the difference between a "personal
attack" and a simple observation of fact.
>
> > He likes to give the
> > impression that he is fully aware of what goes on in the Polynesian
> > field, but you only have to read him for a while to see through this.
> >
> > > :)
> > >
> > > > Are there other reasons to
> > > > think contact might have taken place? What is the status of the whole
> > > > idea?
> > >
> > > There's plenty of reason to think that contact had taken
> > > place. In fact, to deny this is rather foolish.
> > >
> > > Nobody really denies anymore that contact had taken place,
> >
> > I'm pleased to see that Yuri is finally willing to admit this, after
> > years of asserting the contrary. My work has not been in vain.
>
> Duh.
>
> I was the one who had to hammer that point home for years in
> sci.arch before this was finally accepted by other posters.
No, what I was referring to was your repeated claims that mainstream
researchers in Polynesian prehistory categorically denied any contacts
with South America. Anyone who missed it can refer back to my post of
15/101999 "Polynesianists on South America", where I presented
sufficient evidence to refute this.
> So this just shows how far we can trust Dr. Clark's accounts
> of such things...
I will let the record speak for itself.
> > > because the kumara evidence is really quite strong. But it
> > > seems like the professional researchers in the field are
> > > simply unable to admit that Heyerdahl might have figured it
> > > all out 50 years ago, and that they have been in a deep
> > > denial ever since...
> >
> > Heyerdahl was not the first to theorize about American-Polynesian
> > contacts. He was not the first to note the implications of the kumara,
> > nor did he add anything to the evidence.
>
> Hmm... So then why do you keep bringing his name up all the
> time, I wonder?
The presupposition of your wonderment is false. It would be interesting,
if I had lots of leisure time, to go back and find how often (if ever) I
have "brought up" Heyerdahl, as opposed to responding to other people's
questions or claims about him. He does keep coming up here, partly
thanks to your efforts, but more generally because he made himself a
household name and everybody's heard of him.
> > His vast theory is still mostly wrong,
>
> How so?
>
> I would like to see some specifics here, if you don't mind.
Again, I refer you to the vast and fascinating archives of sci.arch.
> > which is why people don't think he "figured it all out 50 years
> > ago".
> >
> > >
> > > > BTW, it seems obvious that any contact would have been the result of
> > > > ocean voyages from Polynesia (Easter Island?) to SA, not the other way
> > > > around.
> > >
> > > No, this is far from obvious. Keep in mind that the ancient
> > > Americans were already skilful navigators at the time when
> > > the Polynesians are believed to have been settling their
> > > islands.
> >
> > And there is nothing Yuri loves better than to wax lyrical about the
> > "ancient Americans", glossing over all differences among them, in
> > particular as to which of them were "skilful navigators" and which were
> > not. Anyone who questions his views is accused of racist prejudice
> > against "ancient Americans".
> >
> > Ross Clark
>
> "Differences among them"? And why would you care?
>
> I had to explain all that to you for quite some time... But
> I guess you already forgot.
Yes, Yuri, I seem to have forgotten just what it was you imagine you had
to explain to me, and why you would think I would not care about
differences among native Americans. But I'm not sure I care any more
about what you think.
Ross Clark
benlizross
How would you imagine archaeologists would go about this task, Yuri?
If you mean looking for the earliest evidence of human settlement in New
Zealand, I can assure you that quite a few professional archaeologists
have been doing this for quite a long time.
> I know OTOH that quite a few amateurs are interested, and
> came up with various claims.
Well, there are plenty of cranks about, and "claims" are cheap. If you
know of any of these amateurs that have evidence that would meet normal
scientific standards, let's hear about it.
Ross Clark
George
Why?
If you read up on the migratory patterns of the Lapita therein lies
the explanation... :-)
Malcolm
Or new species "Rattus Politicus"
Malcolm
Remove the "dot's" to reply
benlizross
>
> benlizross wrote:
> >
> > Yuri Kuchinsky wrote:
> > >
> > > benlizross wrote:
> > >
> > > ...
> > >
> > > > As for who did the voyaging, I think you are with the majority in
> > > > thinking that it was most likely the Polynesians,
> > >
> > > The majority is pretty ignorant about such things.
> >
> > Well, I think it would be a majority of people who are well informed
> > about such things, too.
>
> Are you informed?
Pretty well.
>
> > > The Polynesians certainly didn't invent the boat _after_
> > > they got to Polynesia. This must have happened before.
> >
> > At last something we can all agree on! And your point is...?
>
> I thought it was rather obvious.
>
> The Polynesians must have come to Polynesia from some
> mainland. Thus, they had brought their navigational skills
> with them from some mainland, where such skills must have
> been common knowledge.
>
> So, based on the above, it makes little sense to assume that
> only the Polynesians had the navigational skills to make
> contacts with a mainland.
But comparison is between the Polynesians and the South Americans, and
the reasoning is that the Polynesians are known to have been skilled
deep sea navigators, whereas the South Americans are not. (I know the
latter generalization needs to be qualified.) The mainland that the
Polynesians came from was Asia -- or at the very least, their sailing
technology came from there. Are you suggesting that some Indonesians
might have sailed all the way to South America and then dropped off the
kumara in Polynesia? What do you see as the advantage of this theory?
Ross Clark
benlizross
>
> Doug Weller <dwe...@ramtops.thisremove.co.uk> wrote in message news:<5tujt0c6m9yz$.1ixhqmsdc6vgu$.d...@40tude.net>...
> > http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-1138123,00.html
> >
> > "A genetic analysis of ancient and modern rat populations throughout
> > South-East Asia and Polynesia has indicated that the Pacific islands were
> > after a slow and complex expansion."
> >
> > "A more complex scenario is likely, in which the Lapita culture arose as
> > the result of new immigration from Asia, coupled with the advancing
> > civilisation of the indigenous peoples of Near Oceania."
> >
> > Doug
>
> anyone have a copy of the references to this the matisoo-smith paper
> that this is all about? I am very interested in this use of the
> genetics of associated animals to reconstruct the movement of peoples.
> Anyone familiar with other notable papers along these lines,
> specifically ones involving the distribution of Proto-Indo-Europeans?
> (I'm reading mallory now and its got my interests piqued)
Matisoo-Smith, E. || Robins, J. H.
Origins and dispersals of Pacific peoples: Evidence from mtDNA
phylogenies of the Pacific rat
Published online before print June 7, 2004, 10.1073/pnas.0403120101
PNAS | June 15, 2004 | vol. 101 | no. 24 | 9167-9172
Peter Ashby
That's a bit harsh on the genus Rattus, how about Politicus rattus?
George
We must design a new genus !
Lawyers, Psychologists and Politicians are obviously subspecies of a
genetically damaged stock
Seppo Renfors
I'm trying to use simple concepts to illustrate WHY rats cannot be
seen as synonymous with people (or as a symbiotic existence).
> However, the point of
> Matisoo-Smith's research, as explained in the article referenced, and in
> this thread, is that because the rats were dependent on people to get
> from island to island, the history of their migrations (as inferred from
> their genes) may give us some important clues about the history of
> people's migrations. Nobody, not Matisoo-Smith, not me, and least of all
> you, thinks that rats are people. Just what is your problem here?
The problem was that you pointed to this article suggesting "proof"
another theory had to be wrong due to the non-existence of these rats
in another place - One of Yuri's ideas apparently (or at least
attributed to him), your text is still up top making the claim.
> > > Second, if you had any idea at all of the issues here, you would know
> > > that Rattus exulans is a notoriously poor swimmer.
> >
> > It is completely and utterly irrelevant if they couldn't swim at all.
> > Wild life of all kinds have been known to to be transported on
> > floating debris. That isn't the issue either.
>
> The "floating debris" hypothesis might occasionally be necessary for
> some organisms (e.g. the Fiji iguana), but I suspect that such incidents
> are pretty rare, and limited by ocean current patterns. To invoke this
> mechanism for all the islands to which the rat spread would be straining
> probability.
As I said, it isn't relevant.
> > The implied claim by you (and the article) that Rattus Exulans =
> > people and; NO Rattus Exulans = NO people.
>
> Not so, as explained above.
>
> I cannot imagine what this would mean
Well, it's your loss in that case....
> >That is what you pointed to
> > in your criticism. It is something Dr Matisoo-Smith suggests too (or
> > the article does) - "Dr Matisoo-Smith found no evidence that Pacific
> > rats ever lived in Taiwan, at least until recently, blowing apart the
> > so-called "express train to Polynesia" theory that people moved
> > quickly southwards from Taiwan..."
>
> That part strikes me as a non-sequitur, and the whole "express train"
> notion exists largely in the minds of journalists.
Note, it isn't the "express train" that is at issue, but the very
origin of the people (or part of them) that Matisoo-Smith poo-poos due
to the lack of these rats - a people already determined to originate
from Taiwan by another NZ study. So you missed the actual point of the
quoted material.
> All the absence of
> R.exulans in Taiwan means is that the rat evidence will not take us all
> the way back to Proto-Austronesian, if that's where the
> Proto-Austronesians lived.
That has already been determined to be so. Only Matisoo-Smith doesn't
appear to accept that due to the lack of these rats - or so the
article portrays it at least. There is nothing that suggests "express"
even IF the rats had lived there (rats don't paddle boats!) - and can
have nil effect either way on the movement of people. So the issue, if
R.exulans existed there then "express train to Polynesia" = true, is
not even sane and has to be discarded as an intent by the author. Thus
leaving one other meaning intended - "Maori's did not originate from
Taiwan because R.exulans doesn't exist there".
>
> > Couldn't it just be possible that
> > the people found other things more tasteful/filling than rats?
>
> It wasn't a matter of choice, the species simply didn't live there.
....and because it didn't, it does not mean Taiwan was NOT the origin
of the Maori. Or as per your claims, that because they do NOT exist in
the Americas, then Polynesian people could NOT have gone there ("this
species does not exist in North or South America").
> Perhaps
> > they hadn't discovered the "delicacy" of the rat till later -eg after
> > they already left Taiwan? It is no proof at all about the origins of
> > the people - or the limits they travelled to.
>
> I agree, as indicated above.
>
> > I refute ANY suggestion that a movement of rats (no matter how) is
> > synonymous with the movement of people,
>
> Nobody says they are synonymous, but reasoning from one fact to another
> is a basic part of science.
I can agree with the claim that were the R.exulans is found (on
distant islands), people brought them there. But that cannot extend to
argue the NON existence of R.exulans means people did NOT travel to
those places. The first sentence I left as a given and only argued the
second.
> > that includes the absence of
> > the said rats indicates an absence of people. IS that too hard to
> > understand?
>
> Not at all. Why do you have to make such an uproar about it?
Perhaps it was because you inferred I was a bloody idiot for saying
exactly that!!
benlizross
You can use simple concepts without misrepresenting the facts.
>
> > However, the point of
> > Matisoo-Smith's research, as explained in the article referenced, and in
> > this thread, is that because the rats were dependent on people to get
> > from island to island, the history of their migrations (as inferred from
> > their genes) may give us some important clues about the history of
> > people's migrations. Nobody, not Matisoo-Smith, not me, and least of all
> > you, thinks that rats are people. Just what is your problem here?
>
> The problem was that you pointed to this article suggesting "proof"
> another theory had to be wrong due to the non-existence of these rats
> in another place - One of Yuri's ideas apparently (or at least
> attributed to him), your text is still up top making the claim.
Excuse me, but the subject line and the original post were by Doug
Weller, and as far as I can see all the words were from the writer of
the "Times" story. I did not "point to" or "suggest" anything. Nor did I
say anything about Yuri or his ideas until he leapt in and started
badmouthing the researcher.
[snip]
>
> > >That is what you pointed to
> > > in your criticism. It is something Dr Matisoo-Smith suggests too (or
> > > the article does) - "Dr Matisoo-Smith found no evidence that Pacific
> > > rats ever lived in Taiwan, at least until recently, blowing apart the
> > > so-called "express train to Polynesia" theory that people moved
> > > quickly southwards from Taiwan..."
> >
> > That part strikes me as a non-sequitur, and the whole "express train"
> > notion exists largely in the minds of journalists.
>
> Note, it isn't the "express train" that is at issue, but the very
> origin of the people (or part of them) that Matisoo-Smith poo-poos due
> to the lack of these rats - a people already determined to originate
> from Taiwan by another NZ study. So you missed the actual point of the
> quoted material.
No, the quoted material is (as I said) a non-sequitur. Your
interpretation of its "actual point" is incorrect. The so-called
"express train" theory is not the theory that the proto-Austronesians
came from Taiwan, but the theory that they moved from there into the
Pacific very rapidly, so that there was minimal genetic, cultural or
linguistic input from the islands in between. This term was invented by
a popular science writer (Jared Diamond) a decade or two ago, and I'm
not sure who (if anyone) seriously believes it. If Matisoo-Smith's
research has any bearing on this theory, it would be that the
Austronesians must have stopped in Indonesia at least long enough to
pick up some rats. One could also perhaps use it as an argument against
those theorists who prefer an Austronesian homeland in eastern Indonesia
or the Philippines -- given that the Austronesians took the rat with
them everywhere they went when they moved east, if the Taiwan
Austronesians had migrated there from further south one might have
expected them to take the rat with them. Thus its absence from Taiwan
could be seen as supporting Taiwan as homeland. Not a strong argument, I
admit, but that's the implication if there is one.
> > All the absence of
> > R.exulans in Taiwan means is that the rat evidence will not take us all
> > the way back to Proto-Austronesian, if that's where the
> > Proto-Austronesians lived.
>
> That has already been determined to be so.
I admire your certainty. I happen to agree, but that's mainly because
I'm a linguist.
> Only Matisoo-Smith doesn't
> appear to accept that due to the lack of these rats - or so the
> article portrays it at least. There is nothing that suggests "express"
> even IF the rats had lived there (rats don't paddle boats!) - and can
> have nil effect either way on the movement of people. So the issue, if
> R.exulans existed there then "express train to Polynesia" = true, is
> not even sane and has to be discarded as an intent by the author. Thus
> leaving one other meaning intended - "Maori's did not originate from
> Taiwan because R.exulans doesn't exist there".
Well, as I hope I've explained, nobody is arguing that.
> > > Couldn't it just be possible that
> > > the people found other things more tasteful/filling than rats?
> >
> > It wasn't a matter of choice, the species simply didn't live there.
>
> ....and because it didn't, it does not mean Taiwan was NOT the origin
> of the Maori. Or as per your claims, that because they do NOT exist in
> the Americas, then Polynesian people could NOT have gone there ("this
> species does not exist in North or South America").
But I did not argue any such thing. I mentioned this well known fact in
response to Yuri's apparent criticism of Matisoo-Smith for not paying
any attention to the Americas in her study. How could she?
[snip]
Ross Clark
Yuri Kuchinsky
Misrepresentation.
> > > He likes to give the
> > > impression that he is fully aware of what goes on in the Polynesian
> > > field, but you only have to read him for a while to see through this.
> > >
> > > > :)
> > > >
> > > > > Are there other reasons to
> > > > > think contact might have taken place? What is the status of the whole
> > > > > idea?
> > > >
> > > > There's plenty of reason to think that contact had taken
> > > > place. In fact, to deny this is rather foolish.
> > > >
> > > > Nobody really denies anymore that contact had taken place,
> > >
> > > I'm pleased to see that Yuri is finally willing to admit this, after
> > > years of asserting the contrary. My work has not been in vain.
> >
> > Duh.
> >
> > I was the one who had to hammer that point home for years in
> > sci.arch before this was finally accepted by other posters.
>
> No, what I was referring to was your repeated claims that mainstream
> researchers in Polynesian prehistory categorically denied any contacts
> with South America. Anyone who missed it can refer back to my post of
> 15/101999 "Polynesianists on South America", where I presented
> sufficient evidence to refute this.
>
> > So this just shows how far we can trust Dr. Clark's accounts
> > of such things...
>
> I will let the record speak for itself.
There's a general bias amongst the mainstream researchers in
Polynesian prehistory against accepting cultural contacts
with South America.
> > > > because the kumara evidence is really quite strong. But it
> > > > seems like the professional researchers in the field are
> > > > simply unable to admit that Heyerdahl might have figured it
> > > > all out 50 years ago, and that they have been in a deep
> > > > denial ever since...
> > >
> > > Heyerdahl was not the first to theorize about American-Polynesian
> > > contacts. He was not the first to note the implications of the kumara,
> > > nor did he add anything to the evidence.
> >
> > Hmm... So then why do you keep bringing his name up all the
> > time, I wonder?
>
> The presupposition of your wonderment is false. It would be interesting,
> if I had lots of leisure time, to go back and find how often (if ever) I
> have "brought up" Heyerdahl, as opposed to responding to other people's
> questions or claims about him. He does keep coming up here, partly
> thanks to your efforts, but more generally because he made himself a
> household name and everybody's heard of him.
Well, it was you who brought his name up this time.
> > > His vast theory is still mostly wrong,
> >
> > How so?
> >
> > I would like to see some specifics here, if you don't mind.
>
> Again, I refer you to the vast and fascinating archives of sci.arch.
I see... nothing specific.
> > > which is why people don't think he "figured it all out 50 years
> > > ago".
> > >
> > > >
> > > > > BTW, it seems obvious that any contact would have been the result of
> > > > > ocean voyages from Polynesia (Easter Island?) to SA, not the other way
> > > > > around.
> > > >
> > > > No, this is far from obvious. Keep in mind that the ancient
> > > > Americans were already skilful navigators at the time when
> > > > the Polynesians are believed to have been settling their
> > > > islands.
> > >
> > > And there is nothing Yuri loves better than to wax lyrical about the
> > > "ancient Americans", glossing over all differences among them, in
> > > particular as to which of them were "skilful navigators" and which were
> > > not. Anyone who questions his views is accused of racist prejudice
> > > against "ancient Americans".
> > >
> > > Ross Clark
> >
> > "Differences among them"? And why would you care?
> >
> > I had to explain all that to you for quite some time... But
> > I guess you already forgot.
>
> Yes, Yuri, I seem to have forgotten just what it was you imagine you had
> to explain to me, and why you would think I would not care about
> differences among native Americans. But I'm not sure I care any more
> about what you think.
So I guess this was just a distraction then.
Yuri.
Yuri Kuchinsky -=O=- http://www.trends.ca/~yuku
Not ignorance, but ignorance of ignorance, is the
death of knowledge -- Alfred North Whitehead
Yuri Kuchinsky
Just the usual way.
> If you mean looking for the earliest evidence of human settlement in New
> Zealand, I can assure you that quite a few professional archaeologists
> have been doing this for quite a long time.
Your assurances are not good enough.
> > I know OTOH that quite a few amateurs are interested, and
> > came up with various claims.
>
> Well, there are plenty of cranks about, and "claims" are cheap. If you
> know of any of these amateurs that have evidence that would meet normal
> scientific standards, let's hear about it.
>
> Ross Clark
The assumption here is that all amateurs are cranks.
If I wanted to discuss such things here seriously, it
wouldn't be with Dr. Clark, whose replies would be all too
predictable.
Yuri.
benlizross
>
> benlizross wrote:
> >
> > Yuri Kuchinsky wrote:
> > >
> > > benlizross wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Yuri Kuchinsky wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Nobody really denies anymore that contact had taken place,
> > > >
> > > > I'm pleased to see that Yuri is finally willing to admit this, after
> > > > years of asserting the contrary. My work has not been in vain.
> > >
> > > Duh.
> > >
> > > I was the one who had to hammer that point home for years in
> > > sci.arch before this was finally accepted by other posters.
> >
> > No, what I was referring to was your repeated claims that mainstream
> > researchers in Polynesian prehistory categorically denied any contacts
> > with South America. Anyone who missed it can refer back to my post of
> > 15/101999 "Polynesianists on South America", where I presented
> > sufficient evidence to refute this.
> >
> > > So this just shows how far we can trust Dr. Clark's accounts
> > > of such things...
> >
> > I will let the record speak for itself.
>
> There's a general bias amongst the mainstream researchers in
> Polynesian prehistory against accepting cultural contacts
> with South America.
"categorical denial" has been replaced by "general bias". A measurable
improvement in your awareness.
> > > > > because the kumara evidence is really quite strong. But it
> > > > > seems like the professional researchers in the field are
> > > > > simply unable to admit that Heyerdahl might have figured it
> > > > > all out 50 years ago, and that they have been in a deep
> > > > > denial ever since...
> > > >
> > > > Heyerdahl was not the first to theorize about American-Polynesian
> > > > contacts. He was not the first to note the implications of the kumara,
> > > > nor did he add anything to the evidence.
> > >
> > > Hmm... So then why do you keep bringing his name up all the
> > > time, I wonder?
> >
> > The presupposition of your wonderment is false. It would be interesting,
> > if I had lots of leisure time, to go back and find how often (if ever) I
> > have "brought up" Heyerdahl, as opposed to responding to other people's
> > questions or claims about him. He does keep coming up here, partly
> > thanks to your efforts, but more generally because he made himself a
> > household name and everybody's heard of him.
>
> Well, it was you who brought his name up this time.
Well, when Yuri Kuchinsky enters a discussion of Polynesian origins with
comments about how we ought to be thinking about North and South
America, I dunno, somehow the name of Heyerdahl just springs to mind.
> > > > His vast theory is still mostly wrong,
> > >
> > > How so?
> > >
> > > I would like to see some specifics here, if you don't mind.
> >
> > Again, I refer you to the vast and fascinating archives of sci.arch.
>
> I see... nothing specific.
Lots of specific. Go read it if you've forgotten.
>
> > > > which is why people don't think he "figured it all out 50 years
> > > > ago".
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > BTW, it seems obvious that any contact would have been the result of
> > > > > > ocean voyages from Polynesia (Easter Island?) to SA, not the other way
> > > > > > around.
> > > > >
> > > > > No, this is far from obvious. Keep in mind that the ancient
> > > > > Americans were already skilful navigators at the time when
> > > > > the Polynesians are believed to have been settling their
> > > > > islands.
> > > >
> > > > And there is nothing Yuri loves better than to wax lyrical about the
> > > > "ancient Americans", glossing over all differences among them, in
> > > > particular as to which of them were "skilful navigators" and which were
> > > > not. Anyone who questions his views is accused of racist prejudice
> > > > against "ancient Americans".
> > > >
> > > > Ross Clark
> > >
> > > "Differences among them"? And why would you care?
> > >
> > > I had to explain all that to you for quite some time... But
> > > I guess you already forgot.
> >
> > Yes, Yuri, I seem to have forgotten just what it was you imagine you had
> > to explain to me, and why you would think I would not care about
> > differences among native Americans. But I'm not sure I care any more
> > about what you think.
>
> So I guess this was just a distraction then.
What was a distraction?
Ross Clark
benlizross
Of course not. But fortunately for you, the excellent libraries,
universities and museums of Toronto will have journals and monographs
where you can confirm this fact for yourself. Not to mention the
Internet.
> > > I know OTOH that quite a few amateurs are interested, and
> > > came up with various claims.
> >
> > Well, there are plenty of cranks about, and "claims" are cheap. If you
> > know of any of these amateurs that have evidence that would meet normal
> > scientific standards, let's hear about it.
> >
> > Ross Clark
>
> The assumption here is that all amateurs are cranks.
No, it's not my assumption, nor is it what I said. But quite a few
amateurs are cranks.
> If I wanted to discuss such things here seriously, it
> wouldn't be with Dr. Clark, whose replies would be all too
> predictable.
So you are not being serious in this discussion?
Ross Clark
benlizross
>
> benlizross wrote:
> >
> > Yuri Kuchinsky wrote:
> > >
> > > benlizross wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Yuri Kuchinsky wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > benlizross wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > ...
> > > > >
> > > > > > As for who did the voyaging, I think you are with the majority in
> > > > > > thinking that it was most likely the Polynesians,
> > > > >
> > > > > The majority is pretty ignorant about such things.
> > > >
> > > > Well, I think it would be a majority of people who are well informed
> > > > about such things, too.
> > >
> > > Are you informed?
> >
> > Pretty well.
>
> not the case...
>
> > > > > The Polynesians certainly didn't invent the boat _after_
> > > > > they got to Polynesia. This must have happened before.
> > > >
> > > > At last something we can all agree on! And your point is...?
> > >
> > > I thought it was rather obvious.
> > >
> > > The Polynesians must have come to Polynesia from some
> > > mainland. Thus, they had brought their navigational skills
> > > with them from some mainland, where such skills must have
> > > been common knowledge.
> > >
> > > So, based on the above, it makes little sense to assume that
> > > only the Polynesians had the navigational skills to make
> > > contacts with a mainland.
> >
> > But comparison is between the Polynesians and the South Americans, and
> > the reasoning is that the Polynesians are known to have been skilled
> > deep sea navigators, whereas the South Americans are not. (I know the
> > latter generalization needs to be qualified.)
>
>
> > The mainland that the
> > Polynesians came from was Asia -- or at the very least, their sailing
> > technology came from there.
>
>
> In actual fact, the evidence points elsewhere.
Really? Perhaps you could give some evidence in support of this amazing
claim.
> > Are you suggesting that some Indonesians
> > might have sailed all the way to South America and then dropped off the
> > kumara in Polynesia? What do you see as the advantage of this theory?
> >
> > Ross Clark
>
> I see no advantage in this theory.
So what was the point of your reference to "mainlands"?
Ross Clark
Martyn Harrison
>> benlizross wrote:
>> >
>> > Well, there are plenty of cranks about, and "claims" are cheap. If you
>> > know of any of these amateurs that have evidence that would meet normal
>> > scientific standards, let's hear about it.
>>
>
>No, it's not my assumption, nor is it what I said. But quite a few
>amateurs are cranks.
Turn it around: "very few professionals are cranks, most crackpots are
amateurs."
The key is the quality of the evidence produced by either, as you said, an
amateur making a claim can be judged by the quality of his or her evidence.
Someone who is a professional has a reputation to maintain, this could be a
hinderance in some specific situations, but a professional making a sensational
claim - necessarily is doing so from a position of justification (or is willing
/ destined to become an amateur fairly quickly.)
A professional making a mundane claim / rejecting a sensational idea may be
being cautious. But usually will be correct, and if there is merit in the
sensational claim which can be supported by evidence, it's a great coup which
makes the professional worth more salary, on the whole.
I dunno why crackpots can't see this, but they can't, which is essentially what
makes them crackpots.
Malcolm
But according to Darwin a new species develops because the conditions
for it (the mutation) are conducive to its survival, therefore we are
all to blame as we have provided the conditions for these mutant
strains to survive and thrive.
grimly bubble
"Malcolm" <Malcolmd...@xtradotco.nz> wrote in message
news:40d644be...@NEWS.xtra.co.nz...
And the conditions where humans survive in greater numbers and with longer,
on average, individual life spans.
Peter Ashby
Which exludes politiicians and lawyers. so they must act as parasites
then.
grimly bubble
"Peter Ashby" <pas...@blueyonder.co.ruk> wrote in message
news:1gfq4fc.sdp99m1121y9sN%pas...@blueyonder.co.ruk...
Nope, sadly, there are more of them and they tend to live longer too.
Seppo Renfors
benlizross wrote:
>
> Seppo Renfors wrote:
> >
> > benlizross wrote:
> > >
> > > Seppo Renfors wrote:
> > > >
> > > > benlizross wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Seppo Renfors wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > benlizross wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Yuri Kuchinsky wrote:
> > > >
> > > > [..]
> > > > > > > Yuri, if you'll refer back to the news item, you will notice that Dr
> > > > > > > Matisoo-Smith's research concerned the genetics of Rattus exulans. Now,
> > > > > > > just to bring you up to speed, this species does not exist in North or
> > > > > > > South America. It is found only in Southeast Asia and the Pacific
> > > > > > > islands. Therefore the absence of references to North and South America
> > > > > > > in Dr Matisoo-Smith's paper is scientifically quite justified, and your
> > > > > > > criticism of her work is without foundation.
[..]
> >
> > The problem was that you pointed to this article suggesting "proof"
> > another theory had to be wrong due to the non-existence of these rats
> > in another place - One of Yuri's ideas apparently (or at least
> > attributed to him), your text is still up top making the claim.
>
> Excuse me, but the subject line and the original post were by Doug
> Weller, and as far as I can see all the words were from the writer of
> the "Times" story. I did not "point to" or "suggest" anything. Nor did I
> say anything about Yuri or his ideas until he leapt in and started
> badmouthing the researcher.
So? It is your addressing of Yuri's issues that I was dealing with -
the relevant point at the time. It was so because of the fact you HAD
indeed addressed Yuri's statements and/or views.
History:
but not to the very beginning as it isn't relevant, but a certain
"benlizross" asked: "Can this be accessed without a password" to
which Eric Stevens posted the URL to the article under discussion.
Yuri responded in relation to the URL Eric had posted with a "parable"
according to you, that you apparently didn't understand and asked for
a clarification. This Yuri was kind enough to do despite the tone of
your "request". His response included in part:
"It is perfectly clear that the Polynesian cultures have links with
the cultures all around the Pacific. Including both South and North
America."
Your response (in part) is immediately below the first "[..]" above.
The part where you resort to mentions of "Thor Heyerdahl", despite
Yuri not having mentioned him is where the second "[..]" is.
So it appears that Yuri also read the article in the same way as I
did. Yuri expressed it this way: "Well, Dr. Elizabeth Matisoo-Smith
seems to be looking for that black cat in a dark room where there are
probably quite a few black cats prowling abound..."
Meaning that she was limiting her focus on Polynesians to the location
of these rats - to the exclusion of all other considerations. That she
was indeed reading a symbiotic relationship into her findings,
implying where the rat was is where polynesians also were, naturally
the opposite also applied. You see, you don't have to state there are
two sides to a coin to know there are two sides.
[..]
> > Note, it isn't the "express train" that is at issue, but the very
> > origin of the people (or part of them) that Matisoo-Smith poo-poos due
> > to the lack of these rats - a people already determined to originate
> > from Taiwan by another NZ study. So you missed the actual point of the
> > quoted material.
>
> No, the quoted material is (as I said) a non-sequitur.
What "quoted material"? The two words....??? Isn't that what I said,
it is missing the point focusing on them!
> Your
> interpretation of its "actual point" is incorrect.
No, that is merely your belief, nothing more. IF my point is incorrect
they you have to prove how the hell can a RAT reduce the speed of a
population expansion - or alter it in any way at all! There really is
nothing at all possible in the existence of a rat to REDUCE the speed
of the spread of a population. IF anything it should facilitate a more
rapid expansion, due to the handy "take away" meal the rat provides
(the smallest of all three associated with humans).
> The so-called
> "express train" theory is not the theory that the proto-Austronesians
> came from Taiwan,
The article on Matisoo-Smith's research certainly denies they did come
from Taiwan.
> but the theory that they moved from there into the
> Pacific very rapidly, so that there was minimal genetic, cultural or
> linguistic input from the islands in between. This term was invented by
> a popular science writer (Jared Diamond) a decade or two ago, and I'm
> not sure who (if anyone) seriously believes it.
If well over a millennia is "rapid", then so be it. After all "rapid"
is a relative term, but what is it related to? A relative term, a
comparison is meaningless without whatever it is compared/related to!
Surely that is obvious to a blind man.
But then isn't it stupid to argue "....input from the islands in
between", as that infers an expansion had already taken place - that
the "islands in between" were already populated. When did these people
arrive there? WERE there any people there? Some close by islands may
have been populated that once were connected to the mainland, but
others most definitely wasn't.
If one assumes that islands were already populated, then it is indeed
an incentive to move on. Newcomers may well NOT be welcome to stay on
an already populated island. But even that is incorrect, as there most
definitely IS a strong connection to some "islands in between" - eg
PNG in the case of the Maori.
> If Matisoo-Smith's
> research has any bearing on this theory, it would be that the
> Austronesians must have stopped in Indonesia at least long enough to
> pick up some rats.
They had to get them from somewhere, so much is true. However, their
current place of existence need not be the same as it was back in
history.
> One could also perhaps use it as an argument against
> those theorists who prefer an Austronesian homeland in eastern Indonesia
> or the Philippines
That argument is now dead.
> -- given that the Austronesians took the rat with
> them everywhere they went when they moved east,
But did they? The article didn't say. This IS the part where I point
to and say again, the spread of the rat is NOT proof of the population
spread. It is a serious mistake you make when claiming "took the rat
with them everywhere they went when they moved east" - it IS inferring
a symbiotic relationship, that the rat is the limit of people
movement.
> if the Taiwan
> Austronesians had migrated there from further south one might have
> expected them to take the rat with them. Thus its absence from Taiwan
> could be seen as supporting Taiwan as homeland. Not a strong argument, I
> admit, but that's the implication if there is one.
I don't see the rat more than a curiosity and merely of passing
interest. It cannot be used to argue to relate to a specific people.
Further more "austronesians" relates merely to a language family, not
a people. The remainder of the "-nesians" are geographic designations,
again not a people designation. But if we take one group of the
"austronesians" who are a known people - the Maori, then they are
known to originate from Taiwan.
Further more R. exulans is native to the Asiatic mainland. R. exulans
may have been present in the Mariana Islands for at least 3500 years,
introduced by the Chamorro people.
> > > All the absence of
> > > R.exulans in Taiwan means is that the rat evidence will not take us all
> > > the way back to Proto-Austronesian, if that's where the
> > > Proto-Austronesians lived.
> >
> > That has already been determined to be so.
>
> I admire your certainty. I happen to agree, but that's mainly because
> I'm a linguist.
...which is not of much use for DNA studies :-)
I base my views on DNA studies.
> > Only Matisoo-Smith doesn't
> > appear to accept that due to the lack of these rats - or so the
> > article portrays it at least. There is nothing that suggests "express"
> > even IF the rats had lived there (rats don't paddle boats!) - and can
> > have nil effect either way on the movement of people. So the issue, if
> > R.exulans existed there then "express train to Polynesia" = true, is
> > not even sane and has to be discarded as an intent by the author. Thus
> > leaving one other meaning intended - "Maori's did not originate from
> > Taiwan because R.exulans doesn't exist there".
>
> Well, as I hope I've explained, nobody is arguing that.
It would appear that it has been argued - you do in fact appear to do
so above with the "..took the rat with them everywhere they went".
Note the qualifier "everywhere" which means that, no rat = no people.
You have to do a better job of writing if you don't intend to confuse
people!
[..]
> > ....and because it didn't, it does not mean Taiwan was NOT the origin
> > of the Maori. Or as per your claims, that because they do NOT exist in
> > the Americas, then Polynesian people could NOT have gone there ("this
> > species does not exist in North or South America").
>
> But I did not argue any such thing. I mentioned this well known fact in
> response to Yuri's apparent criticism of Matisoo-Smith for not paying
> any attention to the Americas in her study. How could she?
Again I point you to your claim they, "...took the rat with them
everywhere they went". The same impression was given by the article,
and it is an unmistakable statement saying where there are NO
R.exulans there were NO people. So if Taiwan doesn't have them it
implies it is NOT the origin of these people.
If it is argued the people did go to the Americas for example, then
you were pointing to the fact that the rat didn't exist there, "this
species does not exist in North or South America" and you go further
to say "Therefore the absence of references to North and South America
in Dr Matisoo-Smith's paper is scientifically quite justified" because
even you understood they, "...took the rat with them everywhere they
went"! Then it is no great surprise if your story comes across that
you have indeed equated "rat = people", and "no rat = no people".
As you now say the rat no longer equals people, fine, then you
acknowledge there is nothing stopping people having moved somewhere
without the rats. In fact there ARE islands, even populated islands
that don't have the rat on them.
R.Schenck
> R.Schenck wrote:
> >
> > Doug Weller <dwe...@ramtops.thisremove.co.uk> wrote in message news:<5tujt0c6m9yz$.1ixhqmsdc6vgu$.d...@40tude.net>...
> > > http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-1138123,00.html
> > >
> > > "A genetic analysis of ancient and modern rat populations throughout
> > > South-East Asia and Polynesia has indicated that the Pacific islands were
> > > after a slow and complex expansion."
> > >
> > > "A more complex scenario is likely, in which the Lapita culture arose as
> > > the result of new immigration from Asia, coupled with the advancing
> > > civilisation of the indigenous peoples of Near Oceania."
> > >
> > > Doug
> >
> > anyone have a copy of the references to this the matisoo-smith paper
> > that this is all about? I am very interested in this use of the
> > genetics of associated animals to reconstruct the movement of peoples.
> > Anyone familiar with other notable papers along these lines,
> > specifically ones involving the distribution of Proto-Indo-Europeans?
> > (I'm reading mallory now and its got my interests piqued)
>
> Matisoo-Smith, E. || Robins, J. H.
> Origins and dispersals of Pacific peoples: Evidence from mtDNA
> phylogenies of the Pacific rat
> Published online before print June 7, 2004, 10.1073/pnas.0403120101
> PNAS | June 15, 2004 | vol. 101 | no. 24 | 9167-9172
Thanks, i had seen you post with this reference up-thread tho. I
prolly should've responded to that post. I was curious to see the
references/bibliography to see if there had been any other major
papers along this line.
benlizross
No. I read above: "The problem is that you pointed to this
article....blablabla".
I did not point to the article.
I read above: "...your text is still up top making the claim"
That is not my text.
It was so because of the fact you HAD
> indeed addressed Yuri's statements and/or views.
I addressed Yuri's statements and/or views when he introduced them. What
on earth is your problem with that?
> History:
>[snip pointless recapitulation of thread]
> [..]
> > > Note, it isn't the "express train" that is at issue, but the very
> > > origin of the people (or part of them) that Matisoo-Smith poo-poos due
> > > to the lack of these rats - a people already determined to originate
> > > from Taiwan by another NZ study. So you missed the actual point of the
> > > quoted material.
> >
> > No, the quoted material is (as I said) a non-sequitur.
>
> What "quoted material"? The two words....??? Isn't that what I said,
> it is missing the point focusing on them!
No, Sep, the quoted material that you so helpfully snipped, namely:
"Dr Matisoo-Smith found no evidence that Pacific
rats ever lived in Taiwan, at least until recently, blowing apart the
so-called "express train to Polynesia" theory that people moved
quickly southwards from Taiwan..."
That is the non sequitur.
>
> > Your
> > interpretation of its "actual point" is incorrect.
>
> No, that is merely your belief, nothing more. IF my point is incorrect
> they you have to prove how the hell can a RAT reduce the speed of a
> population expansion - or alter it in any way at all! There really is
> nothing at all possible in the existence of a rat to REDUCE the speed
> of the spread of a population. IF anything it should facilitate a more
> rapid expansion, due to the handy "take away" meal the rat provides
> (the smallest of all three associated with humans).
Your interpretation is incorrect because you are trying to make sense of
a non sequitur. This leads, as you say, to nonsensical conclusions.
>
> > The so-called
> > "express train" theory is not the theory that the proto-Austronesians
> > came from Taiwan,
>
> The article on Matisoo-Smith's research certainly denies they did come
> from Taiwan.
Keep in mind that denying the "express train" is not equivalent to
denying a Taiwan origin. I will have to look back at the article and at
M-S's paper and see whether either actually makes this stronger claim.
If you have a quote to that effect, maybe you could present it.
> > but the theory that they moved from there into the
> > Pacific very rapidly, so that there was minimal genetic, cultural or
> > linguistic input from the islands in between. This term was invented by
> > a popular science writer (Jared Diamond) a decade or two ago, and I'm
> > not sure who (if anyone) seriously believes it.
>
> If well over a millennia is "rapid", then so be it. After all "rapid"
> is a relative term, but what is it related to? A relative term, a
> comparison is meaningless without whatever it is compared/related to!
> Surely that is obvious to a blind man.
Certainly "rapid" in archaeological discourse is on a different scale
from, say, "rapid transit".
> But then isn't it stupid to argue "....input from the islands in
> between", as that infers an expansion had already taken place - that
> the "islands in between" were already populated. When did these people
> arrive there? WERE there any people there? Some close by islands may
> have been populated that once were connected to the mainland, but
> others most definitely wasn't.
The islands all the way from Asia to the Solomons have evidence of
human populations from 20,000 BP or earlier.
> If one assumes that islands were already populated, then it is indeed
> an incentive to move on. Newcomers may well NOT be welcome to stay on
> an already populated island. But even that is incorrect, as there most
> definitely IS a strong connection to some "islands in between" - eg
> PNG in the case of the Maori.
It's not an either-or thing. Lots of these islands are very big. No
problem in some new people settling down. If they are determined enough
they can defend themselves. And the previous populations may have been
relatively sparse hunter-gatherer groups.
> > If Matisoo-Smith's
> > research has any bearing on this theory, it would be that the
> > Austronesians must have stopped in Indonesia at least long enough to
> > pick up some rats.
>
> They had to get them from somewhere, so much is true. However, their
> current place of existence need not be the same as it was back in
> history.
>
> > One could also perhaps use it as an argument against
> > those theorists who prefer an Austronesian homeland in eastern Indonesia
> > or the Philippines
>
> That argument is now dead.
Not in the circles I move in.
> > -- given that the Austronesians took the rat with
> > them everywhere they went when they moved east,
>
> But did they? The article didn't say. This IS the part where I point
> to and say again, the spread of the rat is NOT proof of the population
> spread. It is a serious mistake you make when claiming "took the rat
> with them everywhere they went when they moved east" - it IS inferring
> a symbiotic relationship, that the rat is the limit of people
> movement.
What part of it do you consider a "mistake"? You accept that the rat
cannot get from island to island without human transport (intended or
unintended). It follows that if the rat got from A to B, then some
people went from A to B. Simple as that. The concept "symbiotic" is not
relevant here.
> > if the Taiwan
> > Austronesians had migrated there from further south one might have
> > expected them to take the rat with them. Thus its absence from Taiwan
> > could be seen as supporting Taiwan as homeland. Not a strong argument, I
> > admit, but that's the implication if there is one.
>
> I don't see the rat more than a curiosity and merely of passing
> interest. It cannot be used to argue to relate to a specific people.
You mean you'd rather postulate some unrelated non-Austronesian group of
rat traders who spread it around? Where's the advantage in that?
> Further more "austronesians" relates merely to a language family, not
> a people.
Perfectly true, but languages require people to speak them, and the
present distribution of Austronesian languages requires some historical
explanation, just as much as the genes and the pots.
The remainder of the "-nesians" are geographic designations,
> again not a people designation. But if we take one group of the
> "austronesians" who are a known people - the Maori, then they are
> known to originate from Taiwan.
> Further more R. exulans is native to the Asiatic mainland. R. exulans
> may have been present in the Mariana Islands for at least 3500 years,
> introduced by the Chamorro people.
>
> http://ns.gov.gu/people.html
And the point here is...?
>
> > > > All the absence of
> > > > R.exulans in Taiwan means is that the rat evidence will not take us all
> > > > the way back to Proto-Austronesian, if that's where the
> > > > Proto-Austronesians lived.
> > >
> > > That has already been determined to be so.
> >
> > I admire your certainty. I happen to agree, but that's mainly because
> > I'm a linguist.
>
> ...which is not of much use for DNA studies :-)
>
> I base my views on DNA studies.
DNA studies are fine, but I think they are less clear and unambiguous
than you imagine. And linguistic studies are fine too. And so are
studies of rats & stuff. Hopefully when we put them all together they
tell the same story.
> > > Only Matisoo-Smith doesn't
> > > appear to accept that due to the lack of these rats - or so the
> > > article portrays it at least. There is nothing that suggests "express"
> > > even IF the rats had lived there (rats don't paddle boats!) - and can
> > > have nil effect either way on the movement of people. So the issue, if
> > > R.exulans existed there then "express train to Polynesia" = true, is
> > > not even sane and has to be discarded as an intent by the author. Thus
> > > leaving one other meaning intended - "Maori's did not originate from
> > > Taiwan because R.exulans doesn't exist there".
> >
> > Well, as I hope I've explained, nobody is arguing that.
>
> It would appear that it has been argued - you do in fact appear to do
> so above with the "..took the rat with them everywhere they went".
> Note the qualifier "everywhere" which means that, no rat = no people.
> You have to do a better job of writing if you don't intend to confuse
> people!
Note the words "...when they moved east" which you snipped.
> > > ....and because it didn't, it does not mean Taiwan was NOT the origin
> > > of the Maori. Or as per your claims, that because they do NOT exist in
> > > the Americas, then Polynesian people could NOT have gone there ("this
> > > species does not exist in North or South America").
> >
> > But I did not argue any such thing. I mentioned this well known fact in
> > response to Yuri's apparent criticism of Matisoo-Smith for not paying
> > any attention to the Americas in her study. How could she?
>
> Again I point you to your claim they, "...took the rat with them
> everywhere they went". The same impression was given by the article,
> and it is an unmistakable statement saying where there are NO
> R.exulans there were NO people.
If you had not snipped the end of the sentence, you would not have been
led to such a false conclusion.
It is a fact that essentially every Pacific island inhabited by
Polynesians, or even visited by them in the past, has R.exulans.
There may be the odd exception. My statement was not meant to be of
mathematical absoluteness.
So if Taiwan doesn't have them it
> implies it is NOT the origin of these people.
But who is supposed to have drawn this conclusion?
> If it is argued the people did go to the Americas for example, then
> you were pointing to the fact that the rat didn't exist there, "this
> species does not exist in North or South America" and you go further
> to say "Therefore the absence of references to North and South America
> in Dr Matisoo-Smith's paper is scientifically quite justified"
Yes, it is scientifically justified because this is a paper about Rattus
exulans. Your following "because" explanation is nonsense.
because
> even you understood they, "...took the rat with them everywhere they
> went"! Then it is no great surprise if your story comes across that
> you have indeed equated "rat = people", and "no rat = no people".
No, Seppo, neither Matisoo-Smith nor I have argued that the absence of
R.exulans in the Americas implies anything.
> As you now say the rat no longer equals people,
Correction: As I never said the rat equals people.
fine, then you
> acknowledge there is nothing stopping people having moved somewhere
> without the rats. In fact there ARE islands, even populated islands
> that don't have the rat on them.
Manhattan being an example.
Ross Clark
Duncan Craig
>
> fine, then you
> > acknowledge there is nothing stopping people having moved somewhere
> > without the rats. In fact there ARE islands, even populated islands
> > that don't have the rat on them.
>
> Manhattan being an example.
>
> Ross Clark
Are you kidding? Manhattan has more kinds of rats than Latin has names to give them.
Duncan (born in NY) Craig
benlizross
So I've heard. But "the rat" here means R.exulans, a small, silky,
inoffensive, forest-dwelling vegetarian creature. Given that they have
been driven out of most of New Zealand (except for a few offshore
islands) by R.rattus and R.norvegicus, I doubt they would have lasted 10
minutes in New York.
Ross Clark
Yuri Kuchinsky
There's a marked similarity between the Canadian West Coast
canoes and Polynesian canoes, for example.
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
Yuri Kuchinsky
>
> Yuri Kuchinsky wrote:
> > There's a general bias amongst the mainstream researchers in
> > Polynesian prehistory against accepting cultural contacts
> > with South America.
>
> "categorical denial" has been replaced by "general bias". A measurable
> improvement in your awareness.
I note that you didn't dispute what I said above.
> > > > > > because the kumara evidence is really quite strong. But it
> > > > > > seems like the professional researchers in the field are
> > > > > > simply unable to admit that Heyerdahl might have figured it
> > > > > > all out 50 years ago, and that they have been in a deep
> > > > > > denial ever since...
> > > > >
> > > > > Heyerdahl was not the first to theorize about American-Polynesian
> > > > > contacts. He was not the first to note the implications of the kumara,
> > > > > nor did he add anything to the evidence.
> > > >
> > > > Hmm... So then why do you keep bringing his name up all the
> > > > time, I wonder?
> > >
> > > The presupposition of your wonderment is false. It would be interesting,
> > > if I had lots of leisure time, to go back and find how often (if ever) I
> > > have "brought up" Heyerdahl, as opposed to responding to other people's
> > > questions or claims about him. He does keep coming up here, partly
> > > thanks to your efforts, but more generally because he made himself a
> > > household name and everybody's heard of him.
> >
> > Well, it was you who brought his name up this time.
>
> Well, when Yuri Kuchinsky enters a discussion of Polynesian origins with
> comments about how we ought to be thinking about North and South
> America, I dunno, somehow the name of Heyerdahl just springs to mind.
Because you're fixated on him?
> > > > > His vast theory is still mostly wrong,
> > > >
> > > > How so?
> > > >
> > > > I would like to see some specifics here, if you don't mind.
> > >
> > > Again, I refer you to the vast and fascinating archives of sci.arch.
> >
> > I see... nothing specific.
>
> Lots of specific. Go read it if you've forgotten.
Read it where exactly?
benlizross
And no similarity between Polynesian canoes and anything further west?
Goodness! But with all due respect to your vast nautical knowledge,
Yuri, perhaps you could cite some credible authority who says so? And
who describes the sailing techniques and deep-sea navigation systems of
these Canadian West Coast people? And then there would be the problem of
why the Polynesian words for "canoe", "outrigger", "sail", "paddle", etc
etc are of Austronesian origin....
Breathlessly awaiting your evidence.
Ross Clark
Seppo Renfors
benlizross wrote:
>
> Duncan Craig wrote:
> >
> > benlizross <benl...@ihug.co.nz> wrote e rat equals people.
> > >
> > > fine, then you
> > > > acknowledge there is nothing stopping people having moved somewhere
> > > > without the rats. In fact there ARE islands, even populated islands
> > > > that don't have the rat on them.
> > >
> > > Manhattan being an example.
> > >
> > > Ross Clark
> >
> > Are you kidding? Manhattan has more kinds of rats than Latin has names to give them.
...and some of them are of the two legged variety at that :-)
> > Duncan (born in NY) Craig
>
> So I've heard. But "the rat" here means R.exulans, a small, silky,
> inoffensive, forest-dwelling vegetarian creature.
Wrong.
http://www.issg.org/database/species/ecology.asp?si=170&fr=1&sts=
"... R. exulans is recognised as a predator of native insects, lizards
and birds,..."
[..]
Seppo Renfors
Yes you did, as that was the only one available to you as a source and
you state "...to the news item ...Dr Matisoo-Smith's research..."
which is what the article reports on.
> I read above: "...your text is still up top making the claim"
> That is not my text.
The text "up top" is indeed your:
or:
Lets face it you start by saying "Yuri, if you'll....", therefor it is
clear you are discussion Yuri's POV.
> It was so because of the fact you HAD
> > indeed addressed Yuri's statements and/or views.
>
> I addressed Yuri's statements and/or views when he introduced them. What
> on earth is your problem with that?
Nothing other than your attempt to deny that fact.
>
> > History:
> >[snip pointless recapitulation of thread]
It was necessary due to your rewriting of the facts - See above
starting with: "Excuse me, but..."
> > [..]
> > > > Note, it isn't the "express train" that is at issue, but the very
> > > > origin of the people (or part of them) that Matisoo-Smith poo-poos due
> > > > to the lack of these rats - a people already determined to originate
> > > > from Taiwan by another NZ study. So you missed the actual point of the
> > > > quoted material.
> > >
> > > No, the quoted material is (as I said) a non-sequitur.
> >
> > What "quoted material"? The two words....??? Isn't that what I said,
> > it is missing the point focusing on them!
>
> No, Sep, the quoted material that you so helpfully snipped, namely:
>
> "Dr Matisoo-Smith found no evidence that Pacific
> rats ever lived in Taiwan, at least until recently, blowing apart the
> so-called "express train to Polynesia" theory that people moved
> quickly southwards from Taiwan..."
>
> That is the non sequitur.
First of all you made no reference to "snipped" nor did you quote the
text already dealt with. That text it the text that infers the denial
of origin of the Maori people - the "express train" being merely
hollow noise.
>
> >
> > > Your
> > > interpretation of its "actual point" is incorrect.
> >
> > No, that is merely your belief, nothing more. IF my point is incorrect
> > they you have to prove how the hell can a RAT reduce the speed of a
> > population expansion - or alter it in any way at all! There really is
> > nothing at all possible in the existence of a rat to REDUCE the speed
> > of the spread of a population. IF anything it should facilitate a more
> > rapid expansion, due to the handy "take away" meal the rat provides
> > (the smallest of all three associated with humans).
>
> Your interpretation is incorrect because you are trying to make sense of
> a non sequitur. This leads, as you say, to nonsensical conclusions.
I'm sure it is intended to do more than destroy white space - either
by the author or by Matisoo-Smith, else it wouldn't exist.
> > > The so-called
> > > "express train" theory is not the theory that the proto-Austronesians
> > > came from Taiwan,
> >
> > The article on Matisoo-Smith's research certainly denies they did come
> > from Taiwan.
>
> Keep in mind that denying the "express train" is not equivalent to
> denying a Taiwan origin. I will have to look back at the article and at
> M-S's paper and see whether either actually makes this stronger claim.
> If you have a quote to that effect, maybe you could present it.
The opening comment in conjunction with your quoted material above
does support what I have said:
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/storydisplay.cfm?thesection=news&thesubsection=&storyID=3571193
"Research on domestic rats has pinpointed Halmahera, a four-pronged
island between Borneo and New Guinea, as the most likely pre-Pacific
homeland of the Polynesians."
I don't think it can be said any plainer, that Taiwan is NOT their
"homeland" (place of origin).
> > > but the theory that they moved from there into the
> > > Pacific very rapidly, so that there was minimal genetic, cultural or
> > > linguistic input from the islands in between. This term was invented by
> > > a popular science writer (Jared Diamond) a decade or two ago, and I'm
> > > not sure who (if anyone) seriously believes it.
> >
> > If well over a millennia is "rapid", then so be it. After all "rapid"
> > is a relative term, but what is it related to? A relative term, a
> > comparison is meaningless without whatever it is compared/related to!
> > Surely that is obvious to a blind man.
>
> Certainly "rapid" in archaeological discourse is on a different scale
> from, say, "rapid transit".
It remains meaningless just the same unless one has a comparison to
something.
>
> > But then isn't it stupid to argue "....input from the islands in
> > between", as that infers an expansion had already taken place - that
> > the "islands in between" were already populated. When did these people
> > arrive there? WERE there any people there? Some close by islands may
> > have been populated that once were connected to the mainland, but
> > others most definitely wasn't.
>
> The islands all the way from Asia to the Solomons have evidence of
> human populations from 20,000 BP or earlier.
Yes but aren't these islands that have only become islands since the
end of Younger Dryas? In other words the were NOT islands back then
and unsurprising if they have people on them - but then Java Man is
much much older than that in any case. These people are not the same
people as the so called Polynesians.
> > If one assumes that islands were already populated, then it is indeed
> > an incentive to move on. Newcomers may well NOT be welcome to stay on
> > an already populated island. But even that is incorrect, as there most
> > definitely IS a strong connection to some "islands in between" - eg
> > PNG in the case of the Maori.
>
> It's not an either-or thing. Lots of these islands are very big. No
> problem in some new people settling down. If they are determined enough
> they can defend themselves. And the previous populations may have been
> relatively sparse hunter-gatherer groups.
But they are/were not the same people as polynesians. They would be
related to people originating from India and ended up in Australia.
> > > If Matisoo-Smith's
> > > research has any bearing on this theory, it would be that the
> > > Austronesians must have stopped in Indonesia at least long enough to
> > > pick up some rats.
> >
> > They had to get them from somewhere, so much is true. However, their
> > current place of existence need not be the same as it was back in
> > history.
> >
> > > One could also perhaps use it as an argument against
> > > those theorists who prefer an Austronesian homeland in eastern Indonesia
> > > or the Philippines
> >
> > That argument is now dead.
>
> Not in the circles I move in.
Well, there are a lot of people who will not accept evidence as such
and prefer their own beliefs. The DNA study was quite compelling.
> > > -- given that the Austronesians took the rat with
> > > them everywhere they went when they moved east,
> >
> > But did they? The article didn't say. This IS the part where I point
> > to and say again, the spread of the rat is NOT proof of the population
> > spread. It is a serious mistake you make when claiming "took the rat
> > with them everywhere they went when they moved east" - it IS inferring
> > a symbiotic relationship, that the rat is the limit of people
> > movement.
>
> What part of it do you consider a "mistake"?
The rat can have walked across to many of these islands at one point
in time. That NON existence of the rat is not the same as
non-existence of a people - that IS the mistake pointed to in your
"everywhere they went" that excludes the possibility of people
existing without the rat.
> You accept that the rat
> cannot get from island to island without human transport (intended or
> unintended). It follows that if the rat got from A to B, then some
> people went from A to B. Simple as that. The concept "symbiotic" is not
> relevant here.
*I* didn't write your words for you that claims that.
> > > if the Taiwan
> > > Austronesians had migrated there from further south one might have
> > > expected them to take the rat with them. Thus its absence from Taiwan
> > > could be seen as supporting Taiwan as homeland. Not a strong argument, I
> > > admit, but that's the implication if there is one.
> >
> > I don't see the rat more than a curiosity and merely of passing
> > interest. It cannot be used to argue to relate to a specific people.
>
> You mean you'd rather postulate some unrelated non-Austronesian group of
> rat traders who spread it around? Where's the advantage in that?
The claims made in the article are full of holes - eg "...Lisa
Matisoo-Smith has traced the genetic origins of the Pacific rat,
Rattus exulans..." and the place is claimed as "Halmahera, a
four-pronged island" the when is claimed as "during the past 3000
years". Further to that the article claims: "the Pacific rat can be
divided into three genetic groups, which coincide in Halmahera" (Pulau
Halmahera)
Even ignoring the "3000 years", the evolution of a new rat species on
an ISLAND where such didn't exist before is just too much to ask to be
believed. The "three genetic groups" puts a lie to that claim as well.
Nor does the claim stand up to the fact that it is native to the (SE)
Asian MAINLAND. Another problem is with dating the remains of these
rats.
http://www.rsnz.org/publish/jrsnz/2000/14.php
> > Further more "austronesians" relates merely to a language family, not
> > a people.
>
> Perfectly true, but languages require people to speak them, and the
> present distribution of Austronesian languages requires some historical
> explanation, just as much as the genes and the pots.
True, but not by the same genes - a spread of language can be by many
different people (ethnic groups).
>
> > The remainder of the "-nesians" are geographic designations,
> > again not a people designation. But if we take one group of the
> > "austronesians" who are a known people - the Maori, then they are
> > known to originate from Taiwan.
>
> > Further more R. exulans is native to the Asiatic mainland. R. exulans
> > may have been present in the Mariana Islands for at least 3500 years,
> > introduced by the Chamorro people.
> >
> > http://ns.gov.gu/people.html
>
> And the point here is...?
The rat is claimed to be isolated to Halmahera 500 years *after* it is
said to already have existed on the Mariana Islands - islands they
must have been brought to by people. Halmahera was connected to the
mainland once upon a time - the Mariana Islands were not.
> > > > > All the absence of
> > > > > R.exulans in Taiwan means is that the rat evidence will not take us all
> > > > > the way back to Proto-Austronesian, if that's where the
> > > > > Proto-Austronesians lived.
> > > >
> > > > That has already been determined to be so.
> > >
> > > I admire your certainty. I happen to agree, but that's mainly because
> > > I'm a linguist.
> >
> > ...which is not of much use for DNA studies :-)
> >
> > I base my views on DNA studies.
>
> DNA studies are fine, but I think they are less clear and unambiguous
> than you imagine. And linguistic studies are fine too. And so are
> studies of rats & stuff. Hopefully when we put them all together they
> tell the same story.
DNA is specific people related, language is not, rats are completely
unrelated to any people grouped by either language or DNA. DNA proves
a relatedness, language a common cultural origins, rats are a
curiosity that supports neither. I agree that a multidisciplinary
approach is the best. The rats may well have a place but they sure as
hell cannot come within cooee of upholding the claims made of them!
> > > > Only Matisoo-Smith doesn't
> > > > appear to accept that due to the lack of these rats - or so the
> > > > article portrays it at least. There is nothing that suggests "express"
> > > > even IF the rats had lived there (rats don't paddle boats!) - and can
> > > > have nil effect either way on the movement of people. So the issue, if
> > > > R.exulans existed there then "express train to Polynesia" = true, is
> > > > not even sane and has to be discarded as an intent by the author. Thus
> > > > leaving one other meaning intended - "Maori's did not originate from
> > > > Taiwan because R.exulans doesn't exist there".
> > >
> > > Well, as I hope I've explained, nobody is arguing that.
> >
> > It would appear that it has been argued - you do in fact appear to do
> > so above with the "..took the rat with them everywhere they went".
> > Note the qualifier "everywhere" which means that, no rat = no people.
> > You have to do a better job of writing if you don't intend to confuse
> > people!
>
> Note the words "...when they moved east" which you snipped.
The "everywhere" covers ALL compass direction. Even if you only
intended "east" it has to be relative to some point. If one takes that
point to be either Taiwan OR Halmahera, then the Americas IS in that
direction, east - and that claim of yours then includes the statement
"They cannot have reached the Americas because the Rat doesn't exits
there" - which doesn't require other words to be included other than
"everywhere when they moved east".
Does the same rat exist on Madagascar.... and how did the
"Austronesian" people get there, by travelling East, or West? If east
how then does it affect the claim about the rats?
Oh but she does indeed make claims based on the R.exulans - eg the
origin of Polynesian people. It is a direct comparison liking the
existence of the rat to the existence of Polynesian people.
A better article the same issue - note the opening paragraph:
http://www.countrywatch.com/cw_wire.asp?vCOUNTRY=59&UID=1124904
"Research on domestic rats has pinpointed Halmahera, a four-pronged
island between Borneo and New Guinea, as the most likely pre-Pacific
homeland of the Polynesians, the New Zealand Herald reports."
But later on it says:
"Both human genetic and language evidence still point to an even
earlier homeland, in Taiwan and ultimately in mainland China."
Near the end it says this:
"If that happened, Dr Matisoo-Smith believes it was much later,
because many Micronesian atolls became habitable only as the sea level
dropped in the past 2000 years."
What a load of CROCK! Sea levels haven't been "dropping", quite the
opposite, they have been rising since the the middle of the Younger
Dryas! One has to question did SHE make a statement that absurd or did
the reporter bungle what was said?
> Your following "because" explanation is nonsense.
Not at all, it is something that follows logically from what you have
said.
> because
> > even you understood they, "...took the rat with them everywhere they
> > went"! Then it is no great surprise if your story comes across that
> > you have indeed equated "rat = people", and "no rat = no people".
>
> No, Seppo, neither Matisoo-Smith nor I have argued that the absence of
> R.exulans in the Americas implies anything.
To argue, the existence/origin of the rat to the origin of a people as
Matisoo-Smith has done, is arguing one is synonymous with the other. I
have already pointed to where the logical consequence of your words
earlier.
> > As you now say the rat no longer equals people,
>
> Correction: As I never said the rat equals people.
Ok, so it was NO rat = NO people, which is the other side of the same
coin. But as you have since withdrawn the claim, and I have
acknowledged it (despite your words still pointing to it :-) I don't
know why you are still at it now.
> fine, then you
> > acknowledge there is nothing stopping people having moved somewhere
> > without the rats. In fact there ARE islands, even populated islands
> > that don't have the rat on them.
>
> Manhattan being an example.
benlizross
>
> benlizross wrote:
> >
> > Duncan Craig wrote:
> > >
> > > benlizross <benl...@ihug.co.nz> wrote e rat equals people.
> > > >
> > > > fine, then you
> > > > > acknowledge there is nothing stopping people having moved somewhere
> > > > > without the rats. In fact there ARE islands, even populated islands
> > > > > that don't have the rat on them.
> > > >
> > > > Manhattan being an example.
> > > >
> > > > Ross Clark
> > >
> > > Are you kidding? Manhattan has more kinds of rats than Latin has names to give them.
>
> ...and some of them are of the two legged variety at that :-)
>
> > > Duncan (born in NY) Craig
> >
> > So I've heard. But "the rat" here means R.exulans, a small, silky,
> > inoffensive, forest-dwelling vegetarian creature.
>
> Wrong.
>
> http://www.issg.org/database/species/ecology.asp?si=170&fr=1&sts=
> "... R. exulans is recognised as a predator of native insects, lizards
> and birds,..."
>
though.
Ross Clark
benlizross
By this time I cannot for the life of me remember why this was causing
you such anguish.
>
> > I read above: "...your text is still up top making the claim"
> > That is not my text.
>
> The text "up top" is indeed your:
>
> <40CE1C...@ihug.co.nz>
>
> or:
>
> http://tinyurl.com/39r2e
Again, this has gone on so long that I cannot figure out what you are
referring to or what is causing you such offence. I had assumed that by
the "text up top" you were referring to the subject line. If so, I
repeat once again, that text *is not mine*. It has been there from the
beginning of the thread, which was initiated by Doug Weller. Now when I
follow your URL I come to a post which is already about six levels down
into the thread. If you are not referring to the subject line, just what
is the "text up top" that you are referring to which is by me and which
supposedly makes some claim that you object to? Quote, please.
>
> Lets face it you start by saying "Yuri, if you'll....", therefor it is
> clear you are discussion Yuri's POV.
Huh? I addressed Yuri by name. He and I go back several years on this
newsgroup, since long before you came along. I feel like he's almost a
friend. I said "If you'll refer back to the news item...", meaning that
a (re-)reading of fhe original story would (I hoped) make it clear to
him why the Americas were not mentioned, a fact which seemed to be
bothering him. If this is "discussion Yuri's POV", what on earth are you
objecting to in it?
>
> > It was so because of the fact you HAD
> > > indeed addressed Yuri's statements and/or views.
> >
> > I addressed Yuri's statements and/or views when he introduced them. What
> > on earth is your problem with that?
>
> Nothing other than your attempt to deny that fact.
I did not deny it. This is really stupid.
> >
> > > History:
> > >[snip pointless recapitulation of thread]
>
> It was necessary due to your rewriting of the facts - See above
> starting with: "Excuse me, but..."
>
> > > [..]
> > > > > Note, it isn't the "express train" that is at issue, but the very
> > > > > origin of the people (or part of them) that Matisoo-Smith poo-poos due
> > > > > to the lack of these rats - a people already determined to originate
> > > > > from Taiwan by another NZ study. So you missed the actual point of the
> > > > > quoted material.
> > > >
> > > > No, the quoted material is (as I said) a non-sequitur.
> > >
> > > What "quoted material"? The two words....??? Isn't that what I said,
> > > it is missing the point focusing on them!
> >
> > No, Sep, the quoted material that you so helpfully snipped, namely:
> >
> > "Dr Matisoo-Smith found no evidence that Pacific
> > rats ever lived in Taiwan, at least until recently, blowing apart the
> > so-called "express train to Polynesia" theory that people moved
> > quickly southwards from Taiwan..."
> >
> > That is the non sequitur.
>
> First of all you made no reference to "snipped" nor did you quote the
> text already dealt with. That text it the text that infers the denial
> of origin of the Maori people - the "express train" being merely
> hollow noise.
The quoted material was (at the point I wrote that) accessible to anyone
following the thread. And nobody is "denying the origin of the Maori
people", whatever you think you mean by that.
> > >
> > > > Your
> > > > interpretation of its "actual point" is incorrect.
> > >
> > > No, that is merely your belief, nothing more. IF my point is incorrect
> > > they you have to prove how the hell can a RAT reduce the speed of a
> > > population expansion - or alter it in any way at all! There really is
> > > nothing at all possible in the existence of a rat to REDUCE the speed
> > > of the spread of a population. IF anything it should facilitate a more
> > > rapid expansion, due to the handy "take away" meal the rat provides
> > > (the smallest of all three associated with humans).
> >
> > Your interpretation is incorrect because you are trying to make sense of
> > a non sequitur. This leads, as you say, to nonsensical conclusions.
>
> I'm sure it is intended to do more than destroy white space - either
> by the author or by Matisoo-Smith, else it wouldn't exist.
But that is what journalists are paid to do -- destroy white space.
> > > > The so-called
> > > > "express train" theory is not the theory that the proto-Austronesians
> > > > came from Taiwan,
> > >
> > > The article on Matisoo-Smith's research certainly denies they did come
> > > from Taiwan.
> >
> > Keep in mind that denying the "express train" is not equivalent to
> > denying a Taiwan origin. I will have to look back at the article and at
> > M-S's paper and see whether either actually makes this stronger claim.
> > If you have a quote to that effect, maybe you could present it.
>
> The opening comment in conjunction with your quoted material above
> does support what I have said:
>
> http://www.nzherald.co.nz/storydisplay.cfm?thesection=news&thesubsection=&storyID=3571193
> "Research on domestic rats has pinpointed Halmahera, a four-pronged
> island between Borneo and New Guinea, as the most likely pre-Pacific
> homeland of the Polynesians."
>
> I don't think it can be said any plainer, that Taiwan is NOT their
> "homeland" (place of origin).
No, that does not follow. Because "the homeland (place of origin) of the
Maori" is not something that has a one-word answer. We are talking about
migrations of peoples over thousands of km and thousands of years. The
ancestors of the Maori lived in *many* different places before they got
to NZ. I am quite sure that some of their ancestors, 5,000+ years ago,
lived in Taiwan. But those people in turn had ancestors who came from
somewhere else (ultimately from Africa). So where is "the homeland"?
> > > > but the theory that they moved from there into the
> > > > Pacific very rapidly, so that there was minimal genetic, cultural or
> > > > linguistic input from the islands in between. This term was invented by
> > > > a popular science writer (Jared Diamond) a decade or two ago, and I'm
> > > > not sure who (if anyone) seriously believes it.
> > >
> > > If well over a millennia is "rapid", then so be it. After all "rapid"
> > > is a relative term, but what is it related to? A relative term, a
> > > comparison is meaningless without whatever it is compared/related to!
> > > Surely that is obvious to a blind man.
> >
> > Certainly "rapid" in archaeological discourse is on a different scale
> > from, say, "rapid transit".
>
> It remains meaningless just the same unless one has a comparison to
> something.
I just compared it to something. Real archaeologists use it all the time
and seem to find it meaningful. A few centuries, in archaeological
terms, is "rapid" if we're talking about moving thousands of km.
> > > But then isn't it stupid to argue "....input from the islands in
> > > between", as that infers an expansion had already taken place - that
> > > the "islands in between" were already populated. When did these people
> > > arrive there? WERE there any people there? Some close by islands may
> > > have been populated that once were connected to the mainland, but
> > > others most definitely wasn't.
> >
> > The islands all the way from Asia to the Solomons have evidence of
> > human populations from 20,000 BP or earlier.
>
> Yes but aren't these islands that have only become islands since the
> end of Younger Dryas?
No.
>In other words the were NOT islands back then
I seem to recall arguing this point before with you. Although Australia
and New Guinea were connected to each other at the lowest sea levels,
they have *never* in human history been connected to Asia by land. And
even at the lowest levels, many of the islands we are talking about were
still islands. If you don't believe me look at any book on the subject.
> and unsurprising if they have people on them - but then Java Man is
> much much older than that in any case. These people are not the same
> people as the so called Polynesians.
Huh? We are talking about the fact (it's a fact, lots of archaeological
evidence) that well before the Austronesian expansion there were people
in all these islands. Of course they were not Polynesians (or "so called
Polynesians").
> > > If one assumes that islands were already populated, then it is indeed
> > > an incentive to move on. Newcomers may well NOT be welcome to stay on
> > > an already populated island. But even that is incorrect, as there most
> > > definitely IS a strong connection to some "islands in between" - eg
> > > PNG in the case of the Maori.
> >
> > It's not an either-or thing. Lots of these islands are very big. No
> > problem in some new people settling down. If they are determined enough
> > they can defend themselves. And the previous populations may have been
> > relatively sparse hunter-gatherer groups.
>
> But they are/were not the same people as polynesians. They would be
> related to people originating from India and ended up in Australia.
And....?
I am beginning to think you are still back in the 19th century mode of
imagining fully-formed Polynesians, as we know them today, starting off
somewhere in Asia thousands of years ago, then sailing and sailing until
they finally reached Polynesia. This did not happen. To apply the term
"Polynesians" to anyone before people reached Polynesia is an
anachronism.
> > > > If Matisoo-Smith's
> > > > research has any bearing on this theory, it would be that the
> > > > Austronesians must have stopped in Indonesia at least long enough to
> > > > pick up some rats.
> > >
> > > They had to get them from somewhere, so much is true. However, their
> > > current place of existence need not be the same as it was back in
> > > history.
> > >
> > > > One could also perhaps use it as an argument against
> > > > those theorists who prefer an Austronesian homeland in eastern Indonesia
> > > > or the Philippines
> > >
> > > That argument is now dead.
> >
> > Not in the circles I move in.
>
> Well, there are a lot of people who will not accept evidence as such
> and prefer their own beliefs. The DNA study was quite compelling.
Alas, there have been many DNA studies, before and since. Simple answers
are not the result.
> > > > -- given that the Austronesians took the rat with
> > > > them everywhere they went when they moved east,
> > >
> > > But did they? The article didn't say. This IS the part where I point
> > > to and say again, the spread of the rat is NOT proof of the population
> > > spread. It is a serious mistake you make when claiming "took the rat
> > > with them everywhere they went when they moved east" - it IS inferring
> > > a symbiotic relationship, that the rat is the limit of people
> > > movement.
> >
> > What part of it do you consider a "mistake"?
>
> The rat can have walked across to many of these islands at one point
> in time.
No. See above.
> That NON existence of the rat is not the same as
> non-existence of a people - that IS the mistake pointed to in your
> "everywhere they went" that excludes the possibility of people
> existing without the rat.
No of course it doesn''t, and as I explained, to treat my statement as
if it were a mathematical postulate is stupid.
> > You accept that the rat
> > cannot get from island to island without human transport (intended or
> > unintended). It follows that if the rat got from A to B, then some
> > people went from A to B. Simple as that. The concept "symbiotic" is not
> > relevant here.
>
> *I* didn't write your words for you that claims that.
No, you were the one who introduced the term. If you think something I
said was tantamount to such a claim, you are mistaken.
> > > > if the Taiwan
> > > > Austronesians had migrated there from further south one might have
> > > > expected them to take the rat with them. Thus its absence from Taiwan
> > > > could be seen as supporting Taiwan as homeland. Not a strong argument, I
> > > > admit, but that's the implication if there is one.
> > >
> > > I don't see the rat more than a curiosity and merely of passing
> > > interest. It cannot be used to argue to relate to a specific people.
> >
> > You mean you'd rather postulate some unrelated non-Austronesian group of
> > rat traders who spread it around? Where's the advantage in that?
>
> The claims made in the article are full of holes - eg "...Lisa
> Matisoo-Smith has traced the genetic origins of the Pacific rat,
> Rattus exulans..." and the place is claimed as "Halmahera, a
> four-pronged island" the when is claimed as "during the past 3000
> years". Further to that the article claims: "the Pacific rat can be
> divided into three genetic groups, which coincide in Halmahera" (Pulau
> Halmahera)
>
> Even ignoring the "3000 years", the evolution of a new rat species on
> an ISLAND where such didn't exist before is just too much to ask to be
> believed.
Indeed it would be. Nobody has claimed that.
>The "three genetic groups" puts a lie to that claim as well.
No claim, no lie.
> Nor does the claim stand up to the fact that it is native to the (SE)
> Asian MAINLAND.
No claim, no problem.You do understand the difference between "genetic
group" and "species", don't you?
>Another problem is with dating the remains of these
> rats.
>
> http://www.rsnz.org/publish/jrsnz/2000/14.php
Uh huh. In what way do you think these dating problems affect
Matisoo-Smith's conclusions?
> > > Further more "austronesians" relates merely to a language family, not
> > > a people.
> >
> > Perfectly true, but languages require people to speak them, and the
> > present distribution of Austronesian languages requires some historical
> > explanation, just as much as the genes and the pots.
>
> True, but not by the same genes - a spread of language can be by many
> different people (ethnic groups).
Exactly.
> > > The remainder of the "-nesians" are geographic designations,
> > > again not a people designation. But if we take one group of the
> > > "austronesians" who are a known people - the Maori, then they are
> > > known to originate from Taiwan.
> >
> > > Further more R. exulans is native to the Asiatic mainland. R. exulans
> > > may have been present in the Mariana Islands for at least 3500 years,
> > > introduced by the Chamorro people.
> > >
> > > http://ns.gov.gu/people.html
> >
> > And the point here is...?
>
> The rat is claimed to be isolated to Halmahera 500 years *after* it is
> said to already have existed on the Mariana Islands - islands they
> must have been brought to by people. Halmahera was connected to the
> mainland once upon a time - the Mariana Islands were not.
No, Halmahera was not. But in any case, the rat was not "claimed to be
isolated to Halmahera". You clearly have not understood this article.
> > > > > > All the absence of
> > > > > > R.exulans in Taiwan means is that the rat evidence will not take us all
> > > > > > the way back to Proto-Austronesian, if that's where the
> > > > > > Proto-Austronesians lived.
> > > > >
> > > > > That has already been determined to be so.
> > > >
> > > > I admire your certainty. I happen to agree, but that's mainly because
> > > > I'm a linguist.
> > >
> > > ...which is not of much use for DNA studies :-)
> > >
> > > I base my views on DNA studies.
> >
> > DNA studies are fine, but I think they are less clear and unambiguous
> > than you imagine. And linguistic studies are fine too. And so are
> > studies of rats & stuff. Hopefully when we put them all together they
> > tell the same story.
>
> DNA is specific people related, language is not, rats are completely
> unrelated to any people grouped by either language or DNA. DNA proves
> a relatedness, language a common cultural origins, rats are a
> curiosity that supports neither. I agree that a multidisciplinary
> approach is the best. The rats may well have a place but they sure as
> hell cannot come within cooee of upholding the claims made of them!
DNA is proof of physical (genetic) relations, language is proof of
cultural relations, rats are proof of human movements. I'd like to know
about all of these.
> > > > > Only Matisoo-Smith doesn't
> > > > > appear to accept that due to the lack of these rats - or so the
> > > > > article portrays it at least. There is nothing that suggests "express"
> > > > > even IF the rats had lived there (rats don't paddle boats!) - and can
> > > > > have nil effect either way on the movement of people. So the issue, if
> > > > > R.exulans existed there then "express train to Polynesia" = true, is
> > > > > not even sane and has to be discarded as an intent by the author. Thus
> > > > > leaving one other meaning intended - "Maori's did not originate from
> > > > > Taiwan because R.exulans doesn't exist there".
> > > >
> > > > Well, as I hope I've explained, nobody is arguing that.
> > >
> > > It would appear that it has been argued - you do in fact appear to do
> > > so above with the "..took the rat with them everywhere they went".
> > > Note the qualifier "everywhere" which means that, no rat = no people.
> > > You have to do a better job of writing if you don't intend to confuse
> > > people!
> >
> > Note the words "...when they moved east" which you snipped.
>
> The "everywhere" covers ALL compass direction. Even if you only
> intended "east" it has to be relative to some point. If one takes that
> point to be either Taiwan OR Halmahera, then the Americas IS in that
> direction, east - and that claim of yours then includes the statement
> "They cannot have reached the Americas because the Rat doesn't exits
> there" - which doesn't require other words to be included other than
> "everywhere when they moved east".
No, I explained what my comment meant. If you insist, once again, on
treating it as if it were a mathematical theorem, just for the purpose
of getting yourself enraged, well, have fun.
> Does the same rat exist on Madagascar.... and how did the
> "Austronesian" people get there, by travelling East, or West? If east
> how then does it affect the claim about the rats?
I must admit I have never heard anyone suggest that the Austronesians
got to Madagascar by travelling east.
She draws conclusions about movements of the Polynesian people and their
ancestors. Everyone agrees that the Polynesians have at least some
ancestors from SE Asia. If they also have ancestors from North or South
America, we will have to find out about it from other evidence.
R.exulans is not going to help us since it didn't come from there.
> A better article the same issue - note the opening paragraph:
> http://www.countrywatch.com/cw_wire.asp?vCOUNTRY=59&UID=1124904
>
> "Research on domestic rats has pinpointed Halmahera, a four-pronged
> island between Borneo and New Guinea, as the most likely pre-Pacific
> homeland of the Polynesians, the New Zealand Herald reports."
>
> But later on it says:
>
> "Both human genetic and language evidence still point to an even
> earlier homeland, in Taiwan and ultimately in mainland China."
Exactly. So it is the original newspaper article you are getting so
annoyed at?
> Near the end it says this:
>
> "If that happened, Dr Matisoo-Smith believes it was much later,
> because many Micronesian atolls became habitable only as the sea level
> dropped in the past 2000 years."
>
> What a load of CROCK! Sea levels haven't been "dropping", quite the
> opposite, they have been rising since the the middle of the Younger
> Dryas! One has to question did SHE make a statement that absurd or did
> the reporter bungle what was said?
Actually, if you check, I believe you will find it is true. Sea levels
were at a minimum something like 15,000 years ago (someone else will
know the exact dates). Since that time the tendency has been rising, of
course, but I believe at some point relatively recently they reached a
high somewhat above present sea level, then came back down.
> > Your following "because" explanation is nonsense.
>
> Not at all, it is something that follows logically from what you have
> said.
>
> > because
> > > even you understood they, "...took the rat with them everywhere they
> > > went"! Then it is no great surprise if your story comes across that
> > > you have indeed equated "rat = people", and "no rat = no people".
> >
> > No, Seppo, neither Matisoo-Smith nor I have argued that the absence of
> > R.exulans in the Americas implies anything.
>
> To argue, the existence/origin of the rat to the origin of a people as
> Matisoo-Smith has done, is arguing one is synonymous with the other.
No, this is complete nonsense.
I> have already pointed to where the logical consequence of your words
> earlier.
>
> > > As you now say the rat no longer equals people,
> >
> > Correction: As I never said the rat equals people.
>
> Ok, so it was NO rat = NO people,
Nor did I ever say that.
>which is the other side of the same
> coin. But as you have since withdrawn the claim, and I have
> acknowledged it (despite your words still pointing to it :-) I don't
> know why you are still at it now.
Well, just one more correction: I never withdrew any claim. Your whole
modus operandi seems to be stuffing words into other people's mouths
that they never said, abusing them for saying them, then when they
manage to get rid of the words, you claim they've "withdrawn their
claim". All the while, you seem rather poorly informed about the actual
substance of what is being discussed. Your entire pleasure seems to
derive from working yourself into a rage. Strange.
Ross Clark
Not That Kerry
wrote:
Well maybe the Canadian West coasters came from Asia too...why fancy
that...They did!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day;
Teach him to use the Net and he won't bother you for weeks.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Yuri Kuchinsky
>
> Yuri Kuchinsky wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > Yuri Kuchinsky wrote:
> >
> > > > There's a general bias amongst the mainstream researchers in
> > > > Polynesian prehistory against accepting cultural contacts
> > > > with South America.
> > >
> > > "categorical denial" has been replaced by "general bias". A measurable
> > > improvement in your awareness.
> >
> > I note that you didn't dispute what I said above.
>
> positive.
> OK, although you have moved closer to a correct perception of reality,
> you still see things (as in virtually every subject you discuss) in
> terms of "bias" (to use the politest word in your vocabulary). I would
> say that mainstream researchers do not spend a great deal of their time
> talking about cultural contacts between Polynesia and S America because,
> on the evidence, they were not that important.
Nonsense. These contacts between Polynesia and S America
were certainly quite important. And here's the proof,
Easter Island Images
http://www.globalserve.net/~yuku/
> If there is a kind of
> wariness about such matters, it would be in large part as a reaction to
> 50 years of sensational and highly publicized claims by Heyerdahl,
Well, that's an interesting twist... Blame Heyerdahl for the
lack of attention to contacts between Polynesia and S
America???
This is Alice in Wonderland, folks!
You certainly do seem to exhibit a rather unhealthy
obsession with Heyerdahl...
> so poorly supported by actual evidence.
See above.
> > > > > > > > because the kumara evidence is really quite strong. But it
> > > > > > > > seems like the professional researchers in the field are
> > > > > > > > simply unable to admit that Heyerdahl might have figured it
> > > > > > > > all out 50 years ago, and that they have been in a deep
> > > > > > > > denial ever since...
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Heyerdahl was not the first to theorize about American-Polynesian
> > > > > > > contacts. He was not the first to note the implications of the kumara,
> > > > > > > nor did he add anything to the evidence.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Hmm... So then why do you keep bringing his name up all the
> > > > > > time, I wonder?
> > > > >
> > > > > The presupposition of your wonderment is false. It would be interesting,
> > > > > if I had lots of leisure time, to go back and find how often (if ever) I
> > > > > have "brought up" Heyerdahl, as opposed to responding to other people's
> > > > > questions or claims about him. He does keep coming up here, partly
> > > > > thanks to your efforts, but more generally because he made himself a
> > > > > household name and everybody's heard of him.
> > > >
> > > > Well, it was you who brought his name up this time.
> > >
> > > Well, when Yuri Kuchinsky enters a discussion of Polynesian origins with
> > > comments about how we ought to be thinking about North and South
> > > America, I dunno, somehow the name of Heyerdahl just springs to mind.
> >
> > Because you're fixated on him?
>
> No, I just explained to you why.
>
> > > > > > > His vast theory is still mostly wrong,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > How so?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I would like to see some specifics here, if you don't mind.
> > > > >
> > > > > Again, I refer you to the vast and fascinating archives of sci.arch.
> > > >
> > > > I see... nothing specific.
> > >
> > > Lots of specific. Go read it if you've forgotten.
> >
> > Read it where exactly?
>
> On Google-groups for the last...how many years? Search "Clark Kuchinsky
> Heyerdahl" to get started.
>
> Ross Clark
I see. Still nothing specific.
Yuri.
Yuri Kuchinsky -=O=- http://www.globalserve.net/~yuku
"Contrariwise," continued Tweedledee, "if it was so,
it might be, and if it were so, it would be; but as it
isn't,
it ain't. That's logic!"
-- Lewis Carroll, "Through the Looking
Glass"
Martyn Harrison
<yu...@trends.ca> said:
>benlizross wrote:
>
>> you still see things (as in virtually every subject you discuss) in
>> terms of "bias" (to use the politest word in your vocabulary). I would
>> say that mainstream researchers do not spend a great deal of their time
>> talking about cultural contacts between Polynesia and S America because,
>> on the evidence, they were not that important.
>
>Nonsense. These contacts between Polynesia and S America
>were certainly quite important. And here's the proof,
>
>Easter Island Images
> http://www.globalserve.net/~yuku/
Referring to your own website is hardly "proof".
Particularly when it is merely a rather poor rehash of what Heyerdhal said
fifty years ago, and which is the main reason why "scholars" don't pay any heed
to it now.
"So this is the archaeological evidence. How can the mainstream academic
scholars pretend it doesn't exist? Aren't we seeing some kind of a denial of
reality here?"
Well no, it's suggestive pictures which indicate almost nothing of worth.
"Scholars" aren't even interested, because it is basically meaningless.
>> If there is a kind of
>> wariness about such matters, it would be in large part as a reaction to
>> 50 years of sensational and highly publicized claims by Heyerdahl,
>
>Well, that's an interesting twist... Blame Heyerdahl for the
>lack of attention to contacts between Polynesia and S
>America???
>
>This is Alice in Wonderland, folks!
No, it's Yuri in sci.arch, which does have a certain resemblence. "Eat me"
>You certainly do seem to exhibit a rather unhealthy
>obsession with Heyerdahl...
Like your website doesn't, eh?
>> so poorly supported by actual evidence.
>
>See above.
Yeah, but, like, citing your own website as "proof" is not actual evidence.
>> On Google-groups for the last...how many years? Search "Clark Kuchinsky
>> Heyerdahl" to get started.
>
>I see. Still nothing specific.
Well, other than a link to tonnes and tonnes of nonsense - your stock in trade.
Yuri Kuchinsky
>
> On Tue, 22 Jun 2004 15:04:03 -0400, Yuri Kuchinsky <yu...@trends.ca>
> wrote:
>
> >benlizross wrote:
> >>
> >> Yuri Kuchinsky wrote:
> >> >
> >> > benlizross wrote:
>
> >> > > The mainland that the
> >> > > Polynesians came from was Asia -- or at the very least, their sailing
> >> > > technology came from there.
> >> >
> >> > How so?
> >> >
> >> > In actual fact, the evidence points elsewhere.
> >>
> >> Really? Perhaps you could give some evidence in support of this amazing
> >> claim.
> >
> >There's a marked similarity between the Canadian West Coast
> >canoes and Polynesian canoes, for example.
> >
> >Yuri.
>
> Well maybe the Canadian West coasters came from Asia too...why fancy
> that...They did!
Yes, kerry (Not That Kerry), you do seem to have a point
here... :)
It is indeed quite possible, and even probable, that the
Canadian West coasters came from Asia at some point in time
-- skipping along all that near-continuos coast-line --
before they went on to Polynesia, and became Polynesians!
This seems like the most rational scenario, that's also
supported by plenty of archaeological evidence.
All the best,
George
> On Tue, 22 Jun 2004 15:04:03 -0400, Yuri Kuchinsky <yu...@trends.ca>
> wrote:
>
> >benlizross wrote:
> >>
> >> Yuri Kuchinsky wrote:
> >> >
> >> > benlizross wrote:
>
> >> > > The mainland that the
> >> > > Polynesians came from was Asia -- or at the very least, their sailing
> >> > > technology came from there.
> >> >
> >> > How so?
> >> >
> >> > In actual fact, the evidence points elsewhere.
> >>
> >> Really? Perhaps you could give some evidence in support of this amazing
> >> claim.
> >
> >There's a marked similarity between the Canadian West Coast
> >canoes and Polynesian canoes, for example.
> >
> >Yuri.
>
>
> Well maybe the Canadian West coasters came from Asia too...why fancy
> that...They did!
>
Yuri has unearthed a FACT. Canoes look similar.
Wow. Hold me back.
Watercraft have a 'marked' simularity ?
Now all hhe has to do is explain exactly how one hollowed out log boat
can be different from another....
:-))
grimly bubble
"Not That Kerry" <ker...@remove.ihugconz> wrote in message
news:40d96e6f...@news.wlg.ihug.co.nz...
> On Tue, 22 Jun 2004 15:04:03 -0400, Yuri Kuchinsky <yu...@trends.ca>
> wrote:
>
> >benlizross wrote:
> >>
> >> Yuri Kuchinsky wrote:
> >> >
> >> > benlizross wrote:
>
> >> > > The mainland that the
> >> > > Polynesians came from was Asia -- or at the very least, their
sailing
> >> > > technology came from there.
> >> >
> >> > How so?
> >> >
> >> > In actual fact, the evidence points elsewhere.
> >>
> >> Really? Perhaps you could give some evidence in support of this amazing
> >> claim.
> >
> >There's a marked similarity between the Canadian West Coast
> >canoes and Polynesian canoes, for example.
> >
> >Yuri.
>
>
> Well maybe the Canadian West coasters came from Asia too...why fancy
> that...They did!
In the great book 'voyage to Jeaunea (by Jonathan Rabin,) Rabin describes
incidences of flotsam from Japan drifting ashore on the coastline of Canada
and Alaska. He describes the living on the water and close association with
the coast common along that waterway. He speculates on the reaction of the
inhabitants when such things as complete wooden vessels from japan wash
ashore. There is no indication that huge waka were built and sailed away by
those indigenous inhabitants but the picture he paints of life at the time
is absolutely wonderful.
If history isn't entertaining it may not be considered worth a damn.
grimly bubble
"George" <gbl...@hnpl.net> wrote in message
news:9b937279.04062...@posting.google.com...
The kind of tree it is made from perhaps. The tools used to shape the log
into a waka, dimensions of the log to begin with (some islands didn't have
'big' trees so the technique and size of vessels was different to those
built out of tall cedar) WHo knows, there are probably lots of differences.
benlizross
>
> benlizross wrote:
> >
> > Yuri Kuchinsky wrote:
> > >
> > > benlizross wrote in article <40D5F9...@ihug.co.nz>:
> > > >
> > > > Yuri Kuchinsky wrote:
> > >
> > > > > There's a general bias amongst the mainstream researchers in
> > > > > Polynesian prehistory against accepting cultural contacts
> > > > > with South America.
> > > >
> > > > "categorical denial" has been replaced by "general bias". A measurable
> > > > improvement in your awareness.
> > >
> > > I note that you didn't dispute what I said above.
> >
> > Oh, would you like me to dispute it? I was trying to emphasize the
> > positive.
> > OK, although you have moved closer to a correct perception of reality,
> > you still see things (as in virtually every subject you discuss) in
> > terms of "bias" (to use the politest word in your vocabulary). I would
> > say that mainstream researchers do not spend a great deal of their time
> > talking about cultural contacts between Polynesia and S America because,
> > on the evidence, they were not that important.
>
> Nonsense. These contacts between Polynesia and S America
> were certainly quite important. And here's the proof,
>
> Easter Island Images
> http://www.globalserve.net/~yuku/
I see the same old icons and relics still have their power to inspire
faith in you. Unfortunately most people don't share that faith.
> > If there is a kind of
> > wariness about such matters, it would be in large part as a reaction to
> > 50 years of sensational and highly publicized claims by Heyerdahl,
>
> Well, that's an interesting twist... Blame Heyerdahl for the
> lack of attention to contacts between Polynesia and S
> America???
>
> This is Alice in Wonderland, folks!
No, Yuri, but it is a kind of irony.
> You certainly do seem to exhibit a rather unhealthy
> obsession with Heyerdahl...
But this is truly Alice in Wonderland -- everthing through the looking
glass! It's like when Yuri from time to time accuses everyone but
himself of being a "diffusionist".
No. You're reading carelessly again. I said "lots of specific". You know
where it is.
Ross Clark
benlizross
Archaeological evidence! Great! Tell us all about it!
Uh...you don't by any chance mean pictures of totem poles, do you?
Ross Clark
benlizross
For those who might be looking for it, that would be Raban (the author)
and "Passage to Juneau" (the title). I believe it might have been
published in this part of the world under the title "The Inside
Passage". By all accounts a very good read. Hope to read it mysefl some
day.
Ross Clark
Seppo Renfors
Tony Smith wrote:
>
PLEASE NOTE: Tony "the criminal" Smith uses "set follow-ups to" to
propagate messages to groups completely UNRELATED to anything it
states - in fact there are NO groups any of its crminal stalking is
appropriate in.
The stalking engaged in by Tony Smith is a Criminal Act emanating from
raw malice, as a result of losing an debate long time ago. You may see
him resort to copyright breaches, defamation, racism and deliberately
and knowingly breach a number of Australian and some international
laws. He attacks other people for no valid reason in forums where his
sole interest is STALKING me. Variously the mentally disturbed person
will accuse others of being me.
The EFFECT, if not the aim, is to destroy goups with its STALKING.
Note the ever increasing volume of the stalker Tony Smith! Do not
respond to the madman - notify the following of his criminal
activities of stalking - the breach of AUP's and group charters:
FEMALE TECHNOLOGIES
Level 2/50 Appel Street
Surfers Paradise Qld 4217
PO BOX 728
NERANG QLD 4211
ABN: 98510913241
Phone: 0755267767
or:
Julie Ann Johnson
Transgendered Productions
Unit 1 / 14 Oshea Drive
Nerang
QLD 4211
and:
Samantha Scafe
SS681-AP
sama...@femtech.com.au
Po Box 728
Nerang
Qld 4211
Email is:
sama...@femtech.com.au
sama...@aussiewide.com
reb...@cairns.net.au
ab...@usa.net
ab...@yahoo.com
to...@tonsyl.org
to...@yahoo.com
tonys...@netscape.net
anthon...@jcu.edu.au
ab...@netscape.net
ab...@netscape.com
Message posted via Berlin Uni:
ne...@Uni-Berlin.DE