art parallels between Polynesia and NW Coast
Yuri Kuchinsky
Here are just some of these amazing and very close artistic parallels
between Polynesia and NW Coast. These come from
AUTHOR: Badner, Mino
TITLE: Two studies of art in the Pacific area: The protruding
tongue and related motifs in the art styles of the
American Northwest Coast, New Zealand and China
PUBLISHED: Horn Berger [1966]
DESCRIPTION: 68p.
Badner focuses only on one specific artistic motif, the protruding tongue.
There are also many others that demonstrate the same thing. The book
provides plentiful illustrations.
This is what Badner writes on p. 26 in his Summary. Each of the following
parallels is well illustrated with examples from both NW Coast and NZ, and
discussed in some detail.
[quote]
The following [NW Coast] motifs have close visual parallels in the Maori
art of NZ:
1. Simple Protruding Tongue.
2. Extended Long Tongue, Free.
3. Extended Long Tongue, Grasped.
4. Human Squatting or Standing on Top of Tongued Head.
5. Large Tongued Figure with Smaller One.
6. Tsonoqoa (Tongued Pickaback Pose).
7. Protruding Figure.
8. Connected Tongue, Incomplete.
9. Connected Tongue, Complete.
10. Sisiutl (Double-Headed Serpent).
11. Tongue as Blade.
Of the above designs many are not only visually but also functionally
similar. All this amounts to more than could possibly be due to mere
chance.
[end quote]
This artistic material provides further support for the theory of
Heyerdahl that Polynesian languages and culture originated ca. 2000 years
ago on the NW Coast of America. There's also much other evidence,
including some names of important Polynesian deities in parallel with NW
Coast. Linguistic parallels are also abundant, and I will post about them
soon.
Best regards,
Yuri.
Yuri Kuchinsky -=O=- http://www.globalserve.net/~yuku -=O=- Toronto
Reality is that which, when you stop believing
in it, doesn't go away -=O=- Philip K. Dick
Mike Cleven
wrote:
>
>The following [NW Coast] motifs have close visual parallels in the Maori
>art of NZ:
>
>1. Simple Protruding Tongue.
>2. Extended Long Tongue, Free.
>3. Extended Long Tongue, Grasped.
>4. Human Squatting or Standing on Top of Tongued Head.
>5. Large Tongued Figure with Smaller One.
>6. Tsonoqoa (Tongued Pickaback Pose).
>7. Protruding Figure.
>8. Connected Tongue, Incomplete.
>9. Connected Tongue, Complete.
>10. Sisiutl (Double-Headed Serpent).
>11. Tongue as Blade.
>
>Of the above designs many are not only visually but also functionally
>similar. All this amounts to more than could possibly be due to mere
>chance.
What about the protruding tongues on the Indian goddess Kali? What
about the protruding tongues on dragons, whether in Greek, Norse, or
Chinese art? What about the protruding tongues on images in Aztec and
Maya art? Iroquois masks? Images of the Celtic god Bel?
All this amounts to mere chance; or the universal commonality of the
protruding tongue. Pfffffllt!
.
>
>[end quote]
>
>This artistic material provides further support for the theory of
>Heyerdahl that Polynesian languages and culture originated ca. 2000 years
>ago on the NW Coast of America. There's also much other evidence,
>including some names of important Polynesian deities in parallel with NW
>Coast. Linguistic parallels are also abundant, and I will post about them
>soon.
There is no such evidence, and any you have claimed to have provided
has been soundly rebuked in other threads in this NG. Why do you keep
on claiming something that can't be demonstrated?
Mike Cleven
http://members.home.net/ironmtn/
The thunderbolt steers all things.
- Herakleitos
Jonathan Stone
|> On 14 Jan 1999 20:25:27 GMT, yu...@globalserve.net (Yuri Kuchinsky)
|> wrote:
|>
|> >
|> >The following [NW Coast] motifs have close visual parallels in the Maori
|> >art of NZ:
|> >
|> >1. Simple Protruding Tongue.
|> >2. Extended Long Tongue, Free.
|> >3. Extended Long Tongue, Grasped.
|> >4. Human Squatting or Standing on Top of Tongued Head.
|> >5. Large Tongued Figure with Smaller One.
|> >6. Tsonoqoa (Tongued Pickaback Pose).
|> >7. Protruding Figure.
|> >8. Connected Tongue, Incomplete.
|> >9. Connected Tongue, Complete.
|> >10. Sisiutl (Double-Headed Serpent).
|> >11. Tongue as Blade.
|> >
|> >Of the above designs many are not only visually but also functionally
|> >similar. All this amounts to more than could possibly be due to mere
|> >chance.
|>
|> What about the protruding tongues on the Indian goddess Kali? What
|> about the protruding tongues on dragons, whether in Greek, Norse, or
|> Chinese art? What about the protruding tongues on images in Aztec and
|> Maya art? Iroquois masks? Images of the Celtic god Bel?
For now, all I'll will add is that there are no serpents in New
Zealand; and thus anyone who sees a "double-headed serpent" in Maori
art is almost certainly deluding themselves.
tkavanag
>
> Greetings,
>
> Here are just some of these amazing and very close artistic parallels
> between Polynesia and NW Coast. These come from
>
> AUTHOR: Badner, Mino
> TITLE: Two studies of art in the Pacific area: The protruding
> tongue and related motifs in the art styles of the
> American Northwest Coast, New Zealand and China
> PUBLISHED: Horn Berger [1966]
> DESCRIPTION: 68p.
Ah Yes.
Badner, Mino
1966 _The Protruding Tongue and Related Motifs in the Art Styles of the
American Northwest Coast, New Zealand and China_ Verlag Ferdinand
Berger& Sohne.
This short paper was originally done in fulfillment of a Master's degree
at Columbia, but no date for the degree is given, and no subject given,
although from internal evidence it appears to have been in Art History.
If so, it is of the classical form of pseudoethnographic Art History:
that is, lots of "it seems", " "there are similarities", "other
resemblances", etc., but with very little valid history or anthropology.
[Yes, I have sat on a number of Art History degree panels, and I have
voted against several candidates whose methodology, while classically
Art History, was just bad History or bad Anthropology.]
My basic problem with Badner is the absence of valid comparisons.
Despite the lists of alleged comparable elements, such as the
protruding tongues, as cited by Yuri, on page 26, or the more general
stylistic paradigm on page 8, Badner actually provides very little
comparative material.
For instance, while his "Part I" gives a "Survey of the Protuding Tongue
in the Sculpture of the Northwest Coast", with subsections "Grizzly
Bear", "Sea Lion and Sea Monster", "Tsonoqua", and "Sisiutl", in his
section "Parallels to the Northwest Coast Protruding Tongue Motif in New
Zealand", the focus of the subsections is not to subjects, such as
Grizzly Bear, Sea Lion , Sea Monster, etc., but is to artistic motifs,
"Extended Tongue", "Contected Tongue", etc. not to the cultural context
for the NZ materials. We are given no information as to which
indivuduals might be protrayed. [Are there bears, walruses[!], etc., in
NZ] Indeed, in one paragraph in the New Zealand section, Badner includes
a half-page paragraph titled "Tsonoqua", the "wild cannibal woman",
i.e. the Kwakiutl personage, but he does not name the Maori personage
depicted, and his Maori reference emphasizes the "archetectural"
function (i.e. as housepost) not to the personage represented.. Is there
indeed a Maori "wild cannibal woman"?
Badner is simply bad comparision.
tk
Yuri Kuchinsky
: On 14 Jan 1999 20:25:27 GMT, yu...@globalserve.net (Yuri Kuchinsky)
: wrote:
: >
: >The following [NW Coast] motifs have close visual parallels in the Maori
: >art of NZ:
: >
: >1. Simple Protruding Tongue.
: >2. Extended Long Tongue, Free.
: >3. Extended Long Tongue, Grasped.
: >4. Human Squatting or Standing on Top of Tongued Head.
: >5. Large Tongued Figure with Smaller One.
: >6. Tsonoqoa (Tongued Pickaback Pose).
: >7. Protruding Figure.
: >8. Connected Tongue, Incomplete.
: >9. Connected Tongue, Complete.
: >10. Sisiutl (Double-Headed Serpent).
: >11. Tongue as Blade.
: >
: >Of the above designs many are not only visually but also functionally
: >similar. All this amounts to more than could possibly be due to mere
: >chance.
: What about the protruding tongues on the Indian goddess Kali?
What about them? They may also have derived from China.
: What
: about the protruding tongues on dragons, whether in Greek, Norse,
What about them? Are they red herrings perhaps?
: or Chinese art?
Duh!
Once again, you're not focusing. The idea was that the ones in America may
have _derived from China_, ultimately.
: What about the protruding tongues on images in Aztec and
: Maya art?
What about them?
: Iroquois masks?
And?
: Images of the Celtic god Bel?
Red herrings? How similar are they to NW Coast? Not very...
: All this amounts to mere chance; or the universal commonality of the
: protruding tongue. Pfffffllt!
You seem to be ranting once again.
: >This artistic material provides further support for the theory of
: >Heyerdahl that Polynesian languages and culture originated ca. 2000 years
: >ago on the NW Coast of America. There's also much other evidence,
: >including some names of important Polynesian deities in parallel with NW
: >Coast. Linguistic parallels are also abundant, and I will post about them
: >soon.
: There is no such evidence,
Bald assertion.
: and any you have claimed to have provided
: has been soundly rebuked in other threads in this NG.
False.
: Why do you keep
: on claiming something that can't be demonstrated?
I've demonstrated enough already, and there's more coming.
Now, your reply indicates to me that your bias is terminal, and that
you're not qualified to judge any of this comparative material. Your
credibility now is zero. You have not seen these images in Badner, and yet
you already know that they are not persuasive?
So, clearly, you have now disqualified yourself as an objective scholar.
Yours,
Yuri.
Yuri Kuchinsky -O- http://www.globalserve.net/~yuku -O- Toronto
You never need think you can turn over any old falsehoods without a
terrible squirming of the horrid little population that dwells under
it -=O=- Oliver Wendell Holmes
Yuri Kuchinsky
: For now, all I'll will add is that there are no serpents in New
: Zealand; and thus anyone who sees a "double-headed serpent" in Maori
: art is almost certainly deluding themselves.
You're too confused. See the photos in Badner, and then get back to me.
Regards,
Yuri.
Yuri Kuchinsky -=O=- http://www.globalserve.net/~yuku
For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple,
neat, and wrong -=O=- H. L. Mencken
Yuri Kuchinsky
> Ah Yes.
>
> Badner, Mino
> 1966 _The Protruding Tongue and Related Motifs in the Art Styles of the
> American Northwest Coast, New Zealand and China_ Verlag Ferdinand
> Berger& Sohne.
>
> This short paper was originally done in fulfillment of a Master's
> degree at Columbia, but no date for the degree is given, and no
> subject given, although from internal evidence it appears to have been
> in Art History.
And so begins another legal brief from Tom. My answer? Who cares...
> If so, it is of the classical form of pseudoethnographic Art History:
> that is, lots of "it seems", " "there are similarities", "other
> resemblances", etc., but with very little valid history or
> anthropology.
>
> [Yes, I have sat on a number of Art History degree panels, and I have
> voted against several candidates whose methodology, while classically
> Art History, was just bad History or bad Anthropology.]
Seems like mere snobbery.
> My basic problem with Badner is the absence of valid comparisons.
> Despite the lists of alleged comparable elements, such as the
> protruding tongues, as cited by Yuri, on page 26, or the more general
> stylistic paradigm on page 8, Badner actually provides very little
> comparative material.
Meaningless ranting. Yes, Badner could have also done other things, but he
didn't do them. Who cares... Yawn...
> For instance, while his "Part I" gives a "Survey of the Protuding Tongue
> in the Sculpture of the Northwest Coast", with subsections "Grizzly
> Bear", "Sea Lion and Sea Monster", "Tsonoqua", and "Sisiutl", in his
> section "Parallels to the Northwest Coast Protruding Tongue Motif in New
> Zealand", the focus of the subsections is not to subjects, such as
> Grizzly Bear, Sea Lion , Sea Monster, etc., but is to artistic motifs,
> "Extended Tongue", "Contected Tongue", etc.
Duh!
It is the book about these specific artistic motifs. Did you forget to
read the title, or something?
Tom's comments are really not very intelligent. The bear in NW Coast art
looks like the animal in NZ art. So the animal in NZ is probably based on
bear? Logic 100 especially for Tom.
> not to the cultural context for the NZ materials.
Another thing that Badner could have done... Yawn...
> We are given no information as to which indivuduals might be
> protrayed.
This is just dumb. You want their Social Security numbers too?
> [Are there bears, walruses[!], etc., in NZ]
Too dumb. There are no bears in NZ. As if you don't know it?
> Indeed, in one paragraph in the New Zealand section, Badner includes a
> half-page paragraph titled "Tsonoqua", the "wild cannibal woman", i.e.
> the Kwakiutl personage, but he does not name the Maori personage
> depicted,
So what? Nice lawyering, Tom.
> and his Maori reference emphasizes the "archetectural" function (i.e.
> as housepost) not to the personage represented..
More dumb criticism.
> Is there indeed a Maori "wild cannibal woman"?
You tell me. The fact is the woman looks the same.
> Badner is simply bad comparision.
This is just a lot of meaningless and irrelevant pontification, Tom, that
you've produced. Arrogant and snobby lawyering for the accepted dogma.
Even wearing your usual blinkers you should have been able to give your
opinion about these artistic parallels -- the parallels that any impartial
observer will declare immediately as obviously very close. That you didn't
say _anything_ about this indicates that you're intellectually dishonest.
Why aren't you ashamed of your bias, Tom?
Yuri.
Yuri Kuchinsky -=O=- http://www.globalserve.net/~yuku
You are a heroine, Dorothy. Your house landed on top
of the Wicked Witch of the East. You have set the
Munchkins free -=O=- The Wizard of Oz
Mike Cleven
wrote:
>: >This artistic material provides further support for the theory of
>: >Heyerdahl that Polynesian languages and culture originated ca. 2000 years
>: >ago on the NW Coast of America. There's also much other evidence,
>: >including some names of important Polynesian deities in parallel with NW
>: >Coast. Linguistic parallels are also abundant, and I will post about them
>: >soon.
>
>: There is no such evidence,
>
>Bald assertion.
No, no, no, no, Yuri. You're the one who made the "bald assertion" -
and have yet to post any supporting evidence. Whether its the use of
pubic hair in the sun-snaring myth on the NW Coast (you didn't even
get the right "deity" last time you mentioned it) to your claim above
concerning linguistic parallels that you're going to post, you haven't
delivered on ANYTHING.
More like a bald assumption. Are you bald, by any chance?
Jonathan Stone
|> Jonathan Stone (jona...@Cup.DSG.Stanford.EDU) wrote on 14 Jan 1999 21:31:39 GMT:
|>
|> : For now, all I'll will add is that there are no serpents in New
|> : Zealand; and thus anyone who sees a "double-headed serpent" in Maori
|> : art is almost certainly deluding themselves.
|>
|> You're too confused. See the photos in Badner, and then get back to me.
No, Yuri. I am most certainly *not* confused. I am very confident I I
know considerably more about the geology and paleontology and zoology
of Aotearoa than you do. Whatever the resemblance is, the Maori
artwork _cannot_ be depicting serpents.
Eels, maybe. Serpents, no.
I'm busy working on a data set from LBL that I have to get done by
this week. I'll try and get to a library next week. If anyone else
manages to look at or scan these Maori "serpents" in the meantime, I'd
be very grateful.
g...@galaxycom.net.nz
jona...@DSG.Stanford.EDU wrote:
> In article <77nsrn$jgg$2...@whisper.globalserve.net>, yu...@globalserve.net (Yuri
Kuchinsky) writes:
> |> You're too confused. See the photos in Badner, and then get back to me.
>
> No, Yuri. I am most certainly *not* confused. I am very confident I I
> know considerably more about the geology and paleontology and zoology
> of Aotearoa than you do. Whatever the resemblance is, the Maori
> artwork _cannot_ be depicting serpents.
>
> Eels, maybe. Serpents, no.
I worked as an eel fisherman at Dargaville in the early 1970's.
Some of the eels that never go back to sea reach very large sizes in girth,
length and weight.
I have considered that large eels may well be the foundation for the Taniwha
stories.
There are no, have been no and will be no serpents in New Zealand.
> I'm busy working on a data set from LBL that I have to get done by
> this week. I'll try and get to a library next week. If anyone else
> manages to look at or scan these Maori "serpents" in the meantime, I'd
> be very grateful.
Could well be the sinious forms used in Maori carving and wrongly translated
for some reason or other :-))
George Black
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Brian M. Scott
wrote:
>Meaningless ranting. Yes, Badner could have also done other things, but he
>didn't do them. Who cares... Yawn...
Actually, Yuri, Tom seems to be saying that Badner's comparisons are
superficial and made out of context - rather like detailing the
superficial similarities between bats and birds and ignoring the
structural differences. Anyone seriously investigating the
relationship between the two (bats and birds, or NWC and NZ art) must
consider both. Someone who just wants to find similarities will
naturally be bored by the differences and annoyed by those who point
them out. (Sound like anybody we know?)
Brian M. Scott
Jonathan Stone
|> Yuri Kuchinsky wrote:
|> >
|> > Greetings,
|> >
|> > Here are just some of these amazing and very close artistic parallels
|> > between Polynesia and NW Coast. These come from
|> >
|> > AUTHOR: Badner, Mino
|> > TITLE: Two studies of art in the Pacific area: The protruding
|> > tongue and related motifs in the art styles of the
|> > American Northwest Coast, New Zealand and China
|> > PUBLISHED: Horn Berger [1966]
|> > DESCRIPTION: 68p.
|>
|> Ah Yes.
sound all too familiar]
|> For instance, while his "Part I" gives a "Survey of the Protuding Tongue
|> in the Sculpture of the Northwest Coast", with subsections "Grizzly
|> Bear", "Sea Lion and Sea Monster", "Tsonoqua", and "Sisiutl", in his
|> section "Parallels to the Northwest Coast Protruding Tongue Motif in New
|> Zealand", the focus of the subsections is not to subjects, such as
|> Grizzly Bear, Sea Lion , Sea Monster, etc., but is to artistic motifs,
|> "Extended Tongue", "Contected Tongue", etc. not to the cultural context
|> for the NZ materials.
Exactly is why I have consistently asked YUri questions about of
what the poking-out tongue *means* in a given culture, of comparing
stylized depictions of gender, and so on.
|> We are given no information as to which
|> indivuduals might be protrayed. [Are there bears, walruses[!], etc., in
|> NZ]
Oh, for crying out loud. New Zealand has *no* native land mammals.
The closest is two rare species of cave bat, blown over from Australia
in, (geologically speaking) recent times. Apart from that, and human
introductions (Maori introduced the Polynesian rat, Europeans
introduce all sorts of pests) NZ has no mammals except marine mammals.
No snakes, either. Walruses are Arctic, not *Ant*arctic.
Bears are *right out*.
Claiming depictions of "serpents" or "walruses" or "bears" in Maori
art is sheer incompetence, end of story.
|> Indeed, in one paragraph in the New Zealand section, Badner includes
|> a half-page paragraph titled "Tsonoqua", the "wild cannibal woman",
|> i.e. the Kwakiutl personage, but he does not name the Maori personage
|> depicted, and his Maori reference emphasizes the "archetectural"
|> function (i.e. as housepost) not to the personage represented.. Is there
|> indeed a Maori "wild cannibal woman"?
I dont recognize anything from that description. But from the sketch
ydetail so far it could even be a (misunderstood) reference to Maui's
grandmother.
|> Badner is simply bad comparision.
Perhaps worse than that. One has to laugh at Yuri assuring me that
Badner knows more about it than I do.
Mike Cleven
>> I'm busy working on a data set from LBL that I have to get done by
>> this week. I'll try and get to a library next week. If anyone else
>> manages to look at or scan these Maori "serpents" in the meantime, I'd
>> be very grateful.
>
>Could well be the sinious forms used in Maori carving and wrongly translated
>for some reason or other :-))
The presence of such sinuous motifs in Maori art can only lead to one
Yuri-ish conclusion.......the Maori are actually displaced Irish!!!!!
:-)
Mike Cleven
Somewhere around here I've got a book on the formal composition of NW
art by Bill Reid and Bill Holm. The use of the tongue is quite
specific and has specific meanings, like all the symbology of the
formal art styles of the NW; nor is it necessarily a universal feature
of all figures depicted. One bear figure may have one, another may
not. More often the teeth and the shape of the snout are the
signifying detail of an animal's identity; nothing funnier than a
buck-toothed beaver with his tongue sticking out......
The classic Dsonoqua figure, by the way, has distended, pursed lips in
a blood-rimmed "O"; no tongue at all.......
b_m_...@my-dejanews.com
iro...@bigfoot.com wrote:
> On Sat, 16 Jan 1999 03:26:51 GMT, g...@galaxycom.net.nz wrote:
> >> I'm busy working on a data set from LBL that I have to get done by
> >> this week. I'll try and get to a library next week. If anyone else
> >> manages to look at or scan these Maori "serpents" in the meantime, I'd
> >> be very grateful.
> >Could well be the sinious forms used in Maori carving and wrongly translated
> >for some reason or other :-))
> The presence of such sinuous motifs in Maori art can only lead to one
> Yuri-ish conclusion.......the Maori are actually displaced Irish!!!!!
> :-)
Damn, TH missed it! Think of the fun he could have had playing
hunt-the-syllable to find a Maori S. Patrick.
Brian M. Scott
azi...@my-dejanews.com
tkavanag <tkav...@indiana.edu> wrote:
> Yuri Kuchinsky wrote:
> >
> > Greetings,
> >
> > Here are just some of these amazing and very close artistic parallels
> > between Polynesia and NW Coast. These come from
> >
> > AUTHOR: Badner, Mino
> > TITLE: Two studies of art in the Pacific area: The protruding
> > tongue and related motifs in the art styles of the
> > American Northwest Coast, New Zealand and China
> > PUBLISHED: Horn Berger [1966]
> > DESCRIPTION: 68p.
>
> Ah Yes.
>
> 1966 _The Protruding Tongue and Related Motifs in the Art Styles of the
> American Northwest Coast, New Zealand and China_ Verlag Ferdinand
> Berger& Sohne.
>
> This short paper was originally done in fulfillment of a Master's degree
> at Columbia, but no date for the degree is given, and no subject given,
> although from internal evidence it appears to have been in Art History.
> that is, lots of "it seems", " "there are similarities", "other
> resemblances", etc., but with very little valid history or anthropology.
>
> [Yes, I have sat on a number of Art History degree panels, and I have
> voted against several candidates whose methodology, while classically
> Art History, was just bad History or bad Anthropology.]
>
AMR
> My basic problem with Badner is the absence of valid comparisons.
> Despite the lists of alleged comparable elements, such as the
> protruding tongues, as cited by Yuri, on page 26, or the more general
> stylistic paradigm on page 8, Badner actually provides very little
> comparative material.
>
> For instance, while his "Part I" gives a "Survey of the Protuding Tongue
> in the Sculpture of the Northwest Coast", with subsections "Grizzly
> Bear", "Sea Lion and Sea Monster", "Tsonoqua", and "Sisiutl", in his
> section "Parallels to the Northwest Coast Protruding Tongue Motif in New
> Zealand", the focus of the subsections is not to subjects, such as
> Grizzly Bear, Sea Lion , Sea Monster, etc., but is to artistic motifs,
> "Extended Tongue", "Contected Tongue", etc. not to the cultural context
> for the NZ materials. We are given no information as to which
> indivuduals might be protrayed. [Are there bears, walruses[!], etc., in
> NZ] Indeed, in one paragraph in the New Zealand section, Badner includes
> a half-page paragraph titled "Tsonoqua", the "wild cannibal woman",
> i.e. the Kwakiutl personage, but he does not name the Maori personage
> depicted, and his Maori reference emphasizes the "archetectural"
> function (i.e. as housepost) not to the personage represented.. Is there
> indeed a Maori "wild cannibal woman"?
>
> Badner is simply bad comparision.
>
> tk
>TK
When I was in Bejing last summer, I ran across
several examples of ancient and recent
ethnographic Chinese art forms and architectural
structures that shared similarities in form,
general construction methods or materials, and
use, to the NWCoast, Plains, and SW ethnographic
arts, structures, materials, etc.
I'm not saying there exist(ed) any direct links to
the Chinese objects, but characteristic
similarities appeared striking, although the age of
the objects was significantly older.
It made me curious and I'd have liked to have more
time to explore what I was observing. Way too
much material to cover in six weeks.
AMR
The Maricopa say if it's quiet the Pima
must be eating.
Mike Cleven
>When I was in Bejing last summer, I ran across
>several examples of ancient and recent
>ethnographic Chinese art forms and architectural
>structures that shared similarities in form,
>general construction methods or materials, and
>use, to the NWCoast, Plains, and SW ethnographic
>arts, structures, materials, etc.
Where in Beijing did you run across this material? I'm from
Vancouver, where there is both a large NW art presence as well as a
large Chinese community; someone else would have noticed this by now,
and no one has......
Jonathan Stone
|> On Sat, 16 Jan 1999 03:26:51 GMT, g...@galaxycom.net.nz wrote:
|>
|> >> I'm busy working on a data set from LBL that I have to get done by
|> >> this week. I'll try and get to a library next week. If anyone else
|> >> manages to look at or scan these Maori "serpents" in the meantime, I'd
|> >> be very grateful.
|> >
|> >Could well be the sinious forms used in Maori carving and wrongly translated
|> >for some reason or other :-))
|>
|> The presence of such sinuous motifs in Maori art can only lead to one
|> Yuri-ish conclusion.......the Maori are actually displaced Irish!!!!!
|> :-)
Ha! I visited the Irish national museum and Newbridge/Knouth over
Xmas. The resemblance in the outline of Irish neolithic stone tools
and Maori implements is unmistakable. Only a Eurocentrist could
suggest that's because both toolkits are shaped from the same
materials to fit the human hand.
The Irish are well-known for open-ocean voyages: the traditions of the
Native People tell us of St. Brendan's voyage to North America.
Clearly, if the Irish can sail to North America, there's nothing
stopping them from sailing to Aotearoa. (We have Yuri's word on that.)
And the Maori myths of taniwha being turned into stone are clearly
echoes of the preChristian myths behind St. Patrick.
Why then have the hidebound Eurocentric mainstream scholars not
investigated this intruiging hypothesis further?
PS: :):):)
Doug Weller
GMT, sc...@math.csuohio.edu said...
> On 15 Jan 1999 17:23:05 GMT, yu...@globalserve.net (Yuri Kuchinsky)
> wrote:
>
> >Meaningless ranting. Yes, Badner could have also done other things, but he
> >didn't do them. Who cares... Yawn...
>
> Actually, Yuri, Tom seems to be saying that Badner's comparisons are
> superficial and made out of context - rather like detailing the
> superficial similarities between bats and birds and ignoring the
> structural differences.
>
passed, or even published, doesn't make it credible, sadly enough. I've also
seen US and UK Master's degree theses which I'd never have passed.
Doug
--
Doug Weller Moderator, sci.archaeology.moderated
Submissions to: sci-archaeol...@medieval.org
Doug's Archaeology Page: http://www.ramtops.demon.co.uk
Co-owner UK-Schools mailing list: email me for details
Yuri Kuchinsky
Scott) wrote:
: >Actually, Yuri, Tom seems to be saying that Badner's comparisons are
: >superficial and made out of context - rather like detailing the
: >superficial similarities between bats and birds and ignoring the
: >structural differences.
What would you know? You haven't seen the photos, so you're just yammering
away in your usual brainless manner.
Duh!
Yuri.
Yuri Kuchinsky -=O=- http://www.trends.ca/~yuku
If you had any brains, you'd be dangerous -=O=- Words of Dorothy
to the Scarecrow -=O=- "Wizard of Oz" (according to some versions).
Yuri Kuchinsky
pointed out that the bear also seems to be portrayed.
J. M. Brown (PEOPLES AND PROBLEMS OF THE PACIFIC, London, 1927:113, 153)
writes,
"Most of these Polynesian gods and demigods of the underworld have
indications in their careers of having come from a land of bitter winter."
And Percy Smith (HAWAIKI, Wellington, 1910:176) states,
"Now, the Maraki-hau is a well-known figure depicted in ancient Maori
carvings, and the origin of which has much exercised our ethnologists; it
has the body and face of a man, but the lower half is a fish's body and
tail -- in fact, it is just like a merman. But it has, in addition, two
long tusks coming out of its mouth which the Maoris call ngongo (or
tubes), these are as long as from the mouth to the waist of the figure. To
my mind it is the Maori representation of the walrus, or sea-elephant,
which they could see only in high latitudes."
Regards,
Yuri.
Yuri Kuchinsky -=O=- http://www.globalserve.net/~yuku
Man will occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of the time he
will pick himself up and continue on -=O=- Churchill's Commentary on Man
Yuri Kuchinsky
: I see no reason to put any credence in Badner.
And I see no reason to put any credence in anything that Mr. Doug Weller
says. In fact I have every reason not to put any credence in his usual
hostile and vacuous ruminations. He has not seen the images, but he will
rant anyway...
Yuri.
Yuri Kuchinsky -=- Toronto -=- http://www.globalserve.net/~yuku
Sherry [Thomas Sheridan] is dull, naturally dull; but it must have
taken him a great deal of pains to become what we now see him. Such
an excess of stupidity, sir, is not in Nature -=O=- Samuel Johnson
Doug Weller
GMT, yu...@globalserve.net said...
> Doug Weller (dwe...@ramtops.demon.co.uk) wrote on Sun, 17 Jan 1999 16:16:38 -0000:
>
> : I see no reason to put any credence in Badner.
>
> And I see no reason to put any credence in anything that Mr. Doug Weller
> says. In fact I have every reason not to put any credence in his usual
> hostile and vacuous ruminations. He has not seen the images, but he will
> rant anyway...
I've said nothing about images, please stop trying to mislead people. I see no
reason to take a Master's thesis as an authoritative source. You need more
than that. All you seem able to do is attack me, you seem absolutely unable
to make any substantive responses.
Brian M. Scott
wrote:
>On Sat, 16 Jan 1999 01:44:01 GMT, sc...@math.csuohio.edu (Brian M.
>Scott) wrote:
>: >Actually, Yuri, Tom seems to be saying that Badner's comparisons are
>: >superficial and made out of context - rather like detailing the
>: >superficial similarities between bats and birds and ignoring the
>: >structural differences.
>What would you know? You haven't seen the photos, so you're just yammering
>away in your usual brainless manner.
But Yuri, if you'd actually bothered to read instead of, er,
'yammering away in your usual brainless manner', you'd have seen that
I'm not talking about the photos: I'm talking about what Tom wrote,
which is another matter altogether.
Brian M. Scott
Jonathan Stone
|> On 17 Jan 1999 16:29:57 GMT, yu...@globalserve.net (Yuri Kuchinsky)
|> >What would you know? You haven't seen the photos, so you're just yammering
|> >away in your usual brainless manner.
|>
|> But Yuri, if you'd actually bothered to read instead of, er,
|> 'yammering away in your usual brainless manner', you'd have seen that
|> I'm not talking about the photos: I'm talking about what Tom wrote,
|> which is another matter altogether.
Clearly. But perhaps Yuri thinks the photos will show such strong
resemblances that Tom's comments are irrelevant. Yuri's judgement on
such issues isn't good: look at his "proof" of maize in India.
Anthony West
Ross Clark wrote in message <36A29A...@antnov1.auckland.ac.nz>...
>Yuri Kuchinsky wrote:
>>
>> Here's more about possible portrayals of walrus in Maori art. I've
already
>> pointed out that the bear also seems to be portrayed.
>>
[snip antique art-parallel stuff]
>
>Ah, it's back to the Golden Oldies of Polynesian scholarship. They get
>better with age, don't they, Yuri? And the fact that the nearest walrus
>is something like 1,000 miles from where the Kwakiutl live is...hey, just
>_not_a_problem_. Because of course, as they drifted on those currents
>around the North Pacific, they could ever so easily have taken a little
>side trip to the Bering Sea, had a good look at the walrus there, then
>kept it in mind over the long centuries they lived in British Columbia,
>then down across the Pacific, via Hawaii and so on, until they finally
>got to New Zealand and had a chance to carve images of them. Well, it
>sure beats any alternative theory. Like, nobody would suggest that they
>could just...*imagine* a sea-monster like that! No siree! And the fact
>that they call those long things "tubes", whereas we know they're really
>tusks, just goes to show that...uh, what does it just go to show, Yuri?
>
Artistic parallels in stylized art (and most anthropologically significant
art is highly stylized) are always dangerously suspect. It is too easy to
say, of a given carven curlicue or blob on Alpha Island, that it looks like
another curlicue or blob in Outer Omegistan.
In real artistic life, though, a sinuous line is a sinuous line; a spiral is
a spiral; a bug-eyed face with things sticking out of it is a universal of
human dreams, from the dawn of time to Maurice Sendak.
100 years ago, when all this stuff was in its infancy, people barged into
"primitive art" with the enthusiasm of the classical amateur. Parallels
abounded. Everything people saw reminded them of everything else. This was
as true in Europe and Asia as it was in Oceania.
Today anthropologists are more apt to say that a native's interpretation of
his own symbol is more informative than its resemblance to some other
people's symbol in the eyes of an outsider. The context of the symbol -- how
it functions -- is as important in interpretation as its sheer design.
In archeology you may not have that luxury. When they don't, archeologists
have become extremely cautious about inferring population movements etc.
etc. from a handful of artistic motifs. Artistic images are one of the many
human cultural artifacts that are capable of independent invention. And when
they do travel, it may be in ways that are unrelated to other intergroup
exchanges. Art has a life of its own.
Tony West
Philadelphia aaw...@critpath.org
Ross Clark
>
> Here's more about possible portrayals of walrus in Maori art. I've already
> pointed out that the bear also seems to be portrayed.
>
> writes,
>
> "Most of these Polynesian gods and demigods of the underworld have
> indications in their careers of having come from a land of bitter winter."
>
> And Percy Smith (HAWAIKI, Wellington, 1910:176) states,
>
> "Now, the Maraki-hau is a well-known figure depicted in ancient Maori
> carvings, and the origin of which has much exercised our ethnologists; it
> has the body and face of a man, but the lower half is a fish's body and
> tail -- in fact, it is just like a merman. But it has, in addition, two
> long tusks coming out of its mouth which the Maoris call ngongo (or
> tubes), these are as long as from the mouth to the waist of the figure. To
> my mind it is the Maori representation of the walrus, or sea-elephant,
> which they could see only in high latitudes."
>
Ah, it's back to the Golden Oldies of Polynesian scholarship. They get
better with age, don't they, Yuri? And the fact that the nearest walrus
is something like 1,000 miles from where the Kwakiutl live is...hey, just
_not_a_problem_. Because of course, as they drifted on those currents
around the North Pacific, they could ever so easily have taken a little
side trip to the Bering Sea, had a good look at the walrus there, then
kept it in mind over the long centuries they lived in British Columbia,
then down across the Pacific, via Hawaii and so on, until they finally
got to New Zealand and had a chance to carve images of them. Well, it
sure beats any alternative theory. Like, nobody would suggest that they
could just...*imagine* a sea-monster like that! No siree! And the fact
that they call those long things "tubes", whereas we know they're really
tusks, just goes to show that...uh, what does it just go to show, Yuri?
Ross Clark
g...@galaxycom.net.nz
yu...@globalserve.net (Yuri Kuchinsky) wrote:
> Here's more about possible portrayals of walrus in Maori art. I've already
> pointed out that the bear also seems to be portrayed.
>
> J. M. Brown (PEOPLES AND PROBLEMS OF THE PACIFIC, London, 1927:113, 153)
> writes,
1927 Wow. Just yesterday.
> "Most of these Polynesian gods and demigods of the underworld have
> indications in their careers of having come from a land of bitter winter."
You obviously have not had a New Zealand winter. Some are very bitter
> And Percy Smith (HAWAIKI, Wellington, 1910:176) states,
>
> "Now, the Maraki-hau is a well-known figure depicted in ancient Maori
> carvings, and the origin of which has much exercised our ethnologists; it
> has the body and face of a man, but the lower half is a fish's body and
> tail -- in fact, it is just like a merman. But it has, in addition, two
> long tusks coming out of its mouth which the Maoris call ngongo (or
> tubes), these are as long as from the mouth to the waist of the figure. To
> my mind it is the Maori representation of the walrus, or sea-elephant,
> which they could see only in high latitudes."
Nonsense.
Make up your mind Yuri. Are you talking about sea-elephants or Walrus?
They are different.
We DO have sea elephants here.
In fact one used to camp in with a mob of cows near Wellington in the '60's.
Walrus are a North Pole animal.
"Deep sigh"
George Black
J.R. Pelmont
> ..........
> Nonsense.
> Make up your mind Yuri. Are you talking about sea-elephants or Walrus?
>
> They are different.
> We DO have sea elephants here.
> In fact one used to camp in with a mob of cows near Wellington in the '60's.
> Walrus are a North Pole animal.
> "Deep sigh"
>
> George Black
>
Arctic walrus are easily recognized because of their long tusks, but are
those you call sea-elephants what english-speaking authors sometimes
call sea-lions, especially in the Galapagos (lions de mer or otaries, in
french) ? It is easy to get somewhat confused because of similarities in
morphology. The wording "sea-elephants" is found in my dictionary
(Harrap's Shorter dic.), not sea-lions (?). The confusion in France is
increased by calling the walrus "elephants de mer", because of their
tusks.
A fairly large number of such animals called "sea-lions" (Zalophus ?) *
can be watched at Seal Bay Conservation Park, Kangaroo Island, southern
Australia. You can walk very close to them. There are also true seals, a
species related to seals in NZ (Arctocephalus australis, ** ?), but it
remains to be verified. Thousands of quite similar "sea-lions" can be
seen in the Galapagos 14,000 km from there ! The males are bigger,
darker, maybe they are also compared to elephants. Each of them looks
after a harem of females packed on the same beach with the young.
Back to archaeology, although I am a layman in this, I would be very
cautious in interpreting ancient drawings, paintings or sculptures of
this type of animals, able to spread along huge distances wherever there
is a lot of fish and other conditions are suitable. Exact designation
takes care of precise shape and morphology. And seals do exist in many
parts of the world (Scotland, Ireland, Iceland, Canada ..... Maybe you
can teach us about this, I am interested. Thanks.
____________________
*The californian sea lion is Zalophus californianus. The Galapagos
species is supposed to be closely related to it.
** Arcto = bear, cephalus = head, because of the shape of their nose
Jonathan Stone
|> Arctic walrus are easily recognized because of their long tusks, but are
|> those you call sea-elephants what english-speaking authors sometimes
|> call sea-lions, especially in the Galapagos (lions de mer or otaries, in
|> french) ?
No, he means sea-elephants.
I dont know about other dialects of English, but in NZ (and, it seems,
California) English, sea elephants are *huge* pinnipeds. The males
have large protruberances or flaps around the face, reminiscent,
perhaps, of Kipling's `Elephant's Child' before the crocodile bit his
nose. Or, with a dose of imagination, as like an elephant's trunk.
Hence the name.
`Sea elephants' do not have tusks like a walrus.
for the rest, pinnipeds are divided into two subgroups: those with
externally-visible ears, and those without. I thought, Informally,
one was the 'true' seals and the other was sea-lions; but I'm not a
zoologist.
|> Back to archaeology, although I am a layman in this, I would be very
|> cautious in interpreting ancient drawings, paintings or sculptures of
|> this type of animals, able to spread along huge distances wherever there
|> is a lot of fish and other conditions are suitable. Exact designation
|> takes care of precise shape and morphology. And seals do exist in many
|> parts of the world (Scotland, Ireland, Iceland, Canada ..... Maybe you
|> can teach us about this, I am interested. Thanks.
Um, yes. However, the fossil evidence suggests that walrus have
always been Northern creatures. All living walrus are descended from a
group that moved into the Atlantic some 6.5 Mya; the Pacific walrus
are believed to be descended from Atlantic walrus, and to have moved
back from the Atlantic to the Pacific within the last million years.
The impediments to very large, shellfish-eating, well-insulated
species moving from one pole to the other should be obvious: at some
point, they'd have to get through the tropics. Seems likely they'd
starve and overheat. Heck, walrus dont get as far south as the PNW.
And inferring human dispersion patterns via artistic depictions of
pinnipeds has one huge problem: how do you know whether any given
detail represent true biological details, or artistic/mythic traditions?
Jonathan Stone
|> Jonathan Stone wrote:
[marakihau are indeed taniwha]
So (see article <77ajfm$ljj$1...@nntp.Stanford.EDU>) this "walrus" is
indeed a taniwha.
Thanks for doing the legwork once aga, Ross.
Mike Cleven
Pelmont) wrote:
>but are
>those you call sea-elephants what english-speaking authors sometimes
>call sea-lions,
I don't know about in French, but in English there IS a big
distinction between sea elephants and sea lions......
Jonathan Stone
|> On Mon, 18 Jan 1999 20:32:40 +0930, Jean.P...@wanadoo.fr (J.R.
|> Pelmont) wrote:
|> I don't know about in French, but in English there IS a big
|> distinction between sea elephants and sea lions......
Today is a bad day to get to a library in the USA.
But there's always the Web: the Smithsonian zoology pages,
the cross-links from the University of California Museum of
Paelontology (www.ucmp.berkeley.edu) and the `Tree of Life',
or even SeaWorld....
Ross Clark
>
> <g...@galaxycom.net.nz> wrote :
>
> > ..........
> > Nonsense.
> > Make up your mind Yuri. Are you talking about sea-elephants or Walrus?
> >
> > They are different.
> > We DO have sea elephants here.
> > In fact one used to camp in with a mob of cows near Wellington in the '60's.
> > Walrus are a North Pole animal.
> > "Deep sigh"
> >
> > George Black
> >
> those you call sea-elephants what english-speaking authors sometimes
> morphology. The wording "sea-elephants" is found in my dictionary
> (Harrap's Shorter dic.), not sea-lions (?). The confusion in France is
> increased by calling the walrus "elephants de mer", because of their
> tusks.
>
> A fairly large number of such animals called "sea-lions" (Zalophus ?) *
> can be watched at Seal Bay Conservation Park, Kangaroo Island, southern
> Australia. You can walk very close to them. There are also true seals, a
> species related to seals in NZ (Arctocephalus australis, ** ?), but it
> remains to be verified. Thousands of quite similar "sea-lions" can be
> seen in the Galapagos 14,000 km from there ! The males are bigger,
> darker, maybe they are also compared to elephants. Each of them looks
> after a harem of females packed on the same beach with the young.
>
> cautious in interpreting ancient drawings, paintings or sculptures of
> this type of animals, able to spread along huge distances wherever there
> is a lot of fish and other conditions are suitable. Exact designation
> takes care of precise shape and morphology. And seals do exist in many
> parts of the world (Scotland, Ireland, Iceland, Canada ..... Maybe you
> can teach us about this, I am interested. Thanks.
>
> *The californian sea lion is Zalophus californianus. The Galapagos
> species is supposed to be closely related to it.
> ** Arcto = bear, cephalus = head, because of the shape of their nose
>
> --
> jean.p...@ujf-grenoble.fr
Powell's Native Animals of New Zealand lists four species in this area:
New Zealand Sea Lion (Neophoca hookeri)
New Zealand Fur Seal (Arctocephalus fosteri)
Leopard Seal (Hydrurga leptonyx)
Elephant Seal (Mirounga leonina)
I think the last may have been the one George was talking about.
None of them have tusks.
Ross Clark
Ross Clark
I had a look at some representations of marakihau in T.Barrow's _Maori
Wood Sculpture_, and the entry on same in Margaret Orbell's _Illustrated
Encyclopedia of Maori Myth and Legend_. They are a particular type of
taniwha, typical of the Bay of Plenty-Urewera region. None of the ones
shown have anything remotely resembling walrus tusks. They do have
strange tongues though. The tongues are described as tubes (ngongo) and
are used for sucking up fish. Some of those shown actually have a fish
being sucked in at the end of the tongue. Sometimes they may even suck
in people or canoes. (Taniwha are monsters that lurk under the water,
not necessarily evil but potentially dangerous.)
Ross Clark
Mike Cleven
Stone) wrote:
>In article <36a79960....@news.nvcr1.bc.wave.home.com>, iro...@bigfoot.com (Mike Cleven) writes:
>|> On Mon, 18 Jan 1999 20:32:40 +0930, Jean.P...@wanadoo.fr (J.R.
>|> Pelmont) wrote:
>|> I don't know about in French, but in English there IS a big
>|> distinction between sea elephants and sea lions......
>
>Today is a bad day to get to a library in the USA.
Why is that? Martin Luther King day?
Jonathan Stone
> >Today is a bad day to get to a library in the USA.
>
> Why is that? Martin Luther King day?
That's the one.
Yuri Kuchinsky
: In article <77t7gf$bav$4...@whisper.globalserve.net>, on 17 Jan 1999 17:43:43
: > Doug Weller (dwe...@ramtops.demon.co.uk) wrote on Sun, 17 Jan 1999 16:16:38 -0000:
: >
: > : I see no reason to put any credence in Badner.
: >
: > And I see no reason to put any credence in anything that Mr. Doug Weller
: > says. In fact I have every reason not to put any credence in his usual
: > hostile and vacuous ruminations. He has not seen the images, but he will
: > rant anyway...
: I've said nothing about images, please stop trying to mislead people. I see no
: reason to take a Master's thesis as an authoritative source.
It seems like you're now desperately looking for ANY excuse not to face
reality.
: You need more
: than that. All you seem able to do is attack me, you seem absolutely unable
: to make any substantive responses.
No, knucklehead, _your_ response was ANYTHING but substantive. If you want
a substantive response, present a substantive argument. But you'll never
be able to figure this one out...
Yuri.
Yuri Kuchinsky -=O=- http://www.globalserve.net/~yuku
This sign was seen in a Paris hotel elevator:
"Please leave your values at the front desk."
Yuri Kuchinsky
: Yuri Kuchinsky wrote:
: >
: > Here's more about possible portrayals of walrus in Maori art. I've already
: > pointed out that the bear also seems to be portrayed.
: >
: > J. M. Brown (PEOPLES AND PROBLEMS OF THE PACIFIC, London, 1927:113, 153)
: > writes,
: > "Most of these Polynesian gods and demigods of the underworld have
: > indications in their careers of having come from a land of bitter winter."
: > And Percy Smith (HAWAIKI, Wellington, 1910:176) states,
: >
: > "Now, the Maraki-hau is a well-known figure depicted in ancient Maori
: > carvings, and the origin of which has much exercised our ethnologists; it
: > has the body and face of a man, but the lower half is a fish's body and
: > tail -- in fact, it is just like a merman. But it has, in addition, two
: > long tusks coming out of its mouth which the Maoris call ngongo (or
: > tubes), these are as long as from the mouth to the waist of the figure. To
: > my mind it is the Maori representation of the walrus, or sea-elephant,
: > which they could see only in high latitudes."
: Ah, it's back to the Golden Oldies of Polynesian scholarship.
That's right. And away from the Brave New Dishonesty.
: They get
: better with age, don't they, Yuri? And the fact that the nearest walrus
: is something like 1,000 miles from where the Kwakiutl live is...hey, just
: _not_a_problem_.
It's a lot nearer from Kwakiutl area than from NZ, wouldn't you say?
: Because of course, as they drifted on those currents
: around the North Pacific, they could ever so easily have taken a little
: side trip to the Bering Sea, had a good look at the walrus there,
No, you poor witless creature. NW Coast Indians had many cultural
connections with the more northern peoples. But I guess you're just clued
out.
: then
: kept it in mind over the long centuries they lived in British Columbia,
: then down across the Pacific, via Hawaii and so on, until they finally
: got to New Zealand and had a chance to carve images of them.
No, you poor witless creature. Brown also wrote,
"[this motif] ... reappears in almost identical form in Alaskan patterns.
[170]"
So it does seem like they carved images of them back when they still lived
in north Pacific, doesn't it?
More strange unexplained coincidences for Ross Clark to deal with. The
weaseling can begin now...
Yuri.
Yuri Kuchinsky -=O=- http://www.globalserve.net/~yuku
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
Yuri Kuchinsky
: Artistic parallels in stylized art (and most anthropologically significant
: art is highly stylized) are always dangerously suspect. It is too easy to
: say, of a given carven curlicue or blob on Alpha Island, that it looks like
: another curlicue or blob in Outer Omegistan.
: In real artistic life, though, a sinuous line is a sinuous line; a spiral is
: a spiral; a bug-eyed face with things sticking out of it is a universal of
: human dreams, from the dawn of time to Maurice Sendak.
Read this sig, hypocrite. I think it was written especially for the
hypocrites like you in mind.
Yuri.
Yuri Kuchinsky -=O=- http://www.globalserve.net/~yuku
Comparative studies of primitive art have probably been
jeopardized by the zeal of investigators of cultural contacts and
borrowings. But let us state in no uncertain terms that these
studies have been jeopardized even more by intellectual pharisees
who prefer to deny obvious relationships because science does not
yet provide an adequate method for their interpretation
-=- Claude Levi-Strauss, ANTHROPOLOGIE STRUCTURALE, 1958
Yuri Kuchinsky
THOUGHT, John Wiley & Sons, NY, 1975.
Goldman is a highly respected anthropologist. Previous to writing this
book, he had also written ANCIENT POLYNESIAN SOCIETY, a study of
Polynesian traditions. This gives him a very special and unique
perspective. This is why his comments should carry an additional weight.
This is what he writes on p. 1,
"For reasons that remain to be discovered, the Indian tribes of this area
[NW Coast] share formal principles of rank, lineage, and kinship with
Pacific islanders."
What a strange way to put it "For reasons that remain to be discovered?"
Perhaps the reasons are the easiest in the world to discover -- for those
who will take into consideration the most basic and logical principles of
ancient maritime migrations. The reason may be that Polynesia lies
downwind from NW Coast, and can be considered as the most natural
recipient of NW Coast migrations.
But a clear and obvious landlubbing bias of mainstream anthropology is all
too well known, unfortunately...
And Goldman writes further,
"The Kwakiutl, especially, seem very close to what I have designated as
the "traditional" Polynesian society. They share with Polynesians a status
system of graded hereditary ranking of individuals and of lineages; a
social class system of chiefs ("nobles"), commoners, and slaves; concepts
of primogeniture and seniority of descent lines; a concept of abstract
supernatural powers as special attributes of chiefs; and a lineage system
that leans toward patriliny, but acknowledges the maternal lines as well.
Finally, Kwakiutl and eastern Polynesians, especially, associate ambiguity
of lineage membership with "Hawaiian" type kinship, a fully classificatory
system that does not distinguish between maternal and paternal sides, or
between siblings and cousins."
This is quite a list of very specific anthropological similarities. All
this can be explained very parsimoniously by the derivation of the
Hawaiians from the NW Coast.
And he adds this,
"Like the Polynesian, the Kwakiutl family histories are regarded by the
Indians as authentic genealogical records." [13]
Eurocentrist scholars who have the habit of dismissing aboriginal
histories as of little value should take note of this item.
Also, Goldman notes this about the early impressions of Captain Cook,
"Captain James Cook, fresh from Oceania, was struck by resemblances to NZ
garments, houses, and woodcrafts. Resemblances in formal systems of
descent and rank with Oceania are also striking." [18]
Goldman writes about these revealing parallels,
"The Kwakiutl do in fact reveal specific Polynesian traits in respect to
rank and kinship. The title _ate_, translated as "lord" seems cognate with
Polynesian _ati_ with a similar meaning; Kwakiutl have a talking chief
(elk) who corresponds in function to the Polynesian counterpart. Kwakiutl
kinship has the common Polynesian usages of a single term for siblings of
opposite sex, and of differentiating by relative seniority siblings of
same sex but not those of opposite sex. Also, with respect to kinship,
Kwakiutl and Polynesian societies have similar terms (-tsaya, -taina) for
younger siblings of the same sex."
So these, of course, are very specific linguistic parallels. How did our
linguists manage to miss them? Beats me...
This is what Goldman suggests as a way to explain such close cultural
similarities,
"There's reason enough to suspect complex origins for Northwest Coast
cultures. It is even feasible to imagine the possibility of Kwakiutl as a
fusion of Polynesian and North American Indian." [18-19]
Amazing... But could Kwakiutl have been the _middle term_ between North
American Indian and Polynesian? Goldman has never considered this
possibility.
He appears to have a curious blind spot here in his vision. Indeed, why
such a facile assumption that the direction of influence must have come
_to_ America, as opposed to _from_ America? I'm afraid that here, as in so
many similar cases in anthropological scholarship, the automatic
assumption seems to be that Native Americans were not creative enough to
develop these cultural traits independently.
And also he writes,
"Now that culture historians are more respectful of Oceanic maritime
skills, the possibility of early overseas influences need not be
considered remote". [18]
Perhaps culture historians are indeed more respectful of Oceanic maritime
skills nowadays. A good thing too. But it remains to be regretted that
they are still not in the least respectful of the maritime skills of
ancient Native Americans. Primarily their ignorance seems to be standing
in the way.
All of the above seems to provide additional support for the theory that
NW Coast Indians came to Hawaii starting ca 400 CE, and gradually became
Polynesians.
One further note from Goldman's book. Under the influence of Boas, who
spent a great deal of his professional life studying Kwakiutl culture, the
word potlatch became a big fixture in anthropological literature. But,
according to Goldman, the whole thing may have been a misinterpretation of
some Kwakiutl ritual celebrations the real nature of which was rather
different. Goldman criticises Boas for putting too much stress on the term
potlatch. According to Goldman, the whole concept was a misunderstanding,
but it then acquired a life of its own in anthropological literature.
"Strictly speaking, the term "potlatch" has no valid place in the
vocabulary of professional writing on Kwakiutl simply because it is local
jargon and not a Kwakiutl word. There never were, at least in precontact
days, such events as "potlatches". [131]
Best regards,
Yuri.
Yuri Kuchinsky -=O=- http://www.globalserve.net/~yuku
Whenever you find that you are on the side of the majority,
it is time to reform -=O=- Mark Twain
Peter Ashby
(Yuri Kuchinsky) wrote:
> Irving Goldman, THE MOUTH OF HEAVEN: AN INTRODUCTION TO KWAKIUTL RELIGIOUS
> THOUGHT, John Wiley & Sons, NY, 1975.
>
> Goldman is a highly respected anthropologist. Previous to writing this
> book, he had also written ANCIENT POLYNESIAN SOCIETY, a study of
> Polynesian traditions. This gives him a very special and unique
> perspective. This is why his comments should carry an additional weight.
>
Is this an appeal to authority I detect from you Yuri? Oh sorry, I forgot,
it's ok if you do it but not for other people, especially if they dare to
disagree with you. I will leave the rebuttal of what followed to the
knowledgeable.
Peter
--
Peter Ashby
Wellcome Trust Building
University of Dundee
Dundee, Scotland
Reverse the spam and remove to email me.
Anthony West
Yuri Kuchinsky wrote in message <782d9d$3ue$7...@whisper.globalserve.net>...
>hypocrites like you in mind.
>
>jeopardized by the zeal of investigators of cultural contacts and
>borrowings. But let us state in no uncertain terms that these
>studies have been jeopardized even more by intellectual pharisees
>who prefer to deny obvious relationships because science does not
>yet provide an adequate method for their interpretation
> -=- Claude Levi-Strauss, ANTHROPOLOGIE STRUCTURALE, 1958
I've noticed you're a big sig fan. I like Lévi-Strauss also. I must say,
however, I don't see how a disagreement over artistic parallels bears any
relation to the normal use of the word "hypocrite." Are you following one of
those "10 Ways to Better Your Vocabulary" programs, whereby you trot out a
new word on a regular schedule and practise using it in sentences? If so,
good luck.
Regards,
Tony West
Philadelphia aaw...@critpath.org
Ross Clark
"Cultural connections" would include animal exchange programmes?
Eco-tours?
>
> : then
> : kept it in mind over the long centuries they lived in British Columbia,
> : then down across the Pacific, via Hawaii and so on, until they finally
> : got to New Zealand and had a chance to carve images of them.
>
> No, you poor witless creature. Brown also wrote,
>
> "[this motif] ... reappears in almost identical form in Alaskan patterns.
> [170]"
> So it does seem like they carved images of them back when they still lived
> in north Pacific, doesn't it?
"They"? "North Pacific"? You mean that in order to keep this dotty old
theory afloat you are willing to overlook such trivial differences as
that between Kwakiutl and central Alaskan Eskimo? All this just to avoid
admitting that the Maori could imagine things? (I note that that part of
the post was so offensive to you that you snipped it.)
>
> More strange unexplained coincidences for Ross Clark to deal with. The
> weaseling can begin now...
It never stops, mate.
Ross Clark
Ross Clark
> [quoting Goldman:]
>
> "The Kwakiutl do in fact reveal specific Polynesian traits in respect to
> rank and kinship. The title _ate_, translated as "lord" seems cognate with
> Polynesian _ati_ with a similar meaning; Kwakiutl have a talking chief
> (elk) who corresponds in function to the Polynesian counterpart. Kwakiutl
> kinship has the common Polynesian usages of a single term for siblings of
> opposite sex, and of differentiating by relative seniority siblings of
> same sex but not those of opposite sex. Also, with respect to kinship,
> Kwakiutl and Polynesian societies have similar terms (-tsaya, -taina) for
> younger siblings of the same sex."
Well, let's look at these.
Kwakiutl: ate a title, translated as "Lord" (I don't have any other
source for this, so we'll take it as Goldman gives it)
Polynesian: ati with a similar meaning
?? I looked in a number of dictionaries. Only thing I found that
looks at all like this is Samoan aati "particle denoting a number
of chiefs of the same name or title" This may be cognate with
the Ati- or Ngaati- that occurs elsewhere as a prefix forming
tribal names.
Kwakiutl: ts'áy'a "1. male's younger brother; 2. female's younger
brother or sister" (David McC Grubb, A Practical Writing System and
Short Dictionary of Kwakw'ala (Kwakiutl), Ottawa 1977)
Polynesian: PPN *tahina "younger sibling of same sex", from Proto-Oceanic
*tasi "id." + -ña "3s possessive suffix".
Ho hum. I'm sure Yuri will cherish these, no matter what I may say.
>
> So these, of course, are very specific linguistic parallels. How did our
> linguists manage to miss them? Beats me...
>
> One further note from Goldman's book. Under the influence of Boas, who
> spent a great deal of his professional life studying Kwakiutl culture, the
> word potlatch became a big fixture in anthropological literature. But,
> according to Goldman, the whole thing may have been a misinterpretation of
> some Kwakiutl ritual celebrations the real nature of which was rather
> different. Goldman criticises Boas for putting too much stress on the term
> potlatch. According to Goldman, the whole concept was a misunderstanding,
> but it then acquired a life of its own in anthropological literature.
>
> "Strictly speaking, the term "potlatch" has no valid place in the
> vocabulary of professional writing on Kwakiutl simply because it is local
> jargon and not a Kwakiutl word. There never were, at least in precontact
> days, such events as "potlatches". [131]
What on earth is the relevance of this? You seem to be hinting that
Goldman is going to show that either (i) the potlatch was not all that
important (Try telling the Kwakiutl that.) or (ii) Boas completely
misunderstood it. But instead you offer us only a quibble about the
_word_ "potlatch". The word used in English comes from Chinook Jargon;
Kwakw'ala words, according to Grubb, include /máXwa/ "give-away potlatch"
and /p'esá/ "business potlatch". So what?
Ross Clark
Anthony West
Yuri Kuchinsky wrote in message <782oha$ctd$1...@whisper.globalserve.net>...
>Irving Goldman, THE MOUTH OF HEAVEN: AN INTRODUCTION TO KWAKIUTL RELIGIOUS
>THOUGHT, John Wiley & Sons, NY, 1975.
>
>
>And Goldman writes further,
>
>"The Kwakiutl, especially, seem very close to what I have designated as
>the "traditional" Polynesian society. They share with Polynesians a status
>system of graded hereditary ranking of individuals and of lineages;
also with hosts of sedentary societies in other parts of N Amer and around
the world
>social class system of chiefs ("nobles"), commoners, and slaves;
also found in other parts of N Amer, very remote from NW Coast, and around
the world
>concepts of primogeniture and seniority of descent lines
N Amer, Europe, Asia ...
>a concept of abstract supernatural powers as special attributes of chiefs
Common for chiefdoms and kingdoms everywhere to absorb divine authority
along with temporal.
>and a lineage system that leans toward patriliny, but acknowledges the
maternal lines >as well.
The same could be said of our own society. Without denigrating the
creativity of Native Americans, this is not a trait that other contemporary
North Americans needed to borrow from them. Most lineage systems lean in one
direction, but acknowledge kinship on the other side as well. The whole
point of getting married is to develop new familial alliances.
>Finally, Kwakiutl and eastern Polynesians, especially, associate ambiguity
>of lineage membership with "Hawaiian" type kinship, a fully classificatory
>system that does not distinguish between maternal and paternal sides, or
>between siblings and cousins."
>
I don't know enough to judge this one.
>This is quite a list of very specific anthropological similarities. All
>this can be explained very parsimoniously by the derivation of the
>Hawaiians from the NW Coast.
>
Or by independent development. Chieftaincies everywhere tend to bundle some
social structures that must work fairly well together.
J.R. Pelmont
>
> Powell's Native Animals of New Zealand lists four species in this area:
> New Zealand Sea Lion (Neophoca hookeri)
> New Zealand Fur Seal (Arctocephalus fosteri)
> Leopard Seal (Hydrurga leptonyx)
> Elephant Seal (Mirounga leonina)
>
> I think the last may have been the one George was talking about.
> None of them have tusks.
>
> Ross Clark
Thank you. Informative, short, precise.
As I said before, I just fear that similarities in drawings from
different parts of the world could be often misleading. The artist's
imagination is most of the time at work. For instance in some french
Middle-age church gargoyles, tapestries and painting, fantastic
creatures and devils can be seen that may have some vague ressemblance
to the art in Asia. A mere coincidence, just because the human mind is
all alike everywhere with similar fantasies. Isn't it ?
One of the difficulties of the subject as discussed in this thread seems
to be the choice of suitable markers for the study of human migration. I
understand so far that artistic views of elephant seals are probably bad
markers, or some convergence in conclusions using two or three different
markers should be found. Is it your opinion ? Cheers
______
P.S. However the paintings in the more than 15,000 years old caves as
discussed elsewhere are believed to show rather exact representations of
animals (zoologists and archaeologists said). Certainly more exact than
Picasso's paintings of woman models ! ;-)
--
jean.p...@ujf-grenoble.fr
Yuri Kuchinsky
: In article <782oha$ctd$1...@whisper.globalserve.net>, yu...@globalserve.net
: (Yuri Kuchinsky) wrote:
: > Irving Goldman, THE MOUTH OF HEAVEN: AN INTRODUCTION TO KWAKIUTL RELIGIOUS
: > THOUGHT, John Wiley & Sons, NY, 1975.
: >
: > Goldman is a highly respected anthropologist. Previous to writing this
: > book, he had also written ANCIENT POLYNESIAN SOCIETY, a study of
: > Polynesian traditions. This gives him a very special and unique
: > perspective. This is why his comments should carry an additional weight.
: >
: Is this an appeal to authority I detect from you Yuri?
There's nothing wrong with appeal to authority IF it is also accompanied
by hard evidence.
Yuri.
Yuri Kuchinsky -=- Toronto -=- http://www.globalserve.net/~yuku
Sherry [Thomas Sheridan] is dull, naturally dull; but it must have
taken him a great deal of pains to become what we now see him. Such
an excess of stupidity, sir, is not in Nature -=O=- Samuel Johnson
g...@galaxycom.net.nz
iro...@bigfoot.com wrote:
> On Mon, 18 Jan 1999 20:32:40 +0930, Jean.P...@wanadoo.fr (J.R.
> Pelmont) wrote:
>
> >those you call sea-elephants what english-speaking authors sometimes
> >call sea-lions,
>
> distinction between sea elephants and sea lions......
Elephant seals and sea elephants are one and the same.
Though
They comprise of two different types. One inhabiting the Artic and the other
living around the Antartic islands.
Walrus are an Artic mamal
Sea lions have protruding ears.
Jonathan Stone
> Ross Clark (d...@antnov1.auckland.ac.nz) wrote on Mon, 18 Jan 1999 14:20:16 +1200:
> : > indications in their careers of having come from a land of bitter winter."
Just how is this surprising? Polynesia spans from tropical to mild
temperate zones. Until one reaches to the tips of the Polynesian
triangle, harsh winters are rare, and notable,exceptions. Why should
association of deities of the Underworld require any further explanation?
Isnt it even a bit Eurocentric to assume the traditional European
associations?
[quotes of Brown, 1927]
> : Ah, it's back to the Golden Oldies of Polynesian scholarship.
>
> That's right. And away from the Brave New Dishonesty.
O Brave New World, that has such scholars as Yuri in't.
[...]
> No, you poor witless creature. NW Coast Indians had many cultural
> connections with the more northern peoples. But I guess you're just clued
> out.
[...]
> No, you poor witless creature. Brown also wrote,
[snip quotes, ibid. p. 170]
> So it does seem like they carved images of them back when they still lived
> in north Pacific, doesn't it?
Ahah. But Maori carvings are of Taniwha. If you think they are the
same images as the Kwaikutl, then assureldy you can show us detailed
comparisons to Kwaikutl myths of Taniwha-like creatures inhabiting
harbours, rivers, and lakes, prone to trapping humans, perahps not
unlike Chinese water-dragons. Oh yes, and occasionally they get
trapped or tricked and turn into islands or penisulas.
If they're really the same motif, then the Kwaikutl would have the
same legends. And *also* very similar creatures without ``ngongo''.
Or are you merely taking a vague similarity and comparing it out of
ocntext?
> More strange unexplained coincidences for Ross Clark to deal with. The
> weaseling can begin now...
> Yuri.
Peter T. Daniels
> Ahah. But Maori carvings are of Taniwha. If you think they are the
> same images as the Kwaikutl, then assureldy you can show us detailed
> comparisons to Kwaikutl myths of Taniwha-like creatures inhabiting
> harbours, rivers, and lakes, prone to trapping humans, perahps not
> unlike Chinese water-dragons. Oh yes, and occasionally they get
> trapped or tricked and turn into islands or penisulas.
Reminds me of the story the guide told us as we looked out over the port
of the Old City of Joppa (near Tel Aviv) at the Andromeda Rocks. That's
the spot where Andromeda was chained to a rock as an offering to the sea
monster sent to ravage the coast because Andromeda's beauty rivaled
Aphrodite's; Perseus came along with Medusa's head in a bag and showed
it to the monster, which turned to stone, forming the nearly-submerged
rocks that formed a natural breakwater making Joppa nearly the only
decent harbor along most of the Levantine coast (plus it's on a high
hill).
--
Peter T. Daniels gram...@worldnet.att.net
Yuri Kuchinsky
: Yuri Kuchinsky wrote in message <782d9d$3ue$7...@whisper.globalserve.net>...
: >Read this sig, hypocrite. I think it was written especially for the
: >hypocrites like you in mind.
: >
: >Comparative studies of primitive art have probably been
: >jeopardized by the zeal of investigators of cultural contacts and
: >borrowings. But let us state in no uncertain terms that these
: >studies have been jeopardized even more by intellectual pharisees
: >who prefer to deny obvious relationships because science does not
: >yet provide an adequate method for their interpretation
: > -=- Claude Levi-Strauss, ANTHROPOLOGIE STRUCTURALE, 1958
: I've noticed you're a big sig fan. I like Lévi-Strauss also. I must say,
: however, I don't see how a disagreement over artistic parallels bears any
: relation to the normal use of the word "hypocrite."
If you still don't understand, then you must be incredibly slow-witted. Oh
well...
Levi-Strauss remarked about how close the similarities in art in these two
areas are. He said that those who refuse to admit it are hypocrites.
Anthony West
Yuri Kuchinsky wrote in message <78abo9$1eq$1...@whisper.globalserve.net>...
>Anthony West (aaw...@critpath.org) wrote on Tue, 19 Jan 1999
23:03:16 -0500:
>: Yuri Kuchinsky wrote in message <782d9d$3ue$7...@whisper.globalserve.net>...
>
>: >jeopardized by the zeal of investigators of cultural contacts and
>: >borrowings. But let us state in no uncertain terms that these
>: >studies have been jeopardized even more by intellectual pharisees
>: >who prefer to deny obvious relationships because science does not
>: >yet provide an adequate method for their interpretation
>: > -=- Claude Levi-Strauss, ANTHROPOLOGIE STRUCTURALE, 1958
>
>: I've noticed you're a big sig fan. I like Lévi-Strauss also. I must say,
>: however, I don't see how a disagreement over artistic parallels bears any
>: relation to the normal use of the word "hypocrite."
>
>If you still don't understand, then you must be incredibly slow-witted. Oh
>well...
>
>Levi-Strauss remarked about how close the similarities in art in these two
>areas are. He said that those who refuse to admit it are hypocrites.
>
"intellectual pharisees." Can you go into greater detail about Lévi-Strauss'
understanding of the two sides of the debate on similarities?
Yuri Kuchinsky
[Yuri:]
: > : > "Most of these Polynesian gods and demigods of the underworld have
: > : > indications in their careers of having come from a land of bitter winter."
: Just how is this surprising?
Because this indicates clearly that the origin of Polynesians was in the
northern latitudes. Such as NW Coast. You need to have the simplest things
explained to you, because you cannot think for yourself.
Yuri Kuchinsky
: Yuri Kuchinsky wrote in message <78abo9$1eq$1...@whisper.globalserve.net>...
: >If you still don't understand, then you must be incredibly slow-witted. Oh
: >well...
: >
: >Levi-Strauss remarked about how close the similarities in art in these two
: >areas are. He said that those who refuse to admit it are hypocrites.
: That's not what the quotation you cite above says. The term he uses is
: "intellectual pharisees."
Same meaning as hypocrites.
: Can you go into greater detail about Lévi-Strauss'
: understanding of the two sides of the debate on similarities?
But I'm afraid this will go right over the top of your little head.
Levi-Strauss accepted that these art styles are very similar, and he had
his own very special explanation for it. His explanation is
structural-psychological, the mediation between two states of the totem
ancestor -- whatever this may mean...
Just go and read the book.
I'm not saying that Levi-Strauss' explanation is right -- it probably
isn't. But at least he's honest enough in admitting the similarities that
are obvious, and in trying to find an explanation for them.
Yuri.
Yuri Kuchinsky -=O=- http://www.globalserve.net/~yuku
This sign was seen in a Paris hotel elevator:
Pamela Maddison
in a real fix.
For example:
New Zealand - Iron Age Britain:
Hill forts
Tattooing
New Zealand fairies are blue eyed, fair haired and dance like English folk
dancing.
- And in case you think I'm being funny, look at 19th century Maori history.
The Brits ("fairies" to the Maori) arrived, found people living in hill
forts, built roads, opened schools and taught English history.
This included the Romans arriving in Britain where they found people living
in hill forts, built roads, opened schools and grabbed the whole country.
The Maori, to the astonishment of the Brits, promptly started fighting them.
If you can find the story of Manaroa and Niwareka, you will see what I mean
about "fairies".
J.R. Pelmont wrote in message
<1999012018...@gre4-156.abo.wanadoo.fr>...
Anthony West
Yuri Kuchinsky wrote in message <78d37b$57s$1...@whisper.globalserve.net>...
>Anthony West (aaw...@critpath.org) wrote on Fri, 22 Jan 1999
19:18:03 -0500:
>: Yuri Kuchinsky wrote in message <78abo9$1eq$1...@whisper.globalserve.net>...
>
two
>: >areas are. He said that those who refuse to admit it are hypocrites.
>
>: That's not what the quotation you cite above says. The term he uses is
>: "intellectual pharisees."
>
>Same meaning as hypocrites.
>
sometimes. Webster's: PHARISEE. "One of a sect ... noted for strict
observance of rites and ceremonies of the written law and for insistence on
the validity of the traditions of the elders." HYPOCRITE. "One who feigns to
be other and better than he is ..."
So when you read Lévi-Strauss (in English?), you read him without
understanding the actual meaning of many of the words that you read. That
would explain a great deal about your odd misapplications of anthropological
literature -- if you don't understand the language well enough. I can
understand that. It is nothing to be ashamed of. But it is a weakness that
you should not base flippant insults upon, much less grandiose ideas.
>: Can you go into greater detail about Lévi-Strauss'
>: understanding of the two sides of the debate on similarities?
>
>But I'm afraid this will go right over the top of your little head.
>Levi-Strauss accepted that these art styles are very similar, and he had
>his own very special explanation for it. His explanation is
>structural-psychological, the mediation between two states of the totem
>ancestor -- whatever this may mean...
>
>Just go and read the book.
>
I read him myself, a long time ago. Of course, I have always read English a
lot more accurately than you do. So I suspect that at this date our mutual
comprehension of L-S is about equal.
Lévi-Strauss stresses constantly in fieldwork to do what you labor
constantly to avoid -- to study myths in the context of how the society as a
whole works, and what its most important issues are. He does *not* wander
randomly around areas looking for a potsherd here, a sun legend there, a
syllable here, a scrap of history there. He analyzes individual societies
intensively *before* he looks for parallels abroad in search of human
universals.
Try it. It may not offer the quick, aggressive satisfaction you get from
Heyerdahl. But the nourishment may prove to be deeper and more enduring.
Jonathan Stone
> Jonathan Stone (jona...@DSG.Stanford.EDU) wrote on 22 Jan 1999 00:22:13 GMT:
>
> [Yuri:]
> : > : > "Most of these Polynesian gods and demigods of the underworld have
> : > : > indications in their careers of having come from a land of bitter winter."
>
> : Just how is this surprising?
>
> Because this indicates clearly that the origin of Polynesians was in the
> northern latitudes. Such as NW Coast. You need to have the simplest things
> explained to you, because you cannot think for yourself.
No it does *not* illustrate at all that the origins of Polynesians was
in "northern latitudes". Your logic is faulty.
Yuri Kuchinsky
: Yuri Kuchinsky wrote in message <78d37b$57s$1...@whisper.globalserve.net>...
[Tony:]
> >: That's not what the quotation you cite above says. The term he uses is
> >: "intellectual pharisees."
> >
> >Same meaning as hypocrites.
> Oh, now I see. You simply don't understand the meaning of the words
> you use sometimes. Webster's: PHARISEE. "One of a sect ... noted for
> strict observance of rites and ceremonies of the written law and for
> insistence on the validity of the traditions of the elders."
> HYPOCRITE. "One who feigns to be other and better than he is ..."
Get yourself a clue, moron. My dictionary reads pharisee = "hypocritical
person". Anyone with a brain knows this anyways...
> So when you read Lévi-Strauss (in English?), you read him without
> understanding the actual meaning of many of the words that you read.
Are you trying to teach your grandfather how to suck eggs?
You're the most offensive moron here currently, primarily because you're
both stupid AND long-winded. At least an idiot like George Black would
usually limit himself to a few semi-coherent but mercifully short grunts.
But, no, a gutter-dwelling creep like you will rant on, and on, and on,
and on... And all about nothing!
You're a sick man, Tony. Get help.
Yuri.
Yuri Kuchinsky -O- http://www.globalserve.net/~yuku -O- Toronto
You never need think you can turn over any old falsehoods without a
terrible squirming of the horrid little population that dwells under
it -=O=- Oliver Wendell Holmes
Brian M. Scott
wrote:
> My dictionary reads pharisee = "hypocritical
>person".
If so, you need a better dictionary. 'A hypocritically self-righteous
person' would be an acceptable definition, however.
>> So when you read Lévi-Strauss (in English?), you read him without
>> understanding the actual meaning of many of the words that you read.
>Are you trying to teach your grandfather how to suck eggs?
>You're the most offensive moron here currently, primarily because you're
>both stupid AND long-winded.
Yuri, dear, *no one* else here is as long-winded and offensive as you
are, and *no one* else hurls more guttersnipe abuse. We wouldn't
*dream* of trying to teach you that particular brand of egg-sucking.
Brian M. Scott
Jonathan Stone
> On 24 Jan 1999 20:59:04 GMT, yu...@globalserve.net (Yuri Kuchinsky)
> >Are you trying to teach your grandfather how to suck eggs?
Mr. Kuchinsky just can't quote anything correctly. It's *grandmother*, Yuri.
At least in English.
> >You're the most offensive moron here currently, primarily because you're
> >both stupid AND long-winded.
>
> Yuri, dear, *no one* else here is as long-winded and offensive as you
> are, and *no one* else hurls more guttersnipe abuse. We wouldn't
> *dream* of trying to teach you that particular brand of egg-sucking.
Ahem. Mr. Whittet (has he departed?) is just aslong-winded.
But not, I grant, as offensive. Low abuse just isn't Steve's style.
Jonathan Stone
> Anthony West (aaw...@critpath.org) wrote on Sat, 23 Jan 1999 15:29:19 -0500:
> : Yuri Kuchinsky wrote in message <78d37b$57s$1...@whisper.globalserve.net>...
> You're the most offensive moron here currently, primarily because you're
> both stupid AND long-winded. At least an idiot like George Black would
> usually limit himself to a few semi-coherent but mercifully short grunts.
> But, no, a gutter-dwelling creep like you will rant on, and on, and on,
> and on... And all about nothing!
>
> You're a sick man, Tony. Get help.
To any lurkers: note that such vitriol from Mr. Kuchinksy is a sure
sign that he has no rational answer for the points Anthony West has
raised, and so Yuri has resorted to ad-hominem.
Tony: congratulations,you're well on the way to getting a thread
named after you.
Brian M. Scott
Stone) wrote:
>Ahem. Mr. Whittet (has he departed?) is just aslong-winded.
True. He's currently over in soc.history.medieval posting 450 lines
at a crack, replete with such gems as the assertion that Scotland was
Protestant in 1314. If you want a good laugh, dig up the responses by
Alex Milman; they're absolutely wonderful.
Brian M. Scott
g...@galaxycom.net.nz
And that says lots for him. He does once or twice get snakey as do we all
:-))
If I had a sig it'd probably be here.
g...@galaxycom.net.nz
jona...@DSG.Stanford.EDU wrote:
> > : Yuri Kuchinsky wrote in message <78d37b$57s$1...@whisper.globalserve.net>...
> > You're the most offensive moron here currently, primarily because you're
> > both stupid AND long-winded. At least an idiot like George Black would
> > usually limit himself to a few semi-coherent but mercifully short grunts.
> > But, no, a gutter-dwelling creep like you will rant on, and on, and on,
> > and on... And all about nothing!
> >
> > You're a sick man, Tony. Get help.
>
> To any lurkers: note that such vitriol from Mr. Kuchinksy is a sure
> sign that he has no rational answer for the points Anthony West has
> raised, and so Yuri has resorted to ad-hominem.
>
> Tony: congratulations,you're well on the way to getting a thread
> named after you.
Does this mean that Tony and I are one of the dreaded cabals that inhabit
archaeology ?? :-))