Polynesia: silly Fantasy World of JE Terrell
Yuri Kuchinsky
John Edward Terrell [Field Museum of Natural History] _The Prehistoric
Pacific_, ARCHAEOLOGY, Nov/Dec 1998, p. 56.
The latest article of JE Terrell about Polynesian history in ARCHAEOLOGY
magazine exhibits all the confusion, ignorance and dishonesty so
characteristic of mainstream Polynesian scholarship.
He begins his article by triumphantly dismissing the work of Thor
Heyerdahl as not worthy of consideration,
"Today most experts in archaeology, human genetics, linguistics, and other
fields agree that Heyerdahl's thesis about Native Americans settling
Polynesia is without foundation."
But then the abysmal ignorance of Terrell shines through, as to be
expected. According to him, all the domesticated plants of Polynesia came
from Asia, except for the sweet potato (kumara).
"Scholars now know that everything and everyone in the Pacific in ancient
times came from the west, not from the Americas, except for an important
food plant, the sweet potato, which all agree must have ben introduced
somehow from South America to some parts of the Pacific in pre-European
times."
He leaves the arrival of kumara to Polynesia unexplained, of course. For
many of these brainless critics kumara stands apart from Polynesian
history as some kind of a Great Mystery the explanation of which is surely
beyond the power of mortals. "It's so mysterious, we should just fall on
our knees and avert our faces from this great imponderable!" Silliness
rules!
The ignorance of Terrell is obvious because he's apparently COMPLETELY
CLUED OUT about a dozen other South American domesticates that made it to
Polynesia in ancient times. These are pineapple, papaya, cotton, tomato,
tobacco, and a whole bunch more.
See
http://www.trends.net/~yuku/tran/8p2.htm
http://www.trends.net/~yuku/tran/8p3.htm
and other files on my webpage.
He's either uninformed, or he's being dishonest. I don't know which is
worse...
Myself, I vote for ignorance. In fact I'm sure he's never bothered to read
Heyerdahl, since "everybody already knows Heyerdahl is wrong"... But in
this case dishonesty still enters into it, because it surely is dishonest
to dismiss a scholar whose work one has not even read?
But get this one, dear friends. After arrogantly dumping on Heyerdahl as
being "behind the times", this is what Terrell comes up with as the latest
in academic insight on things Polynesian,
"Scholars are now discovering that the Pacific was an early sphere of
human accomplishment, on land and sea, where the ocean was more an avenue
for exchange and diffusion than a barrier to human affairs."
Sigh... I guess he could have lifted this straight from Thor. I guess his
latest word in Polynesian research may not be so new after all?
These are the sorts of antics I come to expect from Terrell's brand of
Brainless Archaeology.
I suppose ARCHAEOLOGY magazine has now fallen to new lows of
pseudo-science.
Regards,
Yuri.
Yuri Kuchinsky -=O=- http://www.globalserve.net/~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
Ross Clark
>
> John Edward Terrell [Field Museum of Natural History] _The Prehistoric
> Pacific_, ARCHAEOLOGY, Nov/Dec 1998, p. 56.
>
> The latest article of JE Terrell about Polynesian history in ARCHAEOLOGY
> magazine exhibits all the confusion, ignorance and dishonesty so
> characteristic of mainstream Polynesian scholarship.
There's a kind of amusing irony here. While he notices a magazine article
now and then, or picks up something from somewhere on the net, Yuri has
really hardly a clue as to what is going on in the actual world of people
who do research on Pacific prehistory. The joke is that within that field
Terrell is very much a dissident. See an article by Terrell, Hunt &
Gosden in Current Anthropology, 1997, with comments by various other
luminaries in the field, for an example. This completely escapes Yuri,
since he prefers to believe that these people are all marching morons
with exactly the same ideas. In fact the one point he's interested in is
that they all agree Heyerdahl was mostly wrong, and this is what he can't
stand.
> He begins his article by triumphantly dismissing the work of Thor
> Heyerdahl as not worthy of consideration,
>
> "Today most experts in archaeology, human genetics, linguistics, and other
> fields agree that Heyerdahl's thesis about Native Americans settling
> Polynesia is without foundation."
>
> But then the abysmal ignorance of Terrell shines through, as to be
> expected. According to him, all the domesticated plants of Polynesia came
> from Asia, except for the sweet potato (kumara).
>
> "Scholars now know that everything and everyone in the Pacific in ancient
> times came from the west, not from the Americas, except for an important
> food plant, the sweet potato, which all agree must have ben introduced
> somehow from South America to some parts of the Pacific in pre-European
> times."
>
> He leaves the arrival of kumara to Polynesia unexplained, of course. For
> many of these brainless critics kumara stands apart from Polynesian
> history as some kind of a Great Mystery the explanation of which is surely
> beyond the power of mortals. "It's so mysterious, we should just fall on
> our knees and avert our faces from this great imponderable!" Silliness
> rules!
Of course, no scholar in the field ever said any such thing. Yuri's
imagination got overheated a couple of years ago and he started raving in
this vein. He quotes himself as an authority so much, he probably now
half believes what he says.
>
> The ignorance of Terrell is obvious because he's apparently COMPLETELY
> CLUED OUT about a dozen other South American domesticates that made it to
> Polynesia in ancient times. These are pineapple, papaya, cotton, tomato,
> tobacco, and a whole bunch more.
> See
>
> http://www.trends.net/~yuku/tran/8p2.htm
>
> http://www.trends.net/~yuku/tran/8p3.htm
>
> and other files on my webpage.
For anyone who's joined us recently, the argument over the 20 or 30
species Yuri named was extremely long and tiresome. You'll have to spend
a long time with deja news to get all the details. I would summarize it
by saying that the evidence for the species named ranges from
questionable to totally nonexistent. Yuri, however, prefers not to deal
in differences of degree like this -- for him the evidence is MASSIVE for
all these species.
Incidentally, there is one other plant of some importance that is
generally accepted as being of pre-Columbian New World origin, namely the
bottle gourd. Robert Langdon has also assembled evidence in support of a
few other species, mostly rather marginal in importance, some of which
may stand up to further examination.
>
> He's either uninformed, or he's being dishonest. I don't know which is
> worse...
>
> Myself, I vote for ignorance. In fact I'm sure he's never bothered to read
> Heyerdahl, since "everybody already knows Heyerdahl is wrong"... But in
> this case dishonesty still enters into it, because it surely is dishonest
> to dismiss a scholar whose work one has not even read?
>
> But get this one, dear friends. After arrogantly dumping on Heyerdahl as
> being "behind the times", this is what Terrell comes up with as the latest
> in academic insight on things Polynesian,
>
> "Scholars are now discovering that the Pacific was an early sphere of
> human accomplishment, on land and sea, where the ocean was more an avenue
> for exchange and diffusion than a barrier to human affairs."
>
> Sigh... I guess he could have lifted this straight from Thor. I guess his
> latest word in Polynesian research may not be so new after all?
Hardly a discovery of Terrell's, or of Heyerdahl's. More like the main
stream of thought on the matter for the last 200 years.
Ross Clark
Yuri Kuchinsky
: Yuri Kuchinsky wrote:
: >
: > John Edward Terrell [Field Museum of Natural History] _The Prehistoric
: > Pacific_, ARCHAEOLOGY, Nov/Dec 1998, p. 56.
: >
: > The latest article of JE Terrell about Polynesian history in ARCHAEOLOGY
: > magazine exhibits all the confusion, ignorance and dishonesty so
: > characteristic of mainstream Polynesian scholarship.
: There's a kind of amusing irony here. While he notices a magazine article
: now and then, or picks up something from somewhere on the net, Yuri has
: really hardly a clue as to what is going on in the actual world of people
: who do research on Pacific prehistory. The joke is that within that field
: Terrell is very much a dissident. See an article by Terrell, Hunt &
: Gosden in Current Anthropology, 1997, with comments by various other
: luminaries in the field, for an example. This completely escapes Yuri,
: since he prefers to believe that these people are all marching morons
: with exactly the same ideas.
Big deal. Perhaps rather they are a bunch of medieval Doctors of Divinity
embroiled into intricate arguments about how many angels can dance on the
head of a pin. Terrell is one of these doctors who is a radical. I suppose
he claims that most other Doctors are off the mark and the real number of
angels is being underestimated. More power to him. Let him stir up all
those other Doctors. But I'd say Bozo the Clown provides better
entertainment anyway...
: > He leaves the arrival of kumara to Polynesia unexplained, of course. For
: > many of these brainless critics kumara stands apart from Polynesian
: > history as some kind of a Great Mystery the explanation of which is surely
: > beyond the power of mortals. "It's so mysterious, we should just fall on
: > our knees and avert our faces from this great imponderable!" Silliness
: > rules!
: Of course, no scholar in the field ever said any such thing.
You said sothing quite similar, Ross, so don't be shy. Perhaps you can
prove me wrong right now and come up with a clear and realistic
explanation of how kumara got to Polynesia?
Get ready for a torrent of obfuscation, folks...
: > The ignorance of Terrell is obvious because he's apparently COMPLETELY
: > CLUED OUT about a dozen other South American domesticates that made it to
: > Polynesia in ancient times. These are pineapple, papaya, cotton, tomato,
: > tobacco, and a whole bunch more.
: > See
: >
: > http://www.trends.net/~yuku/tran/8p2.htm
: >
: > http://www.trends.net/~yuku/tran/8p3.htm
: >
: > and other files on my webpage.
: For anyone who's joined us recently, the argument over the 20 or 30
: species Yuri named
I named 15 plants for contacts between S America and Polynesia. Your
memory is failing, Ross. If you cannot deal with reality even on such
basic matters, what value should one place on the other things you're
saying?
: was extremely long and tiresome.
Why, thank you. I'm sure it was a lot longer than you would have wished it
to be...
: You'll have to spend
: a long time with deja news to get all the details. I would summarize it
: by saying that the evidence for the species named ranges from
: questionable to totally nonexistent.
Now, you're being outright dishonest, Ross. I guess this is a good
indication of your utter desperation, because normally you tended to avoid
such tactics.
I'm still waiting to see how you deal with pineapple and papaya. As I
recall, this is where you gave up trying to refute this evidence.
: Incidentally, there is one other plant of some importance that is
: generally accepted as being of pre-Columbian New World origin, namely the
: bottle gourd.
I consider bottle gourd as rather weak evidence. I would not waste my time
on this myself.
: > But get this one, dear friends. After arrogantly dumping on Heyerdahl as
: > being "behind the times", this is what Terrell comes up with as the latest
: > in academic insight on things Polynesian,
: >
: > "Scholars are now discovering that the Pacific was an early sphere of
: > human accomplishment, on land and sea, where the ocean was more an avenue
: > for exchange and diffusion than a barrier to human affairs."
: >
: > Sigh... I guess he could have lifted this straight from Thor. I guess his
: > latest word in Polynesian research may not be so new after all?
: Hardly a discovery of Terrell's, or of Heyerdahl's. More like the main
: stream of thought on the matter for the last 200 years.
So how come all these mainstream scholars like van Tilburg are saying that
Rapanui became "magically isolated" from all other places right after
being settled? Again, Ross is fudging and trying to avoid reality...
Give it up, Ross, you're just making yourself look silly now.
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
Ross Clark
>
> Ross Clark (d...@antnov1.auckland.ac.nz) wrote on Sat, 28 Nov 1998 19:03:37 +1200:
> : Yuri Kuchinsky wrote:
> : >
> : > John Edward Terrell [Field Museum of Natural History] _The Prehistoric
> : > Pacific_, ARCHAEOLOGY, Nov/Dec 1998, p. 56.
> : >
> : > The latest article of JE Terrell about Polynesian history in ARCHAEOLOGY
> : > magazine exhibits all the confusion, ignorance and dishonesty so
> : > characteristic of mainstream Polynesian scholarship.
>
> : There's a kind of amusing irony here. While he notices a magazine article
> : now and then, or picks up something from somewhere on the net, Yuri has
> : really hardly a clue as to what is going on in the actual world of people
> : who do research on Pacific prehistory. The joke is that within that field
> : Terrell is very much a dissident. See an article by Terrell, Hunt &
> : Gosden in Current Anthropology, 1997, with comments by various other
> : luminaries in the field, for an example. This completely escapes Yuri,
> : since he prefers to believe that these people are all marching morons
> : with exactly the same ideas.
>
> Big deal. Perhaps rather they are a bunch of medieval Doctors of Divinity
> embroiled into intricate arguments about how many angels can dance on the
> head of a pin. Terrell is one of these doctors who is a radical. I suppose
> he claims that most other Doctors are off the mark and the real number of
> angels is being underestimated. More power to him. Let him stir up all
> those other Doctors. But I'd say Bozo the Clown provides better
> entertainment anyway...
Well, it becomes ever clearer what a long and dusty telescope you are
peering through the wrong end of, Yuri. From time to time you catch a
glimpse of someone showing insufficient respect to Heyerdahl, upon which
you jump up and down and denounce the entire field as hopelessly
corrupt. The other 99% of what goes on is only a confused blur in the
background, which, in your ignorance, you assume must consist of empty
and meaningless scholastic disputes over pseudo-issues.
>
> : > He leaves the arrival of kumara to Polynesia unexplained, of course. For
> : > many of these brainless critics kumara stands apart from Polynesian
> : > history as some kind of a Great Mystery the explanation of which is surely
> : > beyond the power of mortals. "It's so mysterious, we should just fall on
> : > our knees and avert our faces from this great imponderable!" Silliness
> : > rules!
>
> : Of course, no scholar in the field ever said any such thing.
>
> You said sothing quite similar, Ross, so don't be shy. Perhaps you can
> prove me wrong right now and come up with a clear and realistic
> explanation of how kumara got to Polynesia?
No, I'd say the ball's in your court, Yuri. Did I really say "something
quite similar" to the nonsense in your preceding paragraph? When and
where? What were the words? Time to put up or shut up.
>
> Get ready for a torrent of obfuscation, folks...
Yes, get ready for Yuri to obfuscate his way out of this one, or more
likely just snip the whole passage and hope everyone will forget.
As for the kumara in Polynesia, what I have to say is clear, realistic
and quite simple, so I don't mind repeating it. Perhaps you weren't
paying attention a few months ago when I first said it? The sweet
potato was brought by human beings from South America to eastern
Polynesia some time during the first millennium AD. What's your problem
with that?
>
> : > The ignorance of Terrell is obvious because he's apparently COMPLETELY
> : > CLUED OUT about a dozen other South American domesticates that made it to
> : > Polynesia in ancient times. These are pineapple, papaya, cotton, tomato,
> : > tobacco, and a whole bunch more.
>
> : > See
> : >
> : > http://www.trends.net/~yuku/tran/8p2.htm
> : >
> : > http://www.trends.net/~yuku/tran/8p3.htm
> : >
> : > and other files on my webpage.
>
> : For anyone who's joined us recently, the argument over the 20 or 30
> : species Yuri named
>
> I named 15 plants for contacts between S America and Polynesia. Your
> memory is failing, Ross. If you cannot deal with reality even on such
> basic matters, what value should one place on the other things you're
> saying?
The number fluctuated during the course of the discussion. There were at
least 20 species mentioned at one time or another.
>
> : was extremely long and tiresome.
>
> Why, thank you. I'm sure it was a lot longer than you would have wished it
> to be...
>
> : You'll have to spend
> : a long time with deja news to get all the details. I would summarize it
> : by saying that the evidence for the species named ranges from
> : questionable to totally nonexistent.
>
> Now, you're being outright dishonest, Ross. I guess this is a good
> indication of your utter desperation, because normally you tended to avoid
> such tactics.
No, Yuri, again you fail to understand basic terms of argument.
"Dishonest" would mean that I had mis-stated a matter of fact the truth
of which was known to me. What you mean to say is that you don't agree
with my summary of the evidence -- a fact which I went on to point out
in the following sentence.
> I'm still waiting to see how you deal with pineapple and papaya. As I
> recall, this is where you gave up trying to refute this evidence.
If I gave up anything, it was trying to make you honestly acknowledge
the limitations of your evidence. Pineapple and papaya are among the
better examples, but the evidence is a long way from conclusive. At the
other end of the scale, for some species you never presented any
evidence at all, and for others the claim turned out to be based on
mis-translation of early sources or incorrect botanical identification.
> : Incidentally, there is one other plant of some importance that is
> : generally accepted as being of pre-Columbian New World origin, namely the
> : bottle gourd.
>
> I consider bottle gourd as rather weak evidence. I would not waste my time
> on this myself.
I consider this statement to be pure bluff. Why on earth do you suppose
that the gourd would be the one species besides the kumara that is
accepted even by those hopelessly corrupt and ignorant mainstream
scholars?
>
> : > But get this one, dear friends. After arrogantly dumping on Heyerdahl as
> : > being "behind the times", this is what Terrell comes up with as the latest
> : > in academic insight on things Polynesian,
> : >
> : > "Scholars are now discovering that the Pacific was an early sphere of
> : > human accomplishment, on land and sea, where the ocean was more an avenue
> : > for exchange and diffusion than a barrier to human affairs."
> : >
> : > Sigh... I guess he could have lifted this straight from Thor. I guess his
> : > latest word in Polynesian research may not be so new after all?
>
> : Hardly a discovery of Terrell's, or of Heyerdahl's. More like the main
> : stream of thought on the matter for the last 200 years.
>
> So how come all these mainstream scholars like van Tilburg are saying that
> Rapanui became "magically isolated" from all other places right after
> being settled? Again, Ross is fudging and trying to avoid reality...
What do the quotation marks mean there, Yuri? I don't think those were
van Tilburg's words. Quoting yourself again?
Isolation is a relative matter. If any place on the planet was ever
truly isolated, Rapanui was surely it. We don't have to suppose that
only one pre-European voyage ever arrived there, but if we looked at
external contacts per year/decade/century over its pre-European history,
I would expect it to be at or near the bottom of the list. The situation
would have been different in Tahiti or Tonga, even more so in the
Solomons or New Britain. Even the most isolationist theorists allow for
regular voyaging within local island groups and occasional contacts
further afield. Just as theories at the other extreme, such as yours
(Boats Leaving Daily for All Points, Subject to Requirements of Theory)
would probably allow that sailing to a place like Rapanui would be
difficult and risky, and not undertaken casually.
Ross Clark
Yuri Kuchinsky
> As for the kumara in Polynesia, what I have to say is clear, realistic
> and quite simple, so I don't mind repeating it. Perhaps you weren't
> paying attention a few months ago when I first said it? The sweet
> potato was brought by human beings from South America to eastern
> Polynesia some time during the first millennium AD. What's your
> problem with that?
But you didn't say who brought it over, Ross, so you're still fudging.
Surely the answer should be easy? This is quite important.
Are you ready to admit now that it was S Americans who brought it over?
[Ross:]
> > : I would summarize it
> > : by saying that the evidence for the species named ranges from
> > : questionable to totally nonexistent.
> > Now, you're being outright dishonest, Ross. I guess this is a good
> > indication of your utter desperation, because normally you tended to avoid
> > such tactics.
>
> No, Yuri, again you fail to understand basic terms of argument.
And you're still trying to avoid reality.
> "Dishonest" would mean that I had mis-stated a matter of fact the truth
> of which was known to me.
Of course you did, when you said that my best evidence is "questionable".
This is dishonest, because you've never shown how exactly my evidence is
questionable. What you did, a while back, was throw some ad hominems at
me, and then throw in the towel. I have the posts to prove it.
> What you mean to say is that you don't agree with my summary of the
> evidence
Yes, because your summary is false. Obviously so.
> -- a fact which I went on to point out in the following sentence.
>
> > I'm still waiting to see how you deal with pineapple and papaya. As I
> > recall, this is where you gave up trying to refute this evidence.
>
> If I gave up anything, it was trying to make you honestly acknowledge
> the limitations of your evidence.
You're grasping at straws because you're desperate. In fact, you failed to
find any major problems with my evidence. Admit the truth, Ross. Try to
reconnect with the real world.
All evidence has some limitations. My evidence also has some limitations.
What's there to admit? But the limitations of my evidence are quite
marginal and insignificant.
> Pineapple and papaya are among the better examples, but the evidence
> is a long way from conclusive.
How so? I'm still waiting for you to show any major problems with my
evidence.
> At the other end of the scale, for some species you never presented
> any evidence at all,
I've given the refs where the info can be found.
> and for others the claim turned out to be based on mis-translation of
> early sources
Not for any of those 15 items.
> or incorrect botanical identification.
Yes, there were problems with exact names of one or two items, because of
changes in nomenclature over time. I accept your corrections that you
supplied. So what? Is this all you have to show for yourself? This really
seems like a drowning man grasping at straws...
> > I consider bottle gourd as rather weak evidence. I would not waste my time
> > on this myself.
>
> I consider this statement to be pure bluff.
No, my poor misguided friend. Bluff this ain't.
> Why on earth do you suppose that the gourd would be the one species
> besides the kumara that is accepted even by those hopelessly corrupt
> and ignorant mainstream scholars?
You may recall that I've already mentioned before that many Polynesian
academic specialists are quite confused. This is a mild case of the same.
The problem with bottle gourd is that this is one of the most ancient
domesticates. Perhaps the most ancient domesticate. The ultimate origin is
not clear -- but it was probably Africa. For all I know, it may have been
carried around by ancient sailors all over the place as far back as 15,000
years ago. It could have easily gotten to Polynesia via Asia as well as
via America.
On my webpage, you will find a summary of the argument by Donald Lathrap
[ORIGINS OF AGRICULTURE, C.A. Reed, ed., Mouton (Proceedings of the IX
International Congress of Anthropological and Ethnological Sciences),
1977] where Lathrap argues that gourd (Lagenaria) originally came to
America from Africa.
http://www.globalserve.net/~yuku/dif/a26.htm
So there's very little that can be conclusively proven with this re
Polynesian history. Glad to help you with this problem, Ross. If you have
any more such questions, don't hesitate to ask.
> > : Hardly a discovery of Terrell's, or of Heyerdahl's. More like the main
> > : stream of thought on the matter for the last 200 years.
> >
> > So how come all these mainstream scholars like van Tilburg are saying that
> > Rapanui became "magically isolated" from all other places right after
> > being settled? Again, Ross is fudging and trying to avoid reality...
>
> What do the quotation marks mean there, Yuri? I don't think those were
> van Tilburg's words. Quoting yourself again?
And here comes the fudging:
> Isolation is a relative matter. If any place on the planet was ever
> truly isolated, Rapanui was surely it. We don't have to suppose that
> only one pre-European voyage ever arrived there,
Tell this to van Tilburg.
> but if we looked at external contacts per year/decade/century over its
> pre-European history, I would expect it to be at or near the bottom of
> the list.
Van Tilburg, who was still a mainstream stalwart the last time I looked,
thinks it was isolated from the rest of the world ever since it was
settled. This is absurd, of course. And you're wrong about mainstream not
being isolationists.
Regards,
Yuri.
Yuri Kuchinsky -=O=- http://www.globalserve.net/~yuku
Reading made Don Quixote a gentleman, but believing what he
read made him mad -=O=- George Bernard Shaw
Haole
(Yuri Kuchinsky) wrote:
(snip a bunch of stuff)
Well, this is surely something that has been going on for a while, and I
am sure that I will greatly regret opening my mouth on this thread.
However, I was following this on s.c.p-i and was wondering what linguistic
evidence Yuri might present to strengthen his case.
-Haole
--
Brian McLaughlin
|> Ross Clark (benli...@xtra.co.nz) wrote on Mon, 30 Nov 1998 11:21:05 +1300:
|>
|> > As for the kumara in Polynesia, what I have to say is clear, realistic
|> > and quite simple, so I don't mind repeating it. Perhaps you weren't
|> > paying attention a few months ago when I first said it? The sweet
|> > potato was brought by human beings from South America to eastern
|> > Polynesia some time during the first millennium AD. What's your
|> > problem with that?
|>
|> But you didn't say who brought it over, Ross, so you're still fudging.
|> Surely the answer should be easy? This is quite important.
Saying is easy. You prove that almost daily, Yuri.
Evidence is hard. You prove that one almost daily, too.
Your standards of proof are clearly very different than Ross Clark's.
--
Brian McLaughlin, Technical Writer |"Thanks to the Internet, misinformation
Integrated Measurement Systems, Inc.| now travels faster than ever before!"
Beaverton, OR, USA | ---- Standard disclaimer applies ----
Ross Clark
>
> Ross Clark (benli...@xtra.co.nz) wrote on Mon, 30 Nov 1998 11:21:05 +1300:
>
> > As for the kumara in Polynesia, what I have to say is clear, realistic
> > and quite simple, so I don't mind repeating it. Perhaps you weren't
> > paying attention a few months ago when I first said it? The sweet
> > potato was brought by human beings from South America to eastern
> > Polynesia some time during the first millennium AD. What's your
> > problem with that?
>
> But you didn't say who brought it over, Ross, so you're still fudging.
> Surely the answer should be easy? This is quite important.
Was it yesterday, or perhaps the day before, Yuri, that you were
admonishing me (in defense of Mary Ritchie Key) that it was quite all
right if one didn't have all the answers? Today, apparently, it's called
"fudging", and I have to assume that you think there's something wrong
with that. And why is this particular question so "important". Of course
we would like to have answers to all these questions eventually, but at
the moment too many possibilities remain open.
>
> Are you ready to admit now that it was S Americans who brought it over?
Why should I?
>
> [Ross:]
> > > : I would summarize it
> > > : by saying that the evidence for the species named ranges from
> > > : questionable to totally nonexistent.
>
> > > Now, you're being outright dishonest, Ross. I guess this is a good
> > > indication of your utter desperation, because normally you tended to avoid
> > > such tactics.
> >
> > No, Yuri, again you fail to understand basic terms of argument.
>
> And you're still trying to avoid reality.
>
> > "Dishonest" would mean that I had mis-stated a matter of fact the truth
> > of which was known to me.
>
> Of course you did, when you said that my best evidence is "questionable".
> This is dishonest, because you've never shown how exactly my evidence is
> questionable. What you did, a while back, was throw some ad hominems at
> me, and then throw in the towel. I have the posts to prove it.
Well, you're welcome to try, though this sounds as if it's leading into
one of those arguments-about-arguments-about-arguments that are one of
the chief space-wasters on this group. My guess is that you don't know
what "ad hominem" means, and that "throwing in the towel" means, not
yielding to your superior arguments, but despairing of ever getting you
to face facts.
>
> > What you mean to say is that you don't agree with my summary of the
> > evidence
>
> Yes, because your summary is false. Obviously so.
You're having a hard time separating matters of fact from matters of
opinion, aren't you?
>
> > -- a fact which I went on to point out in the following sentence.
> >
> > > I'm still waiting to see how you deal with pineapple and papaya. As I
> > > recall, this is where you gave up trying to refute this evidence.
> >
> > If I gave up anything, it was trying to make you honestly acknowledge
> > the limitations of your evidence.
>
> You're grasping at straws because you're desperate. In fact, you failed to
> find any major problems with my evidence. Admit the truth, Ross. Try to
> reconnect with the real world.
>
> All evidence has some limitations. My evidence also has some limitations.
> What's there to admit? But the limitations of my evidence are quite
> marginal and insignificant.
>
> > Pineapple and papaya are among the better examples, but the evidence
> > is a long way from conclusive.
>
> How so? I'm still waiting for you to show any major problems with my
> evidence.
Your evidence on pineapple and papaya, IIRC, consisted of Heyerdahl and
Brown, in the early 20th century, in the Marquesas, who were of the
opinion that these plants must be of pre-European introduction. (Brown
at least was a botanist; but Merrill, another botanist of the same
period, strongly disagreed with his conclusions.) You had no records of
these plants being observed by the earliest visitors, here or anywhere
else in Polynesia. That I would call a major problem.
>
> > At the other end of the scale, for some species you never presented
> > any evidence at all,
>
> I've given the refs where the info can be found.
>
> > and for others the claim turned out to be based on mis-translation of
> > early sources
>
> Not for any of those 15 items.
>
> > or incorrect botanical identification.
>
> Yes, there were problems with exact names of one or two items, because of
> changes in nomenclature over time. I accept your corrections that you
> supplied. So what? Is this all you have to show for yourself? This really
> seems like a drowning man grasping at straws...
>
It seems that my "corrections" resulted in you discretely dropping some
of the species you originally mentioned from your list. This would
account for your recollection that only 15 species were discussed,
whereas I am sure there were more. And let me point out that these are
not to do with "changes in nomenclature", but of actual botanical fact:
- Polynesian "arrowroot" is a totally different species from West
Indian "arrowroot"
- the New World yams of the genus Dioscorea are different species
from the Asian-Pacific ones
- the Hawaiian poppy (Argemone) is now recognized as a separate
species from its American relatives, hence a pre-human arrival
And I didn't even mention the fact that at one point you had listed two
or three species of bean (Phaseolus) which *not even Heyerdahl* had
claimed were introduced to Polynesia. As far as I can see, you simply
picked them up from a mention in one of his books, without paying any
attention to what he said about them.
And yet when people point out this kind of thing, you dismiss it as mere
nit-picking and grasping at straws.....
> > > I consider bottle gourd as rather weak evidence. I would not waste my time
> > > on this myself.
> >
> > I consider this statement to be pure bluff.
>
> No, my poor misguided friend. Bluff this ain't.
>
> > Why on earth do you suppose that the gourd would be the one species
> > besides the kumara that is accepted even by those hopelessly corrupt
> > and ignorant mainstream scholars?
>
> You may recall that I've already mentioned before that many Polynesian
> academic specialists are quite confused. This is a mild case of the same.
>
> The problem with bottle gourd is that this is one of the most ancient
> domesticates. Perhaps the most ancient domesticate. The ultimate origin is
> not clear -- but it was probably Africa. For all I know, it may have been
> carried around by ancient sailors all over the place as far back as 15,000
> years ago. It could have easily gotten to Polynesia via Asia as well as
> via America.
>
> On my webpage, you will find a summary of the argument by Donald Lathrap
> [ORIGINS OF AGRICULTURE, C.A. Reed, ed., Mouton (Proceedings of the IX
> International Congress of Anthropological and Ethnological Sciences),
> 1977] where Lathrap argues that gourd (Lagenaria) originally came to
> America from Africa.
>
> http://www.globalserve.net/~yuku/dif/a26.htm
>
> So there's very little that can be conclusively proven with this re
> Polynesian history. Glad to help you with this problem, Ross. If you have
> any more such questions, don't hesitate to ask.
Thanks so much for your help, Yuri. So let me see if I've got this
straight.... Lathrap argues that the gourd came to America from Africa.
THEREFORE, the gourd came to Polynesia from Africa. No, wait a minute,
something missing there....? Let's see...
Ah, now I get it. The missing link is a few of Yuri's "for all I know"s
and "could have easily"s -- wow! That's great! Just like great balsas of
supposition floating over those inconvenient gaps between the islands of
fact.
Now this is really interesting. Here I am arguing for an
American-Polynesian plant introduction _against_ Yuri. I'll come back to
this when I'm at another computer closer to my sources, but I think that
the key fact that Yuri is leaving out here is that the gourd turns up in
East Polynesia _and not further west_. I know those mainstream scholars
are incredibly stupid and confused (I ought to know, I am one), but I
think that here they might actually have one good piece of evidence.
>
> > > : Hardly a discovery of Terrell's, or of Heyerdahl's. More like the main
> > > : stream of thought on the matter for the last 200 years.
> > >
> > > So how come all these mainstream scholars like van Tilburg are saying that
> > > Rapanui became "magically isolated" from all other places right after
> > > being settled? Again, Ross is fudging and trying to avoid reality...
> >
> > What do the quotation marks mean there, Yuri? I don't think those were
> > van Tilburg's words. Quoting yourself again?
>
> And here comes the fudging:
Notice that, folks? That kind of fast footwork takes _years_ of
practice! Yuri has used a bogus quote, falsely attributing certain words
to van Tilburg. He is challenged on this. Does he hem and haw, deny or
evade, or even admit it? No! He goes on the offensive. He immediately
counter-attacks, and in the confusion the original accusation is
forgotten.....
Which reminds me. Remember in the previous post he pretended that I
myself had said something very similar about "mystical" transporation of
the kumara or whatever? I challenged him on that, and predicted that he
would snip the whole exchange and hope it would be forgotten. Guess
what?
>
> > Isolation is a relative matter. If any place on the planet was ever
> > truly isolated, Rapanui was surely it. We don't have to suppose that
> > only one pre-European voyage ever arrived there,
>
> Tell this to van Tilburg.
>
> > but if we looked at external contacts per year/decade/century over its
> > pre-European history, I would expect it to be at or near the bottom of
> > the list.
>
> Van Tilburg, who was still a mainstream stalwart the last time I looked,
> thinks it was isolated from the rest of the world ever since it was
> settled. This is absurd, of course. And you're wrong about mainstream not
> being isolationists.
Documentation to follow any day now, I guess.
Ross Clark
Brian McLaughlin
|> > >
|> > > What do the quotation marks mean there, Yuri? I don't think those were
|> > > van Tilburg's words. Quoting yourself again?
|> >
|> > And here comes the fudging:
|>
|> Notice that, folks? That kind of fast footwork takes _years_ of
|> practice! Yuri has used a bogus quote, falsely attributing certain words
|> to van Tilburg. He is challenged on this. Does he hem and haw, deny or
|> evade, or even admit it? No! He goes on the offensive. He immediately
|> counter-attacks, and in the confusion the original accusation is
|> forgotten.....
|>
|> Which reminds me. Remember in the previous post he pretended that I
|> myself had said something very similar about "mystical" transporation of
|> the kumara or whatever? I challenged him on that, and predicted that he
|> would snip the whole exchange and hope it would be forgotten. Guess
|> what?
He also changed the subject line at the same time. But, that MUST
have been just a coincidence, right?
Ross Clark
discussion:
First, as promised, a clarification of the bottle gourd business.
The basic reasons for considering the bottle gourd (Lagenaria) to be an
American-Polynesian introduction are:
(1) It is widespread and archaeologically attested very early in the
Americas.
(2) At first European contact it was found in eastern Polynesia
(including Hawaii and New Zealand), but not in western Polynesia or Fiji.
To expand on these two points:
(1) The question of whether, as Lathrap suggests, the gourd came to
America from Africa at some very early date, seems not to be relevant to
how it got to Polynesia.
(2) The pre-European gourds of western Polynesia and Fiji are a different
species, the wax gourd (Binancasa hispida). On this point see W.Arthur
Whistler, "The other Polynesian gourd", Pacific Science, 44(2): 115-122
(1990). Apparently Lagenaria is well established in New Guinea, but I
have no good information on the rest of Melanesia.
Of course with Lagenaria there has been a lot of argument about the
possibility of natural dispersal by seaborne fruits. There is also a lot
of argument about varieties, eg one researcher claimed that the New
Guinea gourds were more like the African than the Asian types. I don't
know if any more recent genetic work has shed any light on this.
In any case, this looks like at least as promising a candidate as some
of the others on Yuri's list.
But wait, there's more!
I just happened across Edwin N.Ferdon's Early Observations of Marquesan
Culture, 1595-1813 (University of Arizona Press, 1993). One of his major
sources is an English missionary, William Pascoe Crook, who spent 18
months on Tahuata, 1797-99. He was a complete failure as a missionary,
but he wrote an extensive account of the Marquesans and their language,
which, unfortunately, has never been published. (The language portion
has, however, just been published by Steven Roger Fischer of rongorongo
fame.) As it turns out, Crook mentions, according to Ferdon, seven
species of plant as being present which are known to be of American
origin. (I say "according to Ferdon" because Crook was not much of a
naturalist, and some of the identifications are more secure than others.)
The list is:
1. Chili pepper (Capsicum)
2. Cashew (Anacardium)
3. Pineapple (Ananas)
4. Soursop (Annona muricata)
5. Soapberry (Sapindus saponaria)
6. Sweet potato (Ipomoea)
7. Cotton (Gossypium)
Now this is more like the sort of evidence we need to make a good case
for these plants -- certainly better than Heyerdahl's speculations in the
1930s. However, of course, Crook was not the first visitor to these
islands. In his discussion (pp.131 ff.) Ferdon manages to keep a
remarkably open mind -- even about the sweet potato! (He was writing
before the recent archaeological remains were found in the Cook Islands.)
He points out the real possibility that some or all of them may have been
brought in, deliberately or accidentally, by any of the various ships
from Mendaña's expedition onward. This is fine. I think all of these
could be added to our list of "maybes". But I enjoyed one particular note
about the pineapple:
As noted earlier, Marquesans told Crook that Josiah Roberts had
introduced the pineapple during his lengthy stay in the islands
in 1792-93, but by 1813 their account had been modified; they
then told Porter that Crook had introduced that plant. Thus, for
all we know, the pineapple could have been introduced by Captain
James Cook in 1774, since hw was known to have introduced it into
Tahiti and Tonga. (p.134)
Another cautionary tale against excessive reliance on "native tradition".
Ross Clark
Yuri Kuchinsky
: However, I was following this on s.c.p-i and was wondering what linguistic
: evidence Yuri might present to strengthen his case.
Dear Haole,
This is an interesting question, but not an easy one. Actually, of all the
large amounts of evidence we have for Polynesian - American contacts,
linguistic evidence is clearly the least studied and the least understood.
Perhaps this can be explained by the fact that Heyerdahl himself seems to
have been quite uninterested in pursuing this matter at great length,
although this would have added more weight to his postulated American NW
coast to Polynesia migrations.
But, in any case, some highly competent linguists did pursue this general
matter. I have the following references for you to look up.
AUTHOR: Key, Mary Ritchie.
TITLE: Polynesian and American linguistic connections / Mary
Ritchie Key ; with the collaboration of Karel
Richards. --
PUBLISHED: Lake Bluff, Ill., U.S.A. : Jupiter Press, 1984.
PAGING: xi, 80 p. : ill., port. ; 23 cm. --
SERIES: Edward Sapir monograph series in language, culture,
and cognition. 0163-3848 ; 12
NOTES: "Distributed to all subscribers to Forum linguisticum,
volume VIII, number 3 (April 1984) as a
supplement"--Ser. t.p.
Bibliography: p. 77-80.
See a summary on my webpage
http://www.trends.net/~yuku/tran/zlan0.htm
Also, this source.
Robert Langdon and Darrell Tryon, _The Language of Easter Island: Its
Development and Eastern Polynesian Relationships_, La'ie, 1983.
Among Langdon & Tryon's main conclusions:
(1) Easter Island's first settlers were non-Polynesians;
(2) these people were leaving traces of their language in the Marquesas
Islands and the Tuamotu Archipelago before Polynesians reached Easter
Island.
This book was reviewed quite negatively by Ross Clark in JPS 92:419-425
(1983).
As to the linguistic traces of American NW coast to Polynesia migrations,
the work by a distinguished Canadian ethnographer and linguist Charles
Hill-Tout is the most relevant.
Charles Hill-Tout, OCEANIC ORIGIN OF THE KWAKIUTL-NOOTKA AND SALISH
STOCKS OF BRITISH COLUMBIA AND FUNDAMENTAL UNITY OF SAME, WITH ADDITIONAL
NOTES ON THE DENE, Proc. Trans. Roy. Soc. Canada, II Ser., Vol. IV, 1898.
As you may note, he himself believed that the NW Coast Indians came from
Polynesia (Heyerdahl of course believes the opposite was the case), but he
found some basic linguistic similarities there in any case.
Here's a quote from him,
"It is impossible to explain these marvellous and far-reaching
[linguistic] similarities without admitting an Oceanic origin for these
[British] Columbian stocks. The data here offered in support of this fact
constitutes but a fraction of what I have gathered in my investigations,
extending over years..."
He writes about,
"...cumulative force of the thousand and one little correspondences ...
[and] the more obvious and striking ones ... The morphology of the Salish,
I may add, is nowhere radically different from that of the typical Oceanic
groups, and at times most remarkable correspondenes occur." (quoted in
Heyerdahl, AMERICAN INDIANS IN THE PACIFIC, pp. 155-6)
To the best of my understanding, this promising early research was not
followed up by anyone, including Heyerdahl, who just provided a bare
summary of Hill-Tout's research in this volume, and dropped the whole
matter.
Also, it seems to me like all three of these linguistic works from three
sources were basically working in isolation from each other. In other
words, Key seems to be unaware of Langdon/Tryon or Hill-Tout, and
Langdon/Tryon may be also unaware of the other two. So these three sources
may be meeting together here in this post for the first time.
Now, our famous linguistic friend Ross Clark will probably add his voice
to this subject soon with his famous insightful comments such as RUBBISH!
and ALL NONSENSE! And THEY ARE ALL FOOLS AND KNOW NOTHING ABOUT
LINGUISTICS!
But I suppose this is what he's getting paid to say, and can say nothing
other than this?
Regards,
Yuri.
Yuri Kuchinsky -=O=- http://www.globalserve.net/~yuku
It is a far, far better thing to have a firm anchor in nonsense than
Yuri Kuchinsky
I am not quite sure what's going on with this discussion now, since you
now seem to be providing more botanical evidence _for_ Polynesian -- S
American contacts rather than against...
But in any case, let me just try to clarify a few basic methodological
issues here.
It was never my intention to try to prove that _each one_ of all these 15+
domesticates _taken separately_ has to provide very good evidence for
contact. Such an excersize would be quite meaningless, and even a little
foolish, I'm sure. In fact, as I've said many a time, I only need _one or
two_ such plants to prove contact. Two or three would provide all the
proof that I need. The others can fend for themselves, for all I care.
After such proof is accepted for one or two or three, an impartial
observer will surely tend to think that the other plants -- even if not
constituting conclusive evidence in and of themselves -- will still
provide good supporting evidence, and _the benefit of the doubt_ should go
to their also indicating ancient human introduction from America. Again,
as I've said many a time, this is obviously a _cumulative argument_. One
plant tends to support others.
We have sweet potato accepted already. From the list of 15, maybe another
one or two are needed. I really don't need any more.
So in general your complaints about the exact nomenclature here and there,
the exact trustworthiness of sources here and there, etc. are really quite
beside the point. Try to understand this, Ross.
Ross Clark (benli...@xtra.co.nz) wrote on Wed, 02 Dec 1998 11:18:42 +1300:
: Yuri Kuchinsky wrote:
Re: kumara
: > But you didn't say who brought it over, Ross, so you're still fudging.
: > Surely the answer should be easy? This is quite important.
: Was it yesterday, or perhaps the day before, Yuri, that you were
: admonishing me (in defense of Mary Ritchie Key) that it was quite all
: right if one didn't have all the answers? Today, apparently, it's called
: "fudging", and I have to assume that you think there's something wrong
: with that.
There are the following possibilities:
1. Americans brought it over.
2. Polynesians brought it over.
3. Space Aliens brought it over.
After discounting #3, perhaps, the choice should be easy to make. The fact
that you're afraid to make a choice is highly indicative. This is called
timidity and failure to take a position.
: And why is this particular question so "important".
Because this indicates your incompetence as a historian, and a lack of
courage. The least you can do is evaluate both these possibilities
rationally. But you're even afraid to do this!
: Of course
: we would like to have answers to all these questions eventually, but at
: the moment too many possibilities remain open.
How many? Two? Is this too many???
: > > "Dishonest" would mean that I had mis-stated a matter of fact the truth
: > > of which was known to me.
: >
: > Of course you did, when you said that my best evidence is "questionable".
: > This is dishonest, because you've never shown how exactly my evidence is
: > questionable. What you did, a while back, was throw some ad hominems at
: > me, and then throw in the towel. I have the posts to prove it.
: Well, you're welcome to try,
Here goes:
Re: botanical facts (was: Lapita and Polynesian origins
Author: Ross Clark
Email: d...@antnov1.auckland.ac.nz
Date: 1998/09/28
Forums: sci.archaeology, soc.culture.new-zealand
[Yuri:]
> Here we have more evasion from Ross. Obviously he doesn't have a case. He
> refuses to give reasons why he has not yet accepted that papaya and
> pineapple were pre-European introductions to Polynesia.
(I think it's time to try this one...)
Yuri, what is the reason for your obsessive-compulsive fixation on
repeating old arguments about the papaya and pineapple? Your behaviour is
becoming more and more bizarre. Have you sought professional help?
Ross Clark
[end quote]
That was the end of discussion. Ad hominems, and avoidance...
Now you see why I find your tactics quite dishonest?
[Ross:]
: > > Pineapple and papaya are among the better examples, but the evidence
: > > is a long way from conclusive.
: >
: > How so? I'm still waiting for you to show any major problems with my
: > evidence.
: Your evidence on pineapple and papaya, IIRC, consisted of Heyerdahl and
: Brown, in the early 20th century, in the Marquesas, who were of the
: opinion that these plants must be of pre-European introduction.
Correct. But also you forgot Thomson on Rapanui. A memory gap?
: (Brown
: at least was a botanist; but Merrill, another botanist of the same
: period, strongly disagreed with his conclusions.)
Ah, Finally! He managed to scrounge some evidence against Brown, after
all! It took you a while, Ross. Now let's see the refs, and what Merrill
had to say about this. Don't be shy.
: You had no records of
: these plants being observed by the earliest visitors,
I got some plants observed by earliest visitors, such as cotton. But we
don't need this, really. Because other evidence is conclusive enough.
: here or anywhere
: else in Polynesia. That I would call a major problem.
Only in your dreams...
: > Yes, there were problems with exact names of one or two items, because of
: > changes in nomenclature over time. I accept your corrections that you
: > supplied. So what? Is this all you have to show for yourself? This really
: > seems like a drowning man grasping at straws...
: It seems that my "corrections" resulted in you discretely dropping some
: of the species you originally mentioned from your list.
The grand total of one!
: This would
: account for your recollection that only 15 species were discussed,
Hardly.
: whereas I am sure there were more. And let me point out that these are
: not to do with "changes in nomenclature", but of actual botanical fact:
: - Polynesian "arrowroot" is a totally different species from West
: Indian "arrowroot"
That's the one I dropped!
: - the New World yams of the genus Dioscorea are different species
: from the Asian-Pacific ones
Refs for this?
Yam was not in the "very good" category, anyway.
: - the Hawaiian poppy (Argemone) is now recognized as a separate
: species from its American relatives,
Says who?
: hence a pre-human arrival
I doubt it.
: And I didn't even mention the fact that at one point you had listed two
: or three species of bean (Phaseolus) which *not even Heyerdahl* had
: claimed were introduced to Polynesia.
False. The beans are still valid. You did not consult both works I cited,
but merely one.
: As far as I can see, you simply
: picked them up from a mention in one of his books, without paying any
: attention to what he said about them.
False.
: And yet when people point out this kind of thing, you dismiss it as mere
: nit-picking and grasping at straws.....
This "kind of thing" is exactly nit-picking and grasping at straws. See
at the beginning of my post.
: > On my webpage, you will find a summary of the argument by Donald Lathrap
: > [ORIGINS OF AGRICULTURE, C.A. Reed, ed., Mouton (Proceedings of the IX
: > International Congress of Anthropological and Ethnological Sciences),
: > 1977] where Lathrap argues that gourd (Lagenaria) originally came to
: > America from Africa.
: >
: > http://www.globalserve.net/~yuku/dif/a26.htm
: >
: > So there's very little that can be conclusively proven with this re
: > Polynesian history. Glad to help you with this problem, Ross. If you have
: > any more such questions, don't hesitate to ask.
: Thanks so much for your help, Yuri. So let me see if I've got this
: straight.... Lathrap argues that the gourd came to America from Africa.
: THEREFORE, the gourd came to Polynesia from Africa. No, wait a minute,
: something missing there....? Let's see...
: Ah, now I get it. The missing link is a few of Yuri's "for all I know"s
: and "could have easily"s -- wow! That's great! Just like great balsas of
: supposition floating over those inconvenient gaps between the islands of
: fact.
You seem to be getting more and more confused, Ross. My "for all I know"s
and "could have easily"s are precisely indication of uncertainty. Which is
why I consider gourd uncertain.
Now, try to think carefully. My uncertainty is expressed because I see the
gourd as uncertain. I'm certain only as to my uncertainty. So you cannot
legitimately blame me for my certainty about my uncertainty because I'm
uncertain.
I hope this helps.
: Now this is really interesting. Here I am arguing for an
: American-Polynesian plant introduction _against_ Yuri.
Yes, I agree, very interesting...
: I'll come back to
: this when I'm at another computer closer to my sources, but I think that
: the key fact that Yuri is leaving out here is that the gourd turns up in
: East Polynesia _and not further west_. I know those mainstream scholars
: are incredibly stupid and confused (I ought to know, I am one), but I
: think that here they might actually have one good piece of evidence.
But you forgot the often enough asserted possibility of self-diffusion for
gourd. But what am I arguing for now, anyways? You see, now you got me all
confused... :)
...
: > And here comes the fudging:
: Notice that, folks? That kind of fast footwork takes _years_ of
: practice! Yuri has used a bogus quote, falsely attributing certain words
: to van Tilburg.
Nitpicks. I did not specifically attribute those words to van Tilburg. I
merely put them in quotes.
: He is challenged on this. Does he hem and haw, deny or
: evade, or even admit it? No! He goes on the offensive. He immediately
: counter-attacks, and in the confusion the original accusation is
: forgotten.....
Give it up, Ross. You're wasting everyone's time now...
: Which reminds me. Remember in the previous post he pretended that I
: myself had said something very similar about "mystical" transporation of
: the kumara or whatever? I challenged him on that, and predicted that he
: would snip the whole exchange and hope it would be forgotten. Guess
: what?
Yes, you meant "mystical transportation", because you're a well known
mystic. I admit I don't have the posts to prove this from DejaNews. My
source? Because I lit up some insense, got out my crystal ball, and
channeled some of your thoughts psychically, that's how!
What are you going to do about this now?
[snip more nitpicks]
Yours,
Yuri.
Yuri Kuchinsky -=O=- http://www.globalserve.net/~yuku
It is a far, far better thing to have a firm anchor in nonsense than
Ross Clark
>
> Now, our famous linguistic friend Ross Clark will probably add his voice
> to this subject soon with his famous insightful comments such as RUBBISH!
> and ALL NONSENSE! And THEY ARE ALL FOOLS AND KNOW NOTHING ABOUT
> LINGUISTICS!
>
> But I suppose this is what he's getting paid to say, and can say nothing
> other than this?
Of course. Here I am with today's orders, and my orders from
Headquarters are to say...oh, well, you know, Yuri's already said it for
me.
Incidentally, if you are going looking for these three works, you won't
find any evidence from Amerindian languages in the Langdon/Tryon book.
(Yuri may or may not know this -- he often waxes enthusiastic about work
that he's never even sighted.) But you will find plenty in the Key and
the Hill-Tout (as well as in the works of the delightfully eccentric
John Campbell, which Yuri was touting a while back as the cutting edge
of linguistic research (circa 1890)). While you're in the library, you
might also seek out some other classics, such as Tregear's _The Aryan
Maori_ (Maori is related to Sanskrit), Hevesy's _Munda-Magyar-Maori_
(Maori is related to Hungarian), McDonald's _Asiatic Origin of the
Oceanic Languages_ (Oceanic languages are Semitic), and the more recent
work of Barry Fell (Polynesian is just a dialect of Egyptian). If you're
still fascinated by this stuff after you've read these, I can give you
more references. Or we could have a more general discussion of just
what, if anything, all this means.
Ross Clark
Ross Clark
>
> Ross,
>
> I am not quite sure what's going on with this discussion now, since you
> now seem to be providing more botanical evidence _for_ Polynesian -- S
> American contacts rather than against...
Yes, I knew this would be difficult for you, Yuri, since you have always
wanted to reduce the whole discussion to a one-bit question
(right/wrong, yes/no).
>
> But in any case, let me just try to clarify a few basic methodological
> issues here.
>
> It was never my intention to try to prove that _each one_ of all these 15+
> domesticates _taken separately_ has to provide very good evidence for
> contact. Such an excersize would be quite meaningless, and even a little
> foolish, I'm sure. In fact, as I've said many a time, I only need _one or
> two_ such plants to prove contact. Two or three would provide all the
> proof that I need. The others can fend for themselves, for all I care.
>
> After such proof is accepted for one or two or three, an impartial
> observer will surely tend to think that the other plants -- even if not
> constituting conclusive evidence in and of themselves -- will still
> provide good supporting evidence, and _the benefit of the doubt_ should go
> to their also indicating ancient human introduction from America. Again,
> as I've said many a time, this is obviously a _cumulative argument_. One
> plant tends to support others.
Well, as has been explained to you many times, it doesn't work that way.
Even if contact is accepted (as it is by most people), the question of
whether any _particular_ plant was introduced by pre-European people
from America needs to be asked separately. It _cannot_ be answered on
the basis of the answer for some other plant, or by compiling a big list
of "maybe"s.
Now it's pretty clear that once the question of contact has been
answered in the affirmative, your interest drops off to near zero. You
really don't care how papaya, or Xanthosoma, or Argemone, got to
Polynesia. Fine, you don't have to. But if you don't, stop making claims
about how there's this overwhelming evidence for all of them. Because if
you do make such claims, you have to be prepared to answer people who
point out the defects in your evidence.
> We have sweet potato accepted already. From the list of 15, maybe another
> one or two are needed. I really don't need any more.
Why do you need more than one?
> So in general your complaints about the exact nomenclature here and there,
> the exact trustworthiness of sources here and there, etc. are really quite
> beside the point. Try to understand this, Ross.
I understand it. They are beside your ONE BIG POINT.
>
> Ross Clark (benli...@xtra.co.nz) wrote on Wed, 02 Dec 1998 11:18:42 +1300:
> : Yuri Kuchinsky wrote:
>
> Re: kumara
>
> : > But you didn't say who brought it over, Ross, so you're still fudging.
> : > Surely the answer should be easy? This is quite important.
>
> : Was it yesterday, or perhaps the day before, Yuri, that you were
> : admonishing me (in defense of Mary Ritchie Key) that it was quite all
> : right if one didn't have all the answers? Today, apparently, it's called
> : "fudging", and I have to assume that you think there's something wrong
> : with that.
>
> There are the following possibilities:
>
> 1. Americans brought it over.
> 2. Polynesians brought it over.
> 3. Space Aliens brought it over.
>
> After discounting #3, perhaps, the choice should be easy to make. The fact
> that you're afraid to make a choice is highly indicative. This is called
> timidity and failure to take a position.
I could look up the date, but you've tried this one before: "Nyah nyah,
fraidy cat!" Give it up, man. Childish.
>
> : And why is this particular question so "important".
>
> Because this indicates your incompetence as a historian, and a lack of
> courage. The least you can do is evaluate both these possibilities
> rationally. But you're even afraid to do this!
Etc etc etc
>
> : Of course
> : we would like to have answers to all these questions eventually, but at
> : the moment too many possibilities remain open.
>
> How many? Two? Is this too many???
You really do like your little binary choices, don't you? Yes, you can
simplify the question down to "Polynesians"/"South Americans" (tick
one), by leaving out all the details like "which Polynesians?", "which
South Americans?", "from where?" "to where?" and "when?" (not to mention
'why?"). But even if you do this, the evidence does not conclusively
support one or the other.
The Return of Mirror Man!
Yuri, I may have to take some responsibility for not producing a
sufficiently accurate imitation of one of your own trademark ad hominem
devices. Perhaps that's why you didn't recognize it as a parody of
yourself. Elsewhere I have quite explicitly attributed it to you.
As far as avoidance, what I was avoiding was spending the rest of my
life repeating the same arguments. Another favorite tactic of yours --
pretending that nobody has offered any answer to your arguments. Within
weeks or even days you are ready to proclaim them unanswered and
therefore proven, and there may well be a few newbies or amnesiacs
around who will take you seriously.
>
> [Ross:]
> : > > Pineapple and papaya are among the better examples, but the evidence
> : > > is a long way from conclusive.
> : >
> : > How so? I'm still waiting for you to show any major problems with my
> : > evidence.
>
> : Your evidence on pineapple and papaya, IIRC, consisted of Heyerdahl and
> : Brown, in the early 20th century, in the Marquesas, who were of the
> : opinion that these plants must be of pre-European introduction.
>
> Correct. But also you forgot Thomson on Rapanui. A memory gap?
Fine. Thomson on Rapanui. 1880s.
>
> : (Brown
> : at least was a botanist; but Merrill, another botanist of the same
> : period, strongly disagreed with his conclusions.)
>
> Ah, Finally! He managed to scrounge some evidence against Brown, after
> all! It took you a while, Ross. Now let's see the refs, and what Merrill
> had to say about this. Don't be shy.
>
> : You had no records of
> : these plants being observed by the earliest visitors,
>
> I got some plants observed by earliest visitors, such as cotton. But we
> don't need this, really. Because other evidence is conclusive enough.
Nope. Stop right there. You're doing the Dance of the Flowers again.
Evidence for one plant being present does _not_ constitute evidence of
another plant being present. Not at all.
In the case of the pineapple, see my recent post with the notes on
Ferdon's book. Not only is the Heyerdahl/Brown evidence hardly
"conclusive" (!), but the much earlier evidence from Crook and Porter
strongly suggests that pineapples were introduced by Europeans in the
18th century.
>
> : here or anywhere
> : else in Polynesia. That I would call a major problem.
>
> Only in your dreams...
You don't consider it a problem?
>
> : > Yes, there were problems with exact names of one or two items, because of
> : > changes in nomenclature over time. I accept your corrections that you
> : > supplied. So what? Is this all you have to show for yourself? This really
> : > seems like a drowning man grasping at straws...
>
> : It seems that my "corrections" resulted in you discretely dropping some
> : of the species you originally mentioned from your list.
>
> The grand total of one!
I see below that arrowroot is the one example you admit to. Even there
you tried to smoke-screen your retreat by claiming that it was a matter
of terminology, or different varieties, rather than that the original
claim was just dead wrong.
I'm not prepared to accept your arithmetical skills without challenge,
either. A few posts ago, you were claiming that exactly 15 species were
in your list, and trying to score some points off me because I
remembered more. I now look back at your post of 1998/8/5 and I find
*22* species in your list (that's not counting the duplications). What's
going on?
Prediction: Either this point will instantly disappear from the thread;
or it will become a "trivial point", which I am pursuing to avoid the
Big Issues. Just remember that a few days ago this exact same
disagreement was taken as evidence that my mind was deteriorating, and
nothing else I said could be trusted.
> : This would
> : account for your recollection that only 15 species were discussed,
>
> Hardly.
>
> : whereas I am sure there were more. And let me point out that these are
> : not to do with "changes in nomenclature", but of actual botanical fact:
>
> : - Polynesian "arrowroot" is a totally different species from West
> : Indian "arrowroot"
>
> That's the one I dropped!
Congratulations.
>
> : - the New World yams of the genus Dioscorea are different species
> : from the Asian-Pacific ones
>
> Refs for this?
Simmonds, Evolution of Crop Plants.
>
> Yam was not in the "very good" category, anyway.
>
> : - the Hawaiian poppy (Argemone) is now recognized as a separate
> : species from its American relatives,
>
> Says who?
References given some time ago. From memory: Degener, Plants of Hawaii's
National Parks (1930s) and a book called Hawaiian Heritage Plants
(1980), can't remember the author. If you know of dissenting opinions in
the recent botanical literature, I'd be happy to hear about them.
>
> : hence a pre-human arrival
>
> I doubt it.
Why?
>
> : And I didn't even mention the fact that at one point you had listed two
> : or three species of bean (Phaseolus) which *not even Heyerdahl* had
> : claimed were introduced to Polynesia.
>
> False. The beans are still valid. You did not consult both works I cited,
> but merely one.
And you couldn't possibly summarize just what the evidence is?
Not much. What is the relevance of Lathrap's theory about the gourd
coming from Africa to the question of how it got to Polynesia?
>
> : Now this is really interesting. Here I am arguing for an
> : American-Polynesian plant introduction _against_ Yuri.
>
> Yes, I agree, very interesting...
>
> : I'll come back to
> : this when I'm at another computer closer to my sources, but I think that
> : the key fact that Yuri is leaving out here is that the gourd turns up in
> : East Polynesia _and not further west_. I know those mainstream scholars
> : are incredibly stupid and confused (I ought to know, I am one), but I
> : think that here they might actually have one good piece of evidence.
>
> But you forgot the often enough asserted possibility of self-diffusion for
> gourd.
If that's your problem, sure -- self-diffusion is a real possibility.
(But Lathrap, as I understand it, was arguing _against_ self-diffusion.
So I still don't see the relevance of his paper.) Even if we make a
certain allowance for this possibility, the gourd still seems to me at
least as strong as several of the other items on your list.
> But what am I arguing for now, anyways? You see, now you got me all
> confused... :)
>
> ...
>
> : > And here comes the fudging:
>
> : Notice that, folks? That kind of fast footwork takes _years_ of
> : practice! Yuri has used a bogus quote, falsely attributing certain words
> : to van Tilburg.
>
> Nitpicks. I did not specifically attribute those words to van Tilburg. I
> merely put them in quotes.
Well, I ask you again, what did you mean by the quotes if not direct
quotation? You see, Yuri, accusing your opponents of being unscientific,
mystical, new-agers is one of your favorite tactics. An apparent
quotation from one of them, using such words, might seem to lend some
plausibility to your claims, which they otherwise lack.
>
> : He is challenged on this. Does he hem and haw, deny or
> : evade, or even admit it? No! He goes on the offensive. He immediately
> : counter-attacks, and in the confusion the original accusation is
> : forgotten.....
>
> Give it up, Ross. You're wasting everyone's time now...
>
> : Which reminds me. Remember in the previous post he pretended that I
> : myself had said something very similar about "mystical" transporation of
> : the kumara or whatever? I challenged him on that, and predicted that he
> : would snip the whole exchange and hope it would be forgotten. Guess
> : what?
>
> Yes, you meant "mystical transportation", because you're a well known
> mystic. I admit I don't have the posts to prove this from DejaNews. My
> source? Because I lit up some insense, got out my crystal ball, and
> channeled some of your thoughts psychically, that's how!
>
> What are you going to do about this now?
ROTFL, I guess.
Ross Clark
gh...@snark.wizard.com
: Haole (maj...@my-dejanews.com) wrote on Tue, 01 Dec 1998 15:20:59 -0600:
: : However, I was following this on s.c.p-i and was wondering what linguistic
: : evidence Yuri might present to strengthen his case.
: Dear Haole,
: This is an interesting question, but not an easy one. Actually, of all the
: large amounts of evidence we have for Polynesian - American contacts,
: linguistic evidence is clearly the least studied and the least understood.
>I notice that none of the people from Easter Island have made
comment on any of this. "I" will only say this, Most of the westerners
who study Polynesia, have no idea what they are talking about...
By the way, my family is from French Polynesia and we can track
our relatives back into the time before any of you westerners showed up...
Only guy who actually did a study on Polynesia who had any idea of
what might have gone on, has not been mentioned here. He is an Aussie
professor, who still teaches in AU someplace.
Oh yes, I still have some ancestors on Easter Island! And a
cousin is the post person in the Tuamotu's for the French Government. And
many cousins currently live in Tahiti... But I'm NOT connected to
Oscar!!!!
: Perhaps this can be explained by the fact that Heyerdahl himself seems to
: http://www.trends.net/~yuku/tran/zlan0.htm
: Also, this source.
: He writes about,
: Now, our famous linguistic friend Ross Clark will probably add his voice
: to this subject soon with his famous insightful comments such as RUBBISH!
: and ALL NONSENSE! And THEY ARE ALL FOOLS AND KNOW NOTHING ABOUT
: LINGUISTICS!
: But I suppose this is what he's getting paid to say, and can say nothing
: other than this?
: Regards,
: Yuri.
: Yuri Kuchinsky -=O=- http://www.globalserve.net/~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
--
David Samuela
P.O. Box 322 Las Vegas, NV 89125
V/M:(702)225 1018 E-Mail:gh...@wizard.com
Only FREE men have guns. Slaves have chains.
Freedom is a liqueur best savored by Free Men..
Haole
(Yuri Kuchinsky) wrote:
> Haole (maj...@my-dejanews.com) wrote on Tue, 01 Dec 1998 15:20:59 -0600:
> : However, I was following this on s.c.p-i and was wondering what linguistic
> : evidence Yuri might present to strengthen his case.
> Dear Haole,
> This is an interesting question, but not an easy one. Actually, of all the
> large amounts of evidence we have for Polynesian - American contacts,
> linguistic evidence is clearly the least studied and the least understood.
'Least studied'? There has been copious research done on both Polynesian
and AmerInd languages. Or do you mean that that there has been little done
which supports a Polynesian-AmerInd connection?
Let me ask the question another way; why does linguistic research totally
refute what you are proposing here?
> Perhaps this can be explained by the fact that Heyerdahl himself seems to
> have been quite uninterested in pursuing this matter at great length,
> although this would have added more weight to his postulated American NW
> coast to Polynesia migrations.
I see. Heyerdahl didn't think it was relevant (perhaps he knew that he
would not find support for his theries in linguistics) so we need not
consider it relevant either?
(snip to the quick)
The sources you quote are questionable (the respectable one being the
Tynon co-authored paper). I must admit that I am shocked that none of the
sources you quote were from Fell's 'Epigraphic Society's Occasional
Papers'. How would you treat Hinton's article on AmerInd pronouns in
Language last year? Or the work on Austronesian done by prolific scholars
in the field like Malcom Ross and John Wolfe?
The idea that NW AmerInd languages and Polynesian languages are more
closely related than might be supposed from a relationship from when their
predecessors were in SE Asia is ridiculous. Here is an experiment I
challenge you to join me in carrying out on this forum: take a grammar of
any NW AmerInd language, any at all. Then take a grammar of any Polynesian
language at all. Then account for the differences in phoneme inventory.
After that, we can talk about real linguistics.
-Haole
--
When reggae gets big in a small town
I just wanna leave town
-$winging Utter$
Haole
(snip)
> Incidentally, if you are going looking for these three works, you won't
> find any evidence from Amerindian languages in the Langdon/Tryon book.
> (Yuri may or may not know this -- he often waxes enthusiastic about work
> that he's never even sighted.) But you will find plenty in the Key and
> the Hill-Tout (as well as in the works of the delightfully eccentric
> John Campbell, which Yuri was touting a while back as the cutting edge
> of linguistic research (circa 1890)). While you're in the library, you
> might also seek out some other classics, such as Tregear's _The Aryan
> Maori_ (Maori is related to Sanskrit), Hevesy's _Munda-Magyar-Maori_
> (Maori is related to Hungarian), McDonald's _Asiatic Origin of the
> Oceanic Languages_ (Oceanic languages are Semitic), and the more recent
> work of Barry Fell (Polynesian is just a dialect of Egyptian). If you're
> still fascinated by this stuff after you've read these, I can give you
> more references. Or we could have a more general discussion of just
> what, if anything, all this means.
Wonderful!
And we can't foget Linus Brunner's postulation that Polynesian is related
to Ancient Greek (via Libyans), Fell's 1978 suggestion that Polynesian is
related to Berber, and a bunch of similarly odd ideas.
Then, look at works such as:
Pawley, Andrew. 1967. The relationships of the Polynesian
outlier
languages. Journal of the Polynesian Society 75:39-64.
Ross, Malcolm. 1995. Some current issues in Austronesian
linguistics.
Comparative Austronesian Dictionary 1, ed. by D. T. Trynon,
45-
120. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
etc...
which should be accessible even to the non-linguist.
The amount of evidence indicating that Polynesia was settled from the east
is, in my opinion, irrefutable.
I was just hoping that this Yuri chap would be able to make an
intelligent, if not cogent, case for himself. Too bad he couldn't.
> Ross Clark
-Haole, who works with Micronesian languages
Ross Clark
> Ross Clark wrote:
> : And I didn't even mention the fact that at one point you had listed two
> : or three species of bean (Phaseolus) which *not even Heyerdahl* had
> : claimed were introduced to Polynesia.
>
> False. The beans are still valid. You did not consult both works I cited,
> but merely one.
And you know, he's right. On Oct. 25 I posted the results of looking in
Heyerdahl's Early Man and the Ocean (1978) for information on 13
species. These were species for which Yuri had claimed there was "good"
or "very good" evidence of pre-European human transmission from the
Americas to Polynesia, but had not presented any evidence of this in his
posts. The results of my search were not very impressive. But, as Yuri
points out, there was yet another Heyerdahl book, Sea Routes to Polynesia
(1968), which I had not looked at. Now I have, so let's go over the 13
again:
1) Polygonum acuminatum (fresh-water medicinal plant) Observed by
Skottsberg, early 20th century, said to be of American origin and require
human transport. Heyerdahl cites Selling as finding Polygonum pollen
appearing suddenly in pollen cores at time of first human occupation.
Selling's results are apparently still unpublished, according to Bahn &
Flenley (1992:42). They mention Heyerdahl's claim, but don't directly
answer it.
2) Cyperus vegetus (edible roots) Observed by Skottsberg as (1), but no
evidence of early presence mentioned.
3) Lycium carolinianum (edible berries) As for (2)
4) Physalis peruviana (husk-tomata or cape gooseberry) Mentioned by
Hillebrand as in Hawaii in 1888. Heyerdahl says "formerly widespread in
eastern Polynesia", without further references. No evidence about early
presence or possibility of unassisted transmission.
5) Argemone (medicinal plant) Puakala or Hawaiian poppy. Part of a mainly
American genus, but now considered a distinct species (A.glauca), hence
not of human introduction. Remember that there is lots of "American"
flora and fauna in Hawaii that got itself there long before humans.
6) Heliconia (fibre plant) "wild banana". Heyerdahl cites Baker (1893)
and O.F.Cook (1903) as favouring human introduction. Merrill (Botany of
Cook's Voyages, 1954, 305) is not convinced.
7) Pachyrrhizus (yam bean). Heyerdahl cites Cook (1903) again. Guppy and
Graeffe seem to be the primary sources on the range and use of this
plant. There is no mention of its occurrence in eastern Polynesia. Tonga
is one of the places where it is said to grow, but Whistler (Ethnobotany
of Tonga, 1991) does not mention it, and I have seen hardly any mention
of it anywhere in Polynesia or Melanesia. A possible clue to the problem
is Merrill's opinion (op.cit.) that it was a misidentification of
Pueraria, another leguminous plant of Asian origin. This incorrect
identification found its way into a Flora of Fiji and has been re-quoted
by many people ever since.
8) Xanthosoma (type of taro) I found no evidence of pre-European
introduction in any of Heyerdahl's books.
9) Aristida (grass used for head ornaments) pavahina, Marquesas. Brown
(1935) considered it a possible unintentional introduction by early
inhabitants.
10) Ageratum (used for ornaments) mei roro, Marquesas. Also mentioned as
in Tubuai, and found in Samoa and Tonga. Brown considers it another
unintentional early introduction. Brown describes this species as
"pantropic", which makes me wonder exactly what his reasons are for also
saying it's "of American origin".
11) Phaseolus vulgaris (common bean)
12) Phaseolus lunatus (lima bean)
There is no mention in Heyerdahl 1976 or 1968 of any evidence
that either of these species was present in Polynesia or the Pacific
islands generally before European times.
13) Canavalia (jackbean or swordbean) Heyerdahl cites Stonor & Anderson
(1949) as saying that this plant is "widely cultivated throughout the
Pacific". This is news to me. Several vines of this genus grow in the
Pacific islands as beach weeds. They are not cultivated, and nobody eats
them except pigs. Possibly Stonor and Anderson provide some evidence for
their claim, but since the title of their paper is "Maize among the hill
peoples of Assam", it seems more likely that it was just a casual remark
that Heyerdahl never bothered to check.
So, having looked at the evidence, I suggest we forget about 5, 8, 11, 12
and 13 unless you can come up with something better. 7 also does not look
at all promising. The remainder can join the "maybe" pile.
Also, will you now admit that I was right about Phaseolus?
Ross Clark
Ross Clark
>
> In soc.culture.pacific-island Yuri Kuchinsky <yu...@globalserve.net> wrote:
> : Haole (maj...@my-dejanews.com) wrote on Tue, 01 Dec 1998 15:20:59 -0600:
>
> : : However, I was following this on s.c.p-i and was wondering what linguistic
> : : evidence Yuri might present to strengthen his case.
>
> : Dear Haole,
>
> : This is an interesting question, but not an easy one. Actually, of all the
> : large amounts of evidence we have for Polynesian - American contacts,
> : linguistic evidence is clearly the least studied and the least understood.
>
> >I notice that none of the people from Easter Island have made
> comment on any of this. "I" will only say this, Most of the westerners
> who study Polynesia, have no idea what they are talking about...
> By the way, my family is from French Polynesia and we can track
> our relatives back into the time before any of you westerners showed up...
> Only guy who actually did a study on Polynesia who had any idea of
> what might have gone on, has not been mentioned here. He is an Aussie
> professor, who still teaches in AU someplace.
Well, this is pretty important. I'm gonna have to find out who this guy
is and read what he has to say.
You wouldn't be thinking of Robert Langdon by any chance?
Ross Clark
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
wrote:
>Haole (maj...@my-dejanews.com) wrote on Tue, 01 Dec 1998 15:20:59 -0600:
>
>: However, I was following this on s.c.p-i and was wondering what linguistic
>: evidence Yuri might present to strengthen his case.
>
>Dear Haole,
>
>This is an interesting question, but not an easy one. Actually, of all the
>large amounts of evidence we have for Polynesian - American contacts,
>linguistic evidence is clearly the least studied and the least understood.
You mean: of all the large amounts of evidence we have for a SE Asian
origin of the Polynesians, the linguistic evidence is the best
studied and is perfectly understood.
>Perhaps this can be explained by the fact that Heyerdahl himself seems to
>have been quite uninterested in pursuing this matter at great length,
>although this would have added more weight to his postulated American NW
>coast to Polynesia migrations.
Read: perhaps this explains why Heyerdahl Himself seems to have been
quite unable to pursue this matter at all.
>But, in any case, some highly competent linguists
So there *are* highly competent linguists after all?
>As to the linguistic traces of American NW coast to Polynesia migrations,
>the work by a distinguished Canadian ethnographer and linguist Charles
>Hill-Tout is the most relevant.
>
>Charles Hill-Tout, OCEANIC ORIGIN OF THE KWAKIUTL-NOOTKA AND SALISH
>STOCKS OF BRITISH COLUMBIA AND FUNDAMENTAL UNITY OF SAME, WITH ADDITIONAL
>NOTES ON THE DENE, Proc. Trans. Roy. Soc. Canada, II Ser., Vol. IV, 1898.
Wow, 1898.
>As you may note, he himself believed that the NW Coast Indians came from
>Polynesia (Heyerdahl of course believes the opposite was the case), but he
>found some basic linguistic similarities there in any case.
>
[...]
>To the best of my understanding, this promising early research was not
>followed up by anyone, including Heyerdahl, who just provided a bare
>summary of Hill-Tout's research in this volume, and dropped the whole
>matter.
The reason for that being, in all likelihood, that of all the stupid
linguistic ideas one might conceive of, linking NW Coast Indian
languages to Polynesian languages must rank among the stupidest.
It's hard to imagine two linguistic areas more radically different in
their phonology than Polynesia and the American NW Coast. Just
compare the Proto-Polynesian consonant inventory:
*p *t *k *?
*f *s *h
*m *n *N
*v *l *r
(Hawaiian has further reduced this to: p, k, ?, m, n, h, w, l)
with two typical NW Coast consonant inventories (Proto-Salishan and
Proto-Athabaskan):
(P Salishan:)
*p *t *c *k *kw *q *qw *?
*p' *t' *c' *tl' *k' *k'w *q' *q'w
*s *L *x *xw *X *Xw
*m *n *r *l *N *Nw *R *Rw
*m' *n' *r' *l' *N' *N'w *R' *R'w *3'
*w *y
*w' *y'
(P Athabaskan:)
*th *tlh *ch *c^h *c^hw *kh *qh *qwh *?
*d *dl *dz *j^ *j^w *g *G *Gw
*t' *tl' *c' *c^' *c^'w *k' *q' *q'w
*n *l *z *z^ *z^w *gh *X *Xw
*s^ *s^w *x *R *Rw *h
*w *y
*w~ *y~
Where did all the consonants go? The glottalized stops, affricates
and sonorants, the aspirated stops and affricates, the fricative
laterals, the uvulars, the labio-velars and labio-uvulars, etc. etc.?
Did they drop them overboard en route?
The notion that there is a recent link between languages with some of
the richest consonant inventories in the world (NW Coast area) with
languages with some of the poorest consonant inventories of the world
(Polynesian) is evidently not leading anywhere. Even Thor was
doubtlessly aware of that.
=======================
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
m...@wxs.nl
Amsterdam
Yuri Kuchinsky
: On 3 Dec 1998 18:56:27 GMT, yu...@globalserve.net (Yuri Kuchinsky)
: wrote:
: >This is an interesting question, but not an easy one. Actually, of all the
: >large amounts of evidence we have for Polynesian - American contacts,
: >linguistic evidence is clearly the least studied and the least understood.
: You mean: of all the large amounts of evidence we have for a SE Asian
: origin of the Polynesians,
Not as much as there is for the American origin IMHO. But one does not
need to contradict the other. I would say they did come from SE Asia, but
not directly. They came from SE Asia via America, because this is the way
the currents flow.
: the linguistic evidence is the best
: studied and is perfectly understood.
If your linguistic evidence is the best you have, then you probably have
ZILCH evidence.
: >But, in any case, some highly competent linguists
: So there *are* highly competent linguists after all?
Some.
: >As to the linguistic traces of American NW coast to Polynesia migrations,
: >the work by a distinguished Canadian ethnographer and linguist Charles
: >Hill-Tout is the most relevant.
: >
: >Charles Hill-Tout, OCEANIC ORIGIN OF THE KWAKIUTL-NOOTKA AND SALISH
: >STOCKS OF BRITISH COLUMBIA AND FUNDAMENTAL UNITY OF SAME, WITH ADDITIONAL
: >NOTES ON THE DENE, Proc. Trans. Roy. Soc. Canada, II Ser., Vol. IV, 1898.
: Wow, 1898.
If you could read, you would have seen that I wrote "least studied" above.
: >To the best of my understanding, this promising early research was not
: >followed up by anyone, including Heyerdahl, who just provided a bare
: >summary of Hill-Tout's research in this volume, and dropped the whole
: >matter.
: The reason for that being, in all likelihood, that of all the stupid
: linguistic ideas one might conceive of, linking NW Coast Indian
: languages to Polynesian languages must rank among the stupidest.
You don't have a clue.
: It's hard to imagine two linguistic areas more radically different in
: their phonology than Polynesia and the American NW Coast.
This is not what Hill-Tout thinks.
[snip comparisons]
: Where did all the consonants go? The glottalized stops, affricates
: and sonorants, the aspirated stops and affricates, the fricative
: laterals, the uvulars, the labio-velars and labio-uvulars, etc. etc.?
: Did they drop them overboard en route?
These are valid questions. Some possible answers.
1. The state of linguistic knowledge at present is inadequate to
understand this problem.
2. Your understanding of linguistic picture in American Northwest is
inadequate.
3. Your understanding of Polynesian linguistics is inadequate.
4. Your understanding of linguistics is inadequate to underastand this
complicated problem.
5. A linguistic connection between these two areas is lacking.
But others disagree with this #5, and since there is so much other
evidence for cultural connections between these two areas, #5 is probably
not valid. So one or more of 1-4 will probably be the answer.
Obviously I don't have many answers to give Miguel. No one has these
answers. In fact I admit that I know less about linguistics than Miguel.
The answers in this area are not in sight currently since no new work has
been done for a 100 years.
From my experience, I would say linguists are simply incapable of
providing leadership in identifying distant cultural connections. Rather,
they usually provide substantiation after such connections are already
documented reasonably well from other sources. I would say linguistics is
the tail of the dog. The dog is the other historical sciences
investigating the past. When the dog found something interesting, _then_
usually the linguistic tail will come to life.
This is probably because linguistics is not advanced far enough at this
stage to provide solutions to such problems. Too much of linguistic theory
is disputed and unsettled. A lot of pseudo science is still happening in
this area -- just ask Jacques Guy to tell you about this <g>. So linguists
don't have the right to be arrogant about their understanding much in this
area. Take a note of this, Miguel.
I was asked for refs, and I supplied them, that's all. Those with an open
mind might find them interesting, but this group obviously doesn't include
Miguel.
Regards,
Yuri.
Yuri Kuchinsky -=O=- http://www.globalserve.net/~yuku -=O=- Toronto
Most of the evils of life arise from man's being
unable to sit still in a room || B. Pascal
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
wrote:
>These are valid questions. Some possible answers.
>
>1. The state of linguistic knowledge at present is inadequate to
>understand this problem.
No. This is simple phonetics. Very well understood.
>2. Your understanding of linguistic picture in American Northwest is
>inadequate.
No. It's everybody's understanding.
>3. Your understanding of Polynesian linguistics is inadequate.
No. See point 2.
>4. Your understanding of linguistics is inadequate to underastand this
>complicated problem.
I don't think so. The problem I raised with regards to consonants is
childishly simple, really.
>5. A linguistic connection between these two areas is lacking.
Now that is true. The American NW Coast, together with the Caucasus
mountains and the Kalahari desert, wins the award for the Least
Likely Place to Look for Polynesian Linguistic Connections ("Thory").
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
wrote:
>From my experience, I would say linguists are simply incapable of
>providing leadership in identifying distant cultural connections. Rather,
>they usually provide substantiation after such connections are already
>documented reasonably well from other sources.
You mean like Indo-European, or Afro-Asiatic, or you name them, where
linguistics has shown, in many cases centuries ago, that a connection
exists, but "the dog" has as yet failed to pin it down to a
particular time and place? [Linguistics alone cannot fix the time
and place. That's what we have dogs for :-)]
>I would say linguistics is
>the tail of the dog. The dog is the other historical sciences
>investigating the past. When the dog found something interesting, _then_
>usually the linguistic tail will come to life.
Unless the "research" looks like something the cat dragged in...
gh...@snark.wizard.com
: gh...@snark.wizard.com wrote:
:>
:> : Haole (maj...@my-dejanews.com) wrote on Tue, 01 Dec 1998 15:20:59 -0600:
:>
:> : : However, I was following this on s.c.p-i and was wondering what linguistic
:> : : evidence Yuri might present to strengthen his case.
:>
:> : Dear Haole,
:>
:> : This is an interesting question, but not an easy one. Actually, of all the
:> : large amounts of evidence we have for Polynesian - American contacts,
:> : linguistic evidence is clearly the least studied and the least understood.
:>
:> >I notice that none of the people from Easter Island have made
:> comment on any of this. "I" will only say this, Most of the westerners
:> who study Polynesia, have no idea what they are talking about...
:> By the way, my family is from French Polynesia and we can track
:> our relatives back into the time before any of you westerners showed up...
:> Only guy who actually did a study on Polynesia who had any idea of
:> what might have gone on, has not been mentioned here. He is an Aussie
:> professor, who still teaches in AU someplace.
: Well, this is pretty important. I'm gonna have to find out who this guy
: is and read what he has to say.
: You wouldn't be thinking of Robert Langdon by any chance?
-----> No it's not Langdon. If you are really interested, I can
dig out his address. I have it here somewhere...
David...
: Ross Clark
gh...@snark.wizard.com
Me thinks you educated types have no idea what you are talking
about and just want to have an educated discussion over the Internet.
Mostly wasting lots of bandwidth, by not snipping down some of these long
repeats..
David...
In soc.culture.pacific-island Yuri Kuchinsky <yu...@globalserve.net> wrote:
: Ross,
: Re: kumara
: Ross Clark
: [end quote]
: Only in your dreams...
: Hardly.
: Refs for this?
: Says who?
: : hence a pre-human arrival
: I doubt it.
: False.
: I hope this helps.
: ...
: [snip more nitpicks]
: Yours,
: Yuri.
--
Ross Clark
>
> In soc.culture.pacific-island Ross Clark <d...@antnov1.auckland.ac.nz> wrote:
> : gh...@snark.wizard.com wrote:
> :>
> :> : Haole (maj...@my-dejanews.com) wrote on Tue, 01 Dec 1998 15:20:59 -0600:
> :>
> :> : : However, I was following this on s.c.p-i and was wondering what linguistic
> :> : : evidence Yuri might present to strengthen his case.
> :>
> :> : Dear Haole,
> :>
> :> : This is an interesting question, but not an easy one. Actually, of all the
> :> : large amounts of evidence we have for Polynesian - American contacts,
> :> : linguistic evidence is clearly the least studied and the least understood.
> :>
> :> >I notice that none of the people from Easter Island have made
> :> comment on any of this. "I" will only say this, Most of the westerners
> :> who study Polynesia, have no idea what they are talking about...
> :> By the way, my family is from French Polynesia and we can track
> :> our relatives back into the time before any of you westerners showed up...
> :> Only guy who actually did a study on Polynesia who had any idea of
> :> what might have gone on, has not been mentioned here. He is an Aussie
> :> professor, who still teaches in AU someplace.
>
> : is and read what he has to say.
> : You wouldn't be thinking of Robert Langdon by any chance?
>
> -----> No it's not Langdon. If you are really interested, I can
> dig out his address. I have it here somewhere...
> David...
>
Yes, I really am interested. I guessed Langdon because he's somebody
from Australia whose ideas are rather different from everybody else's.
Ross Clark
Con_tiki
You guys have been arguing this since 1996 - when are you ever going to get sick
of it?
Yuri Kuchinsky wrote:
> Ross Clark (benli...@xtra.co.nz) wrote on Mon, 30 Nov 1998 11:21:05 +1300:
>
> > As for the kumara in Polynesia, what I have to say is clear, realistic
> > and quite simple, so I don't mind repeating it. Perhaps you weren't
> > paying attention a few months ago when I first said it? The sweet
> > potato was brought by human beings from South America to eastern
> > Polynesia some time during the first millennium AD. What's your
> > problem with that?
>
> But you didn't say who brought it over, Ross, so you're still fudging.
> Surely the answer should be easy? This is quite important.
>
> [snip]
thanks,
bye.
Yuri Kuchinsky
: On 4 Dec 1998 16:24:42 GMT, yu...@globalserve.net (Yuri Kuchinsky)
: wrote:
: >These are valid questions. Some possible answers.
: >
: >1. The state of linguistic knowledge at present is inadequate to
: >understand this problem.
: No. This is simple phonetics. Very well understood.
But have you considered that
1. The picture of the historical development of languages on the American
Pacific NW is understood by linguists but imperfectly at this stage. In
fact this area features incredible linguistic diversity. They speak MANY
widely divergent languages. Often two virtually culturally identical
neighbouring tribes will speak languages that are COMPLETELY DIFFERENT.
2. The hypothesized divergence betwen the Polynesian and some as yet not
fully identified ancestral NW language happened ca 2000 years ago. More
than enough time for all kinds of phonetic changes.
And finally, to test your objectivity, do you, or do you not accept that
the traditional arts of Polynesia and of NW Coast feature some rather
striking similarities? This has been commented upon by many commentators,
including Levi-Strauss.
Regards,
Yuri.
Yuri Kuchinsky -=O=- http://www.globalserve.net/~yuku -=O=- Toronto
Academic politics is the most vicious and bitter form of
politics, because the stakes are so low -=O=- Wallace Sayre
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
wrote:
>1. The picture of the historical development of languages on the American
>Pacific NW is understood by linguists but imperfectly at this stage. In
>fact this area features incredible linguistic diversity. They speak MANY
>widely divergent languages. Often two virtually culturally identical
>neighbouring tribes will speak languages that are COMPLETELY DIFFERENT.
Indeed. We have Tlingit, Eyak-Athabaskan, Haida, Tsimshian,
Wakashan, Chimakuan, Salishan, Alsea, Coos, Kalapuyan, Takelma and
Chinook. But note that the phonological systems and phonotactics of
these languages and language families are remarkably similar. All
these languages have glottalized stops and affricates, lateral
fricatives, uvulars, labiovelars, few if any labials, few vowels,
etc. None of them even remotely resembles Polynesian.
>2. The hypothesized divergence betwen the Polynesian and some as yet not
>fully identified
not identified at all...
>ancestral NW language happened ca 2000 years ago. More
>than enough time for all kinds of phonetic changes.
Only two thousand years? Then surely no NW Coast language qualifies
(as if it wasn't crystal clear already). Two thousand years is Latin
and Spanish, English and German, Samoan and Hawaiian. It would have
been trivial to identify the Polynesian language on the NW Coast.
There is no Polynesian language on the NW Coast. In fact, all the NW
Coast languages are as different from Polynesian as different can be.
>And finally, to test your objectivity, do you, or do you not accept that
>the traditional arts of Polynesia and of NW Coast feature some rather
>striking similarities? This has been commented upon by many commentators,
>including Levi-Strauss.
I don't know. It's not my custom to state opinions on subjects I am
ignorant about.
Haole
(Yuri Kuchinsky) wrote:
> But have you considered that
> 1. The picture of the historical development of languages on the American
> Pacific NW is understood by linguists but imperfectly at this stage. In
> fact this area features incredible linguistic diversity. They speak MANY
> widely divergent languages. Often two virtually culturally identical
> neighbouring tribes will speak languages that are COMPLETELY DIFFERENT.
True enough, I guess. But the history of Polynesian is VERY WELL
understood. And it has nothing to do with AmerInd. And the work that has
been done supports the land-bridge theory.
> 2. The hypothesized divergence betwen the Polynesian and some as yet not
> fully identified ancestral NW language happened ca 2000 years ago. More
> than enough time for all kinds of phonetic changes.
We don't know much about the history of NW AmerInd languages, but we have
a hypothetical date when they split? How does that work?
And 2000 years is not enough time for the kind of radical changes that
would be needed to propose a link between Polynesian and NW AmerInd
languages. 2000 years would not be long enough for all cognates to be
obscured (more like obliterated), and for the huge changes in phonology
needed to account for a relationship.
(snip for bandwidth's sake)
In short, your theory strikes out when linguistics is on the pitcher's mound.
-Haole
--
Anthony West
Yuri Kuchinsky wrote in message <7492ca$ngn$1...@whisper.globalserve.net>...>: On 3 Dec 1998 18:56:27 GMT, yu...@globalserve.net (Yuri Kuchinsky)
>: wrote:
>
[snips]
>: >As to the linguistic traces of American NW coast to Polynesia
migrations,
>: >the work by a distinguished Canadian ethnographer and linguist Charles
>: >Hill-Tout is the most relevant.
>: >
>: >Charles Hill-Tout, OCEANIC ORIGIN OF THE KWAKIUTL-NOOTKA AND SALISH
>: >STOCKS OF BRITISH COLUMBIA AND FUNDAMENTAL UNITY OF SAME, WITH
ADDITIONAL
>: >NOTES ON THE DENE, Proc. Trans. Roy. Soc. Canada, II Ser., Vol. IV,
1898.
>
>: >followed up by anyone, including Heyerdahl, who just provided a bare
>: >summary of Hill-Tout's research in this volume, and dropped the whole
>: >matter.
>
>: The reason for that being, in all likelihood, that of all the stupid
>: linguistic ideas one might conceive of, linking NW Coast Indian
>: languages to Polynesian languages must rank among the stupidest.
>
>You don't have a clue.
Sorry, Yuri, but on this point Miguel does have a clue.
>
>: It's hard to imagine two linguistic areas more radically different in
>: their phonology than Polynesia and the American NW Coast.
>: Where did all the consonants go? The glottalized stops, affricates
>: and sonorants, the aspirated stops and affricates, the fricative
>: laterals, the uvulars, the labio-velars and labio-uvulars, etc. etc.?
>
>These are valid questions. Some possible answers.
>
>1. The state of linguistic knowledge at present is inadequate to
>understand this problem.
>
Nope, present linguistic knowledge is very clear that Polynesian languages
look and sound nothing like NW Coast American Indian Languages. They are,
indeed, about as different in every aspect of their structure as two
language families can get.
>2. Your understanding of linguistic picture in American Northwest is
>inadequate.
>
Nope, Miguel's understanding of the l.p.i.A.N. is right on the money, with
respect to Polynesian connections.
>3. Your understanding of Polynesian linguistics is inadequate.
>
It doesn't take that much, Yuri. Hawai'ian and Kwakiutl are as different as
cats and daffodils. Take one look at each of them, please. A real look, not
a "let me see how I can fluff up my favorite theory" look. The kind of look
that people who know and love language studies use.
>4. Your understanding of linguistics is inadequate to underastand this
>complicated problem.
>
The problem is not complicated at all. It's very very simple.
>5. A linguistic connection between these two areas is lacking.
>
>But others disagree with this #5, and since there is so much other
>evidence for cultural connections between these two areas, #5 is probably
>not valid. So one or more of 1-4 will probably be the answer.
>
No. "Others" consists of some guy who worked in a then poorly understood
language area 100 years ago. NW Coast linguistic research left such
stumbling comparisons behind a long time ago. It's clownish to repeat them a
century later.
#5 is correct. There is absolutely no way that any language spoken in the
modern Pacific NW could have shared a common ancestor with any language
spoken in modern Polynesia, during any time period appropriate to any
discussion of the settlement of Polynesia. Linguistics rules out this
possibility with a high degree of certainty.
>Obviously I don't have many answers to give Miguel. No one has these
>answers. In fact I admit that I know less about linguistics than Miguel.
>The answers in this area are not in sight currently since no new work has
>been done for a 100 years.
>
Au contraire, the problem is that lots of new work has been done for 100
years -- work that rules out the claims you are seeking to support.
>From my experience, I would say linguists are simply incapable of
>providing leadership in identifying distant cultural connections. Rather,
>they usually provide substantiation after such connections are already
>documented reasonably well from other sources. I would say linguistics is
>the tail of the dog. The dog is the other historical sciences
>investigating the past. When the dog found something interesting, _then_
>usually the linguistic tail will come to life.
>
True, in part. Historical linguistics can only work collegially with other
disciplines in addressing broad areal questions.
But in large part you simply show no curiosity about the questions and
methodology that enliven historical linguistics per se, Yuri; thus you are
incapable of recognizing scientific leadership by this field when you see
it. If you have no taste for language study as an end in itself, you will
not be well prepared to learn how to turn the material it provides into
evidence for or against any theories.
Those who have this taste, have put a lot more effort into the analysis of
these languages than you plan on doing.
And what they have found, is that the Austronesian family bears no relation
to the languages of the NW Coast.
>This is probably because linguistics is not advanced far enough at this
>stage to provide solutions to such problems. Too much of linguistic theory
>is disputed and unsettled.
But not this ....
-Tony West
Philadelphia aaw...@critpath.org
Yuri Kuchinsky
: On 5 Dec 1998 20:02:25 GMT, yu...@globalserve.net (Yuri Kuchinsky)
: wrote:
: >1. The picture of the historical development of languages on the American
: >Pacific NW is understood by linguists but imperfectly at this stage. In
: >fact this area features incredible linguistic diversity. They speak MANY
: >widely divergent languages. Often two virtually culturally identical
: >neighbouring tribes will speak languages that are COMPLETELY DIFFERENT.
: Indeed. We have Tlingit, Eyak-Athabaskan, Haida, Tsimshian,
: Wakashan, Chimakuan, Salishan, Alsea, Coos, Kalapuyan, Takelma and
: Chinook. But note that the phonological systems and phonotactics of
: these languages and language families are remarkably similar. All
: these languages have glottalized stops and affricates, lateral
: fricatives, uvulars, labiovelars, few if any labials, few vowels,
: etc. None of them even remotely resembles Polynesian.
???
I can only repost this from my previous post:
From: yu...@globalserve.net (Yuri Kuchinsky)
Date: 3 Dec 1998 18:56:27 GMT
Charles Hill-Tout, OCEANIC ORIGIN OF THE KWAKIUTL-NOOTKA AND SALISH
STOCKS OF BRITISH COLUMBIA AND FUNDAMENTAL UNITY OF SAME, WITH ADDITIONAL
NOTES ON THE DENE, Proc. Trans. Roy. Soc. Canada, II Ser., Vol. IV, 1898.
As you may note, he himself believed that the NW Coast Indians came from
Polynesia (Heyerdahl of course believes the opposite was the case), but he
found some basic linguistic similarities there in any case.
Here's a quote from him,
"It is impossible to explain these marvellous and far-reaching
[linguistic] similarities without admitting an Oceanic origin for these
[British] Columbian stocks. The data here offered in support of this fact
constitutes but a fraction of what I have gathered in my investigations,
extending over years..."
He writes about,
"...cumulative force of the thousand and one little correspondences ...
[and] the more obvious and striking ones ... The morphology of the Salish,
I may add, is nowhere radically different from that of the typical Oceanic
groups, and at times most remarkable correspondenes occur." (quoted in
Heyerdahl, AMERICAN INDIANS IN THE PACIFIC, pp. 155-6)
[end quote]
So here's a competent linguist who spent many years investigating this
matter and came to these conclusions. It seems to me, Miguel, that you are
simply incapable of evaluating the evidence that we DO HAVE objectively.
And hereby IMHO you disqualify yourself as competent to pronounce on these
matters, because your personal faith and preconceptions intrude too
strongly.
To the best of my knowledge, the only linguistic researcher in the last
100 years who tried to evaluate Hill-Tout's research anew was Ross Clark a
few months ago. He sent me a long email with his conclusions. They were
actually far less negative than I would have expected Dr. Clark's
conclusions in this area to be, based on Dr. Clark's previous record of
evaluating such research. Take it for what it's worth.
: >And finally, to test your objectivity, do you, or do you not accept that
: >the traditional arts of Polynesia and of NW Coast feature some rather
: >striking similarities? This has been commented upon by many commentators,
: >including Levi-Strauss.
: I don't know.
But do you _want_ to know? Don't you have two eyes to see? Are you even
capable of perceiving that these cultural links that are OBVIOUS to any
MINIMALLY OBJECTIVE PARTY will be strong supporting evidence?
It seems to me like your eyes are permanently shut to such important
evidence, and also that your brain is stalled when it comes to stepping
out of any preconceived dogma.
: It's not my custom to state opinions on subjects I am
: ignorant about.
Ignorance can be remedied, but personal prejudice is usually for life...
Regards,
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
: In article <74c3gh$s1q$1...@whisper.globalserve.net>, yu...@globalserve.net
: (Yuri Kuchinsky) wrote:
: > 1. The picture of the historical development of languages on the American
: > Pacific NW is understood by linguists but imperfectly at this stage. In
: > fact this area features incredible linguistic diversity. They speak MANY
: > widely divergent languages. Often two virtually culturally identical
: > neighbouring tribes will speak languages that are COMPLETELY DIFFERENT.
: True enough, I guess. But the history of Polynesian is VERY WELL
: understood.
Only in your dreams. Check out my webpage. I should add there all the
additional posts I've made in the last few months indicating strongly that
the mainstream Lapita-origin dogma is nothing but red herring.
: And it has nothing to do with AmerInd. And the work that has
: been done supports the land-bridge theory.
False. Check out the latest mtDNA research by Rebecca Cann. It provides
good support for Heyerdahl.
Yours,
Yuri.
Yuri Kuchinsky -=O=- http://www.globalserve.net/~yuku
It is a far, far better thing to have a firm anchor in nonsense than
Yuri Kuchinsky
: Nope, present linguistic knowledge is very clear that Polynesian languages
: look and sound nothing like NW Coast American Indian Languages. They are,
: indeed, about as different in every aspect of their structure as two
: language families can get.
Sigh... See my reply to Miguel.
It is not my purpose to try to provide here conclusive proof for NW Coast
-- Polynesia connections (and certainly not to try to prove this on the
basis of linguistic comparisons). This aspect of the broader Heyerdahl
hypothesis is very obscure. It is so obscure that mainstream Polynesian
academic stalwarts like Paul Bahn, whose job it is to know such things, is
actually COMPLETELY CLUED OUT about Heyerdahl updating and advocating
this hypothesis in print as late as the late 1970's.
You see, Bahn is under the impression that Heyerdahl abandoned this theory
50 years ago. That's what I call obscure. And this is what I call
ignorance.
I'm well aware that the magnitude of this task is too much for me at this
time.
OTOH, the earlier S America to Polynesia connection can now be considered
proven.
Regards,
Yuri.
Yuri Kuchinsky -=O=- http://www.globalserve.net/~yuku -=O=- Toronto
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
wrote:
>To the best of my knowledge, the only linguistic researcher in the last
>100 years who tried to evaluate Hill-Tout's research anew was Ross Clark a
>few months ago. He sent me a long email with his conclusions. They were
>actually far less negative than I would have expected Dr. Clark's
>conclusions in this area to be, based on Dr. Clark's previous record of
>evaluating such research.
Yes I have that too. And yes, Ross' evaluation of Hill-Tout's
research does not contain any of the words "clued out", "my poor
misguided friend" or "liar", which I suppose must make it a rather
positive review. Otherwise, the conclusion is that there's nothing
there worth pursuing. Maybe you managed to miss the irony of:
"After listing half a dozen sets like this, HT comments:
The correspondences here are so many and obvious that I
shall not attempt to point them out. I will merely say that
if any one is doubtful of the Polynesian affinities of the
Kwakiutl-Nootka-Salish after a careful examination of these
terms, it will be scarcely worth his while to follow me in
my comparisons any further. (211-2)
I can only agree."
?
[Sorry, Ross. Yuri says something nice about you for once, and I
have to spoil it...]
Yuri Kuchinsky
: Just a couple of followups on the revived Trans-Pacific botanical
: discussion:
: First, as promised, a clarification of the bottle gourd business.
: The basic reasons for considering the bottle gourd (Lagenaria) to be an
: American-Polynesian introduction are:
: (1) It is widespread and archaeologically attested very early in the
: Americas.
: (2) At first European contact it was found in eastern Polynesia
: (including Hawaii and New Zealand), but not in western Polynesia or Fiji.
: To expand on these two points:
: (1) The question of whether, as Lathrap suggests, the gourd came to
: America from Africa at some very early date, seems not to be relevant to
: how it got to Polynesia.
???
If it is indeed native to Africa, than we can assume that it may have
easily made it to Asia before it got to America.
: (2) The pre-European gourds of western Polynesia and Fiji are a different
: species, the wax gourd (Binancasa hispida). On this point see W.Arthur
: Whistler, "The other Polynesian gourd", Pacific Science, 44(2): 115-122
: (1990). Apparently Lagenaria is well established in New Guinea, but I
: have no good information on the rest of Melanesia.
: Of course with Lagenaria there has been a lot of argument about the
: possibility of natural dispersal by seaborne fruits.
Yes, another complicating factor.
: There is also a lot
: of argument about varieties, eg one researcher claimed that the New
: Guinea gourds were more like the African than the Asian types.
Another complicating factor.
: I don't
: know if any more recent genetic work has shed any light on this.
: In any case, this looks like at least as promising a candidate as some
: of the others on Yuri's list.
No, thank you. I'd rather not have it on my list.
: But wait, there's more!
: I just happened across Edwin N.Ferdon's Early Observations of Marquesan
: Culture, 1595-1813 (University of Arizona Press, 1993). One of his major
: sources is an English missionary, William Pascoe Crook, who spent 18
: months on Tahuata, 1797-99. He was a complete failure as a missionary,
: but he wrote an extensive account of the Marquesans and their language,
: which, unfortunately, has never been published. (The language portion
: has, however, just been published by Steven Roger Fischer of rongorongo
: fame.) As it turns out, Crook mentions, according to Ferdon, seven
: species of plant as being present which are known to be of American
: origin. (I say "according to Ferdon" because Crook was not much of a
: naturalist, and some of the identifications are more secure than others.)
: The list is:
: 1. Chili pepper (Capsicum)
: 2. Cashew (Anacardium)
: 3. Pineapple (Ananas)
: 4. Soursop (Annona muricata)
: 5. Soapberry (Sapindus saponaria)
: 6. Sweet potato (Ipomoea)
: 7. Cotton (Gossypium)
Thank you, Ross. These seem promising.
: Now this is more like the sort of evidence we need to make a good case
: for these plants -- certainly better than Heyerdahl's speculations in the
: 1930s.
I don't think so.
: However, of course, Crook was not the first visitor to these
: islands. In his discussion (pp.131 ff.) Ferdon manages to keep a
: remarkably open mind -- even about the sweet potato! (He was writing
: before the recent archaeological remains were found in the Cook Islands.)
: He points out the real possibility that some or all of them may have been
: brought in, deliberately or accidentally,
I think there's a very big difference between "deliberately" and
"accidentally". It is a mistake to conflate these two concepts.
: by any of the various ships
: from Mendaña's expedition onward. This is fine.
No, this is unsupported speculation.
: I think all of these
: could be added to our list of "maybes".
Maybe.
: But I enjoyed one particular note
: about the pineapple:
: As noted earlier, Marquesans told Crook that Josiah Roberts had
: introduced the pineapple during his lengthy stay in the islands
: in 1792-93, but by 1813 their account had been modified; they
: then told Porter that Crook had introduced that plant.
I wonder what your main point here may be, beyond reasserting your usual
assumption that traditional aboriginal histories are all worthless bunk,
and that these non-Europeans cannot be trusted since they are all
brainless and habitual liars.
: Thus, for
: all we know, the pineapple could have been introduced by Captain
: James Cook in 1774, since hw was known to have introduced it into
: Tahiti and Tonga. (p.134)
Did he? And what kind of pineapple? There's more than one, you know, as
it has been explained to you repeatedly.
: Another cautionary tale against excessive reliance on "native tradition".
Yadda, yadda, yadda.
Yours,
Yuri.
Yuri Kuchinsky -=O=- http://www.globalserve.net/~yuku
Modern man is the missing link between apes and human beings
Yuri Kuchinsky
: Yuri Kuchinsky wrote:
> > After such proof is accepted for one or two or three, an impartial
> > observer will surely tend to think that the other plants -- even if not
> > constituting conclusive evidence in and of themselves -- will still
> > provide good supporting evidence, and _the benefit of the doubt_ should go
> > to their also indicating ancient human introduction from America. Again,
> > as I've said many a time, this is obviously a _cumulative argument_. One
> > plant tends to support others.
>
> Well, as has been explained to you many times, it doesn't work that way.
Actually, it does, but only in the real world.
> Even if contact is accepted (as it is by most people), the question of
> whether any _particular_ plant was introduced by pre-European people
> from America needs to be asked separately. It _cannot_ be answered on
> the basis of the answer for some other plant,
False. Other plants provide corroborating evidence.
> or by compiling a big list of "maybe"s.
And nobody did this in the first place. Misrepresentation.
> Now it's pretty clear that once the question of contact has been
> answered in the affirmative, your interest drops off to near zero.
And why shouldn't it???
Yuri is certainly not unique in this respect. Since NOBODY ELSE has
contributed to these botanical discussions FOR MONTHS NOW, this indicates
to me that EVERYONE ELSE IN THE WORLD has already GOTTEN BORED TO TEARS
with this thing long ago!
And why do _I_ still bother??? I have other things to do besides taking
care of one bad case of pathological denial and avoidance, that's for
sure.
After Ross has added so helpfully to my inventory of S American plants in
Polynesia, there really should be ALMOST 30 PLANTS indicating contact
between these two areas! Isn't this matter done to death already? Is he
now going to try to provide detailed, pedantic, and nitpicking rebuttals
to all 30? Does he think he still has a chance in hell left for himself?
Is this some kind of Theater of the Absurd???
I suppose we're seeing here a very good illustration of the power of
personal faith. People just don't give up their preconceived notions so
easily...
> You
> really don't care how papaya, or Xanthosoma, or Argemone, got to
> Polynesia.
This is absurd. This is precisely what I'm trying to establish.
> Fine, you don't have to. But if you don't, stop making claims
> about how there's this overwhelming evidence for all of them.
Yes, because it is foolish to consider them in isolation.
> Because if you do make such claims,
The claims that are valid.
> you have to be prepared to answer people who
> point out the defects in your evidence.
I'm still waiting for you to show the defects of my evidence re pineapple
and papaya. Been waiting a long time, but got only ad hominems and
childish word games.
> > There are the following possibilities:
> >
> > 1. Americans brought it over.
> > 2. Polynesians brought it over.
> > 3. Space Aliens brought it over.
> > : And why is this particular question so "important".
> >
> > Because this indicates your incompetence as a historian, and a lack of
> > courage. The least you can do is evaluate both these possibilities
> > rationally. But you're even afraid to do this!
>
> Etc etc etc
A very witty reply, Ross.
> You really do like your little binary choices, don't you? Yes, you can
> simplify the question down to "Polynesians"/"South Americans" (tick
> one), by leaving out all the details like "which Polynesians?", "which
> South Americans?", "from where?" "to where?" and "when?" (not to mention
> 'why?").
This is the most pathetic obfuscation I've seen from you for a while. I'm
trying to make it simple for you, but you don't like simple. Because your
childish tricks are exposed by a simple answer that is on the surface?
> But even if you do this, the evidence does not conclusively support one or
> the other.
This is just ridiculous. Let's see your evidence against S Americans
bringing it over. You're really on thin ice here, friend.
Listen, Ross, the games that you're trying to play are so silly, that I
even feel silly pointing out just how silly they are. I simply don't have
time for such silliness.
Now, note this, folks. I challenged him many times already to produce
evidence against papaya and pineapple, native S American plants, being in
Polynesia many centuries before Columbus. I'm asking him again. And what
do I get? A lot of evasion.
> > : Your evidence on pineapple and papaya, IIRC, consisted of Heyerdahl and
> > : Brown, in the early 20th century, in the Marquesas, who were of the
> > : opinion that these plants must be of pre-European introduction.
> >
> > Correct. But also you forgot Thomson on Rapanui. A memory gap?
>
> Fine. Thomson on Rapanui. 1880s.
>
> > : (Brown
> > : at least was a botanist; but Merrill, another botanist of the same
> > : period, strongly disagreed with his conclusions.)
> >
> > Ah, Finally! He managed to scrounge some evidence against Brown, after
> > all! It took you a while, Ross. Now let's see the refs, and what Merrill
> > had to say about this. Don't be shy.
THIS IS WHERE HIS EVIDENCE AGAINST SHOULD HAVE BEEN. What did Merrill say
about these things? I guess we'll never know, because there's no reply
from Ross! Bait and switch. Evasion and stonewalling.
...
> In the case of the pineapple, see my recent post with the notes on
> Ferdon's book.
I've seen nothing really relevant in your post. Some unsupported
speculations only, and ignoring basic botanical background.
> Not only is the Heyerdahl/Brown evidence hardly "conclusive" (!),
Where's your evidence against?
> but the much earlier evidence from Crook and Porter
> strongly suggests that pineapples were introduced by Europeans in the
> 18th century.
How so? Who introduced pineapples to Rapanui in the 18th century? You must
be DREAMING IN TECHNICOLOUR.
This is enough. I refuse to waste any more of my time on this. I know that
Ross has an idee fixe, derived purely from his arrogant Eurocentric faith
that S Americans could have never been competent enough to sail out across
the Pacific. This is insulting to Native Americans of course.
Ross has no case, and he simply doesn't have enough integrity to admit he
lost this argument long ago. Pure stubbornness. And he has no shame
apparently either. I'm now tired of beating up this gentleman in argument.
Unless you present a cogent argument why Brown's and Thomson's evidence re
papaya and pineapple is not valid, I will consider the question as closed.
Intellectual bankruptcy, your name is Ross Clark.
Yuri.
Yuri Kuchinsky -=O=- http://www.globalserve.net/~yuku -=O=- Toronto
Brian M. Scott
wrote:
>Miguel Carrasquer Vidal (m...@wxs.nl) wrote on Sat, 05 Dec 1998 21:32:04 GMT:
>: On 5 Dec 1998 20:02:25 GMT, yu...@globalserve.net (Yuri Kuchinsky)
>: wrote:
>: >1. The picture of the historical development of languages on the American
>: >Pacific NW is understood by linguists but imperfectly at this stage. In
>: >fact this area features incredible linguistic diversity. They speak MANY
>: >widely divergent languages. Often two virtually culturally identical
>: >neighbouring tribes will speak languages that are COMPLETELY DIFFERENT.
>: Indeed. We have Tlingit, Eyak-Athabaskan, Haida, Tsimshian,
>: Wakashan, Chimakuan, Salishan, Alsea, Coos, Kalapuyan, Takelma and
>: Chinook. But note that the phonological systems and phonotactics of
>: these languages and language families are remarkably similar. All
>: these languages have glottalized stops and affricates, lateral
>: fricatives, uvulars, labiovelars, few if any labials, few vowels,
>: etc. None of them even remotely resembles Polynesian.
>???
>I can only repost this from my previous post:
[snip]
>Here's a quote from [Hill-Tout],
>"It is impossible to explain these marvellous and far-reaching
>[linguistic] similarities without admitting an Oceanic origin for these
>[British] Columbian stocks. The data here offered in support of this fact
>constitutes but a fraction of what I have gathered in my investigations,
>extending over years..."
>He writes about,
>"...cumulative force of the thousand and one little correspondences ...
>[and] the more obvious and striking ones ... The morphology of the Salish,
>I may add, is nowhere radically different from that of the typical Oceanic
>groups, and at times most remarkable correspondenes occur." (quoted in
>Heyerdahl, AMERICAN INDIANS IN THE PACIFIC, pp. 155-6)
>[end quote]
>So here's a competent linguist
Apparently not. I'm not sure how incompetent his work would have
seemed in 1898, but I have my doubts.
> who spent many years investigating this
>matter and came to these conclusions. It seems to me, Miguel, that you are
>simply incapable of evaluating the evidence that we DO HAVE objectively.
>And hereby IMHO you disqualify yourself as competent to pronounce on these
>matters, because your personal faith and preconceptions intrude too
>strongly.
Well, Yuri knows more about 'personal faith and preconceptions' than
most of us.
>To the best of my knowledge, the only linguistic researcher in the last
>100 years who tried to evaluate Hill-Tout's research anew was Ross Clark a
>few months ago. He sent me a long email with his conclusions. They were
>actually far less negative than I would have expected Dr. Clark's
>conclusions in this area to be, based on Dr. Clark's previous record of
>evaluating such research. Take it for what it's worth.
I've also read his comments, which amount to a polite rubbishing of
Hill-Tout's work. Since I doubt that even you were so badly misled by
the politeness as to have misunderstood the content, I take this as a
clumsy attempt to misrepresent Ross's evaluation to those who haven't
seen it.
>: >And finally, to test your objectivity, do you, or do you not accept that
>: >the traditional arts of Polynesia and of NW Coast feature some rather
>: >striking similarities? This has been commented upon by many commentators,
>: >including Levi-Strauss.
>: I don't know.
>But do you _want_ to know? Don't you have two eyes to see? Are you even
>capable of perceiving that these cultural links that are OBVIOUS to any
>MINIMALLY OBJECTIVE PARTY will be strong supporting evidence?
Yuri is also an expert on MINIMAL objectivity.
[snip]
Brian M. Scott
Brian M. Scott
wrote:
>OTOH, the earlier S America to Polynesia connection can now be considered
>proven.
Define the precise nature of the connection: date, extent, points
connected. I don't want references, especially to your web pages, or
supporting documentation; I just want a brief summary of the basic
details as you see them.
Brian M. Scott
Ross Clark
>
> Ross Clark (benli...@xtra.co.nz) wrote on Fri, 04 Dec 1998 11:43:48 +1300:
> : Yuri Kuchinsky wrote:
>
> > > After such proof is accepted for one or two or three, an impartial
> > > observer will surely tend to think that the other plants -- even if not
> > > constituting conclusive evidence in and of themselves -- will still
> > > provide good supporting evidence, and _the benefit of the doubt_ should go
> > > to their also indicating ancient human introduction from America. Again,
> > > as I've said many a time, this is obviously a _cumulative argument_. One
> > > plant tends to support others.
> >
> > Well, as has been explained to you many times, it doesn't work that way.
>
> Actually, it does, but only in the real world.
I don't suppose it gives you any pause for thought that you may be the
only inhabitant of this 'real world"?
>
> > Even if contact is accepted (as it is by most people), the question of
> > whether any _particular_ plant was introduced by pre-European people
> > from America needs to be asked separately. It _cannot_ be answered on
> > the basis of the answer for some other plant,
>
> False. Other plants provide corroborating evidence.
>
> > or by compiling a big list of "maybe"s.
>
> And nobody did this in the first place. Misrepresentation.
Well, I know you don't call them "maybe"s, but "very good" and "good".
But you most certainly have compiled a list of them.
>
> > Now it's pretty clear that once the question of contact has been
> > answered in the affirmative, your interest drops off to near zero.
>
> And why shouldn't it???
I'm not here to tell you what you should be interested in, Yuri. I am
trying to explain to you why I may go on at some length about the
evidence regarding some particular species. I am interested in what we
can tell regarding this particular species. For you this seems a
pointless waste of time since the Big Question has already been
answered.
>
> Yuri is certainly not unique in this respect. Since NOBODY ELSE has
> contributed to these botanical discussions FOR MONTHS NOW, this indicates
> to me that EVERYONE ELSE IN THE WORLD has already GOTTEN BORED TO TEARS
> with this thing long ago!
Well, Con-Tiki said as much a couple of days ago. On the other hand, the
reason this came up again, IIRC, was that someone new to the discussion
made an inquiry, and you proceeded to give them your version of the
story.
>
> And why do _I_ still bother??? I have other things to do besides taking
> care of one bad case of pathological denial and avoidance, that's for
> sure.
>
> After Ross has added so helpfully to my inventory of S American plants in
> Polynesia, there really should be ALMOST 30 PLANTS indicating contact
> between these two areas! Isn't this matter done to death already? Is he
> now going to try to provide detailed, pedantic, and nitpicking rebuttals
> to all 30?
Do you mean am I going to look at what the actual evidence consists of,
rather than simply accepting your list of species as given? Yes.
>Does he think he still has a chance in hell left for himself?
> Is this some kind of Theater of the Absurd???
You certainly seem to be turning it into one.
> I suppose we're seeing here a very good illustration of the power of
> personal faith. People just don't give up their preconceived notions so
> easily...
What are you suggesting is my "preconceived notion"?
>
> > You
> > really don't care how papaya, or Xanthosoma, or Argemone, got to
> > Polynesia.
>
> This is absurd. This is precisely what I'm trying to establish.
So why do you refuse to look seriously at the nature and quality of the
evidence for each particular species? Or is it that you "care" about how
they got there only insofar as the answer turns out to be "South
Americans brought them"? Anything that does not support that conclusion
seems to go right past you.
>
> > Fine, you don't have to. But if you don't, stop making claims
> > about how there's this overwhelming evidence for all of them.
>
> Yes, because it is foolish to consider them in isolation.
Why? Is there some mystical connection between these species which means
that if one was introduced from South America by humans, all the rest
must have been?
> > Because if you do make such claims,
>
> The claims that are valid.
Well, you continue to make this blanket claim about your entire list of
species, and try to pretend that critical examination of the actual
evidence is some kind of dishonest tactic.
>
> > you have to be prepared to answer people who
> > point out the defects in your evidence.
>
> I'm still waiting for you to show the defects of my evidence re pineapple
> and papaya. Been waiting a long time, but got only ad hominems and
> childish word games.
I don't remember the "childish word games"; the "ad hominems" were a
little bit of humour, but it was obviously a mistake to try that on you.
Just to take the pineapple in particular, consider the fact that the
pineapple was already well known to Europeans in the 18th century, that
Cook is known to have planted pineapples in Tahiti, that the Marquesans
told Crook in 1797 that it had been introduced by Europeans, that on
Easter Island none of the early visitors noticed it, and that your
earliest evidence of its presence there comes from more than a century
later....Doesn't all that suggest that the case for pre-European
introduction is, at least, a little uncertain?
>
> > > There are the following possibilities:
> > >
> > > 1. Americans brought it over.
> > > 2. Polynesians brought it over.
> > > 3. Space Aliens brought it over.
>
> > > : And why is this particular question so "important".
> > >
> > > Because this indicates your incompetence as a historian, and a lack of
> > > courage. The least you can do is evaluate both these possibilities
> > > rationally. But you're even afraid to do this!
> >
> > Etc etc etc
>
> A very witty reply, Ross.
>
> > You really do like your little binary choices, don't you? Yes, you can
> > simplify the question down to "Polynesians"/"South Americans" (tick
> > one), by leaving out all the details like "which Polynesians?", "which
> > South Americans?", "from where?" "to where?" and "when?" (not to mention
> > 'why?").
>
> This is the most pathetic obfuscation I've seen from you for a while. I'm
> trying to make it simple for you, but you don't like simple. Because your
> childish tricks are exposed by a simple answer that is on the surface?
>
> > But even if you do this, the evidence does not conclusively support one or
> > the other.
>
> This is just ridiculous. Let's see your evidence against S Americans
> bringing it over. You're really on thin ice here, friend.
And your evidence against Polynesians bringing it over?
>
> Listen, Ross, the games that you're trying to play are so silly, that I
> even feel silly pointing out just how silly they are. I simply don't have
> time for such silliness.
>
> Now, note this, folks. I challenged him many times already to produce
> evidence against papaya and pineapple, native S American plants, being in
> Polynesia many centuries before Columbus. I'm asking him again. And what
> do I get? A lot of evasion.
See above.
And by the way, have I missed your reply on the complete lack of
evidence for pre-European introduction of Phaseolus (2 species),
Canavalia, and Xanthosoma?
>
> > > : Your evidence on pineapple and papaya, IIRC, consisted of Heyerdahl and
> > > : Brown, in the early 20th century, in the Marquesas, who were of the
> > > : opinion that these plants must be of pre-European introduction.
> > >
> > > Correct. But also you forgot Thomson on Rapanui. A memory gap?
> >
> > Fine. Thomson on Rapanui. 1880s.
> >
> > > : (Brown
> > > : at least was a botanist; but Merrill, another botanist of the same
> > > : period, strongly disagreed with his conclusions.)
> > >
> > > Ah, Finally! He managed to scrounge some evidence against Brown, after
> > > all! It took you a while, Ross. Now let's see the refs, and what Merrill
> > > had to say about this. Don't be shy.
>
> THIS IS WHERE HIS EVIDENCE AGAINST SHOULD HAVE BEEN. What did Merrill say
> about these things? I guess we'll never know, because there's no reply
> from Ross! Bait and switch. Evasion and stonewalling.
No, the references were given already. In fact I think even Heyerdahl
cites Merrill.
>
> ...
>
> > In the case of the pineapple, see my recent post with the notes on
> > Ferdon's book.
>
> I've seen nothing really relevant in your post. Some unsupported
> speculations only, and ignoring basic botanical background.
Unfortunately, you've never managed to explain this 'basic botanical
background'.
>
> > Not only is the Heyerdahl/Brown evidence hardly "conclusive" (!),
>
> Where's your evidence against?
See above.
>
> > but the much earlier evidence from Crook and Porter
> > strongly suggests that pineapples were introduced by Europeans in the
> > 18th century.
>
> How so? Who introduced pineapples to Rapanui in the 18th century?
You have evidence that they were there in the 18th century?
You must
> be DREAMING IN TECHNICOLOUR.
>
> This is enough. I refuse to waste any more of my time on this. I know that
> Ross has an idee fixe, derived purely from his arrogant Eurocentric faith
> that S Americans could have never been competent enough to sail out across
> the Pacific. This is insulting to Native Americans of course.
>
> Ross has no case, and he simply doesn't have enough integrity to admit he
> lost this argument long ago. Pure stubbornness. And he has no shame
> apparently either. I'm now tired of beating up this gentleman in argument.
>
> Unless you present a cogent argument why Brown's and Thomson's evidence re
> papaya and pineapple is not valid, I will consider the question as closed.
Of course you will.
>
> Intellectual bankruptcy, your name is Ross Clark.
I've been called worse names.
Let's see if Yuri keeps his promise to give up this argument.....
Ross Clark
gh...@snark.wizard.com
: When does this ever end???
: You guys have been arguing this since 1996 - when are you ever going to get sick
: of it?
----->>>> And they still haven't figured out that they are BOTH
WRONG!!! Too bad them ha ole folks don't understand they started out in
the wrong direction and just kept going. Now they are so far off, they
will never find their way!!!
More better they go study the currents in the South
Pacific for the next ten years, then come back and read what they have
written to see if any of it is still relvelent???
David...
: Yuri Kuchinsky wrote:
:> Ross Clark (benli...@xtra.co.nz) wrote on Mon, 30 Nov 1998 11:21:05 +1300:
:>
:> > As for the kumara in Polynesia, what I have to say is clear, realistic
:> > and quite simple, so I don't mind repeating it. Perhaps you weren't
:> > paying attention a few months ago when I first said it? The sweet
:> > potato was brought by human beings from South America to eastern
:> > Polynesia some time during the first millennium AD. What's your
:> > problem with that?
Ross Clark
>
> In soc.culture.pacific-island Con_tiki <con-ti...@geocities.com> wrote:
> : When does this ever end???
>
> : You guys have been arguing this since 1996 - when are you ever going to get sick
> : of it?
>
> ----->>>> And they still haven't figured out that they are BOTH
> WRONG!!! Too bad them ha ole folks don't understand they started out in
> the wrong direction and just kept going. Now they are so far off, they
> will never find their way!!!
> More better they go study the currents in the South
> Pacific for the next ten years, then come back and read what they have
> written to see if any of it is still relvelent???
>
> David...
>
Hey, Vegas Dave,
I'm sorry we're so stupid. But I'm still waiting to hear who that one
Australian masked man was, the one palangi who somehow managed to get it
right.
Can't you remember his name? Or maybe you could tell us yourself? What
is the Secret of the Currents?
Ross Clark
gh...@snark.wizard.com
: gh...@snark.wizard.com wrote:
:>
:> In soc.culture.pacific-island Con_tiki <con-ti...@geocities.com> wrote:
:> : When does this ever end???
:>
:> : You guys have been arguing this since 1996 - when are you ever going to get sick
:> : of it?
:>
:> ----->>>> And they still haven't figured out that they are BOTH
:> WRONG!!! Too bad them ha ole folks don't understand they started out in
:> the wrong direction and just kept going. Now they are so far off, they
:> will never find their way!!!
:> More better they go study the currents in the South
:> Pacific for the next ten years, then come back and read what they have
:> written to see if any of it is still relvelent???
:>
:> David...
:>
: Hey, Vegas Dave,
: I'm sorry we're so stupid. But I'm still waiting to hear who that one
: Australian masked man was, the one palangi who somehow managed to get it
: right.
: Can't you remember his name? Or maybe you could tell us yourself? What
: is the Secret of the Currents?
--->> It is as plain as the nose on your face! Much of the
sailing and settling of the islands was done by following the currents and
winds of the Pacific Ocean.
It brought many things to the islands including the white man!
Everything is accpeted, even the white man.
Pollen, birds, small animals, gourds, and all the flotsum that is
carried by the ocean winds and currents. The winds and currents also
brought traders from many parts of the Pacific Basin, with all types of
trade goods. Chinese junks were here in the U.S. long before the white
man came to the Caribbean.
My father who spoke Tahitian and several other dialects, saw no
similarity with any of the indian languages of the Pacific N.W. And my
sister-in-law who speaks many of the dialects of French Polynesia hasn't
got the slinghtest idea of what you are speaking about.
The palangi's name will be sent to you via e-mail seperate from
this, so that you can contact him yourself.
David...
: Ross Clark
:> : Yuri Kuchinsky wrote:
:>
:> :> Ross Clark (benli...@xtra.co.nz) wrote on Mon, 30 Nov 1998 11:21:05 +1300:
:> :>
:> :> > As for the kumara in Polynesia, what I have to say is clear, realistic
:> :> > and quite simple, so I don't mind repeating it. Perhaps you weren't
:> :> > paying attention a few months ago when I first said it? The sweet
:> :> > potato was brought by human beings from South America to eastern
:> :> > Polynesia some time during the first millennium AD. What's your
:> :> > problem with that?
---->>> The sweet potato/yam came from Peru/Chile just
about directly to Easter Island and the Polynesia, as did some of my
relatives..
:>
Anthony West
Yuri Kuchinsky wrote in message <74eams$gli$1...@whisper.globalserve.net>...>: Nope, present linguistic knowledge is very clear that Polynesian
languages
>: look and sound nothing like NW Coast American Indian Languages. They are,
>: indeed, about as different in every aspect of their structure as two
>: language families can get.
>
>
I did. You cited a 100-year-old linguist's report, fumbling around at the
very dawn of systematic study of NW Coast Indian languages, in disregard of
everything that has since been done in the field. And a lot has been done.
NW Coast Indian languages are of unusual significance in the development of
modern linguistics; many of us have done some looking into them as a result.
This chicken won't fly.
>It is not my purpose to try to provide here conclusive proof for NW Coast
>-- Polynesia connections (and certainly not to try to prove this on the
>basis of linguistic comparisons).
Good. Because it is impossible to derive the Austronesian family genetically
from NW North America at any time during the neolithic. Ruled out.
It remains possible for you to argue for the transmission of *vocabulary
items* from there, or anywhere, to a Polynesian language community --
assuming you can identify the items, and pass the muster of a professional
community that has all sorts of reasons for challenging any new assertion
without any special prejudice against your non-linguistic interests. E.g.,
kumara>kumar or kumar>kumara? Go to it, if you can.
Regards,
Tony West
Philadelphia aaw...@critpath.org
Yuri Kuchinsky
: Yuri Kuchinsky wrote in message <74eams$gli$1...@whisper.globalserve.net>...
: >Sigh... See my reply to Miguel.
: I did. You cited a 100-year-old linguist's report, fumbling around at the
: very dawn of systematic study of NW Coast Indian languages, in disregard of
: everything that has since been done in the field. And a lot has been done.
There's ABSOLUTELY NOTHING that has been done since in the field of
looking for linguistic similarities between these two areas. You're
ranting.
: >It is not my purpose to try to provide here conclusive proof for NW Coast
: >-- Polynesia connections (and certainly not to try to prove this on the
: >basis of linguistic comparisons).
: Good. Because it is impossible to derive the Austronesian family genetically
: from NW North America at any time during the neolithic. Ruled out.
I don't believe you. Your bias is obvious.
Yuri Kuchinsky
: On 6 Dec 1998 15:58:36 GMT, yu...@globalserve.net (Yuri Kuchinsky)
: wrote:
: >Here's a quote from [Hill-Tout],
: >"It is impossible to explain these marvellous and far-reaching
: >[linguistic] similarities without admitting an Oceanic origin for these
: >[British] Columbian stocks. The data here offered in support of this fact
: >constitutes but a fraction of what I have gathered in my investigations,
: >extending over years..."
: >He writes about,
: >"...cumulative force of the thousand and one little correspondences ...
: >[and] the more obvious and striking ones ... The morphology of the Salish,
: >I may add, is nowhere radically different from that of the typical Oceanic
: >groups, and at times most remarkable correspondenes occur." (quoted in
: >Heyerdahl, AMERICAN INDIANS IN THE PACIFIC, pp. 155-6)
: >[end quote]
: >So here's a competent linguist
: Apparently not.
Apparently yes. You don't have a clue.
: I'm not sure how incompetent his work would have
: seemed in 1898, but I have my doubts.
Have all the doubts you want, but you should not insult people's
intelligence with such silly ad hominems. I would say Hill-Tout knew a 100
times more about this subject than you'll ever know.
Yuri Kuchinsky
: On 6 Dec 1998 16:17:32 GMT, yu...@globalserve.net (Yuri Kuchinsky)
: wrote:
: >OTOH, the earlier S America to Polynesia connection can now be considered
: >proven.
: Define the precise nature of the connection: date,
Starting ca 2000 pb. Maybe earlier.
: extent,
Significant and wide-ranging.
: points connected.
Pacific coast of S America to Polynesia.
: I don't want references, especially to your web pages,
You've blown your cover already, pal. You're simply trolling. I have all
kinds of info on my webpage, but you don't want to see it???
Who do you think you're fooling?
All the info on my webpage has been checked and found valid. I had a whole
gang of highly critical fact-checkers on my back for the last two years --
in case you didn't notice. My webpage is as good as peer-reviewed articles
in journals. I'd say even better.
If you find something on my webpage that is incorrect, you're welcome to
repost it here with your critique. I'm giving you and everybody else
permission to do so.
Help yourselves, folks. I stand by everything that is found on my wepage.
The evidence consists of facts. My conclusions are backed by archaeology,
traditional narratives, similarities in art styles, architecture, blood
group evidence, mtDNA evidence, cultural parallels, and much more.
In the last few months the focus has been on ethno-botany and the many S
American plants that came to Polynesia in ancient times. In the Fantasy
World of Ross Clark, the determined and pathological nay-sayer, the
botanical evidence is supposed to be divorced from all those other
considerations. In fact, in his Fantasy World each of the 30 or so plants
is actually DIVORCED FROM EACH OTHER PLANT. But this is only the World
Beyond the Looking Glass where Dr. Clark shares his quarters with
Humpty-Dumpty...
Regards,
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"
Ross Clark
>
> Brian M. Scott (sc...@math.csuohio.edu) wrote on Sun, 06 Dec 1998 18:10:55 GMT:
> : On 6 Dec 1998 15:58:36 GMT, yu...@globalserve.net (Yuri Kuchinsky)
> : wrote:
>
> : >Here's a quote from [Hill-Tout],
>
> : >"It is impossible to explain these marvellous and far-reaching
> : >[linguistic] similarities without admitting an Oceanic origin for these
> : >[British] Columbian stocks. The data here offered in support of this fact
> : >constitutes but a fraction of what I have gathered in my investigations,
> : >extending over years..."
>
> : >He writes about,
>
> : >"...cumulative force of the thousand and one little correspondences ...
> : >[and] the more obvious and striking ones ... The morphology of the Salish,
> : >I may add, is nowhere radically different from that of the typical Oceanic
> : >groups, and at times most remarkable correspondenes occur." (quoted in
> : >Heyerdahl, AMERICAN INDIANS IN THE PACIFIC, pp. 155-6)
>
> : >[end quote]
>
> : >So here's a competent linguist
>
> : Apparently not.
>
> Apparently yes. You don't have a clue.
>
> : I'm not sure how incompetent his work would have
> : seemed in 1898, but I have my doubts.
>
> Have all the doubts you want, but you should not insult people's
> intelligence with such silly ad hominems. I would say Hill-Tout knew a 100
> times more about this subject than you'll ever know.
or had bad breath. But surely it is perfectly relevant, when Yuri has
described him as a "competent linguist", to consider to what extent this
might be true.
Hill-Tout would not even rate a footnote in general histories of
linguistics. However, any account of the study of the languages and
cultures of the Northwest Coast will certainly mention him, since he was
early in the field, and left a considerable body of published material. A
lot of this was republished in four volumes in 1978, edited by Ralph
Maud. Perhaps significantly, the linguistic stuff was consigned to a
fifth, supplementary volume, very cheaply produced, for the sake of
completeness. Evidently this was not considered of comparable value to
the collections of myths and ethnographic material.
As it happens, we have comments on HT by two of his much more famous
contemporaries, Franz Boas and Edward Sapir, both of whom worked in the
same area, and knew Hill-Tout and his work.
In a letter of 1910, Boas refers to "Mr Hill-Tout..., who is a good
collector, but thoroughly unscientific in his conclusions." And when the
University of British Columbia was considering making HT the head of its
Anthropology Department (1916), Sapir's comment in a letter to the
President of the University was: "To be perfectly frank, I do not think
Mr Hill-Tout would altogether answer the needs of a university." (Both
quoted in Ralph Maud, A Guide to B.C. Indian Myth and Legend, 1982,
p.41n., p.109n.).
There is also a very interesting recent paper by Timothy Montler, "A
Reconstruction of the Earliest Songish Text" (Anthropological Linguistics
38(3): 405-438, 1996). Montler is working on a text published in
phonetic transcription by HT in 1907. The "reconstruction" is necessary
because HT's transcription is not much good. "Hill-Tout's texts in their
original form are practically useless unless one already knows the
language..." (435) This would never be said of texts transcribed by Boas
or Sapir from the same period. Montler concludes that the effort is
worthwhile -- this is, after all, the earliest known text in the language
he is working on. But it is a clear indication that, even at this basic
level, Hill-Tout's linguistic abilities left much to be desired.
Ross Clark
Ross Clark
>
> Anthony West (aaw...@critpath.org) wrote on Mon, 7 Dec 1998 19:45:58 -0500:
> : Yuri Kuchinsky wrote in message <74eams$gli$1...@whisper.globalserve.net>...
>
> : >Sigh... See my reply to Miguel.
>
> : I did. You cited a 100-year-old linguist's report, fumbling around at the
> : very dawn of systematic study of NW Coast Indian languages, in disregard of
> : everything that has since been done in the field. And a lot has been done.
>
> There's ABSOLUTELY NOTHING that has been done since in the field of
> looking for linguistic similarities between these two areas. You're
> ranting.
>
> : >It is not my purpose to try to provide here conclusive proof for NW Coast
> : >-- Polynesia connections (and certainly not to try to prove this on the
> : >basis of linguistic comparisons).
>
> : Good. Because it is impossible to derive the Austronesian family genetically
> : from NW North America at any time during the neolithic. Ruled out.
>
> I don't believe you. Your bias is obvious.
Well, don't take his word for it, Yuri. Shop around. Find any living
linguist who thinks Austronesian can be derived from the Northwest of
North America. Be sure to let me know if you do. Of course, you'll just
conclude that they're all hopelessly biased against...against Yuri
Kuchinsky or something....
But I don't really advise you to go on such a fruitless search. Because
it's not what you're looking for. If you're serious about the scenario
you've recently provided us with -- a group of Austronesian speakers
arrive on the coast of British Columbia some time within the last 2000
years, spend some time there, then move on to Hawaii, still speaking
Austronesian -- then you do not expect to find a genetic relation between
Austronesian and Salishan (or whatever). You expect, if you're lucky, to
find some loanwords, possibly even some structural influence. As recent
commentators have pointed out, there's zip-all evidence of the latter. So
it's loanwords you should be hunting. And the best place to start looking
is in areas where you think there was cultural influence between the two
groups -- Hawaiian words for "totem pole" or whatever.
Now when Mary Ritchie Key, who makes a living doing linguistics, doesn't
seem to understand this point, I'm a bit shocked. But with you and Thor,
it's understandable. So there, you see, you've learned something now. But
in gratitude for me teaching you this, I hope you will not start berating
me for not doing the research myself. I don't happen to think there is
much likelihood of finding such evidence, and I have plenty of research
projects elsewhere awaiting my attention. However, I'm ready to give due
attention to any such evidence that someone else may turn up.
Ross Clark
Ross Clark
>
>
> All the info on my webpage has been checked and found valid. I had a whole
> gang of highly critical fact-checkers on my back for the last two years --
> in case you didn't notice. My webpage is as good as peer-reviewed articles
> in journals. I'd say even better.
>
> If you find something on my webpage that is incorrect, you're welcome to
> repost it here with your critique. I'm giving you and everybody else
> permission to do so.
Save yourselves the trouble, folks. With Yuri, the critiques generally go
straight down the giant Memory Hole.
>
> Help yourselves, folks. I stand by everything that is found on my wepage.
>
> The evidence consists of facts. My conclusions are backed by archaeology,
> traditional narratives, similarities in art styles, architecture, blood
> group evidence, mtDNA evidence, cultural parallels, and much more.
>
> In the last few months the focus has been on ethno-botany and the many S
> American plants that came to Polynesia in ancient times. In the Fantasy
> World of Ross Clark, the determined and pathological nay-sayer, the
> botanical evidence is supposed to be divorced from all those other
> considerations. In fact, in his Fantasy World each of the 30 or so plants
> is actually DIVORCED FROM EACH OTHER PLANT.
Yuri has so far ignored my entreaties to explain the nature of the
mystical bond which unites all these plants, so that one cannot be
contemplated apart from the other.
But as far as accepting critical review of his evidence in this field,
forget it. He made a great display of eliminating "arrowroot" from the
list, whilst trying to pretend that it wasn't because the evidence didn't
even get to square one. (Hey! Did "arrowroot" manage to get a divorce
from its beloved fellow-vegetables?) Several other equally hopeless cases
have been pointed out, including two species of bean where Yuri is so far
out on a limb not even Heyerdahl is with him. But he won't climb down.
Come on down, Yuri -- it's getting cold, your dinner's on the table -- we
can argue about something else tomorrow....
Ross Clark
Anthony West
Yuri Kuchinsky wrote in message <74juua$hpf$1...@whisper.globalserve.net>...>: Yuri Kuchinsky wrote in message <74eams$gli$1...@whisper.globalserve.net>...
>
>: I did. You cited a 100-year-old linguist's report, fumbling around at the
>: very dawn of systematic study of NW Coast Indian languages, in disregard
of
>: everything that has since been done in the field. And a lot has been
done.
>
>There's ABSOLUTELY NOTHING that has been done since in the field of
>looking for linguistic similarities between these two areas. You're
>ranting.
>
Yuri, you need to set aside for a moment your one subject of interest, and
read a little comparative linguistics pro se. Not some goofy snippet dragged
off the web somewhere, but a real book.
There are many different families of languages attested from the NW which
differ hugely. In structure, most are polysynthetic. Their consonantal
inventory is large and consonant-rich utterances are typical. A few families
show synthetic structures with complex nominal systems, evocative of (but
not related to) Indo-European. Look at text samples from these languages.
Observe their construction for yourself.
Now find a Polynesian language and another Austronesian language for
balance. Observe, please, that the nominal systems are usually isolating,
with intensive use of particles; that verbal systems are quite different
from what you'd find in Tsimshian or Nootka; and that Austronesian phonology
is consonant-poor. And much, much more! as they say in commercials.
Structurally, we're dealing with cats and daffodils. There is no way that
Austronesian is going to be related to Penutian or Salishan at a time-depth
of 2000 yrs, the sort of time-frame needed for other aspects of your theory.
ABSOLUTELY NOTHING has been done in linguistics to look for relationships
between Russian and Khoikhoi Hottentot! That's because the languages are so
patently different on the surface that nobody wants to waste career time
publishing articles saying, "Khoi-San and Slavic: Nothing Yet, But Still
Looking."
In order to get busy looking for *real* linguistic support for your theory
(if any exists), you need to drop your attachment to century-old false
starts and work with the discipline as it is.
As it is, there is an important negative finding vis-a-vis the Austronesian
family and any NW Coast family: nobody, looking at them, would attempt to
relate them closely enough to permit them to have evolved from a common
ancestor in the same location only a couple of millennia ago.
>: >It is not my purpose to try to provide here conclusive proof for NW
Coast
>: >-- Polynesia connections (and certainly not to try to prove this on the
>: >basis of linguistic comparisons).
>
>: Good. Because it is impossible to derive the Austronesian family
genetically
>: from NW North America at any time during the neolithic. Ruled out.
>
>I don't believe you. Your bias is obvious.
>
Bias is an overused word -- ultimately of little meaning. I own no stock in
any particular migration theory, Yuri. In fact, my economic bias is strongly
in your favor: if your arguments were solid enough, I would make some fast
money off them.
My only bias in Usenet is in favor of sound science. Stick to pineapples;
your linguistics isn't good enough to get you where you want to go, at this
time. You can always improve it if you wish.
Regards,
-Tony West
Philadelphia aaw...@critpath.org
Brian M. Scott
> Brian M. Scott (sc...@math.csuohio.edu) wrote on Sun, 06 Dec 1998 19:22:21 GMT:
> : On 6 Dec 1998 16:17:32 GMT, yu...@globalserve.net (Yuri Kuchinsky)
> : wrote:
> : >OTOH, the earlier S America to Polynesia connection can now be considered
> : >proven.
> : Define the precise nature of the connection: date,
> Starting ca 2000 pb. Maybe earlier.
> : extent,
> Significant and wide-ranging.
> : points connected.
> Pacific coast of S America to Polynesia.
> : I don't want references, especially to your web pages,
> You've blown your cover already, pal. You're simply trolling. I have all
> kinds of info on my webpage, but you don't want to see it???
That's right: I don't at this point want to see *any* evidence, good,
bad, or indifferent. I just want a clear statement of your thesis. You
still haven't given one. Frankly, I don't expect you to give one; you'd
lose too much weasel room if you did.
Brian M. Scott
Haole
(Yuri Kuchinsky) wrote:
> Brian M. Scott (sc...@math.csuohio.edu) wrote on Sun, 06 Dec 1998
19:22:21 GMT:
(snip)
> : points connected.
> Pacific coast of S America to Polynesia.
Wait a second, is it NW Amerind langs, or S. America? It really can't be both.
-Haole
--
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
wrote:
You need to let go of your Eurocentric / Polynesian Nationalist
biases. In Thor and Yuri's world, the Easter Islanders are *not*
Polynesians, but South Americans. And get this, even the Polynesians
are *not* Polynesians but NW Coast Amerinds.
Hope this helps.
gh...@snark.wizard.com
: On Wed, 09 Dec 1998 11:37:08 -0600, maj...@my-dejanews.com (Haole)
: wrote:
:>In article <74k0o8$jla$1...@whisper.globalserve.net>, yu...@globalserve.net
:>(Yuri Kuchinsky) wrote:
:>
:>> Pacific coast of S America to Polynesia.
:>
:>Wait a second, is it NW Amerind langs, or S. America? It really can't be both.
: You need to let go of your Eurocentric / Polynesian Nationalist
: biases. In Thor and Yuri's world, the Easter Islanders are *not*
: Polynesians, but South Americans. And get this, even the Polynesians
: are *not* Polynesians but NW Coast Amerinds.
---->> Where do you get this strange idea?!?!?!? Easter Island
and French Polynesia had and have regular contact with SOUTH America for
hundreds of years. BUT, NO Contact with North America above Northern
California.
If I am not Polynesian, what am I???!!!!??? I am a Polynesian,
with relatives in Rapa nui and Chile in South America, proved beyond a
shadow of a doubt. And this happened over a time span of 200+ years.
With
many of my relatives going back farther than that in the Tuamoto's and
Tahiti!!
David...
p.s. I guess that i am the only one who still comments on the things here
in the news group, who is Polynesian, and still reads this message
thread..
Of course, its none of my business what a bunch of academics
agrue about, even when wrong...
: Hope this helps.
: =======================
: Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
: m...@wxs.nl
: Amsterdam
--
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
>In soc.culture.pacific-island Miguel Carrasquer Vidal <m...@wxs.nl> wrote:
>: On Wed, 09 Dec 1998 11:37:08 -0600, maj...@my-dejanews.com (Haole)
>: wrote:
>
>:>In article <74k0o8$jla$1...@whisper.globalserve.net>, yu...@globalserve.net
>:>(Yuri Kuchinsky) wrote:
>:>
>:>> Pacific coast of S America to Polynesia.
>:>
>:>Wait a second, is it NW Amerind langs, or S. America? It really can't be both.
>
>: You need to let go of your Eurocentric / Polynesian Nationalist
>: biases. In Thor and Yuri's world, the Easter Islanders are *not*
>: Polynesians, but South Americans. And get this, even the Polynesians
>: are *not* Polynesians but NW Coast Amerinds.
>
> ---->> Where do you
Correction: Thor Heyerdahl and Yuri Kuchinsky...
>get this strange idea?!?!?!?
Beats me...
Haole
<gh...@snark.wizard.com> wrote:
> In soc.culture.pacific-island Miguel Carrasquer Vidal <m...@wxs.nl> wrote:
> : On Wed, 09 Dec 1998 11:37:08 -0600, maj...@my-dejanews.com (Haole)
> : wrote:
> :>In article <74k0o8$jla$1...@whisper.globalserve.net>, yu...@globalserve.net
> :>(Yuri Kuchinsky) wrote:
> :>> Pacific coast of S America to Polynesia.
> :>Wait a second, is it NW Amerind langs, or S. America? It really can't
be both.
> : You need to let go of your Eurocentric / Polynesian Nationalist
> : biases. In Thor and Yuri's world, the Easter Islanders are *not*
> : Polynesians, but South Americans. And get this, even the Polynesians
> : are *not* Polynesians but NW Coast Amerinds.
> ---->> Where do you get this strange idea?!?!?!? Easter Island
Not Miguel, but that Yuri fellow and Mijnheer Heyerdahl.
Where these two got the idea (and why they hold to it) is what this whole
thread is trying to ascertain.
-Haole, noting that we are talking about what happened _before_ European
contact, so the stuff below is irrelevant.
> and French Polynesia had and have regular contact with SOUTH America for
> hundreds of years. BUT, NO Contact with North America above Northern
> California.
> If I am not Polynesian, what am I???!!!!??? I am a Polynesian,
> with relatives in Rapa nui and Chile in South America, proved beyond a
> shadow of a doubt. And this happened over a time span of 200+ years.
> With
> many of my relatives going back farther than that in the Tuamoto's and
> Tahiti!!
> David...
> p.s. I guess that i am the only one who still comments on the things here
> in the news group, who is Polynesian, and still reads this message
> thread..
> Of course, its none of my business what a bunch of academics
> agrue about, even when wrong...
> : Hope this helps.
>
> : =======================
> : Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
> : m...@wxs.nl
> : Amsterdam
>
> --
> David Samuela
> P.O. Box 322 Las Vegas, NV 89125
> V/M:(702)225 1018 E-Mail:gh...@wizard.com
> Only FREE men have guns. Slaves have chains.
> Freedom is a liqueur best savored by Free Men..
--
When reggae gets big in a small town
I just wanna leave town
-$winging Utter$
Yuri Kuchinsky
: >In article <74k0o8$jla$1...@whisper.globalserve.net>, yu...@globalserve.net
: >(Yuri Kuchinsky) wrote:
: >
: >> Pacific coast of S America to Polynesia.
: >
: >Wait a second, is it NW Amerind langs, or S. America? It really can't
: >be both.
According to Heyerdahl, there were two stages of American influence on the
Pacific cultures. Stage 1 was from S America. Later Stage 2 was from the
Pacific NW. All this has been argued in detail by Heyerdahl. I have
provided some summaries in sci.arch and on my webpage.
: You need to let go of your Eurocentric / Polynesian Nationalist
: biases. In Thor and Yuri's world, the Easter Islanders are *not*
: Polynesians, but South Americans.
False. Once again, Miguel distorts the record. This cannot make him appear
as objective in this discussion. The Easter Islanders *are* Polynesians,
but they received cultural influence from South America.
: And get this, even the Polynesians
: are *not* Polynesians but NW Coast Amerinds.
False. Once again, Miguel is trolling with false information.
Polynesians *are* Polynesians but their culture has been influenced by NW
Coast Amerinds. According to Heyerdahl, some Polynesians derived from the
American NW Coast.
: Hope this helps.
No, this does not help. It merely makes you look foolish.
Regards,
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
: Yuri Kuchinsky wrote:
: > I don't believe you. Your bias is obvious.
: Well, don't take his word for it, Yuri. Shop around. Find any living
: linguist who thinks Austronesian can be derived from the Northwest of
: North America.
Are you distorting on purpose? Or are you really so clued out? Nobody to
my knowledge said so. Austronesian is derived from SE Asia -- and I agree
with this.
I regret that Ross Clark is increasingly resorting to deception of late,
but I can see why he feels the need to do so. Because he's a sore looser.
: Be sure to let me know if you do. Of course, you'll just
: conclude that they're all hopelessly biased against...against Yuri
: Kuchinsky or something....
No, because Ross Clard doesn't have a clue.
: But I don't really advise you to go on such a fruitless search. Because
: it's not what you're looking for. If you're serious about the scenario
: you've recently provided us with -- a group of Austronesian speakers
: arrive on the coast of British Columbia some time within the last 2000
: years,
Once again, Ross Clark doesn't seem to have a clue. He got the timing all
wrong. I say they arrived to BC some time 5000-4000 years bp.
[snip more mindless ranting from Dr. Clark]
Regards,
Yuri Kuchinsky
: Yuri Kuchinsky wrote:
: > The evidence consists of facts. My conclusions are backed by archaeology,
: > traditional narratives, similarities in art styles, architecture, blood
: > group evidence, mtDNA evidence, cultural parallels, and much more.
: >
: > In the last few months the focus has been on ethno-botany and the many S
: > American plants that came to Polynesia in ancient times. In the Fantasy
: > World of Ross Clark, the determined and pathological nay-sayer, the
: > botanical evidence is supposed to be divorced from all those other
: > considerations. In fact, in his Fantasy World each of the 30 or so plants
: > is actually DIVORCED FROM EACH OTHER PLANT.
: Yuri has so far ignored my entreaties to explain the nature of the
: mystical bond which unites all these plants, so that one cannot be
: contemplated apart from the other.
For those who are slow to understand, or perhaps pretending to be stupid,
they should check out a definition of "cumulative argument". This is not
even Logic 100, this is Junior High School level of logic that Prof Clark
is pretending he's never heard about.
Let me spell it in simple language. Having established that humans brought
kumara from S America to Polynesia, we can confidently expect that the
burden of proof for other such plants will be lightened. Migration of one
plant provides corroboration and support for similar migrations of other
plants.
I'm sure Ross Clark is not brain-dead, although he's certainly pretending
to be this way.
: But as far as accepting critical review of his evidence in this field,
: forget it. He made a great display of eliminating "arrowroot" from the
: list, whilst trying to pretend that it wasn't because the evidence didn't
: even get to square one.
False.
: (Hey! Did "arrowroot" manage to get a divorce
: from its beloved fellow-vegetables?)
Not at all.
I feel sorry for Ross. This is the only "victory" he's had so far, and he
will rant about this for ages to come. So pitiful. But you have something
like 29 other plants to deal with now, Ross. Go and scratch the surface,
or something...
: Several other equally hopeless cases
: have been pointed out,
False.
: including two species of bean where Yuri is so far
: out on a limb not even Heyerdahl is with him.
False.
: But he won't climb down.
I've provided adequate refs for where this info can be found, but Dr.
Clark is once again dishonestly pretending I did not do so.
This clearly is a bad pathological case of disconnection from reality...
Yuri.
Yuri Kuchinsky -=O=- http://www.globalserve.net/~yuku -=O=- Toronto
Most of the evils of life arise from man's being
unable to sit still in a room || B. Pascal
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
wrote:
>Miguel Carrasquer Vidal (m...@wxs.nl) wrote on Wed, 09 Dec 1998 17:59:24 GMT:
>: You need to let go of your Eurocentric / Polynesian Nationalist
>: biases. In Thor and Yuri's world, the Easter Islanders are *not*
>: Polynesians, but South Americans.
>
>False. Once again, Miguel distorts the record. This cannot make him appear
>as objective in this discussion.
Oh dear.
>The Easter Islanders *are* Polynesians,
>but they received cultural influence from South America.
Only *cultural* influence?
From Yuri's website:
<<What Heyerdahl has actually been proposing for the last 60 years or
so is that there were two big waves of eastern and central Pacific
human settlement. The first big wave came from S. America, from the
area around Ecuador and Peru. This wave were ocean-raft sailors and
also megalithic builders. They constructed those very sophisticated
giant stone constructions of various types. EI, and other Eastern
Polynesian islands have plenty of such constructions, including
pyramids. These were the "long-ears", i.e. the peoples practicing
ear-extension, they were the stone-masons. They started to expand
into the eastern Pacific ca. 400 ad, and even earlier perhaps.>>
>: And get this, even the Polynesians
>: are *not* Polynesians but NW Coast Amerinds.
>
>False. Once again, Miguel is trolling with false information.
>Polynesians *are* Polynesians but their culture has been influenced by NW
>Coast Amerinds. According to Heyerdahl, some Polynesians derived from the
>American NW Coast.
*Some* Polynesians? Which ones?
From Yuri's website:
<<What Heyerdahl has actually been proposing for the last 60 years or
so is that there were two big waves of eastern and central Pacific
human settlement. [...] The second wave of human settlement,
according to Heyerdahl, was that of the Polynesian-speakers, and they
came from the Pacific North-West. First they settled the Hawaii,
going with the currents that naturally prevail in that area of the
Pacific, and later spread around, reaching the New Zealand last. They
were the canoe-sailors and the wood-workers, as opposed to the
stone-masons.>>
>: Hope this helps.
>
>No, this does not help. It merely makes you look foolish.
Oh dear.
Yuri Kuchinsky
: Yuri Kuchinsky wrote in message <74juua$hpf$1...@whisper.globalserve.net>...
: >There's ABSOLUTELY NOTHING that has been done since in the field of
: >looking for linguistic similarities between these two areas. You're
: >ranting.
: There are many different families of languages attested from the NW which
: differ hugely.
And this indicates just how difficult this problem is.
: In structure, most are polysynthetic. Their consonantal
: inventory is large and consonant-rich utterances are typical. A few families
: show synthetic structures with complex nominal systems, evocative of (but
: not related to) Indo-European. Look at text samples from these languages.
: Observe their construction for yourself.
Why should I be doing all this?
Let's make this very clear. I certainly don't expect that linguistic
comparisons at this stage ***can either confirm or disconfirm*** the
existence of ancient cultural connections between NW Coast and Polynesia.
I have no childish trust in the infinite abilities, obectivity, and
competence of linguists, in case you were under some false impressions.
This is definitely *not the way* I will go at this stage. Because I think
you and your buddies lack objectivity, and are also possibly rather
incompetent to prounounce in this area in any case -- seing that no
serious research on this has yet been done.
I simply don't trust linguists to provide leadership in this area.
Leadership in this area is already provided by such things like cultural
and artistic comparisons. Genetics is very useful too. Linguistics will be
the tail of the dog.
: Now find a Polynesian language and another Austronesian language for
: balance. Observe, please, that the nominal systems are usually isolating,
: with intensive use of particles; that verbal systems are quite different
: from what you'd find in Tsimshian or Nootka; and that Austronesian phonology
: is consonant-poor.
We're talking about some 2000 years during which all kinds of sound
changes could take place. The climate and the lifestyles are very
different in Polynesia. Cool vs very hot climate. Speech patterns can
change merely because of this.
: Structurally, we're dealing with cats and daffodils. There is no way that
: Austronesian is going to be related to Penutian or Salishan at a time-depth
: of 2000 yrs, the sort of time-frame needed for other aspects of your theory.
Perhaps you're making the inadequacies of linguistics, and also possibly
the incompetence of linguists very clear.
And here's the same question to test your objectivity I've asked Miguel.
Do you, or do you not accept that the traditional arts of Polynesia and of
NW Coast feature some rather striking similarities? This has been
commented upon by many commentators, including Levi-Strauss.
I expect that your answer will be quite revealing one way or the other.
Regards,
Yuri.
Yuri Kuchinsky -=O=- http://www.globalserve.net/~yuku
But scientists, who ought to know
Yuri Kuchinsky
: Yuri Kuchinsky wrote:
: > I suppose we're seeing here a very good illustration of the power of
: > personal faith. People just don't give up their preconceived notions so
: > easily...
: What are you suggesting is my "preconceived notion"?
That Native Americans were incompetent to navigate the ocean.
: > > You
: > > really don't care how papaya, or Xanthosoma, or Argemone, got to
: > > Polynesia.
: > This is absurd. This is precisely what I'm trying to establish.
: So why do you refuse to look seriously at the nature and quality of the
: evidence for each particular species?
Not at all. I simply want to look at some specific species where the
evidence is unequivocal.
: Or is it that you "care" about how
: they got there only insofar as the answer turns out to be "South
: Americans brought them"? Anything that does not support that conclusion
: seems to go right past you.
What does not support that conclusion?
: > I'm still waiting for you to show the defects of my evidence re pineapple
: > and papaya. Been waiting a long time, but got only ad hominems and
: > childish word games.
: I don't remember the "childish word games"; the "ad hominems" were a
: little bit of humour, but it was obviously a mistake to try that on you.
And I also forgot to mention your deception.
: Just to take the pineapple in particular, consider the fact that the
: pineapple was already well known to Europeans in the 18th century,
Some believe that it was known to Europeans already BC, citing such things
as a pineapple portrayed on a Pompeii mural.
: that Cook is known to have planted pineapples in Tahiti,
Now comes another perfect illustration of Clark Eurocentrism. He would
actually go on a limb to attribute the introduction of pineapple in
Polynesia... to the Wise and Provident White Explorer Cook!
Meanwhile, we know of an archaic (cultivar) variety of pineapple all over
Polynesia that Cook almost certainly could not have introduced. (If he
indeed introduced any such thing some place, it would have been the larger
more modern variety.) Meanwhile we know that Cook introduced zilch to
Rapanui where all kinds of S American plants including archaic pineapple
are well attested.
These sorts of pathetic mental contortions would be fully udnerstandable
if coming from a card-carrying racist. But Prof. Clark is not a racist, he
merely sounds this way...
Perhaps Prof. Clark would like to explain why all his abundant posting
activities in the last few months have been predicated on one obsessive
concept: that it would have been completely impossible for Native
Americans to be competent enough to sail out in the Pacific.
: that the Marquesans
: told Crook in 1797 that it had been introduced by Europeans,
Some Marquesans maybe told Crook something. I suppose this provides
conclusive evidence of something in the World of Ross Clark. Of course
slamming aboriginal traditional historical accounts happens to be another
big hobby of Prof. Clark...
: that on
: Easter Island none of the early visitors noticed it,
Negative evidence. Not valid. There's lots of things they didn't notice,
such as rongorongo. And of course these archaic varieties were growing
wild only in certain isolated spots of EI. But in the twisted World of
Ross Clark none of this would matter.
: and that your
: earliest evidence of its presence there comes from more than a century
: later...
Yes. We know when the earliest plant introductions by Europeans took place
on EI -- very late. Europeans did not make it a habit to introduce obscure
archaic varieties of S American plants. But none of this matters in the
little World of Ross Clark.
: Doesn't all that suggest that the case for pre-European
: introduction is, at least, a little uncertain?
Well, well... "A little uncertain"... Doesn't seem like he's got much of a
case, does it? What conclusions in ancient history are not "a little
uncertain"?
: > This is just ridiculous. Let's see your evidence against S Americans
: > bringing it over. You're really on thin ice here, friend.
: And your evidence against Polynesians bringing it over?
Duh!
How about all the ocean currents making the travel East from Rapanui very
difficult, for starters?
But here's an old post of mine that seems relevant.
[begin quote]
Re: botanical facts (was: Lapita and Polynesian origins
Author: Yuri Kuchinsky
Date: 1998/09/22
Forums: sci.archaeology, soc.culture.new-zealand
_________________________________________________________________
Wade Workman ([17]wa...@kuentos.guam.net) wrote:
: Yuri Kuchinsky wrote in message ...
[Wade:]
> >: Ever considered that the next stop after Rapa Nui for
> >: the eastward voyaging Polynesians was South America?
> >
> >Yes, I have, and I consider this pretty unlikely. So who else offered this
> >theory in print? Or are you making these things up?
>
> Irwin, Geoffrey. (1992). _The prehistoric exploration and colonization of
> the Pacific._ Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
>
> Although I do not necessarily agree with mechanics of Irwin's
> navigation theory, I do believe he makes a convincing case (based on
> real physical evidence I made add) for the Polynesians having the
> skill, knowledge, and opportunity for landing in South America.
Wade,
I'm familiar with what Irwin says. He's very vague, and never puts a
definite date to his speculations. He thinks Polynesians must have
travelled to SA from EI, shortly after coming to EI. There are many
logical problems with such a view, as Irwin himself understands.
1. Why would they go into the unknown against the current and wind shortly
after coming to EI? I see no good reason. Usually people will explore
further after overcrowding the existing habitat. Such was not the case on
EI then.
2. While Irwin may be right that EI may have been the point of entry for
kumara (too bad for Mr. Stone!), the Polynesians, after picking up the
kumara in SA, and after returning to EI, must have wanted to leave again
right away to spread it around Polynesia? Makes no sense.
3. Also too bad that Irwin directly contradicts the common mainstream
theory, as expressed by Jo Anne Van Tilburg, in EASTER ISLAND, British
Museum Press, 1994, that EI lost contact with the rest of the world after
first settlers got there.
4. And most importantly. Once you admit contact with SA in any definite
way, you are opening the Pandora Box! This will be the death of the
mainstream dogma, I believe. Because, what about the megalithic walls? Did
the Easter Islanders get the idea from SA also? What about tupas? What
about the stone dwellings? And so on...
And so the mainstream house of cards falls!
...
In any case, thanks to Wade, we have now definitely passed some kind of a
milestone, folks. He is the first one to cite Irwin here, and to come out
clear with some kind of a (semi-)valid historical scenario to explain all
these obvious EI -- SA parallels.
In spite of my repeated prompting, Ross Clark has never ventured that far
from his usual hazy mumbo jumbo and handwaving. When asked to provide an
alternative historical scenario to the one he dismisses (so bravely!), his
usual reply was "know nothing -- see nothing -- hear nothing". In other
words, he always chose the courageous Three Monkeys of Nikko route.
Wade, to his credit, has now gone beyond that. So let's see what happens
next...
Best,
Yuri.
[end quote]
Of course what happened next was Wade running away from that discussion...
It got too hot for him, obviously. But no argument is too absurd for Ross
Clark, because he's the Man with an Obsessive Agenda -- to deny the
creativity of Native Americans.
And here's what I said in my previous post:
Ross has no case, and he simply doesn't have enough integrity to admit he
lost this argument long ago. Pure stubbornness. And he has no shame
apparently either. I'm now tired of beating up this gentleman in argument.
Yes, I'm tired of beating him up, but if he wants to be the resident
hypocrite in defence of the Eurocentric dogma here, then I will expose him
from time to time. Exposing Eurocentric hypocrites just happens to be a
hobby of mine.
Ross Clark
>
> Ross Clark (d...@antnov1.auckland.ac.nz) wrote on Wed, 09 Dec 1998 16:19:30 +1200:
> : Yuri Kuchinsky wrote:
>
> : > I don't believe you. Your bias is obvious.
>
> : Well, don't take his word for it, Yuri. Shop around. Find any living
> : linguist who thinks Austronesian can be derived from the Northwest of
> : North America.
>
> Are you distorting on purpose? Or are you really so clued out? Nobody to
> my knowledge said so. Austronesian is derived from SE Asia -- and I agree
> with this.
So why were you putting so much stock a while back in Hill-Tout and
Campbell, both of whom were trying to prove just such a genetic
relationship, and in fact arguing that NW Coast languages came from the
Pacific? I'm not "distorting", Yuri, I'm just reflecting your confusion
about just what your hypothesis is.
>
> I regret that Ross Clark is increasingly resorting to deception of late,
> but I can see why he feels the need to do so. Because he's a sore looser.
>
> : Be sure to let me know if you do. Of course, you'll just
> : conclude that they're all hopelessly biased against...against Yuri
> : Kuchinsky or something....
>
> No, because Ross Clard doesn't have a clue.
>
> : But I don't really advise you to go on such a fruitless search. Because
> : it's not what you're looking for. If you're serious about the scenario
> : you've recently provided us with -- a group of Austronesian speakers
> : arrive on the coast of British Columbia some time within the last 2000
> : years,
>
> Once again, Ross Clark doesn't seem to have a clue. He got the timing all
> wrong. I say they arrived to BC some time 5000-4000 years bp.
Well, I picked up the figure 2000 from one of your own posts not more
than a week ago. Perhaps, in my excitement at seeing you actually specify
a date, I read "BC" as "BP"?? I don't know. Or maybe you've changed your
mind since then? For purposes of what I said above, it doesn't matter.
You admit the Polynesian languages are Austronesian. You're looking for
contact effects, not a genetic relationship.
Unless you're suggesting that Salishan or Wakashan is a branch of
Austronesian???
Ross Clark
Ross Clark
>
> Ross Clark (d...@antnov1.auckland.ac.nz) wrote on Wed, 09 Dec 1998 16:30:21 +1200:
> : Yuri Kuchinsky wrote:
>
> : > The evidence consists of facts. My conclusions are backed by archaeology,
> : > traditional narratives, similarities in art styles, architecture, blood
> : > group evidence, mtDNA evidence, cultural parallels, and much more.
> : >
> : > In the last few months the focus has been on ethno-botany and the many S
> : > American plants that came to Polynesia in ancient times. In the Fantasy
> : > World of Ross Clark, the determined and pathological nay-sayer, the
> : > botanical evidence is supposed to be divorced from all those other
> : > considerations. In fact, in his Fantasy World each of the 30 or so plants
> : > is actually DIVORCED FROM EACH OTHER PLANT.
>
> : Yuri has so far ignored my entreaties to explain the nature of the
> : mystical bond which unites all these plants, so that one cannot be
> : contemplated apart from the other.
>
> For those who are slow to understand, or perhaps pretending to be stupid,
> they should check out a definition of "cumulative argument". This is not
> even Logic 100, this is Junior High School level of logic that Prof Clark
> is pretending he's never heard about.
I can remember people using a lot of stupid and fallacious arguments when
I was in Junior High School.
> Let me spell it in simple language. Having established that humans brought
> kumara from S America to Polynesia, we can confidently expect that the
> burden of proof for other such plants will be lightened.
By how much? One percent?
>Migration of one
> plant provides corroboration and support for similar migrations of other
> plants.
In some general sense, if we know that one plant has been brought over,
then we might expect that there would be others, yes. But the question
then remains to be answered -- which others? And that question can only
be answered one case at a time.
> I'm sure Ross Clark is not brain-dead, although he's certainly pretending
> to be this way.
>
> : But as far as accepting critical review of his evidence in this field,
> : forget it. He made a great display of eliminating "arrowroot" from the
> : list, whilst trying to pretend that it wasn't because the evidence didn't
> : even get to square one.
>
> False.
Which part of it is "false"?
>
> : (Hey! Did "arrowroot" manage to get a divorce
> : from its beloved fellow-vegetables?)
>
> Not at all.
>
> I feel sorry for Ross. This is the only "victory" he's had so far, and he
> will rant about this for ages to come. So pitiful. But you have something
> like 29 other plants to deal with now, Ross. Go and scratch the surface,
> or something...
>
> : Several other equally hopeless cases
> : have been pointed out,
>
> False.
>
> : including two species of bean where Yuri is so far
> : out on a limb not even Heyerdahl is with him.
>
> False.
Again, which part is false? If you think Heyerdahl (or anybody else) has
claimed that Phaseolus was in pre-European Polynesia, you are going to
have to give me _exact_ page references and quotes. Because neither of
the sources you referred me to in our original argument says any such
thing.
>
> : But he won't climb down.
>
> I've provided adequate refs for where this info can be found, but Dr.
> Clark is once again dishonestly pretending I did not do so.
See above. I looked at your references. It's not there.
Maybe you should have a look yourself.
Ross Clark
Ross Clark
>
> Ross Clark (benli...@xtra.co.nz) wrote on Mon, 07 Dec 1998 12:17:50 +1300:
> : Yuri Kuchinsky wrote:
>
> : > I suppose we're seeing here a very good illustration of the power of
> : > personal faith. People just don't give up their preconceived notions so
> : > easily...
>
> : What are you suggesting is my "preconceived notion"?
>
> That Native Americans were incompetent to navigate the ocean.
No, I don't have any such preconceived notion. You must be confusing me
with Yuri Kuchinsky, who is obsessed with this point.
>
> : > > You
> : > > really don't care how papaya, or Xanthosoma, or Argemone, got to
> : > > Polynesia.
>
> : > This is absurd. This is precisely what I'm trying to establish.
>
> : So why do you refuse to look seriously at the nature and quality of the
> : evidence for each particular species?
>
> Not at all. I simply want to look at some specific species where the
> evidence is unequivocal.
No, you continue to flaunt big lists of species, and then to protest when
anybody examines them in detail as if that were unfair. You have one
species where the evidence might be described as "unequivocal", namely
the kumara. You have yet to explain why you need more than one, if your
only aim is to prove "contact took place" and then declare the matter
closed.
>
> : Or is it that you "care" about how
> : they got there only insofar as the answer turns out to be "South
> : Americans brought them"? Anything that does not support that conclusion
> : seems to go right past you.
>
> What does not support that conclusion?
Sigh. I was right. You just can't see it.
>
> : > I'm still waiting for you to show the defects of my evidence re pineapple
> : > and papaya. Been waiting a long time, but got only ad hominems and
> : > childish word games.
>
> : I don't remember the "childish word games"; the "ad hominems" were a
> : little bit of humour, but it was obviously a mistake to try that on you.
>
> And I also forgot to mention your deception.
No, you didn't forget to mention it. You talk that way all the time.
> : Just to take the pineapple in particular, consider the fact that the
> : pineapple was already well known to Europeans in the 18th century,
>
> Some believe that it was known to Europeans already BC, citing such things
> as a pineapple portrayed on a Pompeii mural.
Somehow, "irrelevant" doesn't seem like a strong enough word here...
>
> : that Cook is known to have planted pineapples in Tahiti,
>
> Now comes another perfect illustration of Clark Eurocentrism. He would
> actually go on a limb to attribute the introduction of pineapple in
> Polynesia... to the Wise and Provident White Explorer Cook!
What an extraordinary reaction to a simple, documented historical fact.
> Meanwhile, we know of an archaic (cultivar) variety of pineapple all over
> Polynesia that Cook almost certainly could not have introduced. (If he
> indeed introduced any such thing some place, it would have been the larger
> more modern variety.)
"All over Polynesia" is complete nonsense.
"Archaic" vs "more modern" are entirely your suppositions, or possibly
Thor's. Here's an interesting quote from the missionary Thomson, writing
about the Marquesas in 1841:
Pineapples "grow wild, and are very inferior, but by cultivation
may be obtained equal to any in the world. Natives do not cultivate any."
In other words, the difference between the wild ones and the cultivated
ones is just that, the difference between something that's allowed to
grow wild and something that is tended, watered, fertilized, etc.
>Meanwhile we know that Cook introduced zilch to
> Rapanui where all kinds of S American plants including archaic pineapple
> are well attested.
Again, "archaic pineapple" is a creature of your imagination.
> These sorts of pathetic mental contortions would be fully udnerstandable
> if coming from a card-carrying racist. But Prof. Clark is not a racist, he
> merely sounds this way...
No, I merely look like that in Kuchi's Puppet Theatre. All the bad guys
are racists there.
> Perhaps Prof. Clark would like to explain why all his abundant posting
> activities in the last few months have been predicated on one obsessive
> concept: that it would have been completely impossible for Native
> Americans to be competent enough to sail out in the Pacific.
>
> : that the Marquesans
> : told Crook in 1797 that it had been introduced by Europeans,
>
> Some Marquesans maybe told Crook something. I suppose this provides
> conclusive evidence of something in the World of Ross Clark. Of course
> slamming aboriginal traditional historical accounts happens to be another
> big hobby of Prof. Clark...
I don't think this is the first time that the "native traditions" have
failed to line up in support of your theories.
One would expect that the normal reaction would be either to say "Well, I
guess my theory has some problems" or "Hey, native traditions aren't
always reliable". The amazing thing about Yuri is that he manages to
avoid both of these conclusions and turn this interesting bit of
historical evidence into an attack on his opponents. It's the old
double-shuffle-and-counterattack again, and nobody does it better.
> : that on
> : Easter Island none of the early visitors noticed it,
>
> Negative evidence. Not valid.
Perfectly valid. Perhaps not conclusive, but at least as valid as your
"They brought one plant, so they must have brought them all" reasoning.
There's lots of things they didn't notice,
> such as rongorongo. And of course these archaic varieties were growing
> wild only in certain isolated spots of EI.
"Archaic varieties" growing wild in your imagination. You don't know
where these things were growing or not growing. This statement is
not a known fact -- it is simply the only way you can explain the fact
that the 18th century visitors did not see any pineapples.
But in the twisted World of
> Ross Clark none of this would matter.
>
> : and that your
> : earliest evidence of its presence there comes from more than a century
> : later...
>
> Yes. We know when the earliest plant introductions by Europeans took place
> on EI -- very late.
Nonsense. La Pérouse 1785 is the earliest _known_ plant introduction. The
many other visitors and Rapanui travellers before Thomson's time who may
have introduced foreign plants did not necessarily leave historical
records of it. It's something people do all the time, as I have tried to
point out to you.
Europeans did not make it a habit to introduce obscure
> archaic varieties of S American plants.
I guess it doesn't hurt to point it out one more time -- the "obscure
archaic varieties" are a figment of Kuchinsky/Heyerdahl para-botany.
But none of this matters in the
> little World of Ross Clark.
>
> : Doesn't all that suggest that the case for pre-European
> : introduction is, at least, a little uncertain?
>
> Well, well... "A little uncertain"... Doesn't seem like he's got much of a
> case, does it? What conclusions in ancient history are not "a little
> uncertain"?
I tried to put it as tactfully as I could, Yuri. I know how much pain it
causes you to admit even the slightest flaw in your evidence. If you want
me to be brutally frank, I would say "highly speculative".
> : > This is just ridiculous. Let's see your evidence against S Americans
> : > bringing it over. You're really on thin ice here, friend.
>
> : And your evidence against Polynesians bringing it over?
>
> Duh!
Duh indeed. I have already said that the evidence does not permit us to
say with confidence who it was that brought these things. If I had
evidence sufficient to eliminate one or the other of the possibilities,
there would not be such an uncertainty, right? So why do you ask me for
my evidence?
> How about all the ocean currents making the travel East from Rapanui very
> difficult, for starters?
The same ocean currents that would have made travel from the western
Pacific through Samoa, Tonga, Tahiti and so on to Rapanui difficult.
Somehow the Polynesians did it.
So it contradicts one of your assumptions. Too bad.
>
> 2. While Irwin may be right that EI may have been the point of entry for
> kumara (too bad for Mr. Stone!), the Polynesians, after picking up the
> kumara in SA, and after returning to EI, must have wanted to leave again
> right away to spread it around Polynesia? Makes no sense.
Why not? You seem to have a rich array of assumptions under which many
things "don't make sense". Try examining the assumptions.
>
> 3. Also too bad that Irwin directly contradicts the common mainstream
> theory, as expressed by Jo Anne Van Tilburg, in EASTER ISLAND, British
> Museum Press, 1994, that EI lost contact with the rest of the world after
> first settlers got there.
Your point? Oh, I forgot, this is Kuchi's Puppet Theatre of Science
again. If two bad guys disagree, then they have to have a big fight until
they both fall down dead.
>
> 4. And most importantly. Once you admit contact with SA in any definite
> way, you are opening the Pandora Box! This will be the death of the
> mainstream dogma, I believe. Because, what about the megalithic walls? Did
> the Easter Islanders get the idea from SA also? What about tupas? What
> about the stone dwellings? And so on...
>
> And so the mainstream house of cards falls!
Yes, that's the big finale, after which Kuchi passes the hat around.
>[snip]
>
> Of course what happened next was Wade running away from that discussion...
> It got too hot for him, obviously. But no argument is too absurd for Ross
> Clark, because he's the Man with an Obsessive Agenda -- to deny the
> creativity of Native Americans.
>
> And here's what I said in my previous post:
Yuri, do you really imagine that we take pleasure in sitting around for
an afternoon listening to Yuri's Greatest Soundbites? Can't you generate
any new claptrap?
Ross Clark
Brian M. Scott
wrote:
>Anthony West (aaw...@critpath.org) wrote on Wed, 9 Dec 1998 07:36:12 -0500:
>: There are many different families of languages attested from the NW which
>: differ hugely.
>And this indicates just how difficult this problem is.
No, because ...
>: In structure, most are polysynthetic. Their consonantal
>: inventory is large and consonant-rich utterances are typical. A few families
>: show synthetic structures with complex nominal systems, evocative of (but
>: not related to) Indo-European. Look at text samples from these languages.
>: Observe their construction for yourself.
>Why should I be doing all this?
To show that you're an honest scholar rather than an ideologue who
would rather accept on faith the conclusions of a 3rd-rate scholar of
a century ago than look at the evidence for himself.
>Let's make this very clear. I certainly don't expect that linguistic
>comparisons at this stage ***can either confirm or disconfirm*** the
>existence of ancient cultural connections between NW Coast and Polynesia.
They are more than sufficient to show that the various NW Coast
languages are unrelated to the Polynesian languages. As Ross has
pointed out on several occasions, what you need are loanwords. The
Polynesian languages and their history are pretty well understood at
this point, so loanwords from the NW coastal languages shouldn't be
all that hard to spot -- if they exist.
>I have no childish trust in the infinite abilities, obectivity, and
>competence of linguists, in case you were under some false impressions.
Hardly. No, I fully understand that you judge others by your own
standards.
>This is definitely *not the way* I will go at this stage. Because I think
>you and your buddies lack objectivity, and are also possibly rather
>incompetent to prounounce in this area in any case -- seing that no
>serious research on this has yet been done.
And no one's going to waste time on serious research without a good
reason. You have yet to provide one.
>I simply don't trust linguists to provide leadership in this area.
>Leadership in this area is already provided by such things like cultural
>and artistic comparisons. Genetics is very useful too. Linguistics will be
>the tail of the dog.
Ah, yes. Tell me, where are the Hawai'ian totem poles and potlatches?
>: Now find a Polynesian language and another Austronesian language for
>: balance. Observe, please, that the nominal systems are usually isolating,
>: with intensive use of particles; that verbal systems are quite different
>: from what you'd find in Tsimshian or Nootka; and that Austronesian phonology
>: is consonant-poor.
>We're talking about some 2000 years during which all kinds of sound
>changes could take place.
Yes, a mere 2000 years -- not nearly enough. But you're getting
confused again: you're trying to argue that the Polynesian languages
are actually related at a depth of 2000 years to some NW coastal
language, when in fact your theory (as you've stated it most recently,
anyway) requires a contact relationship, not a genetic one.
> The climate and the lifestyles are very
>different in Polynesia. Cool vs very hot climate. Speech patterns can
>change merely because of this.
Please cite evidence for this from the peer-reviewed linguistic
literature.
>: Structurally, we're dealing with cats and daffodils. There is no way that
>: Austronesian is going to be related to Penutian or Salishan at a time-depth
>: of 2000 yrs, the sort of time-frame needed for other aspects of your theory.
>Perhaps you're making the inadequacies of linguistics, and also possibly
>the incompetence of linguists very clear.
Nope; just the inadequacies of Yuri.
>And here's the same question to test your objectivity I've asked Miguel.
>Do you, or do you not accept that the traditional arts of Polynesia and of
>NW Coast feature some rather striking similarities? This has been
>commented upon by many commentators, including Levi-Strauss.
Since I've never studied either in any depth, my opinion on the matter
means little. As it happens, I am more interested in the languages
than in the art.
>I expect that your answer will be quite revealing one way or the other.
Well, I've given a maximally objective response.
Brian M. Scott
G Horvat
Scott) wrote:
>....They are more than sufficient to show that the various NW Coast
>languages are unrelated to the Polynesian languages.....
Much has been written about the consonant-rich utterances of the NW
Coast peoples but I don't think that enunciation can be discussed
without consideration to labrets and similar ornaments which may have
adversely affected pronunication.
I also think that manipulation of the shapes of various body parts
must have began a very, long time ago. This includes body piercing, ,
ear-stretching, head molding, foot binding, etc. and although these
may or may not have all originated in the same location, I would think
that it would be worthwhile to compare locations where common
practices of this sort were found.
Gisele
Haole
(Yuri Kuchinsky) wrote:
sci.lang added for this topic
(snip)
> We're talking about some 2000 years during which all kinds of sound
> changes could take place. The climate and the lifestyles are very
> different in Polynesia. Cool vs very hot climate. Speech patterns can
> change merely because of this.
Call for references.
-Haole, trying not to laugh
--
When I'm in Holland I eat the pannenkoeken.
-Beastie Boys, Super Disco Breakin'
gh...@snark.wizard.com
: Ross Clark (benli...@xtra.co.nz) wrote on Mon, 07 Dec 1998 12:17:50 +1300:
: : Yuri Kuchinsky wrote:
-->>snip
: Some believe that it was known to Europeans already BC, citing such things
: as a pineapple portrayed on a Pompeii mural.
:>
: I'm familiar with what Irwin says. He's very vague, and never puts a
: definite date to his speculations. He thinks Polynesians must have
: travelled to SA from EI, shortly after coming to EI. There are many
: logical problems with such a view, as Irwin himself understands.
: In any case, thanks to Wade, we have now definitely passed some kind of a
: milestone, folks. He is the first one to cite Irwin here, and to come out
: clear with some kind of a (semi-)valid historical scenario to explain all
: these obvious EI -- SA parallels.
: Yuri.
---->> snip snip
snipped to save bandwidth
: [end quote]
: Of course what happened next was Wade running away from that discussion...
: It got too hot for him, obviously. But no argument is too absurd for Ross
: Clark, because he's the Man with an Obsessive Agenda -- to deny the
: creativity of Native Americans.
----->> No one is denying the creativity of the Natives of North
America, but THEY ARE NOT A SEAFARERING people. And never have been!!!
Not being saefarering, how did their language get to Polynesia??
Actually, none of the Native North American peoples have ever been
seafarering. Nor are those known in S. America to be seafaring...
: And here's what I said in my previous post:
: Ross has no case, and he simply doesn't have enough integrity to admit he
: lost this argument long ago. Pure stubbornness. And he has no shame
: apparently either. I'm now tired of beating up this gentleman in argument.
: Yes, I'm tired of beating him up, but if he wants to be the resident
: hypocrite in defence of the Eurocentric dogma here, then I will expose him
: from time to time. Exposing Eurocentric hypocrites just happens to be a
: hobby of mine.
: Yuri.
: Yuri Kuchinsky -=O=- http://www.globalserve.net/~yuku -=O=- Toronto
:
: Academic politics is the most vicious and bitter form of
: politics, because the stakes are so low -=O=- Wallace Sayre
--
Yuri Kuchinsky
: On 10 Dec 1998 17:52:03 GMT, yu...@globalserve.net (Yuri Kuchinsky)
: wrote:
: >Why should I be doing all this?
: To show that you're an honest scholar rather than an ideologue who
: would rather accept on faith the conclusions of a 3rd-rate scholar of
: a century ago than look at the evidence for himself.
I accept nothing on faith. I do my own investigating. But I see a
linguistic investigation in this area as not too promising at this stage.
Because I have so much more evidence in other areas. The areas that you
refuse to investigate.
: >Let's make this very clear. I certainly don't expect that linguistic
: >comparisons at this stage ***can either confirm or disconfirm*** the
: >existence of ancient cultural connections between NW Coast and Polynesia.
: They are more than sufficient to show that the various NW Coast
: languages are unrelated to the Polynesian languages.
False.
: As Ross has
: pointed out on several occasions, what you need are loanwords.
Nope.
: The
: Polynesian languages and their history are pretty well understood at
: this point, so loanwords from the NW coastal languages shouldn't be
: all that hard to spot -- if they exist.
I don't need loanwords. You seem to be pretty uninformed about this whole
thing.
...
: >I simply don't trust linguists to provide leadership in this area.
: >Leadership in this area is already provided by such things like cultural
: >and artistic comparisons. Genetics is very useful too. Linguistics will be
: >the tail of the dog.
: Ah, yes. Tell me, where are the Hawai'ian totem poles and potlatches?
Get yourself a clue. We have very similar totem poles from NZ and NW
Coast.
: >We're talking about some 2000 years during which all kinds of sound
: >changes could take place.
: Yes, a mere 2000 years -- not nearly enough. But you're getting
: confused again: you're trying to argue that the Polynesian languages
: are actually related at a depth of 2000 years to some NW coastal
: language,
Yes.
: when in fact your theory (as you've stated it most recently,
: anyway) requires a contact relationship, not a genetic one.
You don't know what you're talking about. No surprise.
My hypothesis is that some earliest Polynesians came from NW Coast.
: >And here's the same question to test your objectivity I've asked Miguel.
: >Do you, or do you not accept that the traditional arts of Polynesia and of
: >NW Coast feature some rather striking similarities? This has been
: >commented upon by many commentators, including Levi-Strauss.
: Since I've never studied either in any depth, my opinion on the matter
: means little.
But where's your opinion? Why are you being so cagey?
: As it happens, I am more interested in the languages
: than in the art.
That shows your incompetence as a historian. I'm a historian, and I look
at all evidence. I pursue what seems most promising. OTOH, you're in
effect excluding most important evidence from consideration. You're a
joke, my friend. You and Miguel. Linguists without a clue, surrounded by
mountains of evidence they're doing their best not to look at...
If you want to have even a tiny shred of credibility, check out Plates XII
and following in Heyerdahl, AMERICAN INDIANS IN THE PACIFIC. It will take
you a few minutes to consider. And then you can give me your opinion.
Pictures don't lie. Similarities can be seen a thousand times sooner than
through your suggested linguistic investigation. Maybe a million times
sooner.
: >I expect that your answer will be quite revealing one way or the other.
: Well, I've given a maximally objective response.
A maximally evasive response.
Yuri Kuchinsky
: In soc.culture.pacific-island Yuri Kuchinsky <yu...@globalserve.net> wrote:
: : Of course what happened next was Wade running away from that discussion...
: : It got too hot for him, obviously. But no argument is too absurd for Ross
: : Clark, because he's the Man with an Obsessive Agenda -- to deny the
: : creativity of Native Americans.
: ----->> No one is denying the creativity of the Natives of North
: America,
I disagree.
: but THEY ARE NOT A SEAFARERING people.
False. Obviously so.
: And never have been!!!
Have been! And still are!
: Not being saefarering,
You're uninformed. For one thing, NW Coast Indian canoes are almost
exactly the same as Maori canoes. As are their manufacturing techniques.
: how did their language get to Polynesia??
By canoe.
: Actually, none of the Native North American peoples have ever been
: seafarering. Nor are those known in S. America to be seafaring...
All false. See my webpage
http://www.trends.net/~yuku/tran/tnav.htm
and other files.
Regards,
Yuri.
Yuri Kuchinsky -=O=- http://www.globalserve.net/~yuku
But scientists, who ought to know
g...@galaxycom.net.nz
yu...@globalserve.net (Yuri Kuchinsky) wrote:
> Brian M. Scott (sc...@math.csuohio.edu) wrote on Fri, 11 Dec 1998 05:39:22
GMT:
>
>
> Get yourself a clue. We have very similar totem poles from NZ and NW
> Coast.
From where?
We do not have totem poles.
The only totem pole in New Zealand was erected back in the 1970s by a Canadian
Indian group.
So much for your research
--
George Black
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
gh...@snark.wizard.com
: : In soc.culture.pacific-island Yuri Kuchinsky <yu...@globalserve.net> wrote:
: : : Of course what happened next was Wade running away from that discussion...
: : : It got too hot for him, obviously. But no argument is too absurd for Ross
: : : Clark, because he's the Man with an Obsessive Agenda -- to deny the
: : : creativity of Native Americans.
: : ----->> No one is denying the creativity of the Natives of North
: : America,
: I disagree.
: : but THEY ARE NOT A SEAFARERING people.
--->>> I.E. seafaring as in crossing vast expanses of oceans. NOT
moving around on a lake or coastline.
: False. Obviously so.
Yuri, you lie!! None of the Native American's are seafarering..
Some on the west coast of North America do and have done short journey's,
but none have navigation skills needed for seafaring...
: : And never have been!!!
: Have been! And still are!
Where do you find seafaring Native American's?? One tribe in the
Pacific NW, in the State of Washington has long traditions of whale
hunting off the coast. But the canoes are not voyaging types types.
: : Not being saefarering,
: You're uninformed. For one thing, NW Coast Indian canoes are almost
: exactly the same as Maori canoes. As are their manufacturing techniques.
--->> By your academic standards. But I am more learned in many
of the historic content of Polynesia than you will ever know..
: : how did their language get to Polynesia??
--->>> Their language NEVER got there. Only in your mind...
: By canoe.
: : Actually, none of the Native North American peoples have ever been
: : seafarering. Nor are those known in S. America to be seafaring...
--->>> Seafaring as in voyaging across oceans, using navigation of
currents and winds.
: All false. See my webpage
--->> Webpage phoyeee. You can quote who ever you like. Most of
you white eyes are so narrow minded you wouldn't know the truth if it bit
you...
: http://www.trends.net/~yuku/tran/tnav.htm
: and other files.
: Regards,
: 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
--
b_m_...@my-dejanews.com
> Brian M. Scott (sc...@math.csuohio.edu)
> : On 10 Dec 1998 17:52:03 GMT, yu...@globalserve.net (Yuri Kuchinsky)
> : wrote:
> : >Why should I be doing all this?
> : To show that you're an honest scholar rather than an ideologue who
> : would rather accept on faith the conclusions of a 3rd-rate scholar of
> : a century ago than look at the evidence for himself.
> I accept nothing on faith.
Oh, come off it: if Thor wrote it, you accept it. If it supports Thor,
you accept it. Your faith is impressive, if remarkably ill-founded.
> I do my own investigating. But I see a
> linguistic investigation in this area as not too promising at this stage.
Of course you do: the linguistic evidence is clearly against your pet
theories, so you'll do anything to avoid confronting it.
> Because I have so much more evidence in other areas. The areas that you
> refuse to investigate.
The way you refuse to learn enough linguistics to make even a decent lay
evaluation of the evidence? In any case, I don't 'refuse' to investigate
anything. I'm not much interested in some things, but I have no reason
to investigate them, since I'm not trying to make a case for any particular
theory.
> : >Let's make this very clear. I certainly don't expect that linguistic
> : >comparisons at this stage ***can either confirm or disconfirm*** the
> : >existence of ancient cultural connections between NW Coast and Polynesia.
> : They are more than sufficient to show that the various NW Coast
> : languages are unrelated to the Polynesian languages.
> False.
Ah, the Great Yuri - Knows Nothing, But Tells All! - has spoken.
> : As Ross has
> : pointed out on several occasions, what you need are loanwords.
> Nope.
> : The
> : Polynesian languages and their history are pretty well understood at
> : this point, so loanwords from the NW coastal languages shouldn't be
> : all that hard to spot -- if they exist.
> I don't need loanwords. You seem to be pretty uninformed about this whole
> thing.
Only to the extent that I can't keep your flavour-of-the-week theories
straight.
[snip totem poles, dealt with by gtb]
> : >We're talking about some 2000 years during which all kinds of sound
> : >changes could take place.
> : Yes, a mere 2000 years -- not nearly enough. But you're getting
> : confused again: you're trying to argue that the Polynesian languages
> : are actually related at a depth of 2000 years to some NW coastal
> : language,
> Yes.
> : when in fact your theory (as you've stated it most recently,
> : anyway) requires a contact relationship, not a genetic one.
> You don't know what you're talking about. No surprise.
> My hypothesis is that some earliest Polynesians came from NW Coast.
A little while back you were claiming that they started in East Asia and
were influenced by the NW Coastal peoples as they passed through. Now
you appear to be claiming that they *were* NW Coastal people. Which is
it? And which will it be next week?
> : >And here's the same question to test your objectivity I've asked Miguel.
> : >Do you, or do you not accept that the traditional arts of Polynesia and of
> : >NW Coast feature some rather striking similarities? This has been
> : >commented upon by many commentators, including Levi-Strauss.
> : Since I've never studied either in any depth, my opinion on the matter
> : means little.
> But where's your opinion? Why are you being so cagey?
My opinion, being largely uninformed, is of no value to anyone who is
in this discussion for the sake of information about Polynesian prehistory.
> : As it happens, I am more interested in the languages
> : than in the art.
> That shows your incompetence as a historian.
Er, when did I ever claim to be approaching this discussion as a historian?
> I'm a historian, and I look
> at all evidence.
No, you look at people's conclusions. If they agree with yours, you adopt
them as evidence; if not, you slang their authors as dishonest, incompetent,
Eurocentric, or what have you.
> I pursue what seems most promising. OTOH, you're in
> effect excluding most important evidence from consideration. You're a
> joke, my friend.
You know, I think that I can do very nicely without the false terms of
endearment. I am not your friend, and indeed I find the notion that I
might be rather offensive: not to put too fine a point on it, you're a
slanderous, viper-tongued ignoramus who long ago renounced any claim
to intellectual honesty and dribbled away whatever brains you had to
begin with.
> You and Miguel. Linguists without a clue, surrounded by
> mountains of evidence they're doing their best not to look at...
No, no: Miguel is a linguist; I'm just an interested and reasonably
well-informed amateur. For the rest, I note that there is a considerable
difference between avoiding something and merely failing to pursue it.
> If you want to have even a tiny shred of credibility, check out Plates XII
> and following in Heyerdahl, AMERICAN INDIANS IN THE PACIFIC. It will take
> you a few minutes to consider. And then you can give me your opinion.
Credibility with whom? You? I couldn't care less. Nor would this little
exercise take only a few minutes. Not only would I have to find the book
(on which I'm certainly not going to waste good money), but I'd also have
to find serious works on Polynesian and NW Coastal art to see just how
badly Thor fudged in choosing his illustrations.
> Pictures don't lie.
Don't be silly. Not only can an individual photograph be exceedingly
misleading, but photographs can easily be selected to lie.
> Similarities can be seen a thousand times sooner than
> through your suggested linguistic investigation. Maybe a million times
> sooner.
> : >I expect that your answer will be quite revealing one way or the other.
> : Well, I've given a maximally objective response.
> A maximally evasive response.
Nope: I told you the exact truth. Unlike you, I feel no obligation to
hold an opinion on everything.
Brian M. Scott
ClockWFT
>From: <gh...@snark.wizard.com>
>Date: 12/12/98 2:50 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <MqCc2.667$iK1....@wormhole.dimensional.com>
> Most of you white eyes are so
>narrow minded you wouldn't
>know the truth if it bit
>you...
Who th' h*ll are "white eyes" and why are you throwing this "most" stereotype
at them?
wft
Yuri Kuchinsky
: : : but THEY ARE NOT A SEAFARERING people.
: --->>> I.E. seafaring as in crossing vast expanses of oceans. NOT
: moving around on a lake or coastline.
So how about all the ancient American pottery found on Galapagos?
: : False. Obviously so.
: Yuri, you lie!!
Now, now, David... Be nice. I actually gave you hard evidence, but all
you're giving me back is insults.
: None of the Native American's are seafarering..
False.
: Some on the west coast of North America do and have done short journey's,
To Galapagos?
Also, perhaps you're unaware that there are now documented trade links
between ancient S and N America.
: Where do you find seafaring Native American's??
Both in N and S America.
: One tribe in the
: Pacific NW, in the State of Washington has long traditions of whale
: hunting off the coast. But the canoes are not voyaging types types.
On what do you base this?
[Yuri:]
: : You're uninformed. For one thing, NW Coast Indian canoes are almost
: : exactly the same as Maori canoes. As are their manufacturing techniques.
: --->> By your academic standards. But I am more learned in many
: of the historic content of Polynesia than you will ever know..
Perhaps. But you obiously don't know the first thing about ancient
American ocean sailors.
[Yuri:]
: : All false. See my webpage
: --->> Webpage phoyeee. You can quote who ever you like. Most of
: you white eyes are so narrow minded you wouldn't know the truth if it bit
: you...
Why do you feel a need to resort to insults?
: : http://www.trends.net/~yuku/tran/tnav.htm
I gave you the evidence, David. You didn't like it. So perhaps you can
give me your own evidence then?
Please keep in mind that this discussion is cross-posted to some sci
groups. We like to see posters present some basis for their assertions.
Regards,
Yuri.
Yuri Kuchinsky -=O=- http://www.globalserve.net/~yuku -=O=- Toronto
For every credibility gap, there is a gullibility fill
Anthony West
b_m_...@my-dejanews.com wrote in message
<74va0v$sfb$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
>In article <74u604$ohl$1...@whisper.globalserve.net>,
> yu...@globalserve.net (Yuri Kuchinsky) wrote:
>
>> Brian M. Scott (sc...@math.csuohio.edu)
>
>> : On 10 Dec 1998 17:52:03 GMT, yu...@globalserve.net (Yuri Kuchinsky)
>> : wrote:
>
>> : >Let's make this very clear. I certainly don't expect that linguistic
>> : >comparisons at this stage ***can either confirm or disconfirm*** the
>> : >existence of ancient cultural connections between NW Coast and
Polynesia.
>
>> : They are more than sufficient to show that the various NW Coast
>> : languages are unrelated to the Polynesian languages.
>
>> False.
>
>Ah, the Great Yuri - Knows Nothing, But Tells All! - has spoken.
>
I must say, Yuri's claim is remarkable. If you don't know anything about the
science of linguistics, and don't want to learn, how could you possibly make
pronouncements about what the linguistic evidence is or is not?
In truth, modern linguistics is unanimous in that no NW Coast language
family could possibly be related to the Austronesian family at a time depth
of 2000 years. And since the Polynesian tongues are Austronesian, that goes
for them in particular.
>> : As Ross has
>> : pointed out on several occasions, what you need are loanwords.
>
>> Nope.
>
Exactly. Loanwords are the only thing that can save Yuri's theory.
>> : The
>> : Polynesian languages and their history are pretty well understood at
>> : this point, so loanwords from the NW coastal languages shouldn't be
>> : all that hard to spot -- if they exist.
>
>> I don't need loanwords. You seem to be pretty uninformed about this whole
>> thing.
>
Yuri needs loanwords badly, in order to derive any linguistic support for
his theories at all.
>> : >We're talking about some 2000 years during which all kinds of sound
>> : >changes could take place.
>
>> : Yes, a mere 2000 years -- not nearly enough. But you're getting
>> : confused again: you're trying to argue that the Polynesian languages
>> : are actually related at a depth of 2000 years to some NW coastal
>> : language,
>
Of course, no one in his right mind, having looked at these languages, would
argue this.
>> Yes.
>
My god! He did it!
>> : when in fact your theory (as you've stated it most recently,
>> : anyway) requires a contact relationship, not a genetic one.
>
>> You don't know what you're talking about. No surprise.
>> My hypothesis is that some earliest Polynesians came from NW Coast.
>
Quite possibly Yuri's confusion stems from his admitted ignorance of
elementary linguistics. "Genetic", Yuri, is used in a specialized manner in
linguistics. It has nothing to do with *biological* genetics. Thus, the body
of a person named "Yuri Kuchinsky" may carry genes that come straight from
Eastern Europe -- but the *language* he posts in, English, is genetically
related more to Teutonic than to Slavic tongues.
Linguistics shows conclusively that the settlers of the Pacific all speak
languages that evolved in Asia, 3000-6000 years ago. If individuals came
from NW North America 2000 years ago, they may have intermarried with the
native Islanders and they may have introduced pieces of cultural hardware,
but they clearly did not implant their language upon them. Or if they
preceded the Polynesians in some parts of the Pacific, their language must
have been erased by Polynesian newcomers.
But it becomes increasingly hard to argue that cultural software and
toolkits were transplanted without simultaneously transplanting at least a
few loanwords. I mean, Russia gave us borsht and blinis -- but it also gave
us the words "borsht" and "blini."
So Yuri really needs to track down the loanwords that show how these brawny
NW Coast Indians, hauling their totem poles from Portland to New Zealand,
influenced the Polynesians enough to borrow NW Coast terms for them as well.
Because it is very unusual (although not unknown) for a culture to
contribute significantly to the genepool and the culture kit of another
culture without implanting at least a few loanwords as well.
So where are the loanwords?
[snip]
>> That shows your incompetence as a historian.
>
>Er, when did I ever claim to be approaching this discussion as a historian?
>
>> I'm a historian, and I look
>> at all evidence.
>
>No, you look at people's conclusions. If they agree with yours, you adopt
>them as evidence; if not, you slang their authors as dishonest,
incompetent,
>Eurocentric, or what have you.
>
In addition, Yuri, your primary focus is on prehistory, not history. You are
not a historian. Different fields, different methodologies. One may use
evidence from the other. But your central interest is about things that
happened, by definition, before the recording of history in the Pacific.
>> If you want to have even a tiny shred of credibility, [look at more
pictures on Yuri's >> webpage instead of studying more science ....]
But if you can't look at a word and observe it accurately, what makes you
think some blurry Internet visual toy will give clearer information to
anybody?
Yuri Kuchinsky
: In article <74u604$ohl$1...@whisper.globalserve.net>,
: yu...@globalserve.net (Yuri Kuchinsky) wrote:
: > Brian M. Scott (sc...@math.csuohio.edu) wrote on Fri, 11 Dec 1998 05:39:22
: GMT:
: >
: > : Ah, yes. Tell me, where are the Hawai'ian totem poles and potlatches?
: >
: > Get yourself a clue. We have very similar totem poles from NZ and NW
: > Coast.
: From where?
From NZ, George.
: We do not have totem poles.
: The only totem pole in New Zealand was erected back in the 1970s by a Canadian
: Indian group.
: So much for your research
Hmm... I'm looking at Plate XV in AMERICAN INDIANS IN THE PACIFIC (1952).
The caption under the photo says:
""Carved wooden columns or "totem poles", 1 from New Zealand (from Wood
1870) and 2 from the NW Coast (from Barbeau 1929).""
Significant similarities between them are apparent.
Two possibilities.
(a) I'm experiencing a visual hallucination.
(b) George doesn't know much about the history of his own country.
After pinching myself, and still seeing the same picture I conclude that
(b) is to be preferred, i.e. George seems pretty clued out about the
aboriginal traditions of his own country. Are we surprised?
Regards,
Yuri.
Yuri Kuchinsky -=O=- http://www.globalserve.net/~yuku
If ignorance is bliss, why aren't there more happy people?
Yuri Kuchinsky
...
: Yuri needs loanwords badly, in order to derive any linguistic support for
: his theories at all.
...
: So Yuri really needs to track down the loanwords that show how these brawny
: NW Coast Indians, hauling their totem poles from Portland to New Zealand,
: influenced the Polynesians enough to borrow NW Coast terms for them as well.
: Because it is very unusual (although not unknown) for a culture to
: contribute significantly to the genepool and the culture kit of another
: culture without implanting at least a few loanwords as well.
: So where are the loanwords?
Tony,
Obviously you're new to this debate. I don't have the time now to give you
the complete run-down, but I actually have hundreds of potential
loan-words that you say you're interested in.
John Campbell, _The origin of the Haidahs of the Queen Charlotte Islands._
Trans. Royal Soc. Canada, II Ser., Vol.III, Sec.II (1897-98). [If you
can't find the original journal volumes, the paper is also available on a
microfiche in the CIHM series, No. 14391]
Charles Hill-Tout, _Oceanic Origin of the Kwakiutl-Nootka and Salish
Stocks of British Columbia and Fundamental Unity of Same, with Additional
Notes on the Dene._ Trans. Roy. Soc. Can., Section II, 187-231 (1898).
This is old material, with all that this implies, but this is evidence
nonetheless. Hill-Tout, being a respected professional ethnographer, is
more credible than Campbell, who also had some quite strange theories in
other areas of ancient history.
Hill-Tout, who for many years advocated the theory that the Polynesians
came to NW Coast, and influenced the American languages, later admitted to
Heyerdahl that the influence may well have gone the other way.
Yours,
Yuri.
Yuri Kuchinsky -=O=- http://www.globalserve.net/~yuku -=O=- Toronto
Haole
(Yuri Kuchinsky) wrote:
(snip)
> Tony,
> Obviously you're new to this debate. I don't have the time now to give you
> the complete run-down, but I actually have hundreds of potential
> loan-words that you say you're interested in.
Yuri,
Would you mind posting some of the 'hundreds' of loanwords? Pick the 20
best ones.
-Haole
Anthony West
Yuri Kuchinsky wrote in message <750s82$l5d$2...@whisper.globalserve.net>...>: In article <74u604$ohl$1...@whisper.globalserve.net>,
>: yu...@globalserve.net (Yuri Kuchinsky) wrote:
>: > Brian M. Scott (sc...@math.csuohio.edu) wrote on Fri, 11 Dec 1998
05:39:22
>: GMT:
>: >
>
>: We do not have totem poles.
>
>The caption under the photo says:
>
>""Carved wooden columns or "totem poles", 1 from New Zealand (from Wood
>1870) and 2 from the NW Coast (from Barbeau 1929).""
>
>Significant similarities between them are apparent.
>
>Two possibilities.
>
>(a) I'm experiencing a visual hallucination.
>(b) George doesn't know much about the history of his own country.
>
>After pinching myself, and still seeing the same picture I conclude that
>(b) is to be preferred, i.e. George seems pretty clued out about the
>aboriginal traditions of his own country. Are we surprised?
>
Pacific," a 46-year-old book by a non-scientist, is not a reliable source
for the ethnography of New Zealand.
Perhaps Thor Heyerdahl didn't know much about the aboriginal traditions of
George's country.
-Tony West
Philadelphia aaw...@critpath.org
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
wrote:
>Please keep in mind that this discussion is cross-posted to some sci
>groups. We like to see posters present some basis for their assertions.
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Anthony West
Haole wrote in message ...
>In article <750uj7$mlp$2...@whisper.globalserve.net>, yu...@globalserve.net
>(Yuri Kuchinsky) wrote:
>
>(snip)
>
>> Tony,
>
>> Obviously you're new to this debate. I don't have the time now to give
you
>> the complete run-down, but I actually have hundreds of potential
>> loan-words that you say you're interested in.
>
>Yuri,
>
>Would you mind posting some of the 'hundreds' of loanwords? Pick the 20
>best ones.
>
>-Haole
>
It would be most useful to your thesis, Yuri. Looking for <body of
vocabulary items in language X, family P, not attested in the rest of family
P but resembling items in family Q> is the sort of search that historical
linguists will do at this time, and there is surely new stuff to be
discovered.
Without that, merely citing your old guy whatsizname from 1898 is not, in
itself, persuasive. Some 19th-c. linguistics researchers are still
fundamental to work in their area; others, however (especially in North
America), labored extensively to prove that American Indian tongues were
descended from Hebrew et al. So living linguists really do need to extend
his work before we can assume there is any validity to it. And they'll want
an introductory peek at some plausible material before they'll pursue it
further.
-Tony West
Philadelphia aaw...@critpath.org
Yuri Kuchinsky
: Yuri Kuchinsky wrote in message <750s82$l5d$2...@whisper.globalserve.net>...
: >Hmm... I'm looking at Plate XV in AMERICAN INDIANS IN THE PACIFIC (1952).
: >The caption under the photo says:
: >
: >""Carved wooden columns or "totem poles", 1 from New Zealand (from Wood
: >1870) and 2 from the NW Coast (from Barbeau 1929).""
: >
: >Significant similarities between them are apparent.
: >After pinching myself, and still seeing the same picture I conclude that
: >(b) is to be preferred, i.e. George seems pretty clued out about the
: >aboriginal traditions of his own country. Are we surprised?
: Scientifically, there is a third possibility: "American Indians in the
: Pacific," a 46-year-old book by a non-scientist, is not a reliable source
: for the ethnography of New Zealand.
Scientifically, George Black is probably the least reliable source for the
ethnography of New Zealand. or for anything else on God's Green Earth.
Right after George comes Tony West with his idiotic nitpicks and psychic
premonitions re the reliability of various sources.
Regards,
Yuri.
Yuri Kuchinsky -=O=- http://www.globalserve.net/~yuku
Why does man kill? He kills for food. And not only food:
frequently there must be a beverage -=O=- Woody Allen
Yuri Kuchinsky
: Haole wrote in message ...
: >Yuri,
: >
: >Would you mind posting some of the 'hundreds' of loanwords? Pick the 20
: >best ones.
: I second that, Haole.
Let me try to explain. I know next to nothing about Polynesian languages.
Very few people indeed, including myself, know anything about NW Coast
Indian languages. And you expect me to go and investigate possible
relationships between Polynesian and NW Coast Indian languages -- right
from scratch where no work has been done in a 100 years?
No, thank you.
At the same time, I'm pointing at some amazing similarities between
Polynesian and NW Coast Indian art and traditions -- but nobody seems
interested.
There's something wrong with this picture. To see similarities in art and
traditions is a lot simpler, and does not require 10 years of intense
study. So why is everybody encouraging me to go on the hard road, while
themselves refusing to follow the road that is a 1000 times easier? I
think in plain English this is known as stonewalling.
It is my belief that some NW Coast Indian languages will be found to
belong to the Austronesian language group. Why I think so? American NW
Coast is a well-known centre of incredible linguistic diversity. There are
an awful lot of different languages and dialects in this small area.
Now, just take a look at any map of prevailing currents in the N Pacific.
Kuroshio current, that flows all year round, sweeps strongly past Taiwan,
S China (which area is generally considered as the heartland of
Austronesian), then past Japan, and then goes on and hits American NW
Coast almost directly. I don't think one needs to be a genius to suppose
that some Austronesian speakers ended up in this area sometime 5000-4000
bp and onwards. Because in the real world, ocean currents also should
indicate the likely direction of human migrations.
: It would be most useful to your thesis, Yuri. Looking for <body of
: vocabulary items in language X, family P, not attested in the rest of family
: P but resembling items in family Q> is the sort of search that historical
: linguists will do at this time, and there is surely new stuff to be
: discovered.
I will not be getting into this any time soon. But here are a few ideas
based on the two volumes I've already cited.
English: MAN
Haidah Oceanic
eetling, eetlinga, aulong (Formosa)
eetlingah, ithlunga, ulun (Malagasy)
ihlinga, ehlin
English: FACE
Maori mata Bilqula musha
Hawaiian maka Thatlotl mooth
Santa Cruz maku Sishiatl moos
Malay muka Staktamish smoos
Tagal mucha
English: HOUSE
Samoan fale Songes alen
Hawaiian hale Sumas etc lalem
PAN *balay "building" Snanaimuq lalem
I have no idea if any of these particular examples are valid. Ross Clark
doesn't think so. But what do I know?
Regards,
Yuri.
Yuri Kuchinsky -=O=- http://www.globalserve.net/~yuku -=O=- Toronto
Yuri Kuchinsky
> Yuri Kuchinsky wrote:
> > Are you distorting on purpose? Or are you really so clued out? Nobody to
> > my knowledge said so. Austronesian is derived from SE Asia -- and I agree
> > with this.
>
> So why were you putting so much stock a while back in Hill-Tout and
> Campbell, both of whom were trying to prove just such a genetic
> relationship,
Yes, they did.
> and in fact arguing that NW Coast languages came from the
> Pacific?
Hill-Tout later accepted that the direction of influence may well have
gone the other way, i.e. from NW Coast to Polynesia.
> I'm not "distorting", Yuri, I'm just reflecting your confusion
> about just what your hypothesis is.
Your confusion is obvious. You couldn't even grasp what I've been
proposing.
...
> > Once again, Ross Clark doesn't seem to have a clue. He got the timing all
> > wrong. I say they arrived to BC some time 5000-4000 years bp.
>
> Well, I picked up the figure 2000 from one of your own posts not more
> than a week ago. Perhaps, in my excitement at seeing you actually specify
> a date, I read "BC" as "BP"?? I don't know.
Neither do I know what you've read, but it is clear that you've understood
very little.
> Or maybe you've changed your mind since then?
Not at all.
> For purposes of what I said above, it doesn't matter. You admit the
> Polynesian languages are Austronesian.
Yes.
> You're looking for contact effects, not a genetic relationship.
I expect both.
> Unless you're suggesting that Salishan or Wakashan is a branch of
> Austronesian???
It is my belief that some NW Coast Indian languages would be Austronesian,
yes.
I've said many times that Polynesian history is extremely complex -- even
for those who try to approach it with an open mind. Very few scholars
indeed have that capability. So I'm not at all surprised that 99% of
academic scholars ignore or misunderstand what Heyerdahl actually proposed
re NW Coast -- Polynesian links.
In my view, the Pacific is one big mixing bowl of all kinds of cultures --
it is a very complex history. Heyerdahl may not have all the answers, but
his approach seems the most sensible and realistic of all I've seen so
far. In short, he's saying that NW Coast was like a way station. Cultural
influences came from SE Asia, and then they continued on to Hawaii, and
the rest of Polynesia. This is what the map of currents would indicate.
Haole
(Yuri Kuchinsky) wrote:
> Anthony West (aaw...@critpath.org) wrote on Mon, 14 Dec 1998 16:53:39 -0500:
> : Haole wrote in message ...
> : >Yuri,
> : >Would you mind posting some of the 'hundreds' of loanwords? Pick the 20
> : >best ones.
> : I second that, Haole.
> Let me try to explain. I know next to nothing about Polynesian languages.
> Very few people indeed, including myself, know anything about NW Coast
> Indian languages. And you expect me to go and investigate possible
> relationships between Polynesian and NW Coast Indian languages -- right
> from scratch where no work has been done in a 100 years?
No, I expect you to post just the 20 best examples of loanwords from the
'hundreds' you claim you already have at your fingertips. No original
research required.
> No, thank you.
So you don't have 'hundreds' of loanwords? Do you have 20?
> At the same time, I'm pointing at some amazing similarities between
> Polynesian and NW Coast Indian art and traditions -- but nobody seems
> interested.
My specialty is linguistics, Oceanic in particular. I am in a department
with several prominent Americanists. I can evaluate the data from
Polynesian languages, and run the AmerInd language stuff past the
Americanists.
Meanwhile, you keep trying to distract us from the fact that you have no
linguistic support for your theory. That would be okay if you just said
'linguistics doesn't support my view' and moved along.
> There's something wrong with this picture. To see similarities in art and
> traditions is a lot simpler, and does not require 10 years of intense
> study. So why is everybody encouraging me to go on the hard road, while
> themselves refusing to follow the road that is a 1000 times easier? I
> think in plain English this is known as stonewalling.
Well, this is the closest thing I have seen yet to admitting that: (a) you
don't have enough background in linguistics to evaluate what is going on
in that field, and (b) linguistics doesn't support your theory. I consider
this a good start.
> It is my belief that some NW Coast Indian languages will be found to
> belong to the Austronesian language group. Why I think so? American NW
> Coast is a well-known centre of incredible linguistic diversity. There are
> an awful lot of different languages and dialects in this small area.
This would tend to argue *against* there being Austronesian languages in
that area. Greater linguistic diversity suggests greater age of settlement
population.
(snip)
> I will not be getting into this any time soon. But here are a few ideas
> based on the two volumes I've already cited.
I missed the reference. I'll use dejanews to look it up.
> English: MAN
> Haidah Oceanic
> eetling, eetlinga, aulong (Formosa)
> eetlingah, ithlunga, ulun (Malagasy)
> ihlinga, ehlin
> English: FACE
> Maori mata Bilqula musha
> Hawaiian maka Thatlotl mooth
> Santa Cruz maku Sishiatl moos
> Malay muka Staktamish smoos
> Tagal mucha
> English: HOUSE
> Samoan fale Songes alen
> Hawaiian hale Sumas etc lalem
> PAN *balay "building" Snanaimuq lalem
> I have no idea if any of these particular examples are valid. Ross Clark
> doesn't think so. But what do I know?
Are these the three best examples from the hundreds at your disposal?
> Regards,
> Yuri.
> Yuri Kuchinsky -=O=- http://www.globalserve.net/~yuku -=O=- Toronto
>
> Academic politics is the most vicious and bitter form of
> politics, because the stakes are so low -=O=- Wallace Sayre
--
"When I'm in Holland I eat the pannekoeken."
Peter T. Daniels
> English: MAN
>
> Haidah (Haida) Oceanic
>
> eetling, eetlinga, aulong (Formosa)
> eetlingah, ithlunga, ulun (Malagasy)
> ihlinga, ehlin
>
>
> English: FACE
>
> Maori mata Bilqula musha (Bella Coola)
> Hawaiian maka Thatlotl mooth
> Santa Cruz maku Sishiatl moos (Siuslaw??)
> Malay muka Staktamish smoos
> Tagal mucha
>
> English: HOUSE
>
> Samoan fale Songes alen (Songish = N. Straits Salish)
> Hawaiian hale Sumas etc lalem
> PAN *balay "building" Snanaimuq lalem
>
> I have no idea if any of these particular examples are valid. Ross Clark
> doesn't think so. But what do I know?
Only 3 or 4 of the NW Coast languages named in the old source can be
identified from the list of American languages given by Campbell (added
in parentheses).
--
Peter T. Daniels gram...@worldnet.att.net
Yuri Kuchinsky
> Well, this is the closest thing I have seen yet to admitting that: (a)
> you don't have enough background in linguistics to evaluate what is
> going on in that field,
Correct. I have next to no background in these specific languages.
> and (b) linguistics doesn't support your theory.
I have some linguistic support, but not much at this stage. I have much
more support from other areas of scholarship.
In any case here are the sources that I do have.
Key, Mary Ritchie, _Polynesian and American linguistic connections_ (with
the collaboration of Karel Richards), 80 p., Lake Bluff, Ill., Jupiter
Press, 1984. (A big grab-bag of various possible linguistic connections.)
Robert Langdon and Darrell Tryon, _The Language of Easter Island: Its
Development and Eastern Polynesian Relationships_, La'ie, 1983. (About
possible Easter Island -- S American connections.)
Charles Hill-Tout, OCEANIC ORIGIN OF THE KWAKIUTL-NOOTKA AND SALISH STOCKS
OF BRITISH COLUMBIA AND FUNDAMENTAL UNITY OF SAME, WITH ADDITIONAL NOTES
ON THE DENE, Proc. Trans. Roy. Soc. Canada, II Ser., Vol. IV, 1898. (He
was a respected Canadian scholar, and a pioneering NW Coast ethnographer
and linguist.)
John Campbell, _The origin of the Haidahs of the Queen Charlotte Islands._
Trans. Royal Soc. Canada, II Ser., Vol.III, Sec.II (1897-98). (The paper
is also available on a microfiche in the CIHM series, No. 14391. Campbell
is generally considered as something of an amateur, and some of his wider
theories about ancient history may be seen as far-fetched.)
Regards,
Yuri.
Yuri Kuchinsky -=O=- http://www.globalserve.net/~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
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
wrote:
>Let me try to explain. I know next to nothing about Polynesian languages.
>Very few people indeed, including myself,
_excluding_ yourself.
>know anything about NW Coast Indian languages.
Enough people know enough about them to positively exclude the
possibility that any of them are Austronesian.
>There's something wrong with this picture. To see similarities in art and
>traditions is a lot simpler,
Too simple, in fact. Similarities in art and tradition mean nothing,
just like similarities between languages, of the Hill-Tout kind, are
entirely meaningless. In the case of linguistics, in order to
progress beyond the level of mere similarities, you need to establish
exact sound laws between cognate items, and exclude the similarities
that are due to chance and those that are due to borrowings (although
the borrowings themselves have their own story to tell). A century
of work on Austronesian and NW Coast Amerind languages has
established nothing of the kind. No cognates, no borrowings, only a
handful of chance similarities.
I'm sure that similarly in the case of "art and traditions" more
exact standards than mere similarities are required to establish a
connection. You need exact and detailed parallels and sequences, not
just a general "sure look kind of similar don't they?". It *does*
require "10 years of intense study", I'm afraid. There ain't no such
thing as a free lunch.
Looking at some pretty pictures in a Thor Heyerdahl book and spending
a lot of time on .sci groups insulting scientists is no substitute
for "10 years of intense study", and no excuse at all for pretending
one has the right to patronize the "poor natives" on
"soc.culture.pacific-island".
>It is my belief that some NW Coast Indian languages will be found to
>belong to the Austronesian language group.
"Please keep in mind that this discussion is cross-posted to some sci
groups. We like to see posters present some basis for their
assertions."
Ross Clark
>
> Ross Clark wrote on 1998/12/11:
> > Yuri Kuchinsky wrote:
>
> > > Are you distorting on purpose? Or are you really so clued out? Nobody to
> > > my knowledge said so. Austronesian is derived from SE Asia -- and I agree
> > > with this.
> >
> > So why were you putting so much stock a while back in Hill-Tout and
> > Campbell, both of whom were trying to prove just such a genetic
> > relationship,
>
> Yes, they did.
>
> > and in fact arguing that NW Coast languages came from the
> > Pacific?
>
> Hill-Tout later accepted that the direction of influence may well have
> gone the other way, i.e. from NW Coast to Polynesia.
>
But you are now (see below) going to argue for his *original* point of
view, the "Oceanic origin of the Kwakiutl-Nootka and Salish Stocks", to
quote the title of his paper. Am I right?
> > I'm not "distorting", Yuri, I'm just reflecting your confusion
> > about just what your hypothesis is.
>
> Your confusion is obvious. You couldn't even grasp what I've been
> proposing.
I don't believe I'm alone in this.
>
> ...
>
> > > Once again, Ross Clark doesn't seem to have a clue. He got the timing all
> > > wrong. I say they arrived to BC some time 5000-4000 years bp.
> >
> > Well, I picked up the figure 2000 from one of your own posts not more
> > than a week ago. Perhaps, in my excitement at seeing you actually specify
> > a date, I read "BC" as "BP"?? I don't know.
>
> Neither do I know what you've read, but it is clear that you've understood
> very little.
It's not one of your more endearing habits Yuri -- abusing people for
being confused while doing nothing at all to alleviate their confusion.
It is *your* ideas I am having trouble getting clear in my mind, so *you*
are the one in the best position to clarify them.
>
> > Or maybe you've changed your mind since then?
>
> Not at all.
>
> > For purposes of what I said above, it doesn't matter. You admit the
> > Polynesian languages are Austronesian.
>
> Yes.
>
> > You're looking for contact effects, not a genetic relationship.
>
> I expect both.
>
> > Unless you're suggesting that Salishan or Wakashan is a branch of
> > Austronesian???
>
> It is my belief that some NW Coast Indian languages would be Austronesian,
> yes.
Well now, for a moment I thought you might be expecting some lost tribe
to turn up in some remote valley, speaking an obviously Austronesian
language. Now Heyerdahl (in order to rationalize the manifest lack of
linguistic evidence for his theory) makes a great to-do about how complex
and little known the language situation in B.C. is. This might have
(just) been a justifiable exaggeration 50 years ago (Heyerdahl Year
Zero), but not now. We know what languages there are, and the obvious
family relationships are also well known. If there ever was an
Austronesian language there, it has disappeared without a trace.
Hill-Tout has looked for Austronesian resemblances in Salishan and
Wakashan, and Campbell in Haida. Neither found anything of significance.
What you are left with is a pious hope.
Ross Clark
Peter T. Daniels
>
> On 15 Dec 1998 16:40:06 GMT, yu...@globalserve.net (Yuri Kuchinsky)
> wrote:
>
> >Let me try to explain. I know next to nothing about Polynesian languages.
> >Very few people indeed, including myself,
>
> _excluding_ yourself.
>
> >know anything about NW Coast Indian languages.
No, "including myself" is correct (assuming Yuri is claiming lack of
knowledge of NW Coast languages).
I leave it to the Chomskyans or the logicians to figure out why that
should be ...
Ross Clark
>
> Anthony West (aaw...@critpath.org) wrote on Mon, 14 Dec 1998 16:53:39 -0500:
> : Haole wrote in message ...
>
> : >Yuri,
> : >
> : >Would you mind posting some of the 'hundreds' of loanwords? Pick the 20
> : >best ones.
>
> : I second that, Haole.
>
> Indian languages. And you expect me to go and investigate possible
> relationships between Polynesian and NW Coast Indian languages -- right
> from scratch where no work has been done in a 100 years?
No, Yuri. What people expect you to do is put up or shut up. Either
present some evidence or stop making baseless claims.
>
> No, thank you.
>
> At the same time, I'm pointing at some amazing similarities between
> Polynesian and NW Coast Indian art and traditions -- but nobody seems
> interested.
Perhaps it could be because people don't find them as "amazing" as you
do.
>
> There's something wrong with this picture. To see similarities in art and
> traditions is a lot simpler, and does not require 10 years of intense
> study. So why is everybody encouraging me to go on the hard road, while
> themselves refusing to follow the road that is a 1000 times easier? I
> think in plain English this is known as stonewalling.
The stonewalling is in your continuing refusal to admit that the
linguistic evidence isn't there.
>
> It is my belief that some NW Coast Indian languages will be found to
> belong to the Austronesian language group. Why I think so? American NW
> Coast is a well-known centre of incredible linguistic diversity. There are
> an awful lot of different languages and dialects in this small area.
But no Austronesian ones.
>
> Now, just take a look at any map of prevailing currents in the N Pacific.
> Kuroshio current, that flows all year round, sweeps strongly past Taiwan,
> S China (which area is generally considered as the heartland of
> Austronesian), then past Japan, and then goes on and hits American NW
> Coast almost directly. I don't think one needs to be a genius to suppose
> that some Austronesian speakers ended up in this area sometime 5000-4000
> bp and onwards. Because in the real world, ocean currents also should
> indicate the likely direction of human migrations.
Yes, who knows but what some Austronesian speakers might have landed
there at some point in the past? Does it follow from this possibility
that there are Austronesian languages there now? It does not.
>
> : It would be most useful to your thesis, Yuri. Looking for <body of
> : vocabulary items in language X, family P, not attested in the rest of family
> : P but resembling items in family Q> is the sort of search that historical
> : linguists will do at this time, and there is surely new stuff to be
> : discovered.
>
> I will not be getting into this any time soon. But here are a few ideas
> based on the two volumes I've already cited.
...or perhaps you should say, based on Ross Clark's comments on those two
papers (still available by email for anybody who's interested). The
examples selected, the arrangement, and even the free
Proto-Austronesian reconstruction, come from me. Indications are that
Yuri has not even looked at the original paper in either case.
>
> English: MAN
>
> Haidah Oceanic
>
> eetling, eetlinga, aulong (Formosa)
> eetlingah, ithlunga, ulun (Malagasy)
> ihlinga, ehlin
>
>
> English: FACE
>
> Maori mata Bilqula musha
> Hawaiian maka Thatlotl mooth
> Santa Cruz maku Sishiatl moos
> Malay muka Staktamish smoos
> Tagal mucha
>
> English: HOUSE
>
> Samoan fale Songes alen
> Hawaiian hale Sumas etc lalem
> PAN *balay "building" Snanaimuq lalem
>
> I have no idea if any of these particular examples are valid.
I agree. You have no idea.
>Ross Clark> doesn't think so.
Right again.
>But what do I know?
We're still waiting to see.
Ross Clark
Ross Clark
>
> Yuri Kuchinsky wrote:
>
> > English: MAN
> >
> >
> > eetling, eetlinga, aulong (Formosa)
> > eetlingah, ithlunga, ulun (Malagasy)
> > ihlinga, ehlin
> >
> >
> > English: FACE
> >
> > Hawaiian maka Thatlotl mooth
> > Santa Cruz maku Sishiatl moos (Siuslaw??)
> > Malay muka Staktamish smoos
> > Tagal mucha
> >
> > English: HOUSE
> >
> > PAN *balay "building" Snanaimuq lalem
> >
> > doesn't think so. But what do I know?
>
> Only 3 or 4 of the NW Coast languages named in the old source can be
> identified from the list of American languages given by Campbell (added
> in parentheses).
> Peter T. Daniels gram...@worldnet.att.net
These are Hill-Tout's spellings, of course, probably names of local
groups he knew. I don't have access to his ethnographic writings, where
you could probably find these. However I can identify a couple more:
"Sishiatl" is Sechelt, not Siuslaw
"Staktamish" might possibly be /stá?m@s/ (Stawamus), dialect of Squamish
"Sumas" and "Snanaimuq" (Nanaimo), dialects of Halkomelem
"Thatlotl" is a mystery.
Ross Clark
Brian M. Scott
wrote:
>Ross Clark wrote on 1998/12/11:
>> I'm not "distorting", Yuri, I'm just reflecting your confusion
>> about just what your hypothesis is.
>Your confusion is obvious. You couldn't even grasp what I've been
>proposing.
Well, now, it *is* rather like wrestling with Proteus.
By the way, I'm still waiting for a clear statement of your thesis.
Brian M. Scott
Haole
(Brian M. Scott) wrote:
Add me to the list of people trying to figure out what exactly Yuri's
story is all about.
> Brian M. Scott
-Haole
--
When I'm in Holland I eat the pannenkoeken.
Anthony West
Ross Clark wrote in message <3676FE...@antnov1.auckland.ac.nz>...
>Yuri Kuchinsky wrote:
>>
>> Ross Clark wrote on 1998/12/11:
>>
>> > > Austronesian is derived from SE Asia -- and I agree
>> > > with this.
>> >
>>
>> > > Once again, Ross Clark doesn't seem to have a clue. He got the timing
all
>> > > wrong. I say they arrived to BC some time 5000-4000 years bp.
>> >
>> > Well, I picked up the figure 2000 from one of your own posts not more
>> > than a week ago. Perhaps, in my excitement at seeing you actually
specify
>> > a date, I read "BC" as "BP"?? I don't know.
>>
ago. That was Yuri's theory at the time.
[snip]
>> > For purposes of what I said above, it doesn't matter. You admit the
>> > Polynesian languages are Austronesian.
>>
>> Yes.
>>
>> > You're looking for contact effects, not a genetic relationship.
>>
>> I expect both.
>>
>> > Unless you're suggesting that Salishan or Wakashan is a branch of
>> > Austronesian???
>>
>> It is my belief that some NW Coast Indian languages would be
Austronesian,
>> yes.
>
Pause for a moment and think through, Yuri. Since Polynesian is
Austronesian -- and since it clearly radiated from some older Austronesian
center on or near the E Asian mainland (e.g., Taiwan) perhaps 4000-6000
B.P. -- then:
IF some NW Coast culture originated both Austronesian speech and the culture
of its speakers, it would have had to radiate, not just to Hawaii 2000 B.P.,
but all the way to Formosa ~5000 B.P. But in that case, how could Polynesian
spread back so smoothly and homogeneously across the intervening ocean? You
would expect to see a Micronesian-style linguistic diversity there
instead -- a trail of linguistic debris fanning SW'ward from the Columbia
River, as it were. Yet that is the opposite of what the linguistic atlas
actually reveals.
Secondly: if a community of proto-Austronesian-speaking NW Coast Indians
existed 5000 years ago, and their culture was so amazingly powerful and
adaptive that it could spread its boats, wood carvings, languages, bubblegum
and whatever all the way from Vancouver to Madagascar -- which appears to be
Yuri's claim -- then why was this culture so insignificant at home that it
has vanished linguistically without a trace? That was not the fate of Latin,
for instance, or English, when they began to expand internationally; Rome
and London remained, strong and faithful to their imperial tongues.
So a paradox is created. The putative Proto-Austronesians of Vancouver must
have been the weakest and least influential of NW Coast Indians 5000 B.P.,
because no trace of them remains. Yet if the cultures of Salishan, Penutian
and Na-Dene speakers speakers were more successful, why wasn't it Salishan
that was transplanted to New Zealand and Penutian that spread to the
Philippines?
>Well now, for a moment I thought you might be expecting some lost tribe
>to turn up in some remote valley, speaking an obviously Austronesian
>language. Now Heyerdahl (in order to rationalize the manifest lack of
>linguistic evidence for his theory) makes a great to-do about how complex
>and little known the language situation in B.C. is. This might have
>(just) been a justifiable exaggeration 50 years ago (Heyerdahl Year
>Zero), but not now. We know what languages there are, and the obvious
>family relationships are also well known. If there ever was an
>Austronesian language there, it has disappeared without a trace.
>Hill-Tout has looked for Austronesian resemblances in Salishan and
>Wakashan, and Campbell in Haida. Neither found anything of significance.
>What you are left with is a pious hope.
>
And this is a dreadful difficulty that arises when one relies solely on
out-of-date writers to do one's thinking for one. Thor Heyerdahl, ca. 1948,
was a valiant and clever amateur making some interesting guesses that by bad
fortune were in the process of being proven wrong as he made them. Yuri
Kuchinski, ca. 1998, is trying to give mouth-to-mouth resuscitation to a
pop-science dinosaur. It is an homage to Heyerdahl's letter, but not really
to his spirit ....
Anthony West
Yuri Kuchinsky wrote in message <7563d6$d6i$1...@whisper.globalserve.net>...
>Let me try to explain. I know next to nothing about Polynesian languages.
>Very few people indeed, including myself, know anything about NW Coast
>Indian languages. And you expect me to go and investigate possible
>relationships between Polynesian and NW Coast Indian languages -- right
>from scratch where no work has been done in a 100 years?
>
Lots of work has been done, at an analytical level you are unfamiliar with
and do not want to learn.
>No, thank you.
>
>At the same time, I'm pointing at some amazing similarities between
>Polynesian and NW Coast Indian art and traditions -- but nobody seems
>interested.
>
>There's something wrong with this picture. To see similarities in art and
>traditions is a lot simpler, and does not require 10 years of intense
>study. So why is everybody encouraging me to go on the hard road, while
>themselves refusing to follow the road that is a 1000 times easier? I
>think in plain English this is known as stonewalling.
>
What's wrong with this picture is intellectual laziness. You would like to
feel that you "know" about the complex history of an enormous area --
without troubling yourself to actually learn it. And you want the answer in
advance.
The history of archeology is littered with "similarities in art and
traditions" that ultimately did not hold up as evidence of contact between
two peoples. It's fun to look at two pictures and go, "Wow!" But it's not
enough.
You need to test your theory by looking for *similar similarities* between
Polynesia and everywhere else in the world. Do Marquesan mats look anything
like those woven by Flemish farmwives? And how about those mysterious stone
structures in Truk? Aren't they similar to mysterious stone structures in
Malta? And Maori genealogical chants -- are they not, perhaps, similar in
structure to the genealogical chants of the Tsonga in Southern Africa?
*Now* you will know enough to be able to evaluate the significance of the
similarities you see between Polynesia and the Americas. But you will have
had to do a lot of real work.
-Tony West
Philadelphia aaw...@critpath.org
Yuri Kuchinsky
: On 15 Dec 1998 16:40:06 GMT, yu...@globalserve.net (Yuri Kuchinsky)
: wrote:
: Enough people know enough about them to positively exclude the
: possibility that any of them are Austronesian.
Please provide some refs for publications in which this possibility has
been examined adequately and excluded.
: >There's something wrong with this picture. To see similarities in art and
: >traditions is a lot simpler,
: Too simple, in fact. Similarities in art and tradition mean nothing,
To those who are blind, surely.
: just like similarities between languages, of the Hill-Tout kind, are
: entirely meaningless.
To those who are biased?
...
: >It is my belief that some NW Coast Indian languages will be found to
: >belong to the Austronesian language group.
: "Please keep in mind that this discussion is cross-posted to some sci
: groups. We like to see posters present some basis for their
: assertions."
Miguel has well-known problems with reading comprehension. He failed to
absorb my explanation that followed:
"Because in the real world, ocean currents also should indicate the likely
direction of human migrations."
Also Miguel is apparently disconnected from the real world.
Try to read my post again, Miguel, maybe it will work better this time?
Regards,
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"