Easter Island, Gallapagos and the South American mainland
Steve Whittet
>> ...evidence
>>...that there were contacts
>>...between the Easter Island and the South American mainland
Anyone familiar with the literature could quote quite a long list
of references to such contact
"An Ancient World Preserved, Relics and Records of Prehistory in the Andes"
Frederic Andre Engel, Crown, New York, 1976,ISBN: D-517-518740
Here are a few from a reasonably academic treatise on prehistory
in the Andes.
p 16
"Pre Columbian pottery has been found in the Galapagos and
it is difficult not to make comparisons between certain
South American statues and those of Easter island, as
between the polyhedral walls of Cuzco and those of the
Marquesa Islands."
"The Falkland Islands facing Argentina 250 miles offshore have
been known since 1591 but they were apparently unpopulated.
However Louis Antoinne de Bouganville points out the presence
of a fox dog reminiscent of the yellowish dog I have found
in pre Columbian graves. These dog bodies should be studied further"
>>...the culture of the earliest Easter Island peoples
>>...affinity with the pre-Inca Tiahuanaco civilization
>>...manioc (Manihot), also known as cassava,
>>...a very useful crop plant native to S. America. It is a tropical
>> tuber propagated by stem cuttings, and it was domesticated by Amerindians
>> in ancient times.
>> First, a little about history. As far as we know, Easter Island was first
>> visited by the Europeans on Easter Day 1722, by the Dutch. It seems that
>> the native society was flourishing at that time. The population was large,
>> seemingly multiracial, and peaceful. Although the Dutch only spent one day
>> on the island, they managed to get into some sort of trouble and shoot a
>> few natives before they left.
>> The next visit came by the Spanish nearly 50 years later, in 1770. The
>> viceroy of Peru, Don Manuel de Amat, sent out an expedition of two ships
>> under the command of Felipe Gonzalez y Haedo to look for the mysterious
>> island reported by the Dutch. Gonzalez claimed the island for Spain. His
>> expedition spent 6 days on the island, and they left detailed records of
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> what they found there.
>
>How much archaeological, anthropological, and botanical research were
>the Spanish able to accomplish in 6 days?
>>
>>...fishing in the area was very poor.
>>...sustenance ...from agriculture,
>>...Gonzalez told us, the islanders cultivated _yuka_.
>>...The word yuka is the term for manioc in various indigenous
>> languages of Peru and other Central and South American countries, and
>> this plant was surely known to Gonzalez very well.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
>Come on, are you sure a Spanish naval officer could tell the difference,
>between yuka or taro?
p 27
"Among the plants with rhizomes, roots and tubers, let me mention several
species of potato-the sweet potato, manioc or cassava, jiquima (a rhizome)
and ullucu."
"Useful fibrous plants abound Cotton has been used for at least
five or six thousand years in the Andes"
>>
>> ...Thor Heyerdahl...EASTER ISLAND: THE MYSTERY SOLVED, 1989:
>>
>> "...documents of the Gonzalez expedition ...translated into English
>>...published by ...Bolton G. Corney in 1908, ...finding a reference
>>...to S. American yuca on Easter Island prior to European influence,
>>...he concealed or obfuscated the evidence of manioc.
>>...the word yuca...as "taro";...untranslated, ...erroneous footnotes
>>...1986...a Spanish scholar Francisco Mellen Blanco
>>...documents from the Gonzalez expedition,
>>...in 1988 Robert Langdon of the Australian National University
>>...in THE GEOGRAPHIC JOURNAL a paper entitled MANIOC: A
>> LONG-CONCEALED KEY TO THE ENIGMA OF EASTER ISLAND [Geogr. Journ. 154, #
>> 3(Nov. 1988), pp. 324-336, London]. According to Langdon, Corney in his
>> translation acted as he did because, in the climate of his times, he
>> simply could not believe that manioc could have reached Easter Island
>> prior to European influence. Langdon's conclusion was that the fact that
>> manioc was clearly reported as cultivated on that Polynesian island in
>> 1770 'greatly strengthens the case for prehistoric American Indian
>> influence on Easter Island and other islands of eastern Polynesia'". (p.
>> 31)
>>
>> To me, this seems like undeniable historical evidence.
>> And furthermore, manioc certainly doesn't stand alone in this case. Other
>> cultivated plants described by first European visitors, such as the sweet
>> potato, the main crop on Easter Island from ancient times,
>
>Was it? There is an Asian root ctop, not related to, but similar to,
>the sweet potato. They are still prefered, in Asia, to sweet potatos
>(thoigh Asians seem to like both. They taste about the same, but the
>flesh is drier. I don't know the name, but I've eaten enough, of them.
"Julian Steward goes as far as to admit that cotton, calabashes
and corn would have entered america as the result of a trans oceanic
migration. He goives examples of objects whose appearance in Asia and
the new World is not easily attributable to a multilineal evolution.
Maces of polished stone, blow guns used to shoot poisoned arrows,
fabriks with a negative decoration or batik, to cite only three examples,
can only be products of a diffusion in the Americas resulting from a
migration from southern Asia."
>Assertions do not constitute certainty.
p 47
"Only a blind man or a person of bad faith could deny the southern
asiatic traits visible in Maya art, the indonesian reminiscences in
the architecture and decoration of Central America and even in the
Chavin society in Peru."
p52 [speaking of languagegroups]"Southern Andean"
"This group includes Atacaman,Diaguite,Huamahnaca,Charrua,
Huarpe,Aruacan, Chono, Puelche, Het, Tehuelche, Yahgan, Alacaluf
(considered by Rivet to be an Ausatralian language) and Ona"
p 124
"After Tello. various authors studied the problem. Several of them
see Chavin as the product of a foreign immigration to peru but each
suggests a different center, one saying South Asian, another China
under the Chou Dynasty."
P 125
Finally I should point out (as Covarrubias did) that I noted resemblances
upon looking closely at the decorative themes of Chavin and of Chou bronzes
from China"
>>
>> Best regards,
>>
>> Yuri.
>...maritime Incas sailing, to Easter Island and beyond (Melanesia),
>...and returning,
p 244
"Opposite Guayaquil on Puna Island there existed a heavily defended place
that the Spanish had a hard time destroying. According to Augustin de Zarate
"The Puna were rich, warlike and socially well organized, they used 'balsas',
rafts made of straw and the trunks of very light tropical trees, which could
transport 50 men and three horses, on their island was a temple with a
formidible idol."
p245
"Finally let us not forget that the Andes are flanked far out
in the Pacific by Easter Island. It was already populated when
it was invaded by immigrants from Polynesia. It must have formed
an early bridge between Asia and South America."
>javw
>
steve
Peter van Rossum
In article <6108cv$p...@fridge.shore.net> whi...@shore.net (Steve Whittet) writes:
<snip>
>"Julian Steward goes as far as to admit that cotton, calabashes
>and corn would have entered america as the result of a trans oceanic
>migration. He goives examples of objects whose appearance in Asia and
>the new World is not easily attributable to a multilineal evolution.
>Maces of polished stone, blow guns used to shoot poisoned arrows,
>fabriks with a negative decoration or batik, to cite only three examples,
>can only be products of a diffusion in the Americas resulting from a
>migration from southern Asia."
>steve
Jesus christ you're relying on out of date info aren't you? While in my
opinion Julian Steward was at the forefront of archaeological theory he was
just plain incorrect about cotton or maize having entered the New World by a
human transoceanic crossing. Both have New World origins and did not rely
on humans to carry them across. I personally pointed this out to you at least
1 1/2 ago and gave you the specific references which refute the case of cotton
(these have also been supplied in recent times by Bernard).
With regard to the blow gun, it has also been demonstrated that the poisons
used in the Americas are poisons indigenous to the Americas - again the
independent invention scenario is better supported than the diffusion
hypothesis. If South Americans could figure out the process to make toxic
manioc a highly prized food crop, I have little doubt they could figure out
how to batik a piece of cloth or make a polished stone mace.
But in the future how about you at least edit out the portions of your post
which have been conclusively demonstrated to be false. But that seems to be a
common tactic here - supply a laundry list and then when certain things are
shown to be false the general response is - "but what about the others?"
That's just an unscientific strategy designed to impress the uninformed.
Peter van Rossum
PMV...@PSU.EDU
Steve Whittet
In article <pmv100.16...@psu.edu>, pmv...@psu.edu says...
>>..."Julian Steward
>>...that cotton, calabashes and corn would have entered america
>>...as the result of a trans oceanic migration.
>>...examples of objects whose appearance in Asia and the new World
>>...is not easily attributable to a multilineal evolution.
>>...Maces of polished stone,
>>...blow guns used to shoot poisoned arrows,
>>...fabriks with a negative decoration or batik, to cite only three examples,
>>...can only be products of a diffusion in the Americas
>>...resulting from a migration from southern Asia."
><snip>
>>steve
>
>...out of date info.
>...Julian Steward was at the forefront of archaeological theory
>...he was just plain incorrect about cotton or maize
>...having entered the New World by a human transoceanic crossing.
>Both have New World origins and did not rely on humans to carry them across.
All of the above cites from Engles were old news when his book was published
26 years ago. The point was that it was probably among the primary sources
Heyerdahl's research would have relied on.
>I personally pointed this out to you at least
>1 1/2 ago and gave you the specific references
>which refute the case of cotton
I recall our discussing it and some evidence being presented for
both points of view. I had not realised the issue had been resolved
in your favor.
Engles claims to have found cotton associated with burials dating
back 8,000 years. That is certainly a bit early for human
transoceanic crossings. The issue wasn't just the presence of cotton
however, but which species of cotton were found where and when.
Giving you that some some species of cotton were indiginous to the
New World, that doesn't prove that all species of cotton were
indiginous to the New World, and that is where the issue lies.
>
>(these have also been supplied in recent times by Bernard).
But of course :)
>
>With regard to the blow gun, it has also been demonstrated that the poisons
>used in the Americas are poisons indigenous to the Americas - again the
>independent invention scenario is better supported than the diffusion
>hypothesis.
What do the poisons used have to do with the concept of the blowgun as
a weapon? How come it wasn't independently invented in Europe? There
were plenty of poisons in Europe, were Europeans incapable of coming
up with the idea, or is it that not every idea is everywhere
independently invented?
>If South Americans could figure out the process to make toxic
>manioc a highly prized food crop, I have little doubt they could figure out
>how to batik a piece of cloth or make a polished stone mace.
How come Europeans didn't figure this out?
>
>...how about you at least edit out the portions of your post
>which have been conclusively demonstrated to be false.
If and when such an unlikely event occurs I shall be sure to
give you full credit for the suggestion...:)
>But that seems to be a common tactic here - supply a laundry list
>and then when certain things are shown to be false the general
>response is - "but what about the others?"
I actually think that's pretty fair Peter. Any one of these things
which defies the disbelief of such careful skeptics as are found
in these parts probably ought to be considered bombproof.
How would you catagorize just going "No, No, No" first and then
checking the facts afterward as was the case with the discussion
of C.Moneta?
>...an unscientific strategy designed to impress the uninformed.
Exactly.
>
>Peter van Rossum
steve
James Adrian van Wyk
Steve Whittet wrote:
>
> >> ...evidence
> >>...that there were contacts
> >>...between the Easter Island and the South American mainland
>
> Anyone familiar with the literature could quote quite a long list
> of references to such contact
>
QUOTE ONE RELIABLE!
> "An Ancient World Preserved, Relics and Records of Prehistory in the Andes"
> Frederic Andre Engel, Crown, New York, 1976,ISBN: D-517-518740
>
> Here are a few from a reasonably academic treatise on prehistory
> in the Andes.
>
> p 16
>
> "Pre Columbian pottery has been found in the Galapagos
BY WHO?
and
> it is difficult not to make comparisons between certain
> South American statues and those of Easter island,
YES COMPARE THEY DO NOT LOOK ALIKE!
as
> between the polyhedral walls of Cuzco and those of the
> Marquesa Islands."
A POLHEDRON IS A COMMON GEOMETRIC SHAPE, WHAT ELSE WOULD YOU EXPECT?
>
> "The Falkland Islands facing Argentina 250 miles offshore have
> been known since 1591 but they were apparently unpopulated.
> However Louis Antoinne de Bouganville points out the presence
> of a fox dog reminiscent of the yellowish dog I have found
> in pre Columbian graves. These dog bodies should be studied further"
THE FAULKLAND ISLANDS LIE, TO THE EAST, OF SOUTH AMERICA.
ARE YOU IMPLYING THAT THE INCAS OR PRE-INCAS ROUNDED THE HORN, IN BALSA
RAFTS?
>
> >>...the culture of the earliest Easter Island peoples
> >>...affinity with the pre-Inca Tiahuanaco civilization
WHAT AFINITY?
THAT DOESN'T MEAN HE COULD TELL SOUTH AMERICAN FROM ASIAN PLANTS>
COTTON IS A PLANT THAT HAD BOTH OLD WORLD AND NEW WORLD VARIETIES.
>
> >>
> >> ...Thor Heyerdahl...EASTER ISLAND: THE MYSTERY SOLVED, 1989:
> >>
> >> "...documents of the Gonzalez expedition ...translated into English
> >>...published by ...Bolton G. Corney in 1908, ...finding a reference
> >>...to S. American yuca on Easter Island prior to European influence,
> >>...he concealed or obfuscated the evidence of manioc.
>
> >>...the word yuca...as "taro";...untranslated, ...erroneous footnotes
> >>...1986...a Spanish scholar Francisco Mellen Blanco
> >>...documents from the Gonzalez expedition,
> >>...in 1988 Robert Langdon of the Australian National University
> >>...in THE GEOGRAPHIC JOURNAL a paper entitled MANIOC: A
> >> LONG-CONCEALED KEY TO THE ENIGMA OF EASTER ISLAND [Geogr. Journ. 154, #
>
WHAT's THIS ENIGMA? DECLARE AN ENIGMA, THEN DECLARE AN ANSWER?
> >> 3(Nov. 1988), pp. 324-336, London]. According to Langdon, Corney in his
> >> translation acted as he did because, in the climate of his times, he
> >> simply could not believe that manioc could have reached Easter Island
IT MOST PROBABLY DIDN'T BEFORE EUROPEANS.
> >> prior to European influence. Langdon's conclusion was that the fact that
> >> manioc was clearly reported as cultivated on that Polynesian island in
> >> 1770 'greatly strengthens the case for prehistoric American Indian
> >> influence on Easter Island and other islands of eastern Polynesia'". (p.
> >> 31)
WAS IT? WHY?
> >>
> >> To me, this seems like undeniable historical evidence.
WHAT EVIDENCE? BACKWARDS POSTULATION, FROM WHAT WIULD LEAD< TO
DIFFERENT CONCEPTS FOREWARD. START WITH THE ANSWER WANTED AND SELECT
WHAT CAN BE INTERPRETED, TO SUPPORT THE ANSWER, EVEN USING
INTERPRETATIONS, THAT WOULD NOT BE CONSIDERED MOST LIKELY, IF WORKING
FOREWARD.
>
> >> And furthermore, manioc certainly doesn't stand alone in this case. Other
> >> cultivated plants described by first European visitors, such as the sweet
> >> potato, the main crop on Easter Island from ancient times,
> >
> >Was it? There is an Asian root ctop, not related to, but similar to,
> >the sweet potato. They are still prefered, in Asia, to sweet potatos
> >(thoigh Asians seem to like both. They taste about the same, but the
> >flesh is drier. I don't know the name, but I've eaten enough, of them.
>
> "Julian Steward goes as far as to admit that cotton, calabashes
> and corn
would have entered america as the result of a trans oceanic
> migration.
CORN (MAIZE) IS A NEW WORLD PLANT, UNKNOWN IN ASIA, AFRICA, EUROPE,
OCEANIA, ON PRECOLUMBIAN TIMES. COTTON HAS @ SUB-SPECIES, 1 of them,
NEW WORLD.
He goives examples of objects whose appearance in Asia and
> the new World is not easily attributable to a multilineal evolution.
> Maces of polished stone,
This is a non-proof.
blow guns used to shoot poisoned arrows,
Do we now have stone age peoples, of the Amazon, Irian, & the interior,
of Asrica exchanging ideas and weapons around the World? Silly.
Easier to figure 3 peoples, in the World, noticed that things could be
propelled, by breath wind.
> fabriks with a negative decoration or batik, to cite only three examples,
What do you mean, by negative decoration?
# NON-EXAMPLES, OF NOTHING.
> can only be products of a diffusion in the Americas resulting from a
> migration from southern Asia."
WHY?
>
> >Assertions do not constitute certainty.
>
MORE ASSERTIONS!
> p 47
>
> "Only a blind man or a person of bad faith could deny the southern
> asiatic traits visible in Maya art, the indonesian reminiscences in
> the architecture and decoration of Central America and even in the
> Chavin society in Peru."
I'm not blind; I'm somewhat familiar with Pre-columbian art and
architecture; I lived in Indonesia ad am quite familiar with the art and
architecture; the resemblances are not significant. The development, in
both locations, can be traced in their respective continents, without
diffusion (across the Pacific; there certainly was a great amount, of
diffusion, within Asia).
>
> p52 [speaking of languagegroups]"Southern Andean"
>
> "This group includes Atacaman,Diaguite,Huamahnaca,Charrua,
> Huarpe,Aruacan, Chono, Puelche, Het, Tehuelche, Yahgan, Alacaluf
> (considered by Rivet to be an Ausatralian language) and Ona"
>
Considered by Rivet, and who else? No one? Yuri? Yuri & you?
> p 124
>
> "After Tello. various authors studied the problem. Several of them
> see Chavin as the product of a foreign immigration to peru but each
> suggests a different center, one saying South Asian, another China
> under the Chou Dynasty."
WHY?
>
> P 125
>
> Finally I should point out (as Covarrubias did) that I noted resemblances
> upon looking closely at the decorative themes of Chavin and of Chou bronzes
> from China"
WHAT RESEMBLANCES?
> >>
> >> Best regards,
> >>
> >> Yuri.
>
> >...maritime Incas sailing, to Easter Island and beyond (Melanesia),
> >...and returning,
>
> p 244
>
> "Opposite Guayaquil on Puna Island there existed a heavily defended place
> that the Spanish had a hard time destroying. According to Augustin de Zarate
> "The Puna were rich, warlike and socially well organized, they used 'balsas',
> rafts made of straw and the trunks of very light tropical trees, which could
> transport 50 men and three horses, on their island was a temple with a
> formidible idol."
Puna Island is not Easter Island. The sailing problem is many orders of
magnitude less. Irrelevant!
>
> p245
>
> "Finally let us not forget that the Andes are flanked far out
> in the Pacific by Easter Island. It was already populated when
> it was invaded by immigrants from Polynesia. It must have formed
> an early bridge between Asia and South America."
>
This is silly. Easter Island isn't just off the coast.
A somewhat possible, if very unlikely, stepping stone, for an occasional
foray East, from Polynesia or Asia, to South America, but not the other
way.
> >javw
> >
>
> steve
Your back up seems to be mainly quoting Yuri. Still no proof, only
selective interpretation, of a few things, either out, of context, or or
of less than reliable sources. Yuri and his followers always mention,
all those "(contacts, voyages, this, that, whatever)", but can't or will
not name and substantiate any specific case.
Rare contact Asia and/or Polynesia to South America is hot adequately
documented, but is reasonably possible.
Intentional contact South America to Asia and/or Polynesia is wildly
improbable; any contact is unlikely, but a lost rafter might have
drifted into Polynesia, one can't say either way.
The vegetable stories prove nothing, as the early ones do not come, from
sources, that could be expected, to tell the difference between South
American vegetables and unrelated Asian, but similar vegetables (that
fill the same niches, in their respective source continents).
Easter Island is too far, from South America, for cultures without deep
sea going vessels to reach intentionally. They also would not know it
was there without prior exploration, which they had no vessels for.
The rafts were suitable, for Andean lakes. They might be usable, with
risk and unreliability, as coasters. I can't imagine anyone
intentionally setting out into the unknown on a balsa raft; the Incas,
etc. were not fools. Thor Heyerdahl almost didn't make it; he knew
Easter Island, etc, were there, he had modern navigation and
communication equipment, he had adequate modern provisions, and he had a
seaworthy ship, with cammera crews, on it following and filming the
trip.
This entire thread has gotten too silly, for words; neithe I, nor the
other voices, of sense, seem to be able to bring it, to reason.
javw
James Adrian van Wyk
Peter van Rossum wrote:
>
> In article <6108cv$p...@fridge.shore.net> whi...@shore.net (Steve Whittet) writes:
> <snip>
> >and corn would have entered america as the result of a trans oceanic
> >migration. He goives examples of objects whose appearance in Asia and
> >the new World is not easily attributable to a multilineal evolution.
> >Maces of polished stone, blow guns used to shoot poisoned arrows,
> >fabriks with a negative decoration or batik, to cite only three examples,
> >can only be products of a diffusion in the Americas resulting from a
> >migration from southern Asia."
> >steve
>
> Jesus christ you're relying on out of date info aren't you? While in my
> just plain incorrect about cotton or maize having entered the New World by a
> human transoceanic crossing. Both have New World origins and did not rely
> 1 1/2 ago and gave you the specific references which refute the case of cotton
>
> used in the Americas are poisons indigenous to the Americas - again the
> independent invention scenario is better supported than the diffusion
> manioc a highly prized food crop, I have little doubt they could figure out
> how to batik a piece of cloth or make a polished stone mace.
>
> which have been conclusively demonstrated to be false. But that seems to be a
> common tactic here - supply a laundry list and then when certain things are
> shown to be false the general response is - "but what about the others?"
>
> Peter van Rossum
> PMV...@PSU.EDU
Right on!
javw
Peter van Rossum
In article <pmv100.16...@psu.edu> pmv...@psu.edu (Peter van Rossum) writes:
>As you can see from my old response to you (which I post at the end of this
>message),
Whoops forgot to insert said message, here it is:
Subject: Re: Cotton in South America
From: pmv...@psu.edu (Peter van Rossum)
Date: 1995/09/29
Message-Id: <pmv100.4...@psu.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.archaeology
In earlier posts Whittet used cotton as a piece of evidence indicating
significant cultural contacts between the Polynesians and South America.
This is a response to those posts.
Cotton of the world belongs to a group of approximately 50 species of plants
of the genus Gossypium L. Within the genus Gossypium there are 7 different
genome types of diploid species (n=13), and a group of 5 tetraploid species
(2n=26). The 7 diploid genome types are A-Genome, B-Genome,..., G-Genome;
while the tetraploid types are of the AD-Genome (Reinisch et al. 1994).
All the AD-Genome tetraploid types evolved within the New World, and within
these tetraploid types are two species, Gossypium Barbadense and Gossypium
Hirsutum, which have a history of being domesticated for at least 5000 years
(Damp & Pearsall 1994, Wendel & Albert 1992).
The AD-Genome tetraploids seem to be the result of a hybridization event
between species of the A-Genome and the D-Genome. The reason why this has
been used as an example of contact between the Old and New Worlds is that
the D-Genome types are found only in the New World while the A-Genome types
are found only in the Old World (Wendel 1989). Therefore New World
domesticated cottons are the result of a cross between Old World and New
World plants.
At first this might seem like strong evidence of contact but on closer
inspection this likelihood fades quickly. Based on a genetic analysis of
A-Genome, D-Genome and AD-Genome species, it has been estimated that the
time of the hybridization event was approximately 1.1-1.9 million years
ago (Wendel 1989:4135, Reinisch et al. 1994:829).
This means that if humans were the cause of the genetic mixing it would
have been Homo Erectus populations who were the cause of the cross-breeding.
I don't think any reasonable person would argue that this is possible (then
again this is the internet). A more likely scenario is reconstructed by
Wendel & Albert, who note that Gossypium seems to show a number
of independent dispersal events which "suggest a common dispersal mechanism
of oceanic drift" (Wendel & Albert 1992:138).
Peter van Rossum
PMV...@PSUVM.PSU.EDU
Damp, Jonathan E. & Deborah M. Pearsall
1994 "Early Cotton from Coastal Ecuador," Economic Botany 48(2):163-165.
Reinisch, Alesia J., Jian-min Dong, Curt Brubaker, David Stelly, Jonathan
Wendel & Andrew Paterson
1994 "A Detailed RFLP Map of Cotton, Gossypium Hirsutum X Gossypium
Barbadense: Chromosome Organization and Evolution in a Disomic
Polyploid Genome," Genetics 138:829-847.
Wendel, Jonathan F.
1989 "New World Tetraploid Cottons Contain Old World Cytoplasm,"
Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, USA 86:4132-4136.
Wendel, Jonathan F. & Victor A. Albert
1992 "Phylogenetics of the Cotton Genus (Gossypium): Character-State
Weighted Parsimony Analysis of Chloroplast-DNA Restriction Site Data
and Its Systematic and Biogeographic Implications," Systematic
Botany 17(1):115-143.
Peter van Rossum
In article <611an8$3...@fridge.shore.net> whi...@shore.net (Steve Whittet) writes:
>In article <pmv100.16...@psu.edu>, pmv...@psu.edu says...
>>
>>In article <6108cv$p...@fridge.shore.net> whi...@shore.net (Steve Whittet) wri
>>tes:
>><snip>
>>>..."Julian Steward
>>>...that cotton, calabashes and corn would have entered america
>>>...as the result of a trans oceanic migration.
>>>...examples of objects whose appearance in Asia and the new World
>>>...is not easily attributable to a multilineal evolution.
>>>...Maces of polished stone,
>>>...blow guns used to shoot poisoned arrows,
>>>...fabriks with a negative decoration or batik, to cite only three examples,
>>>...can only be products of a diffusion in the Americas
>>>...resulting from a migration from southern Asia."
>><snip>
>>>steve
>>
>>...out of date info.
>>...Julian Steward was at the forefront of archaeological theory
>>...he was just plain incorrect about cotton or maize
>>...having entered the New World by a human transoceanic crossing.
>
>>Both have New World origins and did not rely on humans to carry them across.
>
>All of the above cites from Engles were old news when his book was published
>26 years ago. The point was that it was probably among the primary sources
>Heyerdahl's research would have relied on.
>
>>I personally pointed this out to you at least
>>1 1/2 ago and gave you the specific references
>>which refute the case of cotton
>
>I recall our discussing it and some evidence being presented for
>both points of view. I had not realised the issue had been resolved
>in your favor.
>
>Engles claims to have found cotton associated with burials dating
>back 8,000 years. That is certainly a bit early for human
>transoceanic crossings. The issue wasn't just the presence of cotton
>however, but which species of cotton were found where and when.
>
>Giving you that some some species of cotton were indiginous to the
>New World, that doesn't prove that all species of cotton were
>indiginous to the New World, and that is where the issue lies.
I guess you never did understand the real thesis of the "cotton indicates
contact" claim. Fact is that cotton belongs to the genus Gossypium. Some
forms of Gossypium are native to the New World and others to the Old. The
interesting thing is that there are certain species which were made from a
cross of an Old and a New World variant. Get it?
It means that two plants from opposite sides of the ocean crossbred, that's
why many used to think this was a definite indicator of human agency. As you
can see from my old response to you (which I post at the end of this message),
recent research indicates this cross occurred some 1-2 million years ago. I
think even you would agree that if this timing is evenly remotely correct then
it is too early to be due to human agency. Now do you understand why the case
of cotton is not a good indicator of contact.
Are you also aware that maize is a New World crop, not an Old World crop? If
not, then you haven't the slightest clue of what you are talking about. If
you do know it's an Old World crop then it should be apparent to even you that
Steward was wrong when he lists it among the indicators of diffusion from the
Old World to the New - it was already f****ing here! Get it?
>>With regard to the blow gun, it has also been demonstrated that the poisons
>>used in the Americas are poisons indigenous to the Americas - again the
>>independent invention scenario is better supported than the diffusion
>>hypothesis.
>
>What do the poisons used have to do with the concept of the blowgun as
>a weapon?
Uh, the only reason a blowgun works is because they use it with poison-tipped
darts. Without a poison-tipped dart all a blowgun is, is a hollow tube with
an completely non-lethal projectile inside (more akin to shooting spitballs in
a grade school class than killing animals). I think even you would agree that
it takes no great leap of imagination to figure out that you can blow
something out a hollow tube, the hard part is figuring out how to make a
poison that turns it into a weapon. Get it?
>How come it wasn't independently invented in Europe?
Don't know for sure, maybe it was a different environmental setting?
>There were plenty of poisons in Europe, were Europeans incapable of coming
>up with the idea, or is it that not every idea is everywhere
>independently invented?
Hey maybe you are catching on after all. Just 'cause a group could invent
something doesn't mean they necessarily will. Then again just 'cause two
groups do have something, it doesn't necesssarily follow that it wasn't
independently invented by both.
>>If South Americans could figure out the process to make toxic
>>manioc a highly prized food crop, I have little doubt they could figure out
>>how to batik a piece of cloth or make a polished stone mace.
>
>How come Europeans didn't figure this out?
Gee, well the Europeans sure figured out how to make lots of other nifty
little polished stone tools. But you're probably right, its too hard to
believe that people in South Asia and in South America could both come up with
the idea to make a polished stone mace and batik cloth? And by the way, how's
come these Old World folks neglected to bring metal tools along with them?
>>...how about you at least edit out the portions of your post
>>which have been conclusively demonstrated to be false.
>
>If and when such an unlikely event occurs I shall be sure to
>give you full credit for the suggestion...:)
I'll thank you in advance for at least having the common sense to drop the
idea that maize and cotton were brought to the New World from the Old by
transoceanic visitors.
>>But that seems to be a common tactic here - supply a laundry list
>>and then when certain things are shown to be false the general
>>response is - "but what about the others?"
>
>I actually think that's pretty fair Peter. Any one of these things
>which defies the disbelief of such careful skeptics as are found
>in these parts probably ought to be considered bombproof.
Well then how about you pick one out of the list and give a convincing proof
of why said piece of evidence is a definite indicator of contact. See in the
scientific method its up to you to present your case not me to refute one that
you haven't specified in any sufficient manner.
>How would you catagorize just going "No, No, No" first and then
>checking the facts afterward as was the case with the discussion
>of C.Moneta?
You mean is the case with C. Moneta? People didn't just say "no, no no" they
raised well specified valid questions such as "how can we be sure that the
shell was actually an Old World variety rather than a misidentification of an
indigenous species." Also as even you pointed out even if they do turn out to
be of an Old World origin that doesn't rule out the possibility of a very long
down the line transmission route rather than indicating that a boat load of
Old Worlders sailed across the ocean and carried it to the Southeastern U.S.
And just so we get it straight the people doing the most research on this
topic are the scientists not folks like yourself. Oh and by the way, given
thought to my suggestion that you set up a fund to pay for someone to do the
work that you're too lazy to do yourself?
>>...an unscientific strategy designed to impress the uninformed.
>>Peter van Rossum
>
>Exactly.
>steve
Good at least were on agreement with one thing about your "research strategy".
Peter van Rossum
PMV...@PSU.EDU
James Adrian van Wyk
Steve Whittet wrote:
>
> In article <611jos$i...@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net>, jimv...@worldnet.att.net says...
> >
> >Steve Whittet wrote:
> >>
> >> >> ...evidence
> >> >>...that there were contacts
> >> >>...between the Easter Island and the South American mainland
> >>
> >> Anyone familiar with the literature could quote quite a long list
> >> of references to such contact
> >>
> >
> >QUOTE ONE RELIABLE!
>
I know it's bad form, but with Yuri, I don't care.
> the cite you require was both given and quoted.
> >
> >>"An Ancient World Preserved, Relics and Records of Prehistory in the Andes"
> >>Frederic Andre Engel, Crown, New York, 1976,ISBN: D-517-518740
> >>
> Here are a few from a reasonably academic treatise on prehistory
> in the Andes.
> >>
> >> p 16
> >>
> >> "Pre Columbian pottery has been found in the Galapagos
> >
> >
> >BY WHO?
>
> Engles, In his book he discusses some 51 sites where he has excavated graves
Were they really precolumbian? Those before him, found nobody & no
trace, of past occupancy. See past posts, by half a dozen other people.
Ai least you could come up, with something, more than Yuri managed.
> and compared the results.
> >
> >
> >> and it is difficult not to make comparisons between certain
> >> South American statues and those of Easter island,
> >
> >
> >YES COMPARE THEY DO NOT LOOK ALIKE!
> You are welcome to your opinion. Engles is a specialist in the cultures
> of the Andes. He finds the similarities are notable.
What similarities? From what direction did he approach it. Did he
start with his answer and work back, with selected findings?
>
> Your specificity makes clear your familiarity with the topic.
> >
> >> as between the polyhedral walls of Cuzco and those of the
> >> Marquesa Islands."
> >
> >A POLHEDRON IS A COMMON GEOMETRIC SHAPE, WHAT ELSE WOULD YOU EXPECT?
>
> I would expect you to realise that architectural styles involve more
> than the shape of the stones used. Methods of coursing and bonding,
> dimensions, proportions, types of joinery and keys are all a part
> of the similarity.
With stone masonry there are relatively few choices. Tell that to the
uninitiated, not to an engineer, who has designed stone masonry. The
only regional unique type, of stone masonry, I know of, is a type used,
for retaining walls, in Northeast Asia. Jist, from the limited choices,
you find similar everywhere.
> >
> >>
> >> "The Falkland Islands facing Argentina 250 miles offshore have
> >> been known since 1591 but they were apparently unpopulated.
> >> However Louis Antoinne de Bouganville points out the presence
> >> of a fox dog reminiscent of the yellowish dog I have found
> >> in pre Columbian graves. These dog bodies should be studied further"
> >
> >THE FAULKLAND ISLANDS LIE, TO THE EAST, OF SOUTH AMERICA.
> >ARE YOU IMPLYING THAT THE INCAS OR PRE-INCAS ROUNDED THE HORN, IN BALSA
> >RAFTS?
>
> Engles discusses sites on and adjacent to the continent of South America,
> many of which involve inhabited islands considerable distances out to
> sea such as the Galapagos,
Uninhabited till post-columbian times.
Tierra del Fuego,
Not that far & off the South coast.
the islands of the
> Carribean
I was the one that pointed out that the Awarks & Caribs had some sea
going ability; the Caribian & Gulf of Mexico were their home. They are
not, though the open ocean.
and Easter Island.
That is the point, the Polynesians were the ones who reached it, and
from islands, to the West, not South Americans, from the mainland, to
the East. That's where this thread started. You are into circular
reasoning.
The Falklands were mentioned because
> their fauna are related to species found in precolumbian burials.
>
> >> >>...the culture of the earliest Easter Island peoples
> >> >>...affinity with the pre-Inca Tiahuanaco civilization
> >
> >WHAT AFINITY?
>
> Some of those mentioned (By the above poster and by Engels)
> are flora, fauna, pottery, architecture, dna, graves, and
> varous fiber arts.
> >
> >>
Flora no. Fauna no. DNA no. The rest no. Everything that was gone
through, and discredited long ago, on this thread. This stuff keeps
coming around.
> >> >>...manioc (Manihot), also known as cassava,
> >> >>...a very useful crop plant native to S. America. It is a tropical
> >> >> tuber propagated by stem cuttings, and it was domesticated by Amerindians
> >> >> in ancient times.
> >>
> ...
> >>
> >> p 27
> >>
> >> "Among the plants with rhizomes, roots and tubers, let me mention several
> >> species of potato-the sweet potato, manioc or cassava, jiquima (a rhizome)
> >> and ullucu."
> >>
> >> "Useful fibrous plants abound Cotton has been used for at least
> >> five or six thousand years in the Andes"
> >
> >THAT DOESN'T MEAN HE COULD TELL SOUTH AMERICAN FROM ASIAN PLANTS>
> >COTTON IS A PLANT THAT HAD BOTH OLD WORLD AND NEW WORLD VARIETIES.
>
> The individual I cited discusses South American flora and its similarity
> to Asian flora. If you would like to know more about the similarities,
> read him for yourself.
>
> >> >>...the word yuca...as "taro";...untranslated, ...erroneous footnotes
> >> >>...1986...a Spanish scholar Francisco Mellen Blanco
> >> >>...documents from the Gonzalez expedition,
> >> >>...in 1988 Robert Langdon of the Australian National University
> >> >>...in THE GEOGRAPHIC JOURNAL a paper entitled MANIOC: A
> >> >> LONG-CONCEALED KEY TO THE ENIGMA OF EASTER ISLAND [Geogr. Journ. 154, #
> >>
> >
> >WHAT's THIS ENIGMA? DECLARE AN ENIGMA, THEN DECLARE AN ANSWER?
>
> It's the cite given by another poster to the title of Langdons publication.
>
Like what I said, someone declared an enigma, then declared an answer.
>
> >
> >> >> 3(Nov. 1988), pp. 324-336, London]. According to Langdon, Corney in his
> >> >> translation acted as he did because, in the climate of his times, he
> >> >> simply could not believe that manioc could have reached Easter Island
> >
> >IT MOST PROBABLY DIDN'T BEFORE EUROPEANS.
>
> That is not what the evidence before us indicates. Since you are now
> speculating in the face of the evidence, the burden of proof is on you.
> >
That is the point, there is no solid evidence, in that direction, with
loads, of it in the opposite. My speculation is that the bulk, of
reliable evidence, is probably close to what actually was. Fairly safe
speculation, though not definately provable.
> >> >> prior to European influence. Langdon's conclusion was that the fact that
> >> >> manioc was clearly reported as cultivated on that Polynesian island in
> >> >> 1770 'greatly strengthens the case for prehistoric American Indian
> >> >> influence on Easter Island and other islands of eastern Polynesia'". (p.
> >> >> 31)
>
> >WAS IT? WHY?
>
> The poster tells you why. Because Langdon, who researched the primary sources
> 3(Nov. 1988), pp. 324-336, London].and concluded "manioc was clearly
> reported as cultivated
> on that Polynesian island in 1770"
>
> >> >>
The primary source was a Spanish Naval Officer, who would not be a
reliable source, vs. all or virtually all other primary sources. This
was delt with.
> >> >> To me, this seems like undeniable historical evidence.
> >
> >WHAT EVIDENCE? BACKWARDS POSTULATION, FROM WHAT WIULD LEAD< TO
> >DIFFERENT CONCEPTS FOREWARD. START WITH THE ANSWER WANTED AND SELECT
> >WHAT CAN BE INTERPRETED, TO SUPPORT THE ANSWER, EVEN USING
> >INTERPRETATIONS, THAT WOULD NOT BE CONSIDERED MOST LIKELY, IF WORKING
> >FOREWARD.
>
> Engles provides collaborating evidence from his studies.
What about everyone else (except Heyerdahl)?
>
> >> >> And furthermore, manioc certainly doesn't stand alone in this case. Other
> >> >> cultivated plants described by first European visitors, such as the sweet
> >> >> potato, the main crop on Easter Island from ancient times,
> >> >
> >> >Was it? There is an Asian root ctop, not related to, but similar to,
> >> >the sweet potato. They are still prefered, in Asia, to sweet potatos
> >> >(thoigh Asians seem to like both. They taste about the same, but the
> >> >flesh is drier. I don't know the name, but I've eaten enough, of them.
> >>
> >> "Julian Steward goes as far as to admit that cotton, calabashes
> >> and corn would have entered america as the result of a trans oceanic
> >> migration.
> >
> >CORN (MAIZE) IS A NEW WORLD PLANT, UNKNOWN IN ASIA, AFRICA, EUROPE,
> >OCEANIA, ON PRECOLUMBIAN TIMES.
>
> Other discussion in this thread has shown that this assumption
> does not accurately reflect current thinking. Engles says that
> varieties of corn or maize along with other varieties of south
> amerian and asian flora have been found outside their original
> ranges as a result of trans oceanic migration according to
> Julian Steward.
>
Whose current thinking? Yuri's?
> > COTTON HAS @ SUB-SPECIES, 1 of them, NEW WORLD.
>
> The issue is pre-columbian Cotton found in the New World
> which is not of a native American species
>
Actually I understated, cotton has many species/subspecies, some old
world, some new world, and possibly some both. The cotton matter was
discussed in this and other threads. Read the threads.
> >
> >He gives examples of objects whose appearance in Asia and
> >> the new World is not easily attributable to a multilineal evolution.
> >
> >> Maces of polished stone,
> >
> >This is a non-proof.
> >
> >blow guns used to shoot poisoned arrows,
> >
> >Do we now have stone age peoples, of the Amazon, Irian, & the interior,
> >of Asrica exchanging ideas and weapons around the World? Silly.
> >Easier to figure 3 peoples, in the World, noticed that things could be
> >propelled, by breath wind.
>
> I am not familiar with the cultures of Irian and Asrica.
Irian is the name, of New Guinea. Asrica is a typo, for Africa.
I would agree with
> Engles that there is considerable evidence for the transoceanic diffusion
> of polished stone maces, blow guns and batik as well as the numerous
> other examples which have been cited.
> >
> >> fabriks with a negative decoration or batik, to cite only three examples,
> >
> >What do you mean, by negative decoration?
>
I'm very familiar with Batik, calling it negative decoration is new to
me.
> Engles, whom I am quoting, means a reverse positive or batik motif.
> >
> ># NON-EXAMPLES, OF NOTHING.
>
> The examples cited are well known. If you wish to dispute them,
> provide your evidence in rebuttal.
Your examples prove nothing, assertions are not proofs, of themself.
You are not presenting anything that would be high-tech, for 1 or 2
milenia ago. Nothing, that dependt upon unique principles, likely, to
be rarely noticed. The examples cited are not proofs, of themselves.
You are essentially saying they are proofs of themselves.
> >
> >
> >> can only be products of a diffusion in the Americas resulting from a
> >> migration from southern Asia."
> >
> >WHY?
> >>
> >> >Assertions do not constitute certainty.
> >>
> >MORE ASSERTIONS!
> >
> >> p 47
> >>
> >> "Only a blind man or a person of bad faith could deny the southern
> >> asiatic traits visible in Maya art, the indonesian reminiscences in
> >> the architecture and decoration of Central America and even in the
> >> Chavin society in Peru."
> >
> >I'm not blind; I'm somewhat familiar with Pre-columbian art and
> >architecture; I lived in Indonesia ad am quite familiar with the art and
> >architecture; the resemblances are not significant. The development, in
> >both locations, can be traced in their respective continents, without
> >diffusion (across the Pacific; there certainly was a great amount, of
> >diffusion, within Asia).
>
> Do you disagree with Engles that the Chavin society in Peru shares
> resemblances to Indonesian art and architecture? Why not read his book,
> then cite a few specific examples which he feels are similar but which
> you feel are different?
> >
Maybe their standards, of what constitutes similar, are very low. A
lot, of similarities can be found between lots of things, but that does
not necessarily indicate diffusion.
> >>
> >> p52 [speaking of languagegroups]"Southern Andean"
> >>
> >> "This group includes Atacaman,Diaguite,Huamahnaca,Charrua,
> >> Huarpe,Aruacan, Chono, Puelche, Het, Tehuelche, Yahgan, Alacaluf
> >> (considered by Rivet to be an Ausatralian language) and Ona"
> >>
> >Considered by Rivet, and who else? No one? Yuri? Yuri & you?
>
> Engles cites Rivet, I cited Engles.
> >
> >> p 124
> >>
> >> "After Tello. various authors studied the problem. Several of them
> >> see Chavin as the product of a foreign immigration to peru but each
> >> suggests a different center, one saying South Asian, another China
> >> under the Chou Dynasty."
> >
> >WHY?
>
> Because the pottery of the Chou Dynasty bears significant structural
> and stylistic similarity to the Chavin pottery Engles found in the Andes.
> To be more Specific the Dong Son bronze trade brought China into contact
> with southeast asia after the third millenium BC. By the 4th century BC
> huge 500 foot Chinese junks were crossing the Indian Ocean to trade
> with Africa.
> >
I did not deny the possibility, that a Chinese junk may have reached
South America, but a few visits, over a milenia would hardly have much
cultural impact. I also do not deny the possibility, of a occasional
Polynesian visit. I consider any regular trading, to be highly
improbable. As far as the opposite direction, is concerned, impossible,
with the maritime technology, of the West Coast of South America.
The trade routes, of the East Coast of Asia, Western Oceana, and the
Indian Ocean are a different matter, than trans-Pacific, by a few
orders, of magnitude. These trade routes worked in both directions,
from early times, but were largely coastal. The settling, of the
islands, well away, from shore, in the Indian Ocean, came late, in the
history, of Indian Ocean trade. Chinese ship technology was more than
adequate, for deep sea, so it can't be written off. That the Chinese,
during one period, had adequate ship technology, for deep sea voyages,
does not mean everything, with a vague similarity, to something Chinese,
is a result, of diffusion, via Chinese trade.
> >>
> >> P 125
> >>
> >> Finally I should point out (as Covarrubias did) that I noted resemblances
> >> upon looking closely at the decorative themes of Chavin and of Chou bronzes
> >> from China"
> >
> >WHAT RESEMBLANCES?]
>
> Engles goes on for some pages so I suggest you read the book, but
> for example p 122 he cites, "bases surounded by annular rings that were
> sometimes pierced at the side as in the perfume vessels of the far East."
>
> "Is it normal for an art and decorative themes to appear in a definitive,
> one is tempted to say classical form without archaeologists succeeding in
> finding somewhere in the vicinity (or even far away) villiages in which one
> can observe an evolutuion leading from the origins of this art to its
> developed forms?"
> >
> >
> >> >>
> >> >> Best regards,
> >> >>
> >> >> Yuri.
> >>
> >> >...maritime Incas sailing, to Easter Island and beyond (Melanesia),
> >> >...and returning,
> >>
> >> p 244
> >>
> >> "Opposite Guayaquil on Puna Island there existed a heavily defended place
> >> that the Spanish had a hard time destroying. According to Augustin de Zarate
> >> "The Puna were rich, warlike and socially well organized, they used 'balsas',
> >> rafts made of straw and the trunks of very light tropical trees, which could
> >> transport 50 men and three horses, on their island was a temple with a
> >> formidible idol."
> >
> >
> >Puna Island is not Easter Island. The sailing problem is many orders of
> >magnitude less. Irrelevant!
>
> Read the subject title.
The differences in sailing magnitude are not changed by a book.
>
> >> p245
> >>
> >> "Finally let us not forget that the Andes are flanked far out
> >> in the Pacific by Easter Island. It was already populated when
> >> it was invaded by immigrants from Polynesia. It must have formed
> >> an early bridge between Asia and South America."
> >>
> >
> >This is silly. Easter Island isn't just off the coast.
> >A somewhat possible, if very unlikely, stepping stone, for an occasional
> >foray East, from Polynesia or Asia, to South America, but not the other
> >way.
> >
> >
> >> >javw
> >> >
> >>
> >> steve
> >
> >
> >
> >Your back up seems to be mainly quoting Yuri.
>
> Wrong. The entire post was composed of quotes from Engles.
> ...
> >Rare contact Asia and/or Polynesia to South America is hot adequately
> >documented, but is reasonably possible.
> >
> >Intentional contact South America to Asia and/or Polynesia is wildly
> >improbable; any contact is unlikely, but a lost rafter might have
> >drifted into Polynesia, one can't say either way.
>
> Then why argue against the evidence?
You and Yuri haven't presented any good evidence, and only a little
so-so evidence vs. the preponderance the other way. Also what is
technically feasible, can be determined, by technology. Always the same
quotes, it seems as if you and Yuri have only read about 4 books between
you, and have never looked out, of the window, at the real World.
> >
> >The vegetable stories prove nothing, as the early ones do not come, from
> >sources, that could be expected, to tell the difference between South
> >American vegetables and unrelated Asian, but similar vegetables (that
> >fill the same niches, in their respective source continents).
>
> Most people can tell the difference between root vegetables.
> >
> >Easter Island is too far, from South America, for cultures without deep
> >sea going vessels to reach intentionally.
>
> Engles mentions vessles capable of carrying 50 men and three horses
> constructed of the trunks of large light trees, some of which he has
> personally excavated.
It doesn't thake that much, of a raft, to carry that much load. A balsa
raft is hardly a vessel. I takes a lot more, for a provisioned deep sea
vessel. The technologies are mahy orders of magnitude apart.
Also the Galapagos where precolumbian ceramics
> provide rather definitive evidence of visits from South America are
> not exactly close to shore.
This is another repeat, of what was discedited 1 or 2 weeks ago.
>
> They also would not know it
> >was there without prior exploration, which they had no vessels for.
> >The rafts were suitable, for Andean lakes.
>
> No, these were rafts made of large light tree trunks, with cotton sails.
>
> >They might be usable, with
> >risk and unreliability, as coasters. I can't imagine anyone
> >intentionally setting out into the unknown on a balsa raft; the Incas,
> >etc. were not fools. Thor Heyerdahl almost didn't make it; he knew
> >Easter Island, etc, were there, he had modern navigation and
> >communication equipment, he had adequate modern provisions, and he had a
> >seaworthy ship, with cammera crews, on it following and filming the
> >trip.
>
> Additional evidence cited by Engles includes the bones of deepwater fish
> which can't be taken except from ocean going vessels.
>
What deep water fish? What variety of fish? Where? Found in what
context?
> >
> >This entire thread has gotten too silly, for words; neithe I, nor the
> >other voices, of sense, seem to be able to bring it, to reason.
> >
> >javw
> >
> >
> Thats because you and the "the other voices, of sense"...:)
> are refusing to deal with the facts as cited. Shrilly screaming
> "No, No. No!" is not enough.
> ]
> steve
What facts? That is the point. The same quotes, from about 4 books,
whose authors are running against the stream. The quotes themselves are
virtually assertions.
I suggest that you and Yuri really read Heyderdahl's books about his
cross ocean trips, not his conclusions, the descriptions, of his trips.
Both with his balsa raft and reed boat, he almost didn't make it,
despite the benefits, of knowledge and technology not available a
milenium or more ago. Read his accountings, of his difficulties. What
he really proved was that there was an off-the-wall chance that a lost
balsa raft or reed boat might reach somewhere before it fully water
logged, sank or broke up, and maybe even with someone still alive, on
it. His conclusions go far beyond what is supported, by his recorded
experiences.
javw
Steve Whittet
>>
>> >> ...evidence
>> >>...that there were contacts
>> >>...between the Easter Island and the South American mainland
>>
>> Anyone familiar with the literature could quote quite a long list
>> of references to such contact
>>
>
>QUOTE ONE RELIABLE!
writing in caps is considered bad form
the cite you require was both given and quoted.
>
>>"An Ancient World Preserved, Relics and Records of Prehistory in the Andes"
>>Frederic Andre Engel, Crown, New York, 1976,ISBN: D-517-518740
>>
Here are a few from a reasonably academic treatise on prehistory
in the Andes.
>>
>> p 16
>>
>> "Pre Columbian pottery has been found in the Galapagos
>
>
>BY WHO?
Engles, In his book he discusses some 51 sites where he has excavated graves
and compared the results.
>
>
>> and it is difficult not to make comparisons between certain
>> South American statues and those of Easter island,
>
>
>YES COMPARE THEY DO NOT LOOK ALIKE!
You are welcome to your opinion. Engles is a specialist in the cultures
of the Andes. He finds the similarities are notable.
Your specificity makes clear your familiarity with the topic.
>
>> as between the polyhedral walls of Cuzco and those of the
>> Marquesa Islands."
>
>A POLHEDRON IS A COMMON GEOMETRIC SHAPE, WHAT ELSE WOULD YOU EXPECT?
I would expect you to realise that architectural styles involve more
than the shape of the stones used. Methods of coursing and bonding,
dimensions, proportions, types of joinery and keys are all a part
of the similarity.
>
>>
>> "The Falkland Islands facing Argentina 250 miles offshore have
>> been known since 1591 but they were apparently unpopulated.
>> However Louis Antoinne de Bouganville points out the presence
>> of a fox dog reminiscent of the yellowish dog I have found
>> in pre Columbian graves. These dog bodies should be studied further"
>
>THE FAULKLAND ISLANDS LIE, TO THE EAST, OF SOUTH AMERICA.
>ARE YOU IMPLYING THAT THE INCAS OR PRE-INCAS ROUNDED THE HORN, IN BALSA
>RAFTS?
Engles discusses sites on and adjacent to the continent of South America,
many of which involve inhabited islands considerable distances out to
sea such as the Galapagos, Tierra del Fuego, the islands of the
Carribean and Easter Island. The Falklands were mentioned because
their fauna are related to species found in precolumbian burials.
>> >>...the culture of the earliest Easter Island peoples
>> >>...affinity with the pre-Inca Tiahuanaco civilization
>
>WHAT AFINITY?
Some of those mentioned (By the above poster and by Engels)
are flora, fauna, pottery, architecture, dna, graves, and
varous fiber arts.
>
>>
>> >>...manioc (Manihot), also known as cassava,
>> >>...a very useful crop plant native to S. America. It is a tropical
>> >> tuber propagated by stem cuttings, and it was domesticated by Amerindians
>> >> in ancient times.
>>
...
>>
>> p 27
>>
>> "Among the plants with rhizomes, roots and tubers, let me mention several
>> species of potato-the sweet potato, manioc or cassava, jiquima (a rhizome)
>> and ullucu."
>>
>> "Useful fibrous plants abound Cotton has been used for at least
>> five or six thousand years in the Andes"
>
>THAT DOESN'T MEAN HE COULD TELL SOUTH AMERICAN FROM ASIAN PLANTS>
>COTTON IS A PLANT THAT HAD BOTH OLD WORLD AND NEW WORLD VARIETIES.
The individual I cited discusses South American flora and its similarity
to Asian flora. If you would like to know more about the similarities,
read him for yourself.
>> >>...the word yuca...as "taro";...untranslated, ...erroneous footnotes
>> >>...1986...a Spanish scholar Francisco Mellen Blanco
>> >>...documents from the Gonzalez expedition,
>> >>...in 1988 Robert Langdon of the Australian National University
>> >>...in THE GEOGRAPHIC JOURNAL a paper entitled MANIOC: A
>> >> LONG-CONCEALED KEY TO THE ENIGMA OF EASTER ISLAND [Geogr. Journ. 154, #
>>
>
>WHAT's THIS ENIGMA? DECLARE AN ENIGMA, THEN DECLARE AN ANSWER?
It's the cite given by another poster to the title of Langdons publication.
>
>
>> >> 3(Nov. 1988), pp. 324-336, London]. According to Langdon, Corney in his
>> >> translation acted as he did because, in the climate of his times, he
>> >> simply could not believe that manioc could have reached Easter Island
>
>IT MOST PROBABLY DIDN'T BEFORE EUROPEANS.
That is not what the evidence before us indicates. Since you are now
speculating in the face of the evidence, the burden of proof is on you.
>
>> >> prior to European influence. Langdon's conclusion was that the fact that
>> >> manioc was clearly reported as cultivated on that Polynesian island in
>> >> 1770 'greatly strengthens the case for prehistoric American Indian
>> >> influence on Easter Island and other islands of eastern Polynesia'". (p.
>> >> 31)
>WAS IT? WHY?
The poster tells you why. Because Langdon, who researched the primary sources
3(Nov. 1988), pp. 324-336, London].and concluded "manioc was clearly
reported as cultivated
on that Polynesian island in 1770"
>> >>
>> >> To me, this seems like undeniable historical evidence.
>
>WHAT EVIDENCE? BACKWARDS POSTULATION, FROM WHAT WIULD LEAD< TO
>DIFFERENT CONCEPTS FOREWARD. START WITH THE ANSWER WANTED AND SELECT
>WHAT CAN BE INTERPRETED, TO SUPPORT THE ANSWER, EVEN USING
>INTERPRETATIONS, THAT WOULD NOT BE CONSIDERED MOST LIKELY, IF WORKING
>FOREWARD.
Engles provides collaborating evidence from his studies.
>> >> And furthermore, manioc certainly doesn't stand alone in this case. Other
>> >> cultivated plants described by first European visitors, such as the sweet
>> >> potato, the main crop on Easter Island from ancient times,
>> >
>> >Was it? There is an Asian root ctop, not related to, but similar to,
>> >the sweet potato. They are still prefered, in Asia, to sweet potatos
>> >(thoigh Asians seem to like both. They taste about the same, but the
>> >flesh is drier. I don't know the name, but I've eaten enough, of them.
>>
>> "Julian Steward goes as far as to admit that cotton, calabashes
>> and corn would have entered america as the result of a trans oceanic
>> migration.
>
>CORN (MAIZE) IS A NEW WORLD PLANT, UNKNOWN IN ASIA, AFRICA, EUROPE,
>OCEANIA, ON PRECOLUMBIAN TIMES.
Other discussion in this thread has shown that this assumption
does not accurately reflect current thinking. Engles says that
varieties of corn or maize along with other varieties of south
amerian and asian flora have been found outside their original
ranges as a result of trans oceanic migration according to
Julian Steward.
> COTTON HAS @ SUB-SPECIES, 1 of them, NEW WORLD.
The issue is pre-columbian Cotton found in the New World
which is not of a native American species
>
>He gives examples of objects whose appearance in Asia and
>> the new World is not easily attributable to a multilineal evolution.
>
>> Maces of polished stone,
>
>This is a non-proof.
>
>blow guns used to shoot poisoned arrows,
>
>Do we now have stone age peoples, of the Amazon, Irian, & the interior,
>of Asrica exchanging ideas and weapons around the World? Silly.
>Easier to figure 3 peoples, in the World, noticed that things could be
>propelled, by breath wind.
I am not familiar with the cultures of Irian and Asrica. I would agree with
Engles that there is considerable evidence for the transoceanic diffusion
of polished stone maces, blow guns and batik as well as the numerous
other examples which have been cited.
>
>> fabriks with a negative decoration or batik, to cite only three examples,
>
>What do you mean, by negative decoration?
Engles, whom I am quoting, means a reverse positive or batik motif.
>
># NON-EXAMPLES, OF NOTHING.
The examples cited are well known. If you wish to dispute them,
provide your evidence in rebuttal.
>
>
>> can only be products of a diffusion in the Americas resulting from a
>> migration from southern Asia."
>
>WHY?
>>
>> >Assertions do not constitute certainty.
>>
>MORE ASSERTIONS!
>
>> p 47
>>
>> "Only a blind man or a person of bad faith could deny the southern
>> asiatic traits visible in Maya art, the indonesian reminiscences in
>> the architecture and decoration of Central America and even in the
>> Chavin society in Peru."
>
>I'm not blind; I'm somewhat familiar with Pre-columbian art and
>architecture; I lived in Indonesia ad am quite familiar with the art and
>architecture; the resemblances are not significant. The development, in
>both locations, can be traced in their respective continents, without
>diffusion (across the Pacific; there certainly was a great amount, of
>diffusion, within Asia).
Do you disagree with Engles that the Chavin society in Peru shares
resemblances to Indonesian art and architecture? Why not read his book,
then cite a few specific examples which he feels are similar but which
you feel are different?
>
>>
>> p52 [speaking of languagegroups]"Southern Andean"
>>
>> "This group includes Atacaman,Diaguite,Huamahnaca,Charrua,
>> Huarpe,Aruacan, Chono, Puelche, Het, Tehuelche, Yahgan, Alacaluf
>> (considered by Rivet to be an Ausatralian language) and Ona"
>>
>Considered by Rivet, and who else? No one? Yuri? Yuri & you?
Engles cites Rivet, I cited Engles.
>
>> p 124
>>
>> "After Tello. various authors studied the problem. Several of them
>> see Chavin as the product of a foreign immigration to peru but each
>> suggests a different center, one saying South Asian, another China
>> under the Chou Dynasty."
>
>WHY?
Because the pottery of the Chou Dynasty bears significant structural
and stylistic similarity to the Chavin pottery Engles found in the Andes.
To be more Specific the Dong Son bronze trade brought China into contact
with southeast asia after the third millenium BC. By the 4th century BC
huge 500 foot Chinese junks were crossing the Indian Ocean to trade
with Africa.
>
>>
>> P 125
>>
>> Finally I should point out (as Covarrubias did) that I noted resemblances
>> upon looking closely at the decorative themes of Chavin and of Chou bronzes
>> from China"
>
>WHAT RESEMBLANCES?]
Engles goes on for some pages so I suggest you read the book, but
for example p 122 he cites, "bases surounded by annular rings that were
sometimes pierced at the side as in the perfume vessels of the far East."
"Is it normal for an art and decorative themes to appear in a definitive,
one is tempted to say classical form without archaeologists succeeding in
finding somewhere in the vicinity (or even far away) villiages in which one
can observe an evolutuion leading from the origins of this art to its
developed forms?"
>
>
>> >>
>> >> Best regards,
>> >>
>> >> Yuri.
>>
>> >...maritime Incas sailing, to Easter Island and beyond (Melanesia),
>> >...and returning,
>>
>> p 244
>>
>> "Opposite Guayaquil on Puna Island there existed a heavily defended place
>> that the Spanish had a hard time destroying. According to Augustin de Zarate
>> "The Puna were rich, warlike and socially well organized, they used 'balsas',
>> rafts made of straw and the trunks of very light tropical trees, which could
>> transport 50 men and three horses, on their island was a temple with a
>> formidible idol."
>
>
>Puna Island is not Easter Island. The sailing problem is many orders of
>magnitude less. Irrelevant!
Read the subject title.
>> p245
>>
>> "Finally let us not forget that the Andes are flanked far out
>> in the Pacific by Easter Island. It was already populated when
>> it was invaded by immigrants from Polynesia. It must have formed
>> an early bridge between Asia and South America."
>>
>
>This is silly. Easter Island isn't just off the coast.
>A somewhat possible, if very unlikely, stepping stone, for an occasional
>foray East, from Polynesia or Asia, to South America, but not the other
>way.
>
>
>> >javw
>> >
>>
>> steve
>
>
>
>Your back up seems to be mainly quoting Yuri.
Wrong. The entire post was composed of quotes from Engles.
...
>Rare contact Asia and/or Polynesia to South America is hot adequately
>documented, but is reasonably possible.
>
>Intentional contact South America to Asia and/or Polynesia is wildly
>improbable; any contact is unlikely, but a lost rafter might have
>drifted into Polynesia, one can't say either way.
Then why argue against the evidence?
>
>The vegetable stories prove nothing, as the early ones do not come, from
>sources, that could be expected, to tell the difference between South
>American vegetables and unrelated Asian, but similar vegetables (that
>fill the same niches, in their respective source continents).
Most people can tell the difference between root vegetables.
>
>Easter Island is too far, from South America, for cultures without deep
>sea going vessels to reach intentionally.
Engles mentions vessles capable of carrying 50 men and three horses
constructed of the trunks of large light trees, some of which he has
personally excavated. Also the Galapagos where precolumbian ceramics
provide rather definitive evidence of visits from South America are
not exactly close to shore.
They also would not know it
>was there without prior exploration, which they had no vessels for.
>The rafts were suitable, for Andean lakes.
No, these were rafts made of large light tree trunks, with cotton sails.
>They might be usable, with
>risk and unreliability, as coasters. I can't imagine anyone
>intentionally setting out into the unknown on a balsa raft; the Incas,
>etc. were not fools. Thor Heyerdahl almost didn't make it; he knew
>Easter Island, etc, were there, he had modern navigation and
>communication equipment, he had adequate modern provisions, and he had a
>seaworthy ship, with cammera crews, on it following and filming the
>trip.
Additional evidence cited by Engles includes the bones of deepwater fish
which can't be taken except from ocean going vessels.
>
>This entire thread has gotten too silly, for words; neithe I, nor the
>other voices, of sense, seem to be able to bring it, to reason.
>
>javw
>
>
Steve Whittet
This post began with some cites from Engles. Who's he?
As this next bit makes clear, Engels is well regarded
as one of the more knowledgeable people writing on:
"The Middle Archaic in Peru's Central Highlands
The Middle Archaic (8000-4500 BP) of central Peru is the period
when mobile hunter gathers began the processes that eventually led
to civilization in the area, through sedentarization and the domestication
of plants and animals.
The beginnings of the Middle Archaic are marked by humans entering
and adapting to a sedentary lifestyle in extreme environments;
the high sierra and the desert coast. There is also the somewhat
enigmatic spread of a relatively uniform chipped stone industry
across environments.
In the puna zone, deer and camelid hunters become camelid hunters.
This specialization on camelids set up the preconditions for
domestication and the adoption of a pastoral adaptation.
At the same time along the coast, Middle Archaic peoples quickly
become sedentary fishermen. The relationship between these high
altitude hunters and their coastal counterparts is a divisive issue
in Andean Archaeology.
In the region and period, we have sites that have been extensively
studied at high altitudes (Engel 1970; Rick 1979; Rick 1983; Rick 1987;
Engel 1988; Aldenderfer 1989; Aldenderfer 1990; Aldenderfer 1993)
and there has been a great deal of inquiry into coastal sites,
but little work has been done in an area where
highland/coastal contact would have been very probable."
http://alishaw.sscf.ucsb.edu/~white/index.html
>>Giving you that some some species of cotton were indiginous to the
>>New World, that doesn't prove that all species of cotton were
>>indiginous to the New World, and that is where the issue lies.
>
>I guess you never did understand the real thesis of the "cotton
>indicates contact" claim.
"The origins of cotton are thought to lie in the African - Asian area
and on the West coast of America. The original short fibred type has,
over the course of approximately 4000 years of domestication, been
selected to produce the domesticated strain, the fibre quality and
length of which greatly surpasses that of the original form.
The two most commercially important tetraploid strains, G. hirsutum
(Upland cotton) and G. vitifolium (Sea Island cotton), which have
2 - 4 cm long seed fibres, have been developed in mid and South America
from the diploid African - Asiatic and American wild types. "
Dr. Wolfgang Schuchert
> Fact is that cotton belongs to the genus Gossypium.
Species of Gossypium:
Gossypium anomalum B1
Gossypium arboreum A2
Gossypium areysianum E3
Gossypium aridum D4
Gossypium armourianum D2-1
Gossypium australe C3
Gossypium barbadense (AD)2
Gossypium barbosanum (same as G. capitis-viridis)
Gossypium bickii G1
Gossypium capitis-viridis B3
Gossypium costulatum C5
Gossypium cunninghamii C7
Gossypium darwinii (AD)5
Gossypium davidsonii D3d
Gossypium gossypioides D6
Gossypium harknessii D2-2
Gossypium herbaceum A1
Gossypium hirsutum (AD)1
Gossypium incanum E4
Gossypium klotzschianum D3k
Gossypium laxum D9
Gossypium lobatum D7
Gossypium longicalyx F1
Gossypium nandewarense C1N
Gossypium nelsonii C9
Gossypium populifolium C6
Gossypium pulchellum C8
Gossypium raimondii D5
Gossypium robinsonii C2
Gossypium schwendimanii D11
Gossypium somalense E2
Gossypium stocksii E1
Gossypium sturtianum C1s or C1
Gossypium thurberi D1
Gossypium timorense ?
Gossypium tomentosum (AD)3
Gossypium trilobum D8
Gossypium triphyllum B2
Gossypium turneri D10
Gossypium viridis ?
>Some forms of Gossypium are native to the New World and others to the Old.
>The interesting thing is that there are certain species which were made
>from a cross of an Old and a New World variant. Get it?
That may have been where things sat a generation ago, but more recent research
is interested not just in "Old World" species" and "New World" species" but
in species which are hybrids. Mutations which indicate agricultural improvements
such as those that led to the domestication of corn in Mexico.
Both "pattern" and "process" aspects of plant evolution are important.
The former includes phylogenetic analyses of both organisms and molecules,
while the latter involves efforts to develop increased understanding of
interspecific introgression and speciation mechanisms, especially polyploidy.
Polyploid speciation is a conspicuous and important process of plant evolution,
yet we know relatively little about genetic and genomic processes that accompany
polyploidization.
J.F.Wendel has been using nuclear restriction fragment length polymorphisms
(RFLPs) to analyze polyploid genome evolution through comparative mapping of
diploid and tetraploid species of Gossypium.
He expects to determine:
(1) the extent of gene order conservation in genomes of the diploid species
and in tetraploid cotton relative to its diploid progenitors,
(2) genomic features that occurred prior to and subsequent to polyploidization,
including changes in total genetic length per chromosome, structural rearrangements,
sequence amplifications and sequence deletions, and
(3) the absolute and relative rates of structural divergence at the diploid
and polyploid levels.
In addition to this comparative mapping approach using nuclear RFLPs, he has
begun to study polyploidy from the standpoint of specific genetic systems.
Longer-term objectives include analysis of the evolution of homoeologous
sequences (e.g., interlocus concerted evolution, rates and processes of
pseudogene formation), and detailed studies of the phenomenon of
genetic diploidization.
Selected Recent References:
Brubaker, C.L. and J. F. Wendel. 1994. Reevaluating the origin of
domesticated cotton (Gossypium hirsutum: Malvaceae)
using nuclear restriction fragment length polymorphisms
(RFLPs). Am. J. Bot. 81: 1309-1326.
Wendel, J.F., A. Schnabel, and T. Seelanan. 1995. An unusual ribosomal
DNA sequence from Gossypium gossypioides reveals ancient, cryptic,
intergenomic introgression. Mol. Phyl. Evol. (in press).
Wendel, J.F. and V.A. Albert. 1992. Phylogenetics of the cotton genus
(Gossypium L.): Character-state weighted parsimony analysis of chloroplast
DNA restriction site data and its systematic and biogeographic implications.
Systematic Botany 17:115-143.
Brubaker, C.L., J.A. Koontz and J. F. Wendel. 1993. Bidirectional cytoplasmic
and nuclear introgression in the New World cottons, Gossypium barbadense and
G. hirsutum. Am. J. Bot. 80:222-227.
Riesebert, L.H. and J.F. Wendel. 1993. Introgression and its consequences.
In: Hybird Zones and the Evolutionary Process,
R. Harrison (ed.), pp. 70-109. Oxford University Press.
VanderWiel, P.S., D.F. Voytas and J.F. Wendel. 1993. Copia-like
retrotransposable element evolution in diploid and polyploid cotton
(Gossypium L.). Journal of Molecular Evolution 36:429-447.
Reinisch, A. J., J. Dong, C.L. Brubaker, D.M. Stelly, J.F. Wendel,
and A. H. Paterson. 1994. A Detailed RFLP Map of Cotton, Gossypium
hirsutum x G. barbadense: Molecular Analysis of a Disomic Polyploid
Genome. Genetics 138: 829-847.
Wendel, J.F., A. Schnable., and T. Seelanan. 1995. Bi-directional interlocus
concerted evolution following allopolyploid speciation in cotton
(Gossypium). Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 92:280--284.
The wild species from which domesticated crops are developed may well have
been native to the New World or the Old World. That doesn't mean they
stayed close to their point of origin or for that matter remained wild.
As an analagous situation horses originated in the New World. By the time
they managed to travel around the world to renter the Americas, the original
stock to which they were closely related had already gone extinct.
>
>It means that two plants from opposite sides of the ocean crossbred, that's
>why many used to think this was a definite indicator of human agency As you
>can see from my old response to you (which I post at the end of this message),
>recent research indicates this cross occurred some 1-2 million years ago.
That's like responding that the Spanish Horses which entered the New World
after 1492 were originally descended from Miohippus when we would be more
interested in knowing what happened after Equus Caballus subsequently crossed
the Bering Straits.
>I think even you would agree that if this timing is evenly remotely correct then
>it is too early to be due to human agency. Now do you understand why the case
>of cotton is not a good indicator of contact.
I think even you would agree that a lot can happen in 1-2 million years
>
>Are you also aware that maize is a New World crop, not an Old World crop?
Maize was first domesticated in the New World, but there are a number of
references to its precolumbian use outside the New World which as others
have noted make for interesting reading.
>If not, then you haven't the slightest clue of what you are talking about.
>If you do know it's an Old World crop
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>then it should be apparent to even you that Steward was wrong
>when he lists it among the indicators of diffusion from the
>Old World to the New - it was already f****ing here! Get it?
It should be apparent to even you that I cited Engles who said:
"Julian Steward goes as far as to admit that cotton, calabashes
and corn would have entered america as the result of a trans oceanic
migration."
Steward actually didn't claim its transoceanic diffusion from the
Old World to the New World but listed it among crops which have been
transoceanically diffused. I think his thoughts were that it had gone
the route of the sweet potato.
Engles was likely refering to its entering South America from North America.
He spends some time discussing how difficult transportation through the Andes
was by land, the coasts were swampy right up to the mountains and the mountains
rose steeply with even the passes through them at high altitudes. He says a
good deal of the intercultural exchange in South America was by sea going raft
both coasting and sailing considerable distances out to sea.
My apologies if that confused you.
>>>With regard to the blow gun, it has also been demonstrated that the poisons
>>>used in the Americas are poisons indigenous to the Americas - again the
>>>independent invention scenario is better supported than the diffusion
>>>hypothesis.
>>
>>What do the poisons used have to do with the concept of the blowgun as
>>a weapon?
>
>Uh, the only reason a blowgun works is because they use it with poison-tipped
>darts. Without a poison-tipped dart all a blowgun is, is a hollow tube with
>an completely non-lethal projectile inside (more akin to shooting spitballs in
>a grade school class than killing animals).
>I think even you would agree that ...
>it takes no great leap of imagination to figure out that you can blow
>something out a hollow tube, the hard part is figuring out how to make a
>poison that turns it into a weapon. Get it?
I think even you would agree that any poison will work. Of course a person
using the concept of a blowgun will modify it as required to take advantage
of localy available substitutes. Its still the concept of the pneumatic tube
that makes it work. If that is so immediately obvious how come Europeans
didn't figure it out? Is it your contention that Europeans had no poisons?
>>How come it wasn't independently invented in Europe?
>
>Don't know for sure, maybe it was a different environmental setting?
>
>>There were plenty of poisons in Europe, were Europeans incapable of coming
>>up with the idea, or is it that not every idea is everywhere
>>independently invented?
>
>Hey maybe you are catching on after all. Just 'cause a group could invent
>something doesn't mean they necessarily will. Then again just 'cause two
>groups do have something, it doesn't necesssarily follow that it wasn't
>independently invented by both.
So I take it we agree. Both diffusion and independent invention are
possibilities. When independent invention isn't sufficient to explain
a technological concept which has arisen in some cultures and not in
others, and the cultures which it has arisin in are in contact, then
diffusion is a possibility.
In order to make a possibility a probability it helps to find
as confirmations other cultural artifacts which have diffused
along the same route.
>
>>>If South Americans could figure out the process to make toxic
>>>manioc a highly prized food crop, I have little doubt they could figure out
>>>how to batik a piece of cloth or make a polished stone mace.
>>
>>How come Europeans didn't figure this out?
>
>Gee, well the Europeans sure figured out how to make lots of other nifty
>little polished stone tools. But you're probably right, its too hard to
>believe that people in South Asia and in South America could both come up with
>the idea to make a polished stone mace and batik cloth? And by the way, how's
>come these Old World folks neglected to bring metal tools along with them?
Because South Americans diffusing crops to Islands in Oceanasia didn't
use a lot of metals, and People in Oceanasia diffusing stone maces
to South America were probably using stone, not metal.
>
>>>...how about you at least edit out the portions of your post
>>>which have been conclusively demonstrated to be false.
>>
>>If and when such an unlikely event occurs I shall be sure to
>>give you full credit for the suggestion...:)
>
>I'll thank you in advance for at least having the common sense to drop the
>idea that maize and cotton were brought to the New World from the Old by
>transoceanic visitors.
Nobody is talking about their coming to the New World from the Old World
Whats being discussed is their coming from one part of the Pacific Ocean
to another part of the Pacific Ocean via the Pacific Ocean...
We have no difficulty discussing things crossing a continent
why is their crossing an ocean so difficult for you to grasp?
Incredible as it may seem, people did use the ocean as a means of
transportation both along the coasts of the Americas between
North and South America, and between the islands of the Pacific.
People also sometimes transported things between islands and a
mainland or between a mainland and some islands.
>
>>>But that seems to be a common tactic here - supply a laundry list
>>>and then when certain things are shown to be false the general
>>>response is - "but what about the others?"
>>
>>I actually think that's pretty fair Peter. Any one of these things
>>which defies the disbelief of such careful skeptics as are found
>>in these parts probably ought to be considered bombproof.
>
>Well then how about you pick one out of the list and give a convincing proof
>of why said piece of evidence is a definite indicator of contact. See in the
>scientific method its up to you to present your case not me to refute one that
>you haven't specified in any sufficient manner.
>
>>How would you catagorize just going "No, No, No" first and then
>>checking the facts afterward as was the case with the discussion
>>of C.Moneta?
>
>You mean is the case with C. Moneta?
Yes, thank you for the correction. You are correct. People are still
going "No, No, No" first and then checking the facts afterward
in the case of the discussion of C.Moneta.
>
>People didn't just say "no, no no" they raised well specified
>valid questions such as "how can we be sure that the shell was
>actually an Old World variety rather than a misidentification of an
>indigenous species."
They didn't raise it as a question, they afirmed it to be a fact.
Then when it was shown the "facts" they were producing were more
speculative than the allegations they were debunking, they resorted
to the time honored tactic of "just say no".
> Also as even you pointed out even if they do turn out to
>be of an Old World origin that doesn't rule out the possibility of a very long
>down the line transmission route rather than indicating that a boat load of
>Old Worlders sailed across the ocean and carried it to the Southeastern U.S.
I am glad that even you finally realise that is the point I have been making.
It doesn't take some long epic voyage for things to cross an ocean, just a
lot of short trips. You can actually coast the northern Pacific Rim and in
fact many Japanese fisherman still do just that to reach the rich waters
off Alaska.
>
>And just so we get it straight the people doing the most research on this
>topic are the scientists not folks like yourself.
Gee Peter, I will even go so far as to allow that "folks like yourself"
are involved too.
> Oh and by the way, given thought to my suggestion that you set up a fund
>to pay for someone to do the work that you're too lazy to do yourself?
============
>>>...an unscientific strategy designed to impress the uninformed.
>>>Peter van Rossum
>>
>>Exactly.
>>steve
============
How would you catagorize just going "No, No, No" first and then
checking the facts afterward as was the case with the discussion
of C.Moneta?
>...an unscientific strategy designed to impress the uninformed.
Exactly.
=========
>
>Good at least were on agreement with one thing about your "research strategy".
Speaking of "research strategy" notice how careful Peter is
when citing sources to cite them in their proper context
and make sure to draw the correct impression.
===========
>
>Peter van Rossum
>PMV...@PSU.EDU
>
Just for the record
The Easter Island Expedition (1955-56)
Following earlier successful work, Heyerdahl was encouraged to direct
a major archaeological expedition to the Pacific's most isolated island:
Easter Island. An expedition of 23 persons reached the island and began
the first sub-surface archaeological excavation every attempted.
They soon discovered that Easter Island had once been wooded until
deforested by its original inhabitants, who also planted water-reeds
and other South American plants.
Carbon dating showed that the Island had been occupied from about 380 A.D.,
about one thousand years earlier than scientists previously believed.
Excavations indicated that some ancient stone carvings on the Island
were similar to ancient traditions in Peru. Some Easter Islanders claimed
that according to their legends, they orginally arrived from the far away
lands to the East.
The results of Heyerdahl's work were widely discussed and presented at the
Tenth Pacific Science Congress in Honolulu (1961) where they were supported
by the unanimous statement: "Southeast Asia and the islands adjacent constitute
one major source area of the peoples and cultures of the Pacific Islands and
South America". Thus, Heyerdahl's eastern migration theory had gained
considerable influence.
steve
Steve Whittet
...
>> >Steve Whittet wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >> ...evidence
>> >> >>...that there were contacts
>> >> >>...between the Easter Island and the South American mainland
>> >> Anyone familiar with the literature could quote quite a long list
>> >> of references to such contact
>> >QUOTE ONE RELIABLE!
>> writing in caps is considered bad form
>
>I know it's bad form, but...I don't care.
>> the cite you require was both given and quoted.
>> >>"An Ancient World Preserved, Relics and Records of Prehistory in the Andes"
>> >>Frederic Andre Engel, Crown, New York, 1976,ISBN: D-517-518740
>> Here are a few from a reasonably academic treatise on prehistory
>> in the Andes.
>> >> p 16
>> >> "Pre Columbian pottery has been found in the Galapagos
>> >BY WHO?
>> Engles, In his book he discusses some 51 sites where he has excavated graves
Engles is known for his studies of Peru in the Middle Archaic,
back to c 8,000-9,000 BC.
>Were they really precolumbian?
Did you think Darwin was the first to visit the islands?
>Those before him, found nobody & no trace, of past occupancy.
>See past posts, by half a dozen other people.
HUMAN HISTORY OF THE ISLANDS
1485 - The first visitors were sailors of the Chimu culture from northern
Peru during the rule of the great Inca, Tupac Yupanqui, an Inca who invaded
Peru shortly before the arrival of the Spanish
The Cañari fought off the drive of the Incas to dominate the entire
northern Andes for almost a decade following the invasion of Tupac-Yupanqui,
frustrating and preventing his advances.
In his campaign Tupac Yupanqui set sail from the coast of Ecuador with
20,000 men on balsa rafts. On his journey he discovered and named two
islands - Ava Chumbi (Outer Island) and Nina Chumbi (Fire Island).
These islands are thought to have been the Galapagos.
Eventually he took as bride a Cañari princess; who bore him a son
Huanya-Capac, in Tomebamba, in Cuenca.
When Huanya-Capac himself decided to divide his kingdom between his
own two sons, he deeded the northern half to the offspring of a Quitu bride
-- Atahualpa -- and the other, Peruvian part to his son of more traditional
Inca lineage, Huascar.
The two brothers fell to fighting, and when the civil war was over in 1526
it was the Quitu Inca, Atahualpa, who stood victorious.
1535 - The offical discovery of Galapagos, on March 10th, by Fray Tomas
de Berianga, a Spanish Bishop, aboard a ship pushed off course by ocean
currents while sailing from Panama to Peru.
1570 - The Galapagos Islands appear for the first time on a world map.
They are called "Insulae de los Galopegos".
1593 - 1710 - Use of the Galapagos by pirates as refuge and supply base
for water and meat (particularly the giant tortoises) and introducting goats
and dogs.
1793 - 1870 - Period of whale exploitation in the Islands threatening
populations of tortoises, fur seals and whales.
1793 - Erection of the post office barrel on Floreana to facilitate delivery to
the United States and Europe.
1800 - 1900 - The exploitation of fur seals by North Americans and
Europeans almost causing their extinction.
1832 - Ecuador officially claims Galapagos calling it "Archipelago del
Ecuador". Islands are given their Spanish names.
1835 - Visit of the H.M.S. Beagle to Galapagos for five weeks, from
September 15 to October 20. During this period, Charles Darwin visited
San Cristobal, Santiago, Floreana, and Isabela Islands. The Captain,
Robert FitzRoy, drew up accurate navigation charts.
1841 - U.S. writer Herman Melville visits Galapagos. He later wrote an
articulate account of his experience in 'Las Encantadas".
1859 - Publication of Charles Darwin's The Origin of Species which brought
recognition to Galapagos as a natural laboratory for evolution.
>Ai least you could come up, with something, more than Yuri managed.
>> and compared the results.
>javw
>
continued in subsequent posts
steve
Steve Whittet
...continued
>> >> ...comparisons between...South American statues and...Easter island,
>>...Engles is a specialist in the cultures of the Andes.
>>...He finds the similarities are notable.
>
>What similarities? From what direction did he approach it. Did he
>start with his answer and work back, with selected findings?
Engles goes on for several pages. Perhaps you should read his book,
select some examples he considers similar and tell us why you feel
they are actually different.
>> Your specificity makes clear your familiarity with the topic.
>> >> as between the polyhedral walls of Cuzco and those of the
>> >> Marquesa Islands."
>> >
>> >A POLHEDRON IS A COMMON GEOMETRIC SHAPE, WHAT ELSE WOULD YOU EXPECT?
>
>> I would expect you to realise that architectural styles involve more
>> than the shape of the stones used. Methods of coursing and bonding,
>> dimensions, proportions, types of joinery and keys are all a part
>> of the similarity.
>
>With stone masonry there are relatively few choices. Tell that to the
>uninitiated, not to an engineer, who has designed stone masonry. The
>only regional unique type, of stone masonry, I know of, is a type used,
>for retaining walls, in Northeast Asia. Jist, from the limited choices,
>you find similar everywhere.
>
Stone masonry begins with people making rings of stones to weight
down the edges of tents. Later it changes as people hunting gazelle
build kites across arabia. Associated with the kites are cairns and
stone circles. Later still people clearing land for agriculture pile
up stones around the edges of fields which become walls.
Standing stones, megaliths and dolmens are also developed early on.
I have already discussed some early forms of stone masonry in
discussing the origins of the arch. Suffice it to say that by the time
people can build a wall higher than their waist, that isn't twenty
feet across at its base they have begun to use some primitive
coursing techniques. These include laying stones in rows, putting
stones in one row perpendicular to those in another, lapping joints,
corbeling and the use of lintels to create openings for doors and windows.
Building plumb,level walls with square corners involves concepts like
straight, plumb, level, square, equal, and measured. By the time people
actually begin cutting stones to fit, let alone by the time they cut
stones in polygonal shapes or trim the inside corners of joined walls
to make them plumb, or key the joints, it is fair to say a tradition
of stonemasonry has developed with one generation teaching the next
how to build.
=========
>
continued in subsequent posts
>javw
>
steve
James Adrian van Wyk
Steve Whittet wrote:
>
> Continued
>
> Cultural Afinity
>
> >> >> >>...the culture of the earliest Easter Island peoples
> >> >> >>...affinity with the pre-Inca Tiahuanaco civilization
> >> >
> >> >WHAT AFINITY?
> >>
> >> Some of those mentioned (By the above poster and by Engels)
> >> are flora, fauna, pottery, architecture, dna, graves, and
> >> varous fiber arts.
> >> >
> >> >>
> >Flora no. Fauna no. DNA no. The rest no. Everything that was gone
> >through, and discredited long ago, on this thread. This stuff keeps
> >coming around.
>
> the facts aside. Engles goes on for a number of pages on the
> similarities, I suggest you get the book cited, read it and
> then comment.
> >
> >> >> >>...manioc (Manihot), also known as cassava,
> >> >> >>...a very useful crop plant native to S. America. It is a tropical
> >> >> >> tuber propagated by stem cuttings, and it was domesticated by Amerindians
> >> >> >> in ancient times.
>
> >> >>
> >> >> "Among the plants with rhizomes, roots and tubers, let me mention several
> >> >> species of potato-the sweet potato, manioc or cassava, jiquima (a rhizome)
> >> >> and ullucu."
> >> >>
> >> >> "Useful fibrous plants abound Cotton has been used for at least
> >> >> five or six thousand years in the Andes"
> >> >
> >> >THAT DOESN'T MEAN HE COULD TELL SOUTH AMERICAN FROM ASIAN PLANTS>
> >> >COTTON IS A PLANT THAT HAD BOTH OLD WORLD AND NEW WORLD VARIETIES.
>
> The can use pollen counts, seeds, plant fibers and dna for analysis.
>
> The results indicate that there was a South American presence on the
> islands off the coast of South America with fisherman using balsa rafts
> large enough to carry fifty men and three horses and engaging in a
> predominately maritime lifestyle.
>
> >> The individual I cited discusses South American flora and its similarity
> >> to Asian flora. If you would like to know more about the similarities,
> >> read him for yourself.
> >>
> >> >> >>...the word yuca...as "taro";...untranslated, ...erroneous footnotes
> >> >> >>...1986...a Spanish scholar Francisco Mellen Blanco
> >> >> >>...documents from the Gonzalez expedition,
> >> >> >>...in 1988 Robert Langdon of the Australian National University
> >> >> >>...in THE GEOGRAPHIC JOURNAL a paper entitled MANIOC: A
> >> >> >> LONG-CONCEALED KEY TO THE ENIGMA OF EASTER ISLAND [Geogr. Journ. 154, #
>
> >> >WHAT's THIS ENIGMA? DECLARE AN ENIGMA, THEN DECLARE AN ANSWER?
>
> >> It's the cite given by another poster to the title of Langdons publication.
>
> >Like what I said, someone declared an enigma, then declared an answer.
>
> >> >> >> 3(Nov. 1988), pp. 324-336, London]. According to Langdon, Corney in his
> >> >> >> translation acted as he did because, in the climate of his times, he
> >> >> >> simply could not believe that manioc could have reached Easter Island
> >> >
> >> >IT MOST PROBABLY DIDN'T BEFORE EUROPEANS.
> >>
> >> That is not what the evidence before us indicates. Since you are now
> >> speculating in the face of the evidence, the burden of proof is on you.
> >> >
> >That is the point, there is no solid evidence, in that direction, with
> >loads, of it in the opposite.
>
> If you don't like his findings do your own reserach and rebut them. Until
> you do your speculations fly in the face of the facts.
>
> >My speculation is that the bulk, of reliable evidence, is probably close
> >to what actually was. Fairly safe speculation, though not definately provable.
>
> 1.)devoid of content,
> 2.)uncited
> 2.)unresearched
> 3.)counter to the conclusions of specialists who have researched the issue.
> 4.)unprovable
> 5.)meaningless
>
No, I was pointing out here and in related threads, that here and in
therelated threads, your and Yuri's stuff was:
1. Wild speculation.
2. lacking in meaningful content.
3. repeated every 1 or 2 weeks.
4. had very selective citing, from a very small group, of
references
5. ignored everything that was well researched and cited, by
others.
6. was semi-unresearched, research went as far as that which
supported your conclusions or could be made to look like it supported
your conclusion
7. agreed with only a very small minority, of specialists and
ignored most.
8. was extremely uncritical, of sources.
9. was unprovable and unproven
10. some ran counter, to the hard sciences (math, physics, chem)
11. some was technologically wrong
12. some was even technologically silly.
Additionally, I pointed out that some, of Yuri's stuff was the
counterfiet, of argument, and that he responds, with slander and name
calling.
> >> >> >> prior to European influence. Langdon's conclusion was that the fact that
> >> >> >> manioc was clearly reported as cultivated on that Polynesian island in
> >> >> >> 1770 'greatly strengthens the case for prehistoric American Indian
> >> >> >> influence on Easter Island and other islands of eastern Polynesia'". (p.
> >> >> >> 31)
> >>
> >> >WAS IT? WHY?
> >>
> >> The poster tells you why. Because Langdon, who researched the primary sources
> >> 3(Nov. 1988), pp. 324-336, London].and concluded "manioc was clearly
> >> reported as cultivated
> >> on that Polynesian island in 1770"
> >>
> >The primary source was a Spanish Naval Officer, who would not be a
> >reliable source, vs. all or virtually all other primary sources. This
> >was delt with.
>
> Yes, by Langdon whose conclusion was that the fact that manioc was
> clearly reported as cultivated on that Polynesian island in 1770 '
> greatly strengthens the case for prehistoric American Indian
> influence on Easter Island and other islands of eastern Polynesia'"
> . (p.31)
>
Was Langdon there, in 1770, or did he base it on questionable second and
third hand sources.
> >> >> >> To me, this seems like undeniable historical evidence.
> >> >
> >> >WHAT EVIDENCE?
>
> Why not read Langdon's report for yourself and find out?
See above.
> >>
> >> Engles provides collaborating evidence from his studies.
Was he there, in 1770, too?
> >
> >What about everyone else (except Heyerdahl)?
>
> Why not do some research and find out? It wouldn't hurt for you
> to read Heyerdahl, then you can check his cites and eventually work
> your way back to the primary sources as the rest of us do.
> >>
> >> >> >> And furthermore, manioc certainly doesn't stand alone in this case. Other
> >> >> >> cultivated plants described by first European visitors, such as the sweet
> >> >> >> potato, the main crop on Easter Island from ancient times,
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Was it? There is an Asian root ctop, not related to, but similar to,
> >> >> >the sweet potato. They are still prefered, in Asia, to sweet potatos
> >> >> >(thoigh Asians seem to like both. They taste about the same, but the
> >> >> >flesh is drier. I don't know the name, but I've eaten enough, of them.
> >> >>
> >> >> "Julian Steward goes as far as to admit that cotton, calabashes
> >> >> and corn would have entered america as the result of a trans oceanic
> >> >> migration.
> >> >
> >> >CORN (MAIZE) IS A NEW WORLD PLANT, UNKNOWN IN ASIA, AFRICA, EUROPE,
> >> >OCEANIA, ON PRECOLUMBIAN TIMES.
> >>
> >> Other discussion in this thread has shown that this assumption
> >> does not accurately reflect current thinking. Engles says that
> >> varieties of corn or maize along with other varieties of south
> >> amerian and asian flora have been found outside their original
> >> ranges as a result of trans oceanic migration according to
> >> Julian Steward.
>
The other discussion established nothing.
> >Whose current thinking? Yuri's?
>
> See Hu's post.
> >
> >> > COTTON HAS @ SUB-SPECIES, 1 of them, NEW WORLD.
> >>
> >> The issue is pre-columbian Cotton found in the New World
> >> which is not of a native American species
> >>
> >Actually I understated, cotton has many species/subspecies, some old
> >world, some new world, and possibly some both. The cotton matter was
> >discussed in this and other threads. Read the threads.
>
> Better yet, read Brubaker, C.L. and J. F. Wendel. 1994.
> Reevaluating the origin of domesticated cotton (Gossypium hirsutum: Malvaceae)
> using nuclear restriction fragment length polymorphisms
> (RFLPs). Am. J. Bot. 81: 1309-1326.
One poster identified the cotton in question, was a hybrid, new and old
world type, where the estimated date, of hybridization, back far enough,
that if it was the result, of human doings, it had to be HE. This was
never countered.
> >
> continued
>
> steve
James Adrian van Wyk
Steve Whittet wrote:
>
> maritime Cultures
>
> >> >> >...maritime Incas sailing, to Easter Island and beyond (Melanesia),
> >> >> >...and returning,
> >> >>
> >> >> p 244
> >> >>
> >> >> "Opposite Guayaquil on Puna Island there existed a heavily defended place
> >> >> that the Spanish had a hard time destroying. According to Augustin de Zarate
> >> >> "The Puna were rich, warlike and socially well organized, they used 'balsas',
> >> >> rafts made of straw and the trunks of very light tropical trees, which could
> >> >> transport 50 men and three horses, on their island was a temple with a
> >> >> formidible idol."
>
> >> >Puna Island is not Easter Island. The sailing problem is many orders of
> >> >magnitude less. Irrelevant!
> >>
> >> Read the subject title.
> >
> >The differences in sailing magnitude are not changed by a book.
>
> and have the skill to return as the chono fishermen who made their
> homes from the ribs of whales clearly did, continuing to a few hundred
> miles offshore is hardly a problem orders of magnitude greater.
Forty miles is not 2500 miles. Forty miles you can get to by accident,
and get back, know it's there, you can get there again and back.
> >
> >>
> >> >> p245
> >> >>
> >> >> "Finally let us not forget that the Andes are flanked far out
> >> >> in the Pacific by Easter Island. It was already populated when
> >> >> it was invaded by immigrants from Polynesia. It must have formed
> >> >> an early bridge between Asia and South America."
> >> >>
> >> >...Easter Island isn't just off the coast.
>
> It sits on the prevailing currents along latitude 30 south which would
> pick up anything between Pisco and Valpariso and carry it out to
> San Ambrosio, San Felix and the Juan Fernandez Islands, all of which
> have pre columbian artifacts.
>
> Next stop is Masatura then Richie then Sala y Gomez. All of these islands
> are claimed by Chile and most are within a 350 mile radius of Richie Island
> or eachother.
>
> Northeast of Easter Island lie Waihou and Pilgrim Island. Due east
> is Sala y-gomez. All are within about the same range as Miami and Havanna.
> a distance which rafters frequently manage to cross using less seaworthy
And often don't make it.
There is no close archipelago.
Balsa rafts are and never will be sea worthy vessels. You can drift
West. You might survive to reach and island. Getting back is another
matter.
> craft than those of the Incas.
>
> (My favorite is a guy who welded the doors closed on a 54 chevy and then
> welded paddles to the rear wheel drums and replaced the front wheels with
> rudders then rolled up the windows and drove across.)
>
> >> >A somewhat possible, if very unlikely, stepping stone, for an occasional
> >> >foray East, from Polynesia or Asia, to South America, but not the other
> >> >way.
>
> Actually the prevailing currents would inevitably have carried rafts to the
> west, particularly if they were driven south to the roaring forties.
Yes rafts will drift West. That isn't either purposeful sailing, or
sailing a round trip.
>
> >> Wrong. The entire post was composed of quotes from Engles.
> >> ...
> >> >Rare contact Asia and/or Polynesia to South America is hot adequately
> >> >documented, but is reasonably possible.
> >> >
> >> >Intentional contact South America to Asia and/or Polynesia is wildly
> >> >improbable; any contact is unlikely, but a lost rafter might have
> >> >drifted into Polynesia, one can't say either way.
> >>
> >> Then why argue against the evidence?
> >
> >You and Yuri haven't presented any good evidence, and only a little
> >so-so evidence vs. the preponderance the other way.
>
> That is incorrect, In fact as in these posts I provide cites, you
> provide opinions. Then you don't even read the cited material. That
> doesn't sound like a very scientific approach to me.
Lots of people have made posts with more detailed cites, from a greater
number ,of other reputable specialists. Now we have specialist vs.
specialist. You build a tower, of speculation, on your interpretation,
of the minority specialist view, and assert it is the proven fact. Also
some of your cites are specialists quoting others, who are sometimes
quoting yet others. I'm pointing this out. You do not really explain
why you vs. others are right, you just repeat your cites, and declare
yourself right. You don't tackle the differences. You also don't
really address the technological problems with your ideas. I'm in the
middle, of a disconnected move. I am not now in a situation where I
have access, to all the books, cited, by everyone. Even the ones, in my
personal library, are in boxes, in a storage room. I'm not arguing cite
vs. cite; some others have been doing that, and you haven't really been
responding adequately, to them.. I have been pointing out the problems,
with your, and even more so Yuri's arguments, on this. Writing that
Engles wrote that someone else wrote, that another person said or wrote
something, is not uncontrivertable proof.
>
> >Also what is technically feasible, can be determined, by technology
>
> Most are agreed that we have demonstrated the necessary technology
> The argument is that could have does not equate to did.
>
> >> >The vegetable stories prove nothing, as the early ones do not come, from
> >> >sources, that could be expected, to tell the difference between South
> >> >American vegetables and unrelated Asian, but similar vegetables (that
> >> >fill the same niches, in their respective source continents).
>
> Here you are repeating an opinion contrary to the evidence as cited
> without a shred of evidence to back you up.
> >>
> >> Most people can tell the difference between root vegetables.
> >> >
> >> >Easter Island is too far, from South America, for cultures without deep
> >> >sea going vessels to reach intentionally.
>
> Easter Island is at the end of a chain of islands which lie along the prevailing
> westerly currents.
> >>
> >> Engles mentions vessles capable of carrying 50 men and three horses
> >> constructed of the trunks of large light trees, some of which he has
> >> personally excavated.
> >
> >It doesn't thake that much, of a raft, to carry that much load. A balsa
> >raft is hardly a vessel.
>
> A vessel 28 feet wide and perhaps 100 feet long dated to c 1500 BC
> was excavated by Engles. It had cotton sails and was steered with sweeps.
> Its hull was composed of trees three feet in diameter.
>
I know about rafts in general, and also balsa rafts. You just made my
point; it isn't a deep sea worthy ship.
> I takes a lot more, for a provisioned deep sea
> >vessel. The technologies are mahy orders of magnitude apart.
>
> Such vessels carried light sewn shells which were used for fishing and whaling.
> turtles and sea lions were taken from the offshore islands along with sharks
> tuna, swordfish and whales.
>
This fishing expedition is getting into the sea, of increduality.
Speculation, without basis.
>
> > Also the Galapagos where precolumbian ceramics
> >> provide rather definitive evidence of visits from South America are
> >> not exactly close to shore.
> >
> >This is another repeat, of what was discedited 1 or 2 weeks ago.
>
> I have yet to see it discredited, on the contrary Engles
> supports it strongly
Read the posts, with cites, by others, in this and related threads.
Engles seems to be in the minority view. He might be right, but you
haven't substantiated why. Requoting him doesn't make the other cites
go way.
> >>
> >> They also would not know it was there without prior exploration,
> >> which they had no vessels for. The rafts were suitable, for Andean lakes.
> >>
> >> No, these were rafts made of large light tree trunks, with cotton sails.
> >>
> >> >They might be usable, with
> >> >risk and unreliability, as coasters. I can't imagine anyone
> >> >intentionally setting out into the unknown on a balsa raft;
>
> The coastal fisherman of Patagonia made their dwellings of the
> ribs of whales.
Patagonia is not Inca land.
I think the problem is you don't really understand
> what is meant by "balsa raft" A vessel 28 feet wide with cotton sails
> could be quite seaworthy.
I do know, that is why I dispute it.
> >>
> >> Additional evidence cited by Engles includes the bones of deepwater fish
> >> which can't be taken except from ocean going vessels.
> >>
> >What deep water fish? What variety of fish? Where? Found in what
> >context?
>
> Whales, sharks, sea lions, swordfish, turtles, found in the context
> of shell middens and as I mentioned used as the ribs of dwellings.
SWordfish, among your list, is a deep water, fish, but not necessarily
deep water far from shore. Whales come close to shore also, Etc.
This is less than grasping at straws.
By the way, are you now in Patagonia or Peru?
>
> >> steve
Again speculation, based on possibility, based on disputed evidence,
declared as absolute facts. If you said that: if Engles et. al. are
right, and others wrong, then this is true and there is a strong
possibility that is true, then there is a possibility this is true, as I
think it is, then I'd have no argument with you, on most issues
(other than a few technological ones). But you don't, you insist, with
absolute authority, that you hypothises are absolutely right. Compared,
to the other person, who posts views similar, to yours, you are
obviously a very civilized person. I think you have gone a bit off the
deep end, on dispersion, and haven't adequately delt with your ideas vs.
others ideas, etc., but I think you are an intellegent civilized person,
who means to be honest. I may think your ideas and arguments are
shakey, but I don't think they are counterfiet.
javw
James Adrian van Wyk
Steve Whittet wrote:
>
> ...continued
>
> >> >> ...comparisons between...South American statues and...Easter island,
>
> >>...He finds the similarities are notable.
> >
> >What similarities? From what direction did he approach it. Did he
> >start with his answer and work back, with selected findings?
>
> select some examples he considers similar and tell us why you feel
> they are actually different.
>
>
> >> >> as between the polyhedral walls of Cuzco and those of the
> >> >> Marquesa Islands."
> >> >
> >> >A POLHEDRON IS A COMMON GEOMETRIC SHAPE, WHAT ELSE WOULD YOU EXPECT?
> >
> >> I would expect you to realise that architectural styles involve more
> >> than the shape of the stones used. Methods of coursing and bonding,
> >> dimensions, proportions, types of joinery and keys are all a part
> >> of the similarity.
> >
> >With stone masonry there are relatively few choices. Tell that to the
> >uninitiated, not to an engineer, who has designed stone masonry. The
> >only regional unique type, of stone masonry, I know of, is a type used,
> >for retaining walls, in Northeast Asia. Jist, from the limited choices,
> >you find similar everywhere.
> >
> down the edges of tents. Later it changes as people hunting gazelle
> build kites across arabia. Associated with the kites are cairns and
> stone circles. Later still people clearing land for agriculture pile
> up stones around the edges of fields which become walls.
>
> Standing stones, megaliths and dolmens are also developed early on.
>
> I have already discussed some early forms of stone masonry in
> discussing the origins of the arch. Suffice it to say that by the time
> people can build a wall higher than their waist, that isn't twenty
> feet across at its base they have begun to use some primitive
> coursing techniques. These include laying stones in rows, putting
> stones in one row perpendicular to those in another, lapping joints,
> corbeling and the use of lintels to create openings for doors and windows.
>
> Building plumb,level walls with square corners involves concepts like
> straight, plumb, level, square, equal, and measured. By the time people
> actually begin cutting stones to fit, let alone by the time they cut
> stones in polygonal shapes or trim the inside corners of joined walls
> to make them plumb, or key the joints, it is fair to say a tradition
> of stonemasonry has developed with one generation teaching the next
> how to build.
>
> =========
>
> >
> continued in subsequent posts
> >javw
> >
> steve
I'm a construction engineer, who has worked round the World. There are
only so many ways you can cut, fit, course, lay stone. Yes some
tradition, of stone masonry develops and must develop, but they will not
be all that different. Some will be more developed, in one direction,
or another. The similarities identified, a couple, of posts back, were
common elements in just about any tradition. Polyhedron unique? What
else? What do you expect stones cut Spheroid? I still say the only
really regionally unique type, of stone masonry, is that used, for
retainong walls, in Northeast Asia (The stones are cut, in the shape, of
that early Egyptian pyramid, that they changed angle on during
construction and are set with base points down; now that is unique.).
javw
Steve Whittet
continued
The Cape Horn Archipelago
>> >> "The Falkland Islands facing Argentina 250 miles offshore ...
>> >...ARE YOU IMPLYING THAT THE INCAS OR PRE-INCAS ROUNDED THE HORN,
>> >...IN BALSA RAFTS?
>>
>> Engles discusses sites on and adjacent to the continent of South America,
>> many of which involve inhabited islands considerable distances out to
>> sea such as the Galapagos,
>
> Uninhabited till post-columbian times.
>
>Tierra del Fuego,
>
> Not that far & off the South coast.
From Valdiva and the Maule river south there are islanders. Chloe Island,
the Chonos Archipelago, the Alcalufs and Yahgans living on boats,
Tierra Del Fuego, the Straits of Magellanthe Falkland islands
and the coast of Pategonia north to the mouth of the Parana river.
in adjacencies ranging from tens of miles to hundreds of miles.
p 244
"Opposite Guayaquil on Puna Island there existed a heavily defended place
that the Spanish had a hard time destroying. According to Augustin de Zarate
"The Puna were rich, warlike and socially well organized, they used 'balsas',
rafts made of straw and the trunks of very light tropical trees, which could
transport 50 men and three horses, on their island was a temple with a
formidible idol."
p 248
"The Alacalufs were little people. their height ranged 60.9 and 62.5 inches
for men and 56.9 and 57.7 inches for women. Their appearance was truly Asiatic
with thick black hair, mongaloid spots and very little body hair."
These people lived in hemispherical rather than cone shaped huts which were
made of curved branches covered with straw. They lived totally dependant on
the ocean for protein from fish, shellfish and sea mamals. They, like the
eskimos and Yahgans used the harpoon. Their boats were made of boards sewn
together. They traveled the year round on such boats diving from them without
discomfort even in winter into the icy water to gather a meal of blue mussles."
>
>> the islands of the Carribean
>
>I was the one that pointed out that the Awarks & Caribs had some sea
>going ability; the Caribian & Gulf of Mexico were their home. They are
>not, though the open ocean.
>
>> and Easter Island.
>That is the point, the Polynesians were the ones who reached it, and
>from islands, to the West, not South Americans, from the mainland, to
>the East. That's where this thread started. You are into circular
>reasoning.
No, the point is that balsa rafts and boats were used by the South Americans
along a coastal range which extended for thousands of miles along the coast
and some hundreds of miles out to sea. Generally the islands within that
range were inhabited as far south as Tierra del Fuego, as far west as
Easter Island and the Galapagosas and as far east as the Falklands.
> The Falklands were mentioned because
>> their fauna are related to species found in precolumbian burials.
continued
steve
James Adrian van Wyk
Steve Whittet wrote:
>
> continued
>
> The Cape Horn Archipelago
>
>
> >> >...ARE YOU IMPLYING THAT THE INCAS OR PRE-INCAS ROUNDED THE HORN,
> >> >...IN BALSA RAFTS?
> >>
> >> Engles discusses sites on and adjacent to the continent of South America,
> >> many of which involve inhabited islands considerable distances out to
> >> sea such as the Galapagos,
> >
> > Uninhabited till post-columbian times.
> >
> >Tierra del Fuego,
> >
> > Not that far & off the South coast.
>
> the Chonos Archipelago, the Alcalufs and Yahgans living on boats,
> Tierra Del Fuego, the Straits of Magellanthe Falkland islands
> and the coast of Pategonia north to the mouth of the Parana river.
> in adjacencies ranging from tens of miles to hundreds of miles.
>
> p 244
Patagonia isn't Peru. The Faulklands do not face Peru. Tierra del
Fuego isn't off the coast of Peru. This started off with the coastal
portion, of the Andean cultures. What other cultures, in other parts,
of South America did with other technologies, is off the point, of what
Andean cultures did or could have done with rafts. You missed the
Carribian cultures.
>
> "Opposite Guayaquil on Puna Island there existed a heavily defended place
> that the Spanish had a hard time destroying. According to Augustin de Zarate
> "The Puna were rich, warlike and socially well organized, they used 'balsas',
> rafts made of straw and the trunks of very light tropical trees, which could
> transport 50 men and three horses, on their island was a temple with a
> formidible idol."
>
> p 248
>
> "The Alacalufs were little people. their height ranged 60.9 and 62.5 inches
> for men and 56.9 and 57.7 inches for women. Their appearance was truly Asiatic
> with thick black hair, mongaloid spots and very little body hair."
>
> These people lived in hemispherical rather than cone shaped huts which were
> made of curved branches covered with straw. They lived totally dependant on
> the ocean for protein from fish, shellfish and sea mamals. They, like the
> eskimos and Yahgans used the harpoon. Their boats were made of boards sewn
> together. They traveled the year round on such boats diving from them without
> discomfort even in winter into the icy water to gather a meal of blue mussles."
This again isn't Peru.
> >
> >> the islands of the Carribean
> >
> >I was the one that pointed out that the Awarks & Caribs had some sea
> >going ability; the Caribian & Gulf of Mexico were their home. They are
> >not, though the open ocean.
> >
> >> and Easter Island.
>
> >That is the point, the Polynesians were the ones who reached it, and
> >from islands, to the West, not South Americans, from the mainland, to
> >the East. That's where this thread started. You are into circular
> >reasoning.
>
> No, the point is that balsa rafts and boats were used by the South Americans
> along a coastal range which extended for thousands of miles along the coast
> and some hundreds of miles out to sea. Generally the islands within that
> range were inhabited as far south as Tierra del Fuego, as far west as
> Easter Island and the Galapagosas and as far east as the Falklands.
>
> > The Falklands were mentioned because
> >> their fauna are related to species found in precolumbian burials.
>
> continued
>
> steve
Again speculation, based on possibility, based on disputed evidence,
declared as absolute facts. If you said that: if Engles et. al. are
right, and others wrong, then this is true and there is a strong
possibility that is true, then there is a possibility this is true, as I
think it is, then I'd have no argument with you, on most issues
(other than a few technological ones). But you don't, you insist, with
absolute authority, that you hypothises are absolutely right. Going off
the subject, of Andean cultures, and bringing in cultures, all over the
Americas, does not prove the starting point.
James Adrian van Wyk
Steve Whittet wrote:
>
> continued
>
> >> >...examples of objects whose appearance in Asia and
> >> >> the new World is not easily attributable to a multilineal evolution.
> >> >
> >> >> Maces of polished stone,
> >> >
> >> >This is a non-proof.
> >> >
> >> >blow guns used to shoot poisoned arrows,
> >> >
>
> >
> >> I would agree with Engles that there is considerable evidence for the
> >> transoceanic diffusion of polished stone maces, blow guns and batik
> >> as well as the numerous other examples which have been cited.
> >> >
> >> >> fabriks with a negative decoration or batik, to cite only three examples,
> >> >
> >> >What do you mean, by negative decoration?
>
> >>
> >I'm very familiar with Batik, calling it negative decoration is new to me.
> >
> >> Engles, whom I am quoting, means a reverse positive or batik motif.
> >> The examples cited are well known. If you wish to dispute them,
> >> provide your evidence in rebuttal.
> >
> >Your examples prove nothing, assertions are not proofs, of themself.
>
Without details and detailed comparisons they are assertions. Always
repeats, of assertions, without details.
>
> >...high-tech...unique principles, likely, to be rarely noticed.
>
> It isn't necessary for something to be high tech or unlikely
> to be noticed for it to be diffused. A small improvement
> to an existing technology like using an improved variety
> of corn or cotton, a different method of attaching a border
> to a woven fabric, or the use of a glaze when firing pots
> can be disseminated widely.
>
> ....
Yes, but, if it is simple and relatively obvious, there is no reason, to
assume dispersion. Even relatively high tech things, for the level, of
civilization, are independently invented. This often happens today.
When the time has come, for something, someone will do it.
> >> >
> >> >> p 47
> >> >>
> >> >> "Only a blind man or a person of bad faith could deny the southern
> >> >> asiatic traits visible in Maya art, the indonesian reminiscences in
> >> >> the architecture and decoration of Central America and even in the
> >> >> Chavin society in Peru."
> >> >
> >> >I'm not blind; I'm somewhat familiar with Pre-columbian art and
> >> >architecture; I lived in Indonesia ad am quite familiar with the art and
> >> >architecture; the resemblances are not significant. The development, in
> >> >both locations, can be traced in their respective continents, without
> >> >diffusion (across the Pacific; there certainly was a great amount, of
> >> >diffusion, within Asia).
> >>
> >> Do you disagree with Engles that the Chavin society in Peru shares
> >> resemblances to Indonesian art and architecture? Why not read his book,
> >> then cite a few specific examples which he feels are similar but which
> >> you feel are different?
> >> >
> >
> >Maybe their standards, of what constitutes similar, are very low. A
> >lot, of similarities can be found between lots of things, but that does
> >not necessarily indicate diffusion.
>
> Why not read his book,then cite a few specific examples which he feels
> are similar but which you feel are different?
Why, since you are making the claim, that they are so similar, they
probably (or surely) came, from ctoss Pacific difusion, describe the
similarities and explain ehy they are from diffusion.
> >
> >> >> p52 [speaking of languagegroups]"Southern Andean"
> >> >>
> >> >> "This group includes Atacaman,Diaguite,Huamahnaca,Charrua,
> >> >> Huarpe,Aruacan, Chono, Puelche, Het, Tehuelche, Yahgan, Alacaluf
> >> >> (considered by Rivet to be an Ausatralian language) and Ona"
> >> >>
> >> >Considered by Rivet, and who else? No one? Yuri? Yuri & you?
> >>
> >> Engles cites Rivet, I cited Engles.
Engles is second hand & you are third hand. Details?
>
> Alacaluf is the distinctly Asian maritime group of short stature with thick
> black hair, mongoloid spots, etc; which inhabits the southern Chono
> archipelago.
> >> >
> >> >> p 124
> >> >>
> >> >> "After Tello. various authors studied the problem. Several of them
> >> >> see Chavin as the product of a foreign immigration to peru but each
> >> >> suggests a different center, one saying South Asian, another China
> >> >> under the Chou Dynasty."
> >> >
> >> >WHY?
> >>
> >> Because the pottery of the Chou Dynasty bears significant structural
> >> and stylistic similarity to the Chavin pottery Engles found in the Andes.
> >> To be more Specific the Dong Son bronze trade brought China into contact
> >> with southeast asia after the third millenium BC. By the 4th century BC
> >> huge 500 foot Chinese junks were crossing the Indian Ocean to trade
> >> with Africa.
> >> >
> >
> >I did not deny the possibility, that a Chinese junk may have reached
> >South America, but a few visits, over a milenia would hardly have much
> >cultural impact.
>
> "The Classic of Mountains and Seas"is the record of a series
> of journeys about the globe compiled in 2250 BC at the request of the
> emperor Shan by a man called Yu, his minister of Public Works who later
> became emperor himself. The Chinese travels describe mountains and rivers
> across the Great Eastern Sea.
>
> There is a fifth century AD expedition described by Hwui Shan a Buddhist
> monk who reports on the travels of five Buddhist missionaries to a country
> far to the east called Fu-sang. Fu-sang was so named by the Chinese because
> of its trees which produced an edible fruit, pear shaped and reddish in color
> which could be preserved for a year without spoiling. At the beginning of the
> Christian era corn in Mexico was only about three inches long, wider at the
> base like a pear with reddish kernals.
>
> Hwui Shan describes finding a civilized people in Fu-sang who knew writing
> which they did on paper made from a plant, and who, though they had no iron
> had plenty of gold and silver.
You reference, from Chinese literature, two possible Chinese visits,
with the possibility, of a few more, over 2-3/4 milenia; okay, what
more? That doesn't sound like an immensely great impact. I'd question,
the 2250 BCE date though, sounds a bit early. 250 BCE - 500 CE, 3/4
millenium, I wouldn't question, even more. I've admitted that a few
Chinese visits were possible. This literature may (or may not) actually
be refering to somewhere on the West coast, of the Americas. You
overstate your case and then credit a lot to diffusion, from China, with
vague statements, of vague similarities. What you state really doesn't
fully support your conclusions. Experts seem to disagree, on these
matters, so it is not so clear cut. Vague similarities are likely
coincidential, definate and unique ones likely diffusion.
> >I also do not deny the possibility, of a occasional Polynesian visit.
> >I consider any regular trading, to be highly improbable.
>
> Chinese literatury contains an epic called the "Shan Hai King" a
> geographical work which discusses enormous mountain ranges across
> the seas to the east.
>
> Japanese literature also contains accounts of vaoyages to the east.
>
Japan is in that Pacific arc, of islands, that starts in Washington
State, up the West coast, of Canada & Alaska, across the Alutians, down
the East coast of Asia, out the Malay Arhipelago, and then East, through
Oceania, half way across the Pacific, towards South America. This has
been a trade route, from early times. But this less than supports major
cultural diffusion.
> >As far as the opposite direction, is concerned, impossible,
> >with the maritime technology, of the West Coast of South America.
>
> How so? The currents actually favor someones drifting from east to west.
Differences in technology. Rafts are not junks or large double
outrigger dug out canoes, that can navigate bith ways. Rafts can drift
West.
> Once your neighbors get around to coming for a visit it is only polite
> to go visit them.
>
> >The trade routes, of the East Coast of Asia, Western Oceana, and the
> >Indian Ocean are a different matter, than trans-Pacific, by a few
> >orders, of magnitude.
>
> The most logical routes are around the northern pacific Rim
> which can be virtually coasted from west to east.
>
> From India people traded across the Indian Ocean to Southeast Asia
> and to Africa. From Melanesia the Philipines led to China and Japan.
> Following the northern Pacific rim through the Kurils, Kamchatka,
> the Komandore Ostrove, the Aleutians, Queen Charlottes and down the
> California coast through Baja, Revillo Gigedo and Clipperton heads
> you straight into the Galapagos.
>
You start off okay, but you drift into extreme overstatement; you also
ignore who is doing what, of the things you state.
> > These trade routes worked in both directions,
> >from early times, but were largely coastal.
>
> You coast from west to east then led the wind and tide take you west again
>
> > The settling, of the islands, well away, from shore, in the Indian Ocean,
> >came late, in the history, of Indian Ocean trade.
>
> If by late you mean 3rd millenium BC, sure, spices from the Maldives
> first reached the Euphrates in the time of Sargon of Agade.
>
> > Chinese ship technology was more than
> >adequate, for deep sea, so it can't be written off. That the Chinese,
> >during one period, had adequate ship technology, for deep sea voyages,
> >does not mean everything, with a vague similarity, to something Chinese,
> >is a result, of diffusion, via Chinese trade.
>
> Seeing as how you admit the Chinese could make the voyage, it seems
> foolish for you to characterise the similarity as vauge without
> checking. Does the similarity of 18 Rabbit to a Chinese shogun
> strike you as vauge?
> >
If you want to see great similarities you see them.
> >> >>
> >> >> P 125
> >> >>
> >> >> Finally I should point out (as Covarrubias did) that I noted resemblances
> >> >> upon looking closely at the decorative themes of Chavin and of Chou bronzes
> >> >> from China"
> >> >
> >> >WHAT RESEMBLANCES?]
> >>
> >> Engles goes on for some pages so I suggest you read the book, but
> >> for example p 122 he cites, "bases surounded by annular rings that were
> >> sometimes pierced at the side as in the perfume vessels of the far East."
> >>
> >> "Is it normal for an art and decorative themes to appear in a definitive,
> >> one is tempted to say classical form without archaeologists succeeding in
> >> finding somewhere in the vicinity (or even far away) villiages in which one
> >> can observe an evolutuion leading from the origins of this art to its
> >> developed forms?"
>
> steve
You have enough case to state a limited possibility of some contact; on
it you build an assertion, of major contact and cultural diffusion. You
vastly overstate your case, into far out speculation, which you insist
is fact. At least you have some case, for some, of the things you
assert, which is more than your cohort has.
javw
Garry Williams
whi...@shore.net (Steve Whittet) wrote:
<snip a lot>
>p 248
>
>"The Alacalufs were little people. their height ranged 60.9 and 62.5 inches
>for men and 56.9 and 57.7 inches for women. Their appearance was truly Asiatic
>with thick black hair, mongaloid spots and very little body hair."
My question is tangential to this thread, but can someone enlighten me
as to what is meant by "mongaloid spots"? Are these darker or lighter
spots, and is it genetic? If so, what populations, outside of the one
whose name it bears, have it? Any details would be appreciated.
--
Garry Williams
gdw...@earthlink.net or
gdw...@william.salzo.cary.nc.us
Peter van Rossum
In article <61bje1$8...@fridge.shore.net> whi...@shore.net (Steve Whittet) writes:
>Seeing as how you admit the Chinese could make the voyage, it seems
>foolish for you to characterise the similarity as vauge without
>checking. Does the similarity of 18 Rabbit to a Chinese shogun
>strike you as vauge?
>
No it doesn't strike me as vague it strikes me that you have absolutely
idea what you are talking about. 18 Rabbit is always depicted at the
Maya site of Copan in a manner which is completely consistent with
Maya canons of art. He may look chinese to someone like you who
knows virtually nothing about the Maya but then again Pacal looks
like an astronaut to Von Daniken.
Peter van Rossum
PMV...@PSU.EDU
Steve Whittet
In article <3439B7...@antnov1.auckland.ac.nz>, d...@antnov1.auckland.ac.nz says...
>
>Steve Whittet wrote:
>> >> >...Easter Island isn't just off the coast.
>>
>> It sits on the prevailing currents along latitude 30 south which would
>> pick up anything between Pisco and Valpariso and carry it out to
>> San Ambrosio, San Felix and the Juan Fernandez Islands, all of which
>> have pre columbian artifacts.
>>
>> Next stop is Masatura
>
>Wait a minute, Steve, I'm having trouble following in your wake here.
>Would you be referring to Más Afuera (now officially Alejandro Selkirk),
>which is one of the Juan Fernandez group, rather than a "next stop"?
Xerox PARC Map Viewer: world 33.75S 80.76W (2000.0X)
That is correct. I am using a chart of the Pacific Ocean drawn by
Edward J Powell. Its one of my favorite charts and it does have a lot of
detail down to individual rocks and shoals, but some of its place names
are archaic and others are in fairly small print.
You can then go to http://pubweb.parc.xerox.com/map
/ht=0.17/lat=-33.75/lon=-80.76/wd=0.35?260,124
for a view of what's there
>
>>then Richie
>
>Now I'm stumped. Can't find "Richie" or anything like it on any of my
>maps. What they show is 1000+ km of open water between Juan Fernandez and
>Sala y Gomez.
I apologise again. Its actually Buchile I. shown as part of a group of reefs
including Grey rock.
>
>>then Sala y Gomez. All of these islands are claimed by Chile and most
>>are within a 350 mile radius of Richie Island or eachother.
>>
>> Northeast of Easter Island lie Waihou and Pilgrim Island.
Xerox PARC Map Viewer: world 27.15S 109.32W (1028.6X)
gives Easter Island but doesn't show Bird island which
is probably considered just a big rock.
>
>Damn! Not on my map again! Should I be thinking of upgrading?
If you intend to do any sailing in the area a chart showing
the rocks and reefs would be nice to have.
>
>Due east
>> is Sala y-gomez. All are within about the same range as Miami and Havanna.
>> a distance which rafters frequently manage to cross using less seaworthy
>> craft than those of the Incas.
>>
>> (My favorite is a guy who welded the doors closed on a 54 chevy and then
>> welded paddles to the rear wheel drums and replaced the front wheels with
>> rudders then rolled up the windows and drove across.)
>>
>Steve, _please_ don't try it! Even if all the islands you name actually
>exist, they'd be mere specks compared with huge masses of land like
>Florida, Cuba and even the Bahamas. Comparing the two is a joke. (Hey,
>maybe it is a joke! Sorry if I didn't get it.)
I am serious!!! even if I am kidding...:) Small islands, rocks, reefs
and shoals are exactly the sorts of nabvigational landmarks fisherman
like to use. During the summers the fisherman from Monhegan all go out
to Casius ledge, about 70 miles due east of Boston where they rig pulpits
and go for tuna with harpoons.
I guess the best analogy I can use is that such rocks are like a
tree in a desert, they are the equivalent of landmarks.
>
>Ross Clark
steve
Steve Whittet
...
>> >> >> as between the polyhedral walls of Cuzco and those of the
>> >> >> Marquesa Islands."
>> >> >
>> >> >A POLHEDRON IS A COMMON GEOMETRIC SHAPE, WHAT ELSE WOULD YOU EXPECT?
>> >
>> >> I would expect you to realise that architectural styles involve more
>> >> than the shape of the stones used. Methods of coursing and bonding,
>> >> dimensions, proportions, types of joinery and keys are all a part
>> >> of the similarity.
>> >
>> >With stone masonry there are relatively few choices. Tell that to the
>> >uninitiated, not to an engineer, who has designed stone masonry. The
>> >only regional unique type, of stone masonry, I know of, is a type used,
>> >for retaining walls, in Northeast Asia. Jist, from the limited choices,
>> >you find similar everywhere.
>> >
ana Mohandis mahri
>There are only so many ways you can cut, fit, course, lay stone.
You apparently are more familiar with modern stonemasonry than
its archaeological history.
The ways you can cut, fit, course, lay stone may not include all the
ways a more primitive society would select from.
Methods of stomemasonry can range from just picking up anything heavy
lying around your campsite to weight down the edge of your tent
(At one site near Hawtah petrified wood was used) to sending
expeditions 600 miles to carve out granite monoliths and float
them down a river.
>Yes some tradition, of stone masonry develops and must develop, but they will not
>be all that different.
At Ba Bar you can actually tell where one man chipping the stones into
cubes was left handed. At Sar you can tell the Kassite occupation levels
by the number of courses between broken coursed longstones.
>Some will be more developed, in one direction, or another.
>The similarities identified, a couple, of posts back, were
>common elements in just about any tradition. Polyhedron unique? What
>else?
Uncoursed fieldstone has many gaps between large stones which tend to be
filled with small bits of rubble.
Poygonal rubble selects or cuts generally softer and larger stones
to fit so that no smaller pieces are needed.
>What do you expect stones cut Spheroid?
If you don't realise that there is a difference between uncoursed
rubble and polygonal fieldstone its a great stretch for you to refer
to yourself as a knowledgable mason.
>I still say the only really regionally unique type, of stone masonry,
>is that used, for retainong walls, in Northeast Asia
Come on. I could cite you recognizable styles in the coursing of
New England stone walls.
Uncoursed and roughly squared selects or breaks to fit generally
flat stones into rectangualer shapes
Coursed fieldstone mixed with rubble strikes a level every few courses
Coursed and roughly squared strikes a level every few courses using
roughly rectangular stones.
>(The stones are cut, in the shape, of that early Egyptian pyramid,
>that they changed angle on during construction and are set with
>base points down; now that is unique.).
All masonry has its individual characteristics. Even modern brick
coursing and types of bricks can be used by a knowledgable architectural
historian to determine the period of construction.
>
>javw
>
>
steve
Yuri Kuchinsky
James Adrian van Wyk (jimv...@worldnet.att.net) wrote:
...
: Differences in technology. Rafts are not junks or large double
: outrigger dug out canoes, that can navigate bith ways. Rafts can drift
: West.
James,
You are ignorant. Get yourself informed.
Ocean sailing rafts were used both in Asia and in S. America. They were
equipped with excellent sails and guara boards and were extremely
seaworthy.
Yuri.
Yuri Kuchinsky in Toronto -=O=- http://www.io.org/~yuku
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 17784
Peter van Rossum (pmv...@email.psu.edu) wrote:
...
: I keep waiting for the finding of Old World artifacts in New World
: contexts to prove that contacts occurred.
How about C. moneta?
: In my opinion (and the
: opinion of most archaeologists) it is precisely this supporting
: evidence which is lacking. It is quite possible that some wayward
: souls occasionally washed up on New World shores but they don't seem
: to have had much of an impact.
Yuri.
Yuri Kuchinsky in Toronto -=O=- http://www.io.org/~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
Peter van Rossum
Part 2 - Steve evades the cotton issue
In article <616j3r$m...@fridge.shore.net> whi...@shore.net (Steve Whittet)
writes:
>"The origins of cotton are thought to lie in the African - Asian area
>and on the West coast of America. The original short fibred type has,
>over the course of approximately 4000 years of domestication, been
>selected to produce the domesticated strain, the fibre quality and
>length of which greatly surpasses that of the original form.
>
>The two most commercially important tetraploid strains, G. hirsutum
>(Upland cotton) and G. vitifolium (Sea Island cotton), which have
>2 - 4 cm long seed fibres, have been developed in mid and South America
>from the diploid African - Asiatic and American wild types. "
Again this contributes nothing, these are just some simple facts about cotton
which no one is disputing. The question is whether the distribution of
cotton proves Old/New World human contacts and this material says nothing on
that topic. Also when you quote someone you should give the full citation.
>Species of Gossypium:
>Gossypium anomalum B1
>Gossypium arboreum A2
etc..
<rest of gossypium species deleted for brevity>
Again that's great Steve you've proven you can look up the different
species of gossypium. You nowhere use this data to support an
argument that the distribution of gossypium proves Old/New World
human contact. So in the current context this is just useless info.
>>Some forms of Gossypium are native to the New World and others to the Old.
>>The interesting thing is that there are certain species which were made
>>from a cross of an Old and a New World variant. Get it?
>
>That may have been where things sat a generation ago, but more recent research
>is interested not just in "Old World" species" and "New World" species" but
>in species which are hybrids. Mutations which indicate agricultural improvements
>such as those that led to the domestication of corn in Mexico.
Um I didn't say there were just Old World and New World species, read it
again. Above I said "certain species were made from a cross of an Old and
a New World variant." That's what a hybrid is. But the research by Wendel
and others indicates that this cross took place some 1-2 Million Years Ago
- far too old to have been due to human intervention.
Continued in next post.
Peter van Rossum
Peter van Rossum
Part 7 - Steve on crossing the ocean
>>idea that maize and cotton were brought to the New World from the Old by
>>transoceanic visitors.
>
>Nobody is talking about their coming to the New World from the Old World
Bull, you specifically put them in with a list of other things you
thought came from the Old World to the New. Now you are claiming that
you didn't think that was the case with these two? Its amazing to see
the lengths to which you will go in order not to admit that you were
wrong. Face it Steve the current data on cotton and corn do not
support the notion that humans brought them from the Old Wold to the
New - regardless of what Engels and Steward might have once said;
they were simply wrong about these.
>Whats being discussed is their coming from one part of the Pacific Ocean
>to another part of the Pacific Ocean via the Pacific Ocean...
>
>We have no difficulty discussing things crossing a continent
>why is their crossing an ocean so difficult for you to grasp?
>Incredible as it may seem, people did use the ocean as a means of
>transportation both along the coasts of the Americas between
>North and South America, and between the islands of the Pacific.
>People also sometimes transported things between islands and a
>mainland or between a mainland and some islands.
Get out the map Steve. There's a bit difference between boating
up and down the coast and coming to the New World from the Old. I
have no trouble believing in the *possibility* of contact I just
don't see much evidence to prove it and your use of outdated hypotheses
regarding cotton and corn don't help.
>> Also as even you pointed out even if they do turn out to
>>be of an Old World origin that doesn't rule out the possibility of a very long
>>down the line transmission route rather than indicating that a boat load of
>>Old Worlders sailed across the ocean and carried it to the Southeastern U.S.
>
>I am glad that even you finally realise that is the point I have been making.
>It doesn't take some long epic voyage for things to cross an ocean, just a
>lot of short trips. You can actually coast the northern Pacific Rim and in
>fact many Japanese fisherman still do just that to reach the rich waters
>off Alaska.
I always realized this point Steve. Its one of the few areas where
I think you've said something sensible.
And then just to seal up the post Steve ends up info about Heyerdahl
on Easter Island which although it is interesting it has absolutely
nothing to do with his original quote that cotton, corn, the blowgun
and batiking indicated Old World - New World contacts.
>Just for the record
>The Easter Island Expedition (1955-56)
>Following earlier successful work, Heyerdahl was encouraged to direct
>a major archaeological expedition to the Pacific's most isolated island:
>Easter Island. An expedition of 23 persons reached the island and began
>the first sub-surface archaeological excavation every attempted.
>They soon discovered that Easter Island had once been wooded until
>deforested by its original inhabitants, who also planted water-reeds
>and other South American plants.
>Carbon dating showed that the Island had been occupied from about 380 A.D.,
>about one thousand years earlier than scientists previously believed.
>Excavations indicated that some ancient stone carvings on the Island
>were similar to ancient traditions in Peru. Some Easter Islanders claimed
>that according to their legends, they orginally arrived from the far away
>lands to the East.
>The results of Heyerdahl's work were widely discussed and presented at the
>Tenth Pacific Science Congress in Honolulu (1961) where they were supported
>by the unanimous statement: "Southeast Asia and the islands adjacent constitute
>one major source area of the peoples and cultures of the Pacific Islands and
>South America". Thus, Heyerdahl's eastern migration theory had gained
>considerable influence.
>
>steve
Hey, Steve why don't you go to a conference today and find out how
many would agree with that statement. You won't find many. We've done a
lot of work since 1961 and people generally are more impressed by the paucity
of evidence than anything else.
In the future could you please figure out how to stick to a topic
Steve. Just throwing out hundreds of lines of unrelated material
does not bolster your claim - it just wastes peoples time.
End of posting series
Peter van Rossum
PMV...@PSU.EDU
Peter van Rossum
Part 5 - Steve on the blowgun
In article <61dadu$1...@fridge.shore.net> whi...@shore.net (Steve Whittet)
writes:>>
>>I think even you would agree that ...
>>it takes no great leap of imagination to figure out that you can blow
>>something out a hollow tube, the hard part is figuring out how to make a
>>poison that turns it into a weapon. Get it?
>
>I think even you would agree that any poison will work. Of course a person
>using the concept of a blowgun will modify it as required to take advantage
>of localy available substitutes. Its still the concept of the pneumatic tube
>that makes it work. If that is so immediately obvious how come Europeans
>didn't figure it out? Is it your contention that Europeans had no poisons?
I love this. So to you the complicated part of a blowgun is figuring out
that if you stick something in a tube and blow, it will come out the
other end - as you call it "the concept of the pneumatic tube". You
must have been a very unimaginitive child.
>So I take it we agree. Both diffusion and independent invention are
>possibilities. When independent invention isn't sufficient to explain
>a technological concept which has arisen in some cultures and not in
>others, and the cultures which it has arisin in are in contact, then
>diffusion is a possibility.
>
>In order to make a possibility a probability it helps to find
>as confirmations other cultural artifacts which have diffused
>along the same route.
Yes, Steve. You and I are in complete agreement that when you find
the same thing in two different cultures it could be either due to
diffusion or independent invention. Where we differ is what the
standard of evidence should be. I think you are far to willing
to think diffusion for even the simplest things, on the other hand
I keep waiting for the finding of Old World artifacts in New World
contexts to prove that contacts occurred. In my opinion (and the
opinion of most archaeologists) it is precisely this supporting
evidence which is lacking. It is quite possible that some wayward
souls occasionally washed up on New World shores but they don't seem
to have had much of an impact.
Continued in next post
Peter van Rossum
Yuri Kuchinsky 17784
Peter van Rossum (pmv...@email.psu.edu) wrote:
...
[Steve:]
: >Just for the record
: >The Easter Island Expedition (1955-56)
: >Following earlier successful work, Heyerdahl was encouraged to direct
: >a major archaeological expedition to the Pacific's most isolated island:
: >Easter Island. An expedition of 23 persons reached the island and began
: >the first sub-surface archaeological excavation every attempted.
: >They soon discovered that Easter Island had once been wooded until
: >deforested by its original inhabitants, who also planted water-reeds
: >and other South American plants.
: >Carbon dating showed that the Island had been occupied from about 380 A.D.,
: >about one thousand years earlier than scientists previously believed.
: >Excavations indicated that some ancient stone carvings on the Island
: >were similar to ancient traditions in Peru. Some Easter Islanders claimed
: >that according to their legends, they orginally arrived from the far away
: >lands to the East.
: >The results of Heyerdahl's work were widely discussed and presented at the
: >Tenth Pacific Science Congress in Honolulu (1961) where they were supported
: >by the unanimous statement: "Southeast Asia and the islands adjacent constitute
: >one major source area of the peoples and cultures of the Pacific Islands and
: >South America". Thus, Heyerdahl's eastern migration theory had gained
: >considerable influence.
: Hey, Steve why don't you go to a conference today and find out how
: many would agree with that statement.
The data hasn't changed since then. There's more than enough solid data
supporting Heyerdahl.
: You won't find many.
But the human ignorance, the patterns of avoidance and denial, and the
group-think in the profession may have gotten worse...
: We've done a : lot of work since 1961 and people generally are more
impressed by the paucity : of evidence than anything else.
Only those who have not seen this evidence, or those with a preconceived
political agenda, can say "paucity".
Yuri.
Yuri Kuchinsky in Toronto -=O=- http://www.io.org/~yuku
Reality is that which, when you stop believing
in it, doesn't go away -=O=- Philip K. Dick
James Adrian van Wyk
> : outrigger dug out canoes, that can navigate bith ways. Rafts can drift
> : West.
>
>
> You are ignorant. Get yourself informed.
>
> Ocean sailing rafts were used both in Asia and in S. America. They were
> equipped with excellent sails and guara boards and were extremely
> seaworthy.
>
> without a terrible squirming of the horrid little population
> that dwells under it -=O=- Oliver Wendell Holmes
YOU are wring Yuri, and I think you know it.
javw
James Adrian van Wyk
Steve Whittet wrote:
>
> ...
> >> >> >> as between the polyhedral walls of Cuzco and those of the
> >> >> >> Marquesa Islands."
> >> >> >
> >> >> >A POLHEDRON IS A COMMON GEOMETRIC SHAPE, WHAT ELSE WOULD YOU EXPECT?
> >> >
> >> >> I would expect you to realise that architectural styles involve more
> >> >> than the shape of the stones used. Methods of coursing and bonding,
> >> >> dimensions, proportions, types of joinery and keys are all a part
> >> >> of the similarity.
> >> >
> >> >With stone masonry there are relatively few choices. Tell that to the
> >> >uninitiated, not to an engineer, who has designed stone masonry. The
> >> >only regional unique type, of stone masonry, I know of, is a type used,
> >> >for retaining walls, in Northeast Asia. Jist, from the limited choices,
> >> >you find similar everywhere.
> >> >
> >is that used, for retainong walls, in Northeast Asia
>
> Come on. I could cite you recognizable styles in the coursing of
> New England stone walls.
>
> Uncoursed and roughly squared selects or breaks to fit generally
> flat stones into rectangualer shapes
>
> Coursed fieldstone mixed with rubble strikes a level every few courses
>
> Coursed and roughly squared strikes a level every few courses using
> roughly rectangular stones.
>
> >(The stones are cut, in the shape, of that early Egyptian pyramid,
> >that they changed angle on during construction and are set with
> >base points down; now that is unique.).
>
> All masonry has its individual characteristics. Even modern brick
> coursing and types of bricks can be used by a knowledgable architectural
> historian to determine the period of construction.
> >
> >javw
> >
> >
>
> steve
I've worked in the 3rd world. I've seen & been involved with primative
methods. I've visited numerous sites. I've seen pictures, of many
more, from many places. Modern or ancient, one place or another, there
isn't that much difference. Stone is dressed, semi-dressed, or in
natural condition. It is laid either with or without mortar. For
dressed and semi-dressed there are a few basic ways of coursing. Either
there are arches, domes, etc., or plain lintels, or both. There are
differences, but they are not the construction basics. Architectural
style, beyond the basic building, and architectural detail are where the
differences are. To go to a part, of the World, not part, this thread,
Herodian ashalars are distinct, from most, but there isn't much
difference between the most others. Polyhedrons - what else would you
expect, but dressed masonry with straight edges and flat faces?
Definition (Random House Dictionary): Polyhedron: A solid figure
having many faces. Saying polyhedron is saying nothing. Rip-rap and
rubble: what real difference can there be? It is either hand set up or
dumped & compacted. What is unique about both places, that are
different than all or most other places? That is the real question, not
similarities in basics.
javw
George Black
>No, the point is that balsa rafts and boats were used by the South Americans
>along a coastal range which extended for thousands of miles along the coast
>and some hundreds of miles out to sea. Generally the islands within that
>range were inhabited as far south as Tierra del Fuego, as far west as
>Easter Island and the Galapagosas and as far east as the Falklands.
Steve. The colonisation of the Pacific was carried out by the Polynesian.
The history of this migration begins with the Austroasian represented by the
Lapita culture and their pottery. Apart from small pockets where the pottery
horizon continued (Borneo) the Pacific Islands did not support a pottery
industry as the clays required do not exist.
It is true that rafts and canoes were used on the Pacific coast of Meso
America. On the coast. There is no evidence that they went any further than
the Galapagos.... And --this--- evidence is contentious. The pottery has been
claimed to be identified as a northern pottery type.
Perhaps with your great knowledge of the area you could translate -
hatun-cocha - into the English to show how these people viewed the sea.
Further Ochroma grows in Equador and well beyond the realms of Inca so
ahuampus wasn't possible.
This sig is a sine of the thymes
Yuri Kuchinsky
George Black (gbl...@midland.co.nz) wrote:
...
: It is true that rafts and canoes were used on the Pacific coast of Meso
: America. On the coast. There is no evidence that they went any further than
: the Galapagos....
George,
Have you looked at the map recently? Hint: Galapagos are waaaay out there
in the Pacific...
: And --this--- evidence is contentious.
Not at all, although I know you would like it to be...
: The pottery has been
: claimed to be identified as a northern pottery type.
Whatever this means... Perhaps you would like to enlarge on this cryptic
pronouncement of yours?
Steve Whittet
>> >> >> >> ...polyhedral walls ...Cuzco...the Marquesa Islands."
>> >> >> >A POLHEDRON IS A COMMON GEOMETRIC SHAPE, WHAT ELSE WOULD YOU EXPECT?
>> >> >> I would expect you to realise that architectural styles involve more
>> >> >> than the shape of the stones used. Methods of coursing and bonding,
>> >> >> dimensions, proportions, types of joinery and keys are all a part
>> >> >> of the similarity.
>> >> >...stone masonry...few choices. .
>> >> >...an engineer, who has designed stone masonry.
>> >> Stone masonry begins with people making rings of stones to weight
>> >> down the edges of tents. Later it changes as people hunting gazelle
>> >> build kites across arabia. Associated with the kites are cairns and
>> >> stone circles. Later still people clearing land for agriculture pile
>> >> up stones around the edges of fields which become walls.
>> >>
>> >> Standing stones, megaliths and dolmens are also developed early on.
>> >>
>> >> I have already discussed some early forms of stone masonry in
>> >> discussing the origins of the arch. Suffice it to say that by the time
>> >> people can build a wall higher than their waist, that isn't twenty
>> >> feet across at its base they have begun to use some primitive
>> >> coursing techniques. These include laying stones in rows, putting
>> >> stones in one row perpendicular to those in another, lapping joints,
>> >> corbeling and the use of lintels to create openings for doors and windows.
>> >>
>> >> Building plumb,level walls with square corners involves concepts like
>> >> straight, plumb, level, square, equal, and measured. By the time people
>> >> actually begin cutting stones to fit, let alone by the time they cut
>> >> stones in polygonal shapes or trim the inside corners of joined walls
>> >> to make them plumb, or key the joints, it is fair to say a tradition
>> >> of stonemasonry has developed with one generation teaching the next
>> >> how to build.
>> >I'm a construction engineer, who has worked round the World.
>> ana Mohandis mahri
>I've worked in the 3rd world.
Who hasn't? (This is still an archaeology group?)
>I've seen & been involved with primative methods.
I know, you said you were an engineer.
>I've visited numerous sites. I've seen pictures, of many
>more, from many places. Modern or ancient, one place or another, there
>isn't that much difference.
Maybe not to you, (perhaps you always stay in hotels near the airport?)
most people are more observation
>Stone is dressed, semi-dressed, or in natural condition.
>It is laid either with or without mortar.
>For dressed and semi-dressed there are a few basic ways of coursing.
>Either there are arches, domes, etc., or plain lintels, or both.
That isn't coursing. Coursing is as I described above.
What you have mentioned are methods of spaning across an open space.
Just to add a few terms to your vocabulary, we can span a space with
corbels, with monolithic slabs or beams, with gables, or composites.
>There are differences, but they are not the construction basics.
You haven't shown me you know much about the basics. Start with the
foundations and work your way up.
>Architectural style, beyond the basic building, and architectural
>detail are where the differences are.
No, that's where the similarities are. To have style you need to
be able to repeat what has been done before and then perhaps add
on something more besides. I don't think you know anything about
architecture either.
Can you identify the "style" of stone masonry used on Easter Island?
Do you know what makes it a "style"?
>To go to a part, of the World, not part, this thread,
>Herodian ashalars are distinct, from most, but there isn't much
>difference between the most others.
The style of the bosses on the ashlars of the temple wall
in Jerusalem is one of the things used to date stones and
structures to the time of Herod, as any regualr BAR reader
should know.
Some of the things which become important when discussing finished stones
are the dimensions of such architectural features which help to identify
their order.
The same thing applies to earlier masonry as well. Often the function of
a wall is first indicated by the way its masonry is assembled. You might
note that kites and cairns are built differently.
>Polyhedrons - what else would you
>expect, but dressed masonry with straight edges and flat faces?
The difference between a rubble wall and a polygonal wall is that
the edges of the stones have been dressed to fit tightly. That isn't
exactly an easy thing to do, nor is it immediately obvious even from
looking at such a wall how one goes about it.
The only way that such a wall can develop is through a tradition of
several generations experimenting with different techniques and
passing on the results.
It is a technique which is unlikely to be independently invented
and therefore provides good evidence of diffusion.
>Definition (Random House Dictionary): Polyhedron: A solid figure
>having many faces. Saying polyhedron is saying nothing.
You should be aware that its technical jargon for a particular technique
>Rip-rap and rubble: what real difference can there be?
Rip rap is an erosion control useually laid into a hillside.
Rubble is a form of random coursing where larger stones are piled up
with out regard for the tightness of fit and the joints are chinked
with smaller stones.
>It is either hand set up or dumped & compacted. What is unique about
>both places, that are different than all or most other places?
>That is the real question, not similarities in basics.
No offense, but I can understand why you work in the third world...
>javw
>
steve
Ross Clark
Steve Whittet wrote:
>
>[citing F.Engel]
> >> >> p52 [speaking of languagegroups]"Southern Andean"
> >> >>
> >> >> "This group includes Atacaman,Diaguite,Huamahnaca,Charrua,
> >> >> Huarpe,Aruacan, Chono, Puelche, Het, Tehuelche, Yahgan, Alacaluf
> >> >> (considered by Rivet to be an Ausatralian language) and Ona"
> >> >>
> >> >Considered by Rivet, and who else? No one? Yuri? Yuri & you?
> >>
> >> Engles cites Rivet, I cited Engles.
>
> Alacaluf is the distinctly Asian maritime group of short stature with thick
> black hair, mongoloid spots, etc; which inhabits the southern Chono
> archipelago.
> >> >
Whew! This one almost slipped by me. An Australian language in South
America! Sensational news!
The reference is to Paul Rivet, "Les australiens en amérique", Bulletin
de la Société de Linguistique de Paris 26:23-63 (1925). Yes, he does
argue that a group of languages of southernmost S.Am. which he calls
"Tson", including Selknam (Ona) and Tehuelche, are of Australian origin.
No, nobody else has taken him seriously. Rivet was a distinguished French
ethnographer, who I believe helped to establish the Musée de l'Homme in
Paris, but who had a weakness for improbable linguistic connections.
About the same time, he was claiming that the Hokan languages of North
America were Malayo-Polynesian (Journal de la Société des Américanistes
de Pari, N.s., XVIII: 141-278, 1926).
The method used will be familiar to readers of this and other newsgroups.
You know how if you take any two languages from anywhere and look hard
enough, you'll find some words that have similar sounds and meanings?
Well it works even better if you take whole bunches of languages and
compare them all at once. In this case Rivet is comparing a group of 5
South American languages with no less than 76 different Australian
languages. Heaps of words! In the Hokan study he had 38 Hokan languages
and 497 Malayo-Polynesian. Even bigger heaps! For instance, Tehuelche
kheruf "vulture" is supposed to be cognate with Yuin ngurun "emu",
wagulan "crow", and koorawarri "swan". Yes, all of them!
Stuff like this is best forgotten, but unfortunately once committed to
print it will almost inevitably surface somewhere as a factoid in support
of someone's new theory.
Ross Clark
Steve Whittet
In article <3439e...@harold.midland.co.nz>, gbl...@midland.co.nz7 says...
>
>
>>No, the point is that balsa rafts and boats were used by the South Americans
>>along a coastal range which extended for thousands of miles along the coast
>>and some hundreds of miles out to sea. Generally the islands within that
>>range were inhabited as far south as Tierra del Fuego, as far west as
>>Easter Island and the Galapagosas and as far east as the Falklands.
>
>Steve. The colonisation of the Pacific was carried out by the Polynesian.
>The history of this migration begins with the Austroasian represented by the
>Lapita culture and their pottery. Apart from small pockets where the pottery
>horizon continued (Borneo) the Pacific Islands did not support a pottery
>industry as the clays required do not exist.
I don't disagree with this
>
>It is true that rafts and canoes were used on the Pacific coast of Meso
>America. On the coast. There is no evidence that they went any further than
>the Galapagos.... And --this--- evidence is contentious. The pottery has been
>claimed to be identified as a northern pottery type.
I would allow that if they went as far as the Galapagos they have already
crossed more open ocean than it is necessary to cross island hopping
from San Felix or San Fernandez to Buchile to Sala y-Gomez to Rapa Nui.
This path constitutes a group of shoals known as the Chile Rise which is
one of the richest fishing grounds on the planet.
This is the sort of thing we see fairly typical with fishermen. They
start on the mainland and follow schools of fish to a good fishing ground.
If this happens to be near an island they set up a fishing camp on the island
and visit it seasonally. Eventually there is a year round population
staying on the island. These island people then follow schools of fish to
new fishing grounds even farther offshore. Thats how it probably worked
for the Polynesians too.
If the Incas arrived on Easter Island c 1100 AD, the Polynesians would
have been there for about a millenium at that point.
steve
Domingo Martinez
Steve Whittet wrote:
> If the Incas arrived on Easter Island c 1100 AD, the Polynesians would
> have been there for about a millenium at that point.
>
Steve,
It may be me, but when I read your posts I end up utterly confused, because you
mix together periods and cultures, and usually I do not know what you are
referring to.
This time you put a date: 1,100 AD. Thanks, but that is just wrong for the Incas,
as it was wrong when you said that Huayna Capac divided the land between his two
children, etc. Just wrong. But just noting that may get lost in the mixture of
arguments. You mention textiles now, which of course opens up a huge area given
the abundant evidence existing in the very dry Pacific coast.
So I make a request to you, Steve. Could you please help me, and perhaps others,
with an schematic of the post-Pleistocene pre-Columbian interoceanic contacts you
are arguing about? Something like this:
Period Cultures involved Evidence
---------------- ------------------- ----------
III Century AD Shang-Olmec numerals
XV Century Inca-Polynesian one chronicler
In this way we could perhaps better contribute according to our limited knowledge.
Thanks in advance for the systematic effort I am sure you will put in the name of
science.
Regards,
-----
Domingo Martínez-Castilla
agd...@showme.missouri.edu
A partial archive of discussions on pre-Columbian
inter-continental diffusion can be found at:
http://www.andes.missouri.edu/personal/dmartinez/diffusion/
-----
Bernard Ortiz de Montellano
In article <343B12...@antnov1.auckland.ac.nz>, Ross Clark
<d...@antnov1.auckland.ac.nz> wrote:
Once again!!!!
When we finally get to the ORIGINAL SOURCE not some warmed over second
hand summary, we find that the supposed *proof* is really nonsensical. As
usual we also get an extremely outdated source using methodology that is
ridiculous by modern standards of linguistic comparisons. I again, urge
readers to demand that claims that arte made be immediately supported by
full citations of the original source. It will save a lot of verbiage
because the *evidence* can be assesed promptly.
Bernard Ortiz de Montellano
Steve Whittet
In article <343BB985...@showme.missouri.edu>, agd...@showme.missouri.edu says...
>Steve Whittet wrote:
>
>> If the Incas arrived on Easter Island c 1100 AD, the Polynesians would
>> have been there for about a millenium at that point.
>Steve,
>It may be me, but when I read your posts I end up utterly confused, because you
>mix together periods and cultures, and usually I do not know what you are
>referring to.
>
>This time you put a date: 1,100 AD. Thanks, but that is just wrong for the Incas,
>as it was wrong when you said that Huayna Capac divided the land between his two
>children, etc. Just wrong. But just noting that may get lost in the mixture of
>arguments. You mention textiles now, which of course opens up a huge area given
>the abundant evidence existing in the very dry Pacific coast.
>
>So I make a request to you, Steve. Could you please help me, and perhaps others,
>with an schematic of the post-Pleistocene pre-Columbian interoceanic contacts you
>are arguing about? Something like this:
>
...snip...
ok,
China
>[Period] (cultures) involved {Evidence}
>---------------- ------------------- ----------
(Chou) c 1200-800 BC
(Warring States c 500 BC - 200 BC)
(Han c 200 BC - 500 AD)
{arts and crafts, bronzes, pottery, fiber arts, written records}
New World
>[Period] (cultures) involved {Evidence}
>---------------- ------------------- ----------
The [Early Horizon] period c 1200-200 BC was dominated by the (chavin)
culture which reached as far south as (Nazca) where (Paracas) sites abound
in Ayachucho.
The (Moche) dominated in the north from c 1-600 AD
In the [Middle Horizon] period between c 500 and 1000 AD the two cultures merged
Tiahunaco and (Huari) are founded about this time by people still working in the
Chavin style making bright Polychromed pottery with anthrpomorphic modeling.
{Polychrome pottery, fiber arts, shell middens};
Some of the coastal pre Inca centers would be Winay Wayna at the northern extreme
of the Atacama desert, Cerro Badi, Nazca, Jincamocco, Pachacamac, and Moche.
The (Chimu) capital was at Chan Chan in the north.
The Incas build on this foundation after c 1000 AD, around 1300 AD they build
their capital Cuzco, but don't complete their conquest of the Chimu until 1476.
Cuzco was transformed after 1438 into a planned metropolis.
as listed in the "Times Atlas of Archaeology", previously cited.
>
>
>In this way we could perhaps better contribute according to our limited knowledge.
>Thanks in advance for the systematic effort I am sure you will put in the name of
>science.
>
>Regards,
>
>-----
>Domingo Martínez-Castilla
steve
Domingo Martinez
So? Please, Steve, you are confusing my request for simplification with something else.
I hereby declare I have no doubts about your ability to copy/quote/paraphrase the "Times
Atlas of Archaeology". I am not questioning that. You still seem to be throwing
everything into the mixer hoping it will taste good. Perhaps to you, but I still do not
have a clear idea of what you (or whoever you are following) purport as contacts, among
others, between:
1. Chavin and Chou: what is exactly the evidence here? Or is it that you think it is so
abundant and multilayered that you just have to show everything?
2. What is exactly, in a sentence, the relevance of the Malvinas/Falkland here?
3. Why is it so important that the Chavin culture reached "as far south" as Nazca and
Paracas? Or that there are many of these sites in Ayacucho (not as many as in Ica, I
betcha!)? Why, I ask, why? Do you know how many degrees of difference are there between
Chavin and Nazca-Paracas? Very few.
(Perhaps you may want to know that my granny played piano while growing up in the Central
Andes, somewhere midway between Chavin and Nazca, latitude-wise. Who knows that particular
evidence may be useful to your purposes!)
Somehow, I guess you confused my request for clarity with a challenge to your reading and
typing abilities. Why is the "bright Polychromed pottery" so relevant to this discussion?
Why, I ask, why?
I may not ever know it!
Rest well,
Domingo.
Don Judy
In article <61dng3$r4j$1...@news.trends.ca>, yu...@mail.trends.caÛ says...>: Differences in technology. Rafts are not junks or large double
>: outrigger dug out canoes, that can navigate bith ways. Rafts can
drif
>t
>
>James,
>
>You are ignorant. Get yourself informed.
>
>Ocean sailing rafts were used both in Asia and in S. America. They were
>equipped with excellent sails and guara boards and were extremely
>seaworthy.
>
>
>Yuri Kuchinsky in Toronto -=O=- http://www.io.org/~yuku
>
>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
>
>
South American rafts or balsas? Of what does the evidence of this
earliest use consist? What is the earliest date we have for deep see
fishing and rafting in South America on the West Coast? What is the
evidence for this?
DJ
Steve Whittet
In article <343C02B1...@showme.missouri.edu>, agd...@showme.missouri.edu says...
I am admittedly something of a generalist. I think its important to note that
the context in which this similarity occurs is one in which there are many
other similarities between the cultures of the west coast of the Americas
where geographic adjacency by land is absent.
Starting very simply there are Ecuadorian shells spread through the entire
range of the Central Andes. That in itself is some pretty impressive long
distance trade.
Going a step beyond that we have the diffusion of corn from Mexico to Peru
We can observe that c 1500-1300 BC large stocky bean planters are replaced
by physically smaller corn planters
Going a step further there are definite similarities between the cultures
or at the very least, the art styles of Mexico and Peru which even Ben
admits to.
The spread of corn and art styles from Mexico to Peru by sea is a lot easier
to see than their spread by land. The cultures to first evidence the change
are coastal communities rather than inland sites for example.
Mexico is well connected to Guatemala and Honduras by trade
Making connections to Nicuragua, Costa Rica and Panama is only
a step removed from the immediacy of Guatemala and Honduras
but it isn't one which is immediately obvious in any literature
I have seen. I don't know of anyone who points to the similarities
between cultures in Mexico and Columbia.
On the other hand there are many similarities between the cultures
of Mexico and Peru.
It is worth noting that the Pacific is widely populated at this time,
it isn't necessary to go all the way across it in one hop for ideas to
be diffused. They can progress along slowly from neighboring island to
neighboring island.
If you start with the North Pacific Rim the adjacencies between cultures
like China and Japan are like those along the Mexican or Peruvian coast.
You can see the same thing between China, Japan and the Phillipines,
or between Japan the Phillipines and Polynesia.
The Phillipines connect to Melanesia, Mlanesia to southeast Asia,
southeast Asia to India. There are no big leaps involved here.
Perhaps to you, but I still do not
>have a clear idea of what you (or whoever you are following) purport as contacts, among
>others, between:
>
>1. Chavin and Chou: what is exactly the evidence here?
Art styles, similarities between objects from those two cultures
which are not apparent in any Chavin precedent in the Americas.
Culturally Chavin spans the period 1200 to 200 BC,
The bean planters and replaced by corn planters c 1500-1300 BC
A culture develops which covers 700 miles of coast (Initial)
As a recognizable style of pottery 800 to 200 BC (Early Horizon)
As a primarily coastal culture 1200 to 500 BC
This is the period I am primarily interested in
but it also has some continuity
Though Chavin coastal sites are abandoned c 500 BC
the Chavin culture re-establishes itself inland
As a predominately inland culture after c 500 BC
The Chavin build Chavin de Hunatar and meet at it regularly if not
actually occupy it from 450 to 200 BC (First Intermediate)
After 300 BC The Mocha takeover in the North
and the Nazca or Paracas culture in the south
but there are distinct artystic and stylistic
continuations into the period 600 - 1100 AD (Middle Horizon)
The Tihuanaco culture in particular has many Chavin like artifacts
The Chavin bury golden forarms with the fingers outspread decorated
with rows of animal glyphs. The same artifacts are present at
Tihuanaco in pottery.
> Or is it that you think it is so abundant and multilayered
>that you just have to show everything?
It is abundant and multilayered. Take for example the polychromic
globular anthropomorphic pottery of mexico, The jaguar heads, the
use of shell inlay...
>
>2. What is exactly, in a sentence, the relevance of the Malvinas/Falkland here?
Before there were roads water, provided a better easier means of transportation
so islands, and especially islands near shoal waters like the Falklands where
there was good fishing were often the first places to be settled.
>
>3. Why is it so important that the Chavin culture reached "as far south"
>as Nazca and Paracas?
Because to organize a community which extends over 700 miles requires the
social skills we associate with a unified homogeneous culture and this occurs
half a millenia before Chavin de Hunatar is built..
>Or that there are many of these sites in Ayacucho (not as many as in Ica,
>I betcha!)?
Engle claims there are thousands of small villages which need to eventually be
included. many of these have yet to be touched except by looters. I could not
argue with your claim, Of the 57 sites Engle maps there are 28 I would call
coastal (withing 40 miles of the coast, under 2600 feet altitude). of these
15 are north of Lima, 13 are south of Lima
>Why, I ask, why? Do you know how many degrees of difference are there between
>Chavin and Nazca-Paracas? Very few.
Chavin appears to be a little earlier.
>
>(Perhaps you may want to know that my granny played piano while growing up in the Central
>Andes, somewhere midway between Chavin and Nazca, latitude-wise. Who knows that particular
>evidence may be useful to your purposes!)
I don't know, how do you feel it has influenced who you are?
>
>Somehow, I guess you confused my request for clarity with a challenge to your reading and
>typing abilities. Why is the "bright Polychromed pottery" so relevant to this discussion?
Pottery is often taken as useful in defining cultures and in dating them. It can
indicate trade connections when it shows up somewhere outside the range of its
traditional manufacture.
>
>Why, I ask, why?
There is widespread trade in glazed effigy ware all along the Pacific coast
In Mexico it is known as known as Tohil plumbate pottery and is found
well into the into the Maya highlands.
>I may not ever know it!
>
>Rest well,
>
>Domingo.
steve