Cook Islands Legend/Samoa connection
john utanga
concerning the discovery of Rarotonga by a warrior chief Karika, who is
believed to have come from Manu'a in W.Samoa, and Tangiia who arrived
from Tahiti. I'm interested in finding out more about Karika and where
he came from. Which part of Manu'a he hailed from, the name of the
brother he is supposed to have fled from (according to some versions of
the legend) and whether there is any mention of him (or a similar
sounding characters) or his feud in W.Samoan mythology. Any
thoughts,theories or reference to source material would be appreciated.
John Utanga
uta...@ihug.co.nz
Al Aiono
I'm presently reading A Short History Of W. Samoa by Malama Meleisea.
I have'nt come across a Samoan chief yet of same/similar name.
But I highly recommend you look into Meleisea's series on W. Samoa
history. You may pick up on some related, if not direct facts relevant to
what you seek.
Your query, however, is very interesting.
I'm more inclined to think the Samoan islands were inhabited by our
people coming from the Americas as opposed to mainstream belief which
supports the contrary.
You may want to also check out "American Indians In The Pacific" by Thor
Heyerdahl.
Best.
Al Aiono (ala...@earthlink.net)
James Hess
discredited on the basis of linguistic, genetic, and cultural evidence.
He finds a few trivial similarities and establishes the technical possibility,
but doesn't work systematically, and isn't taken very seriously by scholars.
Besides, the Hokule'a has pretty well disproven the theory that Pacific
Islanders couldn't sail upwind. To be fair, I last read Thor 20 years ago
and haven't looked at the book you mention, but I haven't heard that this
particular tiger has ever changed his stripes.
-Jim Hess-
Al Aiono
Obviously any theory or discovery going against mainstream doctrine will
create many barriers per se. Christ walked on water, yet they still
refused to believe.
How about getting those scholars & experts who oppose Heyerdahl into a
vessel of sorts and let them navigate themselves from the Asiatic parts
to Polynesia?
Linguistics, Lapita artifacts and other minute discoveries are not of
equal significance to the discovery voyage of the Kon Tiki.
American Indians In The Pacific is a "must" read for us all.
Al Aiono (ala...@earthlink.net)
Al Aiono
James Hess
I know quite well that fighting the disciplinary taken-for-granted is
difficult. That by itself does not mean that the rebels are right.
Re: Kon Tiki's demonstration of the possibility and your challenge for a
demonstration, that is precisely what my reference the voyages of the
Hokule'a, the Hawaiian ocean-voyaging catamaran, was about. No, they didn't
start in Indonesia, but in order to establish the priciple they didn't have to.
-Jim Hess-
Al Aiono
Then the Hokulea's journey(s) have shown us absolutely NOTHING!
How can one discredit Heyerdahl's Kon Tiki voyage without a practical
journey, of the same proportions, from Asiatic seas to Polynesia?
What you speak of my friend is still theory. Alas we have an unbalanced
argument here. Theory vs fact. Fiction vs non-fiction. Ignorance vs
truth.
My point being, the Kon Tiki may not be the answer. Believe it or not,
I'm always open to a balanced argument where apples are compared to
apples & not oranges.
But to this day, I have not learned of any such voyage undertaken to
disprove the fantastic discovery that Thor Heyerdahl made : Ancient
Indians on the South American coast "were" able to travel the seas to
Polynesia.
Read the book. Check out the documentary footage. And please advise where
I can learn of this Hokule'a journey that, according to your message,
disproved the Kon Tiki on "principle alone."
Al.
Al Aiono
Al Aiono
"... beware of the wolves in sheeps' clothing..."
Al.
Al Aiono
Al Aiono
Al.
Al Aiono
"... beware of the wolves in sheeps' clothing..."
Al.
Al Aiono
Al.
James Hess
Dear Al;
I never said that Heyerdahl didn't make the trip. I do claim that he has
failed to counter the mass of evidence.
It is not valid to demand that someone must make a trip from say, Bali to
Samoa, because the competing hypothesis never claimed that anyone did. They
propose that settlement took place more or less through island hopping over
thousands of years. And Pacific island navigators have a big advantage over
Heyedahl: They can plot a voyage out and back, a lot more practical than
drifting with the current and wind and depending more or less on luck to make
a land fall.
For more information, consult one of the four books on Pacific voyaging by
Ben Finney. I will try to forward a reference list later.
As to the validity of the Lapita arguments, I will also forward a set of
abstracts from an upcoming conference so you can challenge the guilty
parties directly!
James Hess
I haven't read these, so I don't know the position they take on Heyerdahl's
theory. Let the evidence fall where it may.
-Jim Hess-
1. Ralling, Christopher.
The Kon-Tiki man : Thor Heyerdahl / Christopher Ralling. London : BBC
Books, 1990.
UCB Main G306.H47 R35 1990
UCR Rivera G306.H47 R34 1990
UCSD SSH G306.H47 R34 1990
2. Schuhmacher, W. Wilfried (Walter Wilfried)
The linguistic aspect of Thor Heyerdahl's theory / W. Wilfried
Schuhmacher. Heidelberg : C. Winter, 1989.
UCB Main PL6409 .S38 1989
SRLF A 0013880224 Type EXP SRLF for loan details.
James Hess
Anybody interested in current scholarly work on the history and spread of
Pacific Islanders can review the abstracts below, contact the participants
if you want, and ask, why is Heyerdahl the only one who knows the truth while all these people are still deluded?
-Jim Hess-
From: spr...@coombs.anu.edu.au
Subject: vila archaeology conf.,part 2
Sender: owner-pacif...@coombs.anu.edu.au
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: pacific-...@coombs.anu.edu.au
VANUATU NATIONAL MUSEUM-ANU-ORSTOM CONFERENCE
<THE WESTERN PACIFIC, 5000 TO 2000 BP: COLONISATIONS AND TRANSFORMATIONS>
Abstracts, Part 2
MR. JEFF MARCK (Dept. of Linguistics, RSPAS, Australian National
University, Canberra)
SUMMARY OF A RECENT THESIS ON POLYNESIAN LANGUAGE AND CULTURE HISTORY.
Abstract: While Pawley's Nuclear Polynesian (1966) and Samoic-Outlier
(1967) subgroups were proposed at about the same time the first was
proposed on the basis of shared innovations in morphology while the second
was proposed on the basis of uniquely shared features. Linguists and others
have tended to accept both groups in the same breath despite this basic
difference in the methods which produced them. However, shared innovations
in morphology can be contrasted to external evidence and provide a secure
basis for subgrouping while exclusively shared features produce more
tenuous subgroupings, more often subject to revision since they may simply
be shared retentions lost by some other members of a true/actual group. An
examination of sporadic sound changes apparent in Biggs'
(1992,1994)<Comparative Polynesian Lexicon> (POLLEX) supports the Nuclear
Polynesian hypothesis but results in the finding that Eastern Polynesian
languages actually share most of their sporadic sound changes, as a group,
with Samoan and Ellicean Outliers and that the demise of <Samoic-Outlier>,
especially the divergence of East Futunan, East Uvean, and the <Futunic>
Outliers was actually under way before the divergence of Eastern Polynesian
from the Samoan-Ellicean Outlier group. Other results of the thesis
concerning prehistoric cosmogonic traditions and kin term systems are also
reported.
OTTINO-GARANGER P. et M.N. (ORSTOM/ URA 275, CNRS)
<TURTLESHELL ON A PEARLSHELL BACKGROUND>:REFLECTING MIRROR OR MIRAGE?
REFLECTIONS ON SEVERAL CULTURAL TRAITS SHARED BY TWO POPULATIONS OF
VOLCANIC ARCHIPELAGOES SITUATED AT OPPOSITE ENDS OF THE PACIFIC, THE
MARQUESAS AND VANUATU.
Abstract: (<free> translation of MS) Following a review of hypotheses of
the settlement of the Marquesas, several shared stylistic expressions are
discussed - kapkap and uhikana (turtleshell ornaments on a pearlshell
backing), tattoo and pottery motifs, socio-religious use of pig tusks, and
cosmetic and sacred use of a turmeric-based preparation (Curcuma longa L.).
"D'ecaille sur fond de nacre": Jeu de reflets ou mirage?
Reflexions sur quelques traits culturels partages par ces deux populations
d'archipels volcaniques situes aux deux extremites du Pacifique: les
Marquises et le Vanuatu.
Apres un rappel des hypotheses de peuplement de l'archipel marquisien,
quelques expressions stylistiques partagees -kapkap et uhikana (ornements
d'ecaille sur fond de nacre) motifs de tatouages et motifs ceramiques,
utilisation socio-religieuse des defenses de porc, usage cosmetique et
sacre d'une preparation a base de safran d'Oceanie (Curcuma longa L.)
seront evoques.
MS. CHRISTINA PAVLIDES (Dept. of Archaeology, La Trobe University,
Victoria, Australia)
TRANSFORMATIONS IN STONE: CHARACTERISING THE STRUCTURE AND ORGANISATION OF
HOLOCENE TOOL ASSEMBLAGES IN THE RAIN FORESTS OF WEST NEW BRITAIN, PAPUA
NEW GUINEA.
Abstract: Recent archaeological research in the tropical lowland rain
forests of south central New Britain , PNG, has revealed startling results
regarding the antiquity and settlement history of this little-explored
region. Six chronological phases in all, each bracketed by an airfall
tephra deposit, have been identified within the stratified open sites of
the rain forest. These chronological phases provide the framework for the
investigation of the procurement, reduction, use and discard of stone
artefacts over the past 10,000 years, allowing a comparative study of
change through time to be undertaken in this local area. Of particular
significance are cultural layers which immediately predate the period
associated with sites containing Lapita pottery in the Bismarcks and
elsewhere.
The results from this study are particularly important in the construction
of models which emphasise long term gradual change rather than sudden
events to account for the long complex history of this region. The question
being asked then is do changes in the nature of stone technology,
settlement pattern and site structure in this rain forest area indicate
slow gradual change over time with elements of continuity or does change
appear to be more sudden. the technological analyses reported here will
facilitate the characterisation of flaked stone assemblages belonging to
these critical chronological periods and contribute to ongoing debates
regarding the position of Lapita within the longer prehistoric sequence of
New Britain and beyond.
MS ANN DI PIAZZA, ERIK PEARTHREE, MICHAEL JAMET (CNRS URA 1477, University
of Hawaii at Manoa)
IDENTIFICATION OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL CHARCOAL FROM THE TROPICAL PACIFIC: A
METHODOLOGICAL APPROACH.
Abstract: We will present a database which has a unique logical structure,
linking an open ended identification key to an electronic atlas of images
of charcoal from wood and food plants. An advantage is that this database
can be utilised by a non-botanist. An example from Kiribati will be
displayed. This same program could be used for other data sets such as
pottery design elements.
We plan to present a hands-on demonstration of this application in order to
popularise anthracology among the archaeological community in the Pacific.
DR. PAUL RAINBIRD (School of Art and Cultural Heritage, Charles Sturt
University, South Broken Hill, New South Wales, Australia)
HUMAN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT AS A LONG-TERM POSITIVE PROCESS IN THE EASTERN
CAROLINE ISLANDS.
Abstract: Indicators of rapid and dramatic environmental change are present
in the high eastern Caroline Islands from early in their settlement
history. I suggest in this paper that these changes were purposeful and
contributed to a positive alteration of island landscapes to permit human
existence. These landscape management practices continued for over a
thousand years and led to the establishment of the monumental sites of Nan
Madol and Leluh on land claimed from the sea. Current evidence of coastal
erosion on these islands may be as a result of discontinuation of these
management practices following the introduction of Western subsistence
practices.
DR. PAUL RAINBIRD (School of Art and Cultural Heritage, Charles Sturt
University, South Broken Hill, New South Wales, Australia)
THE USE OF LANDSCAPE IN IDENTIFYING POTENTIAL SOURCES OF CAROLINE ISLAND
COLONISATION.
Abstract: Linguistics and pottery are commonly used to identify affinities
between early island settlers and possible source populations. Pottery in
the western Pacific deriving from Lapita plainware is not diagnostic enough
provide a suitable indicator and the process of language change makes that
a problematic tool in delving back 2000 years or more. Here, I use early
indicators of landscape use at either end of the Caroline Island chain to
show that the settlers came from different populations in different
directions.
DR. CHRISTOPHE SAND (Musee Territorial, Noumea, New Caledonia)
REASSESSMENT OF THE CHRONOLOGY AND SIGNIFICANCE OF LAPITA POTTERY IN THE
CERAMIC CHRONOLOGY OF KONE PERIOD IN NEW CALEDONIA (1200 BC - 200 AD).
Abstract: The scope of this paper is to present the latest results obtained
from various excavations of Kone period sites and to discuss from these
data the significance of Lapita in the ceramic chronology of the first
millennium of Austronesian peopling of New Caledonia. More than 20 new
radiocarbon dates help to mark clearer temporal boundaries to the different
ceramic traditions, showing a geographical diversification after first
settlement. These data will be discussed on a local and regional scale to
see how they fit into the known evolution of the ceramic sequences of
southern Melanesia.
DRS. A.M. SEMAH, F. SEMAH and H. FORESTIER (ORSTOM, Noumea, New Caledonia)
THE VALLEY OF KOUMAC (NEW CALEDONIA): EXCAVATION IN A CAVE - SITE NKM004.
Abstract: The first prehistoric excavations and radiocarbon dating carried
out in the Koumac valley give evidence of an inland occupation as old as
the first Lapita coastal sites (ca 3000 BP). The studied site (NKM004) is a
cave with petroglyphs, oven stones, ceramic sherds, marine shells, and
phtanitic and limestone tools. The oldest anthropogenic horizon (1.20 m.
depth) dated to 2800 BP and contains all this archaeological material. This
study is part of a more global one which concerns the human occupation of a
valley since the earliest times until the present. We also examine the
botanical environment and the pre-European occupation of old villages.
DR. PETER SHEPPARD, MR M. FELGATE (Dept. of Anthropology, University of
Auckland, New Zealand), MR K. ROGA (Western Province Government, Gizo,
Solomon Islands) and MR. J. KEOPO (National Museum, Honiara, Solomon
Islands)
REPORT ON A CERAMIC SEQUENCE FROM NEW GEORGIA, SOLOMON ISLANDS.
Abstract: Recent fieldwork has resulted in the recovery of a ceramic
sequence from sites in the Roviana Lagoon region of New Georgia. The
sequence is described and results of dating reported.
PROF. RICHARD SHUTLER (Dept. of Anthropology, Simon Fraser University,
Burnaby, British Columbia, Canada)
THE RELATIONSHIP(S) OF THE LIME-IMPRESSED POTTERY OF MICRONESIA AND THE
PHILIPPINES WITH THE LAPITA OF NEAR AND REMOTE OCEANIA.
Abstract: Lime-impressed pottery is found in the Marianas Islands,
southern Philippines, Near and Remote Oceania. Comparison of design
elements, taphonomy and petrography will be employed to try and determine
if all lime-impressed pottery is Lapita or related to it.
YOSIHIKO H. SINOTO, RICHARD SHUTLER JR, WILLIAM R. DICKINSON, MARY E.
SHUTLER, JOSE GARANGER and T.H. TESKA (senior author: Bernice P. Bishop
Museum, Honolulu, Hawaii)
WAS THERE A PRE-LAPITA, JAPANESE JOMON, CORD-MARKED POTTERY OCCUPATION IN
VANUATU.
Abstract: In the 1960s Garanger recovered about a dozen cord-marked
potsherds from the surface of Mele Plain, Efate Island. Sinoto recognised
the decorations as Jomon types and Serizawa identified them as Ento Lower C
and D Types, dating 3000 BC, found in Aomori Prefecture, North Japan.
Petrographic analysis by Dickinson of selected Mele Plain sherds, and Jomon
sherds from Japan, determined that the Mele cord-marked sherds could not be
from Vanuatu pottery, and were Jomon from Japan. Possible Jomon influence
in the Western Pacific, including ideas by Katayama and Brace et al. on the
peopling of the Pacific are discussed.
M. JEAN-PIERRE SIORAT (Musee Territorial, Noumea, New Caledonia)
THE LAPITA POTTERY OF NESSADIOU.
Abstract: This paper presents the results of the design analysis of the
ceramic material from the Lapita site of Bourail-Nessadiou in west New
Caledonia. The method of analysis has been discussed previously. The
results will focus on the horizontal and vertical distribution of the 8000
Lapita sherds according to their morphology and design.
MS. ANITA SMITH (School of Archaeology, La Trobe University, Victoria,
Australia)
WHAT HAPPENS TO LAPITA IN WEST POLYNESIA?
Abstract: The duration of the 'pause' in West Polynesia prior to further
eastward colonisation, currently argued through interpretations of
radiocarbon dates from East Polynesia, remains a central issue in Pacific
prehistory. This paper reviews the archaeological record of West Polynesia
from Lapita settlement to c.1000 BP, identifying changes and
inconsistencies in the record that shed light on the nature of eastward
colonisation. Particular attention is paid to the chronology of changes
apparent in the ceramic assemblages which have been associated with the
development of identifiably Polynesian societies from Lapita precursors.
DR JIM SPECHT (Anthropology Division, Australian Museum, Sydney, New South
Wales, Australia)
INTERACTION SPHERES, EXCHANGE NETWORKS, AND OTHER MYSTERIES OF LAPITA.
Abstract: Models of the nature of societies at the time of Lapita
pottery have ranged widely, but remain as vague as ever. Most,
however, were developed 15 years ago, or continue to draw upon ideas
then current which have not recently been reviewed for their continued
utility. The paper takes another look at the old and the new - but not
necessarily generating any more light than others have achieved. The
paper suggests that a critical issue is not to start from assumptions
of difference or singularity, or from a global perspective.
DR. MATTHEW SPRIGGS (Division of Archaeology and Natural History, RSPAS,
Australian National University, Canberra)
THE ANU VANUATU ARCHAEOLOGY PROJECT, 1994-6: OVERVIEW AND PROGRESS REPORT.
Since 1994 staff and students of the ANU have been engaged in an
archaeological project in various islands of Vanuatu, in co-operation with
the National Museum of Vanuatu and the Vanuatu Cultural and Historic Sites
Survey. An overview of the results to date and of various ongoing and
planned projects will be presented, including planned further excavations
at the Mangaasi type-site on Efate Island.
DR. MATTHEW SPRIGGS (Division of Archaeology and Natural History, RSPAS,
Australian National University, Canberra)
THE EVIDENCE AGAINST PRE-3200 BP SETTLEMENT OF ISLAND MELANESIA SOUTH OF
THE MAIN SOLOMONS CHAIN: A REVIEW.
Abstract: The 1980s saw an important expansion in the known area of
pre-Lapita occupation in Island Melanesia, adding the main Solomons and the
Manus Group to the earlier evidence from New Britain and New Ireland. Some
predicted that Vanuatu and New Caledonia would soon be added to the list of
early occupied island groups. The growing amount of archaeological and
palaeobotanical evidence pointing to a ceiling on human occupation of these
island groups at around 3200 BP is reviewed, and reasons why <Remote
Oceania> remains a meaningful concept are explored.
DR. JOHN E. TERRELL (New Guinea Research Program, The Field Museum,
Chicago, USA)
LAPITA FOR WINNERS or GETTING OFF THE LAPITA MERRY-GO-ROUND AND LIVING
WITHOUT COMPULSIVE HABITS.
Abstract: It should not be overly provocative to say that there is room for
further consideration of the thinking that underlies larger-scale models of
Lapita history. This conference and its predecessors are an acknowledgment
that careful study of the fine details of Lapita phenomena has been thinner
than both serious and more whimsical debate about wider reconstructions. By
now most of us are tired of saying there are two ways of looking at
Lapita--the Fast Train and the Melanesian Homeland models (or some halfway
compromise). We want better things to do with Lapita. It is never too late
to be happy but first we need to break old habits. How to test your Lapita
IQ and find what really matters.
DR. F. VALENTIN (CNRS, GDR1170, Museum of Natural History, Paris)
ON THE HUMAN SETTLEMENT OF NEW CALEDONIA : SOME PHYSICAL ANTHROPOLOGICAL ASPECTS
Abstract: Even today, little is known about the initial settlement of New
Caledonia and physical anthropology can contribute to its understanding. A
review of the literature shows a marginal position for these populations
within the large Austro-Melanesian complex. Some hypothesis are discussed
here.
DR. ED VISSER (Dept. of Anatomy and Structural Biology) and DR.
MICHAEL GREEN (Dept. of Anthropology), University of Otago.
MORPHOLOGICAL AND METRICAL COMPARISONS BETWEEN LAPITA SKELETONS AND THE
SIGATOKA REMAINS.
Abstract: Comparisons are made between skeletons excavated from Lapita
archaeological sites and skeletons dated to 180 AD from the site of
Sigatoka, Fiji. Skeletal traits relating to body form and head shape are
compared. Results have shown (so far) that the two groups are similar to
each other, more so than to other Pacific samples. The results of new
multivariate analyses will be also presented.
MS. CORRIE WILLIAMS (Dept of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, Monash
University, Clayton, Victoria, Australia)
RESULTS OF THE FAUNAL ANALYSIS OF THE PAMWAK ROCKSHELTER EXCAVATION, MANUS
ISLAND, PNG.
Abstract: This paper reports on the faunal composition and change at the
Pamwak site from 10,000 years to present. The fauna includes Bandicoot,
Murids, Bats, Fish, Reptiles and Amphibians. The effect of field collection
on the faunal composition will also be discussed.
The Conference Secretariat consists in the first place of Jean-Christophe
Galipaud and Matthew Spriggs. They can best be contacted by email:
GALI...@VANUATU.ORSTOM.FR
SPR...@COOMBS.ANU.EDU.AU
Matthew Spriggs, ANH, RSPAS, Australian National University, Canberra, ACT
0200, Australia. Fax (international) 61-6-249 4917, (domestic) 06-249 4917.
Telephone 06-249 2217 (work), 249 3040 (message), 247 5614 (home).
Jean-Christophe Galipaud,
ORSTOM,
PO Box 76,
Port-Vila
Republic of Vanuatu.
Fax (678) 23276.
Telephone (678) 22268.
James Hess
Below are some of Finney's books on Polynesian vessels and navigation
and voyaging, for those who would like to judge the evidence on both sides
of the question before deciding for Heyerdahl.
-Jim Hess-
1. Finney, Ben R.
From sea to space / Ben Finney. Palmerston North, New Zealand : Massey
University ; [Honololu] : Distributed ... by the University Press of
Hawaii, 1992.
Series title: Macmillan Brown lectures.
UCD Shields DU510.F56 1992
UCR Rivera DU510 .F56 1992
UCSB Main Lib DU510 .F56 1992
UCSD SSH DU510 .F56 1992
2. Finney, Ben R.
Hokule'a : the way to Tahiti / Ben R. Finney ; ill. by Richard Rhodes,
photos. by Francis Wandell and Ben R. Finney. New York : Dodd, Mead,
c1979.
UCSC McHenry G477.F48
3. Finney, Ben R.
Voyage of rediscovery : a cultural odyssey through Polynesia / Ben Finney
with Marlene Among ... [et al.] ; illustrations by Richard Rhodes.
Berkeley : University of California Press, c1994.
UCB Anthropol GN670 .F56 1994
UCD Shields GN670.F56 1994
UCI Main Lib GN670 .F56 1994
UCLA College GN 670 F56 1994
UCLA URL GN 670 F56 1994
UCR Rivera GN670 .F56 1994
UCSB Main Lib GN670 .F56 1994
UCSC McHenry GN670 .F56 1994
UCSD SSH GN670 .F56 1994
CAS Mailliard GN670 .F56 1994
CAS Public GN670 .F56 1994
4. Pacific navigation and voyaging / compiled by Ben R. Finney. Wellington :
Polynesian Society, 1976.
Series title: Memoirs of the Polynesian Society ; vol. 39.
UCB Anthropol GN2 .P66 v.39
UCB Moffitt GN871 .P29 *c4 copies
UCI Main Lib GN871 .P29
UCLA URL GN 871 P29
UCSD SSH GN871 .P29
NRLF GN2.P76 v.39 off campus
Mark A. Murphy
Any studies or information on Samoan pyramids and how they resemble the
Mayan structures? After spending a couple of years on Savaii, and being
part Cherokee myself, I instinctively feel that Samoans came from Central
or South America. This was before much of Chinese, European and
Melanesian crossbreeding took place in the last 200 years or so.
Don't mean to offend, just an observation.
Murphy
Al Aiono
Hi James,
Thanks for the references. I somehow feel that my standpoint has been
misconstrued by you. I in no way intend to offend you or anyone here.
Again, if I may reiterate, the Kon Tiki voyage, in my opinion is
a discovery more significant than the findings of lapita pottery & the
findings of linguistic similarities, etc.
If you construe this as a standpoint of absolutism, I assure you it is
not.
Thanks again for the references, though I am familiar with many of
the sources mentioned. All are excellent references.
Interesting observation re pyramids by Mark Murphy, don't you think?
Al.
Karen Lofstrom
Mark A. Murphy (mur...@tiaer.tarleton.edu) wrote:
: Any studies or information on Samoan pyramids and how they resemble the
: Mayan structures? After spending a couple of years on Savaii, and being
: part Cherokee myself, I instinctively feel that Samoans came from Central
: or South America.
Every reputable anthropologist, archaeologist, linguist, or scientist of
any type whatsoever believes that the South Pacific was populated by
Austronesians moving eastwards across the Pacific. "Instinctive
feelings" have no scientific standing.
--
Karen Lofstrom lofs...@lava.net
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Were it based purely on empiricism, I would say SPROING!!
-- Michael Alaimo
Al Aiono
Thanks Jim. Looks like some good material you have here.
Al.
Jerry McClurg
> Mark A. Murphy (mur...@tiaer.tarleton.edu) wrote:
>
> I instinctively feel that Samoans came from Central or South America.
Karen Lofstrom wrote:
> Every reputable anthropologist, archaeologist, linguist, or scientist of
> any type whatsoever believes that the South Pacific was populated by
> Austronesians moving eastwards across the Pacific. "Instinctive
> feelings" have no scientific standing.
Very wrong karen. Many of the major advances have come form an intuitive "feeling".
(Yeas I know he said instinctive). The fact that a large number of "reputable"
scientists ascribe to a particular theory is no evidence of the theories
correctness. Look at Darwin, try Mandelbrot, try plate tecttonics, try Velikovsky -
there you had a major name like Sagan trashing a theory he disagreed with and Sagan
was wrong. Basically every major advance in understanding has had to fight its way
in against the current entrenched, favored theory. This does not prove Heyerdahl
right, just note that he did "prove" that his theory was practical and could be
supported. What I fail to understand is why more don't figure out that both views
are right. Expansion, exploration, commerce, settling came from both sides of the
ocean.
Al Aiono
Jerry,
I'm open to accepting that possibility, as you state "... migration
from both sides of the ocean..." But why does everyone continue to trash
the Kon Tiki voyage with arguments that, I personally feel, are not of
equal importance.
For the record, Heyerdahl has proven his viewpoint that "it was possible"
for Polynesians to of migrated from the Americas.
Now I'm hearing the argument,"...well that doesn't mean they did..."
Sure, the bookshelves are full of scientific theories, discoveries &
what-nots. But have any of these
authors/scholars/scientists/anthropologists/explorers ever boarded a
similar craft to what the ancient Polynesians "may" have travelled in,
and set sail from Indonesia (or wherever) hoping to be guided by the
stars to land in Aotearoa, Tonga, perhaps Fiji?
What I would like to see is the Hokule'a taking on such an expedition to
prove that Polynesians "were able to" travel from the Asiatics to
Polynesia.
But of course, skeptics will tell me, "why should we, we have found
lapita pottery & traces of linguistic similarities instead."
Cheers.
Al Aiono
_________________________________________________________________________
Al Aiono
Karen,
I mean, all the theories & findings that scientists draw upon, support no
expedition of any sort which in turn, supports a "possible" answer to the
migration problem.
Are you going to tell me that a strand(s) of hair, pieces of lapita
pottery, certain blood types, directly support a Polynesian-Malay
migration?
Al.
Al Aiono
Unknown
please note, I've added soc.culture.native, soc.culture.hawaii and sci.lang to
the distribution list. adjust followups accordingly.
Traces?
Traces???
Auê, noho'ie!
Are you familiar with the data supporting the Austronesian language family at
all?
Are you familiar with ANY _reliable_ data that links the Austronesian
languages with _ANY_ of the (many) language families in the Americas? If so,
please post. Be prepared to defend your sources.
Look, Heyerdahl proved you can sail from America to the Pacific Islands
without European vessels. Great. Your position in this thread so far has
been that that sole act outweighs all other evidence that Polynesians came
from the west. Not so. The body of evidence, linguistic, cultural,
anthro-physical and archeological, illustrating Polynesian migration from the
west by far overwhelms Heyerdahl's evidence. We are not talking about
traces, ka'u hoaloha. We are talking about a great deal of well documented,
well established evidence.
You've asked for a Hokule'a journey from Indonesia to central Polynesia in
order to prove the eastward migration theory. That's not necessary, nor would
it be conclusive. The evidence points to a slow expansion over time. You
don't need to sail from Indonesia to Tonga, just to the Solomans. And from
there, to Vanuatu, or shorter. And continue from there, with lots of long
breaks inbetween. The Hokule'a proved that you can sail from Tahiti to
Hawai'i, the longest interisland distance required in such a migration.
Faith is a powerful incentive, and those who adhere to a theory because its
conclusion coincides with their faith have put the conclusion before the data.
Further, they will continue to hold to that conclusion in the face of any and
all evidence to the contrary. That is not scientific thought, and scientific
thought is what is required to formulate _valid_ hypotheses, including ones
for historical human migration paths.
This is not an instance of fighting the status quo. The westward migration
theory is valid because it is supported by a goodly-sized body of
corroborating evidence from various sources. Therefore, the burden of proof
is (was?) on Heyerdahl not only to invalidate the evidence for westward
migration, but to introduce a _more_ conclusive body of evidence for eastward
migration.
He did neither.
There are those whose faith or personal convictions require that they put much
credence to hyperdifussionism. Scientific analysis of the evidence does not
support hyperdifussionism, but those who do will belittle that evidence
everytime it conflicts with their views.
Let us all be willing to recognize the difference between emotionally-reached
conclusions, and those arrived at by objective evaluations of the evidence.
maluhia,
Holoholona
Karen Lofstrom
Al Aiono (ala...@earthlink.net) wrote:
: I mean, all the theories & findings that scientists draw upon, support no
ALL the scientific evidence supports the eastward migration. There is
no reputable scientist who believes anything else. It is FACT.
Scientists do argue vociferously about the details.
--
Karen Lofstrom lofs...@lava.net
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Tender, smells of goat, with a deep blue mold skin,
dusted with charcoal.
Al Aiono
Dear Karen,
So are you implying that the Kon Tiki expedition is regarded as just
another day at sea? Is not Thor Heyerdahl of reputable standing amongst
his peers?
I'm trying to understand how an expedition of such great proportions can
be so easily dismissed?
Cheers.
Al Aiono.
_________________________________________________________________________
Karen Lofstrom
Al Aiono (ala...@earthlink.net) wrote:
: So are you implying that the Kon Tiki expedition is regarded as just
: another day at sea? Is not Thor Heyerdahl of reputable standing amongst
: his peers?
Thor Heyerdahl is not an anthropologist, an archaeologist, or a
linguist. He has no standing in those disciplines.
He made some money from his book, which was probably enough for him.
His voyage only proves that it's POSSIBLE to sail a balsa wood raft
from the Americas to Polynesia (if you have maps and know that the
islands exist). It does not in any way prove that Native Americans
settled Polynesia. Possibility does not equal fact. It is also
POSSIBLE to sail canoes from island to island across the Pacific from
the west. There is a great deal of evidence to show that this indeed
happened.
--
Karen Lofstrom lofs...@lava.net
----------------------------------------------------------------------
There are a whole lot of cockroaches and only one big foot.
-- Eric Sasaki
moira rodan
thought that our sailing technology wasn't up to European standards and
the only direction our ancestors could sail was with the wind. The fact
is that our navigational and sailing technology was the best in the world
at the time. We were and are surrounded by sea for centuries and we
understood how to tack against the wind. Heyerdahl's theories are an
insult to us and our ancestors and to our navigators still practicing
their ancient art today
moira rodan
Al Aiono <ala...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>Are you going to tell me that a strand(s) of hair, pieces of lapita
>pottery, certain blood types, directly support a Polynesian-Malay
>migration?
>
>
>Al.
>
>
Damn right I am
Al Aiono
(Karen Lofstrom) wrote:
"Thor Heyerdahl is not an anthropologist, an archaeologist, or linguist.
He has no standing in those disciplines."
Probably for good reason too because one would not be confined to the
restraints and limitations that would be imposed upon those in their
respective communities. I am surprised though. I'll have to check this
one out Karen.
You wrote :
"He made some money from his book, which was probably enough for him."
Comes with the territory Karen. Trust me, you build a boat & set sail
from India (wherever) and end up in Polynesia [alive], I guarantee you'll
make more than what Heyerdahl has ever made. This is personal don't you
think?
You wrote :
"His voyage only proves that it's POSSIBLE to sail a balsa wood raft
from the Americas to Polynesia ... "
Then what expedition proves that it was POSSIBLE to sail "a balsa wood
raft" from the old world to Polynesia? This same argument can be applied
to almost anything.
You wrote :
"It is also POSSIBLE to sail canoes from island to island across the
Pacific from the west. There is a great deal of evidence to show that
this indeed happened."
Well Karen, this is true. However, it is not the issue. The issue is
"sailing from the Asiatics to Polynesia." We have all witnessed recent
Hokule'a and other expeditions proving this. But again, sailing island to
island from a westerly direction is not what this friendly discussion is
all about.
Respectfully,
Al.
_________________________________________________________________________
Al Aiono
moira rodan <s95000647> wrote:
"Heyerdahl's theories are nothing but racist claptrap. This white
bastard thought that our sailing technology wasn't up to European
standards and the only direction our ancestors could sail was with the
wind. The fact is that our navigational and sailing technology was the
best in the world at the time. We were and are surrounded by sea for
centuries and we understood how to tack against the wind. Heyerdahl's
theories are an insult to us and our ancestors and to our navigators still
practicing their ancient art today."
Moira,
I hope they're not teaching you this BS at the University of the South
Pacific? Your insults won't help any in the art of communication.
Trust me.
Besides you're saying that, yes, our people were always capable of
sailing into the wind. But sailing from island to island into the wind
is not the same as sailing from the Asiatic seas to Polynesia. Sure we can
stand behind the speculation of "symbolic meaning" assuming therefore our
ancestors used the same skills & practices to travel from the west.
I would be very interested in any references you have supporting your
accusation that Heyerdahl thought our sailing standards were not up to
European standards. Hence his motivation [I take it] for undertaking such
a venture. This seems more like a notion derived by some angry, racist
Polynesian/Pacific intellectuals.
I hope we can keep the dialogue going here without further affronts on any
person regardless of their race, creed, color, blood type, DNA, hair type
and so on.
Ia manuia (cheers)
Al Aiono (ala...@earthlink.net)
Al Aiono
Unknown
Al Aiono <ala...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>moira rodan <s95000647> wrote:
>
>>"Heyerdahl's theories are nothing but racist claptrap. This white
>>bastard thought that our sailing technology wasn't up to European
>>standards and the only direction our ancestors could sail was with the
>>wind. The fact is that our navigational and sailing technology was the
>>best in the world at the time. We were and are surrounded by sea for
>>centuries and we understood how to tack against the wind. Heyerdahl's
>>theories are an insult to us and our ancestors and to our navigators still
>>practicing their ancient art today."
>
>Moira,
>
>I hope they're not teaching you this BS at the University of the South
>Pacific? Your insults won't help any in the art of communication.
>Trust me.
Agreed. Moira, please keep your racism to yourself. 'Ohe pono, ka ho'okae
'ili.
As for you, Al:
>
>Besides you're saying that, yes, our people were always capable of
>sailing into the wind. But sailing from island to island into the wind
>is not the same as sailing from the Asiatic seas to Polynesia.
There you go again, Al. You're just not getting it. No one claims that
Polynesians sailed directly from Asia to Polynesia. They island hopped using
sophisticated maritime skills.
>Sure we can
>stand behind the speculation of "symbolic meaning" assuming therefore our
>ancestors used the same skills & practices to travel from the west.
Nothing "symbolic" about it, Al. It is widely accepted that Polynesians
island-hopped eastward from the western Pacific over a long time period (at
least a couple thousand years). Please see my post in the re: HEYERDAHL
thread.
I've deleted your comments on Heyerdahl's motives. As far as I know,
Heyerdahl was a hyperdiffusionist, not an out and out racist. Although
racism is usually an underlying root of hyperdiffusionist theories, being
turned-around about Pacific history does not automatically make one a
white-supremacist. I therefore give him the benefit of the doubt.
You're working from faulty assumptions:
1. You've maintained that eastward migration involves trans-oceanic
macro-voyages directly into Polynesia from Asia. Not true.
2. You've maintained that anthro-physiological, linguistic and archeological
evidence for eastward migration is sparce and inconclusive. This is also not
true.
You've not answered my request for reliable sources linking the Austronesian
language family to any of the language families of the Americas. Even
Greenberg's Amerind Hypothesis doesn't go that far.
Al, the Polynesians are not some lost tribe of Lamanites, or any other
hyperdiffusionist mytho-culture. Heyerdahl's voyage was significant only in
the sense of maritime accomplishment.
>Ia manuia (cheers)
>
>Al Aiono (ala...@earthlink.net)
Maluhia, (peace)
Holoholona
Al Aiono
Holoholona wrote:
" There you go again, Al. You're just not getting it. No one claims
that Polynesians sailed directly from Asia to Polynesia. They island
hopped using sophisticated maritime skills."
Island hopping? Interesting concept. No one in this discussion has
alluded specifically to "island-hopping." Seems alot more practical than
a direct migration. So then, what expedition supports this "island
hopping" theory? Or is it not one's right to ask such a question?
Holoholona wrote :
" Nothing "symbolic" about it, Al. It is widely accepted that
Polynesians island-hopped eastward from the western Pacific over a long
time period (at least a couple thousand years). Please see my post in
the re: HEYERDAHL thread. "
Will check out your post. The term "widely accepted" is used very loosely
here. I seek truth, regardless of whether it is widely accepted or not.
But then again, let's not get sidetracked. I'm looking forward to learn
more of these "sophisticated maritime island hopping skills you speak of.
Holoholona wrote :
" I've deleted your comments on Heyerdahl's motives. As far as I know,
Heyerdahl was a hyperdiffusionist, not an out and out racist. Although
racism is usually an underlying root of hyperdiffusionist theories, being
turned-around about Pacific history does not automatically make one a
white-supremacist. I therefore give him the benefit of the doubt."
I'm not an anthropologist and don't claim to be, so I can't comment on
your explanation of a hyper-diffusionist. I never introduced the argument
that Heyerdahl is a racist. Our friend Moira did.
Holoholona wrote :
"You're working from faulty assumptions:
1. You've maintained that eastward migration involves trans-oceanic
macro-voyages directly into Polynesia from Asia. Not true."
Thankyou. I accept the possibility of a non trans-oceanic theory.
Holohona wrote :
" 2. You've maintained that anthro-physiological, linguistic and
archeological evidence for eastward migration is sparce and inconclusive.
This is also not true. "
What is "conclusive" in your books? I've stated numerously that in my
opinion, I cannot accept the fact that such findings are conclusive
enough to dismiss any significance of the Kon Tiki voyage. On any
comparative level for that matter. Again, who determines what is
conclusive?
Holohona wrote :
"You've not answered my request for reliable sources linking the
Austronesian language family to any of the language families of the
Americas. Even Greenberg's Amerind Hypothesis doesn't go that far."
Never received it. Please repost & copy to : ala...@earthlink.net
Holohona wrote :
" Al, the Polynesians are not some lost tribe of Lamanites, or any other
hyperdiffusionist mytho-culture. Heyerdahl's voyage was significant only
in the sense of maritime accomplishment. "
Never made such a statement.That is merely your interpretation. But for
the record, I did not make any such reference to Mormonistic teachings.
OK you admit to the "maritime accomplishment" of the Kon Tiki voyage?
Now, if I may ask, what "maritime accomplishment" supports the theory of
Polynesian migration from the west, via the "island-hopping" route that
is "widely accepted" today you refer to?
And please don't tell me there is no need for one based on conclusive
evidence. If there is no such expedition of equal proportions to that of
the Kon Tiki, then be honest & kindly say so. If there is, allow me the
opportunity to be enlightened. Let's keep it clean & friendly.
Le fa'aloalo tele (respectfully)
Al Aiono (ala...@earthlink.net)
Karen Lofstrom
Al Aiono (ala...@earthlink.net) wrote:
: Island hopping? Interesting concept. No one in this discussion has
: alluded specifically to "island-hopping." Seems alot more practical than
: a direct migration. So then, what expedition supports this "island
: hopping" theory? Or is it not one's right to ask such a question?
Polynesians routinely sailed the shorter routes between islands. No one
has to mount an expedition to sail between Samoa and Tonga, say,
because everyone knows that this was done frequently. Some people
questioned the abilities of Polynesians to navigate the longer hops,
such as those between Hawai'i, the Marquesas and Tahiti. The voyage
of the Hokule'a shows that this was completely possible using
technologies available to Polynesians before Western contact.
: What is "conclusive" in your books? I've stated numerously that in my
: opinion, I cannot accept the fact that such findings are conclusive
: enough to dismiss any significance of the Kon Tiki voyage. On any
: comparative level for that matter. Again, who determines what is
: conclusive?
You have the right to believe any darn thing you please, from flat
earth theories to phlogiston to Thor Heyerdahl. You can completely
dismiss the consensus opinion in academic and scholarly circles.
However, you can't expect other people to take you seriously if you do
so.
--
Karen Lofstrom lofs...@lava.net
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Support the Hawaiian-Welsh Cultural Exchange Program
Bringing vowels and consonants to those in need
Karen Lofstrom
Al Aiono (ala...@earthlink.net) wrote:
: Well Karen, this is true. However, it is not the issue. The issue is
: "sailing from the Asiatics to Polynesia." We have all witnessed recent
: Hokule'a and other expeditions proving this. But again, sailing island to
: island from a westerly direction is not what this friendly discussion is
: all about.
Yes, it IS what this discussion is all about, since all the evidence
points to such island-hopping as the method by which the Pacific
Islands were settled.
NO ONE is claiming that the Pacific Islands were settled by Southeast
Asians who sailed directly to the Marquesas or Hawai'i (for example).
You seem to think that the choice is between direct settlement from SE
Asia or direct settlement from S America. NO. Those are not the only
two alternatives. The other alternative is gradual diffusion, island
by island, from the west towards the east. That is indeed what
happened.
--
Karen Lofstrom lofs...@lava.net
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
You know, if you're going to send a death threat to the President you
should really PGP sign it, so we can verify it. -- Baron Fujimoto
Mark A. Murphy
I see this thread is still going full force. Its much more interesting
than "I love you in many languages", which I don't read of course.
I still have'nt seen any discussion of how the ancient Samoan pyramids
resemble the Mayan structures. Any thoughts?
Faafetai,
Maleko
James Hess
In article <4n0p41$b...@chile.it.earthlink.net>,
Al Aiono <ala...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>Island hopping? Interesting concept. No one in this discussion has
>alluded specifically to "island-hopping." Seems alot more practical than
>a direct migration. So then, what expedition supports this "island
>hopping" theory? Or is it not one's right to ask such a question?
I alluded to it at least twice; Lofstrom also mentioned it. No wonder you
have trouble understanding our position; you only see half of it.
What kind of evidence for island hopping would you like? Technical
capability? Kula expeditions by sail and paddle canoe. Voyages from Chuuk
to Yap to Palau; Marshallese invaders in Kapingamirangi; just tell us what
kind of evidence _you_ would find satisfactory, since your standards are
different than the rest of us! Evidence of shared culture? Oral
histories that reveal knowledge of other islands' location and geography and
society? Trade goods distribution? Linguistic affiliations? Tatoo patterns?
-Jim Hess-
Unknown
Al Aiono <ala...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>Holoholona wrote:
>
>
>" There you go again, Al. You're just not getting it. No one claims
>that Polynesians sailed directly from Asia to Polynesia. They island
>hopped using sophisticated maritime skills."
>
>alluded specifically to "island-hopping." Seems alot more practical than
>a direct migration. So then, what expedition supports this "island
>hopping" theory? Or is it not one's right to ask such a question?
OK, before we all start getting our feelings bruised, let me say here that it
is not my intention to belittle you or insult you (or anyone else on this
newsgroup). And yes, of course "one" has every right to ask such a question.
In fact, I encourage you to do so. The point here is to learn as much as
teach, with the spirit of aloha and friendship.
I believe Karen specifically mentioned island-hopping. As for which
"expedition", inter-island travel has been going on for quite some time.
Tonga, Fiji and Samoa were quite well aware of eachother's existance, and
people from each of these places occasionally intermarried and occasionally
warred with each other. This traffic was still going on at the time of
European contact. Across Micronesia, people still make such voyages from
home atolls in order to fish, trade or marry. Same goes for Melanesia. The
big outlyers were Hawai'i and Easter Island, where inter-island voyages had
ceased sometime before European contact. But the evidence of Polynesian
origin for the Hawaiians and Easter Islanders was already well-attested
before Hokule'a.
>Holoholona wrote :
>
>" Nothing "symbolic" about it, Al. It is widely accepted that
>Polynesians island-hopped eastward from the western Pacific over a long
>time period (at least a couple thousand years). Please see my post in
>the re: HEYERDAHL thread. "
>
>Will check out your post. The term "widely accepted" is used very loosely
>here. I seek truth, regardless of whether it is widely accepted or not.
>But then again, let's not get sidetracked. I'm looking forward to learn
>more of these "sophisticated maritime island hopping skills you speak of.
I'm not sure I've used the term loosely. Obviously, eastward migration over
the Pacific is not "universally" accepted, there are some doubters, but I'm
very confident that "widely accepted" is an accurate description. I
encourage you to learn more about the evidence, and suggest your local
library as a first stop.
>Holoholona wrote :
>
>" I've deleted your comments on Heyerdahl's motives. As far as I know,
>Heyerdahl was a hyperdiffusionist, not an out and out racist. Although
>racism is usually an underlying root of hyperdiffusionist theories, being
>turned-around about Pacific history does not automatically make one a
>white-supremacist. I therefore give him the benefit of the doubt."
>
>
>I'm not an anthropologist and don't claim to be, so I can't comment on
>your explanation of a hyper-diffusionist. I never introduced the argument
>that Heyerdahl is a racist. Our friend Moira did.
Agreed.
>Holoholona wrote :
>
>"You're working from faulty assumptions:
>
>1. You've maintained that eastward migration involves trans-oceanic
>macro-voyages directly into Polynesia from Asia. Not true."
>
>Thankyou. I accept the possibility of a non trans-oceanic theory.
Cool. Now you want to start reading up on Pacific history, anthropology,
linguistics, etc. The more you read, the more you will find support for that
theory.
>Holohona wrote :
>
>" 2. You've maintained that anthro-physiological, linguistic and
>archeological evidence for eastward migration is sparce and inconclusive.
>This is also not true. "
>
>What is "conclusive" in your books? I've stated numerously that in my
>opinion, I cannot accept the fact that such findings are conclusive
>enough to dismiss any significance of the Kon Tiki voyage. On any
>comparative level for that matter. Again, who determines what is
>conclusive?
Well, "conclusive" is generally determined by knowledgeable people doing
research and basing their conclusions upon evidence that they have found.
These conclusions are corroborated by others also knowledgeable in the
relevant field if their findings match or coincide with the first group.
When enough of this data supports a certain theory, the evidence is
considered conclusive.
Here's where we have the crux of our disagreement:
>I cannot accept the fact that such findings are conclusive
>enough to dismiss any significance of the Kon Tiki voyage.
This is what is called "a priori reasoning." Before examining opposing
evidence, you've already concluded that its validity is unacceptable. That's
not exactly scientific process, there, my friend.
And yes, it's clear you haven't examined the evidence because you were
unaware of the island-hopping model, the most widely accepted theory of
Pacific colonization. If you do some research, you'll find it.
>Holohona wrote :
>
>"You've not answered my request for reliable sources linking the
>Austronesian language family to any of the language families of the
>Americas. Even Greenberg's Amerind Hypothesis doesn't go that far."
>
>Never received it. Please repost & copy to : ala...@earthlink.net
I'll see if my server still has it. Basically, the question was this:
What _reliable_ evidence do you have that supports a connection between the
Austronesian language family and any of the (many) language families of the
Americas? Be prepared to defend your sources.
You might start by answering this: What _is_ the Austronesian language
family? What is its range (geographically)? What languages does it include?
>Holohona wrote :
>
>" Al, the Polynesians are not some lost tribe of Lamanites, or any other
>hyperdiffusionist mytho-culture. Heyerdahl's voyage was significant only
>in the sense of maritime accomplishment. "
>
>Never made such a statement.That is merely your interpretation. But for
>the record, I did not make any such reference to Mormonistic teachings.
That's true. But its a pretty good example of hyperdiffusionist theory, so I
used it as an example.
>OK you admit to the "maritime accomplishment" of the Kon Tiki voyage?
>Now, if I may ask, what "maritime accomplishment" supports the theory of
>Polynesian migration from the west, via the "island-hopping" route that
>is "widely accepted" today you refer to?
You mean other than the maritime traffic already existing in the central
Pacific before European contact? Other than the traffic currently existing
in Micro- and Melenesia? Other than the Hokule'a?
If you don't _want_ to see it, I don't suppose you will. Seems clear to a
lot of other folks, tho.
>And please don't tell me there is no need for one based on conclusive
>evidence.
Well, added to the maritime technology, there are a few other things. How
about linguistics? Archeology? Look up the name Cvalli-Sfoza and see if you
can find any works by that author regarding human genetics and their
dispersal patterns.
>If there is no such expedition of equal proportions to that of
>the Kon Tiki, then be honest & kindly say so. If there is, allow me the
>opportunity to be enlightened.
The opportunity is there, my friend. But you need to do the research. There
is no equal to the Kon Tiki expedition simply because it was unique. Yes,
sailing west from South America to Polynesia can be done, but no, that's not
how the Pacific was colonized.
>Let's keep it clean & friendly.
Agreed.
>Le fa'aloalo tele (respectfully)
>Al Aiono (ala...@earthlink.net)
me ke aloha,
Holoholona
Unknown
lofs...@lava.net (Karen Lofstrom) wrote:
lofs...@lava.net
>-------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Support the Hawaiian-Welsh Cultural Exchange Program
> Bringing vowels and consonants to those in need
HA!! Karen, you're a scream!
James Hess
In article <4mvqgq$3...@chile.it.earthlink.net>,
Al Aiono <ala...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>Besides you're saying that, yes, our people were always capable of
>sailing into the wind. But sailing from island to island into the wind
>ancestors used the same skills & practices to travel from the west.
Undoubtably, some of the Poynesian ancestors were not capable of sailing into
the wind - just as Captain Cook's ancient ancestors were not. Communication
between many islands of Melanesia is possible by paddle canoe. The question
is, what level of technology did people possess at the time that archaeological
evidence suggests the various islands were settled.
I note that Al seems to resist the idea that Polynesians may have come out of
Melanesia - they must have come directly from Bali to Fiji or Tonga, it seems.
Al, perhaps you can explain this?
Finally, I am hesitant to call Kon Tiki's running before the wind and the
current "sailing". With limited directional control and no ability to sail
upwind, no crew could have ever returned to S. America. Hence, the Indians
could have no knowledge of island existence or location. So it seems
fantastical to me to propose that hundreds of balsa rafts stocked for
2-3 thousand mile journeys would be launched into the unknown. And being
continental and coastal people, accidental voyagers might not know how to
exploit deep sea resources sucessfully enough to keep them alive. I
forget if Heyerdahl tried to address these issues, but they do seem to be a
significant challenge to his thesis.
-Jim Hess-
Al Aiono
Dear Jim
In regards to island hopping, I guess it's another oversight on my part
However, I don't think my standards are questionable as you very well
state. I do resent this attack on my integrity though. That was a cheap
shot Jim.
Isn't it nice to be in the majority Jim? Flanked by colleagues & peers
with volumes & volumes of supporting evidence. Shooting point blank at
anyone who dare speak out from their hearts.
All these inter-island voyages still do not come close to the vast amount
of ocean space one would have to island-hop from Indonesia to Polynesia.
But of course, you have the argument of time.
Take it now from me Jim, I don't accept the logic of your justification.
Is the process of comparing "apples to apples" too simple for you & your
community to accept?
Originally I asked for an expedition of types that is "EQUAL" to the Kon
Tiki in offering us a practical solution. Your team ignored this &
started arguing that the justification process of "apples to apples" is
not necessary 'cos of the shorter inter-island voyages undertaken today
by Hokule'a and other Pacific navigators.
I think "you" have a problem Jim understanding the gist of my argument.
Also I think you're resentful that someone questions your authority so
you attempt to "bash" & "patronize" & "condescend" to these individuals
like myself. Not to mention the insulting remark by by Karen Lofstrom in
regards to claiming Heyerdahl is unreputable in any scientific field.
You & your peers are confusing emotion with logic. You're accusing me of
being emotionally charged to support these (your implication here Jim)
romantic notions of Heyerdahl's Kon Tiki theory. Yet you deny the fact
that a logical justification is deemed necessary. This is preposterous
Jim. All these interisland voyages you speak of do not warrant evidence
that is credible enough to dismiss the Kon Tiki voyage. You have no such
expedition which supports all the mountains of corroborating evidence you
have. Therefore the evidence you have is no more guesswork than that
which you conclude of the Kon Tiki.
Heyerdahl writes 800 pages of theory to support a REAL expedition. Have
you read this Jim? Has Mr. Holohona? Has Karen Lofstrom? Have you read
"Fatu Hiva" to get a feel for Heyerdahl's motives? Have you raised the
question to yourself what kind of man puts his life on the line to
undergo such an expedition, write a book as voluminous as "American
Indians In The Pacific," then continue to follow his heart and undertake
other expeditions for the last 50+ years?
Maybe you're all afraid of the incredible amount of credence Heyerdahl's
theories would lend to Mormon teachings the more it becomes accepted? Or
could this be an inkling of your own personal fears? And if I may
reiterate for the sake of Mr. Holohona, again, I did not and have not
made any references to "lost tribe of the Lamanites."
You've openly admitted that you have not read "American Indians In The
Pacific." So before we continue here, I'll research all the evidence you
& your peers are so kind enough to post, & for God's sake, I hope you,
Karen Lofstrom & Mr. Holohona do likewise.
And please never, never attack me publicly again!
Al Aiono (ala...@earthlink.net)
Al Aiono
James Hess
In article <4n8r0s$8...@ecuador.it.earthlink.net>,
Al Aiono <ala...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>Dear Jim
>
>In regards to island hopping, I guess it's another oversight on my part
>However, I don't think my standards are questionable as you very well
>state. I do resent this attack on my integrity though. That was a cheap
>shot Jim.
>
Yes, I confess, it was a cheap shot. But not unlike your cheap shots
directed at Lofstrom, or your implications that I am an unreflective
conformist to majority opinion. And it is sincerely motivated by my difficulty
in understanding hwo you managed to miss the references to island hopping,
and why you separate Polynesians from other Pacific peoples in your
search for an origin story. Haven't your readings led you to any
critiques of the Polynesian/Melanesian/Micronesian categories imposed on the
Pacific by European explorers and colonizers? Since you respond with
only protest after protest, not any critique of the popular settlement theory,
it is hard to know why you insist on long-distance voyaging rather than a
gradual island-by-island settlement. It seems that you have erased all of
the islands of "Melanesia" from the map of the Pacific. Offer me an
alternative explanation, please. I would _prefer_ to find out that my shot was
not merely cheap, but wrong.
>Isn't it nice to be in the majority Jim? Flanked by colleagues & peers
>with volumes & volumes of supporting evidence. Shooting point blank at
>anyone who dare speak out from their hearts.
>
I think it is important to speak from your heart. But you are not restricting
your words to admiration for Heyerdahl's admitted accomplishment and
affection for the thought of Amerind ancestors; you are making truth claims
for his theories. Shouldn't heart and mind work together, each one a check
on the other? Perhaps I have been speaking too much from my mind, and not
seeing the complicity of a less-than-generous heart in the way I confront
you. On your side, can you admit that your position has been formed more in
your heart than your head? Maybe we can balance each other?
>All these inter-island voyages still do not come close to the vast amount
>of ocean space one would have to island-hop from Indonesia to Polynesia.
>But of course, you have the argument of time.
I am not sure what you mean here...are you saying that the sum distance of
these travels does not add up to the distance between Indonesia to Polynesia?
Could you please be more explicit about the problems of distance and time?
Is it helpful to think of the old Pony Express mail (ancient FedEx)? No
horse and rider went the whole distance, but the package that started in
St. Louis ended up in San Francisco. Now over generations of settlement, the
package would not be the same, of course, but a descendent of the original.
Instead of the package, think of a story that was also carried along with the
riders, passed from one rider to the next, changing a little with each
retelling.
>
>Take it now from me Jim, I don't accept the logic of your justification.
>Is the process of comparing "apples to apples" too simple for you & your
>community to accept?
>
We are saying that they didn't use apples, they used bananas, which is
why it is not necessary to make another heroic voyage the equal of
Kon Tiki to account for the settlement of the Pacific according to the
usual model.
>Originally I asked for an expedition of types that is "EQUAL" to the Kon
>Tiki in offering us a practical solution. Your team ignored this &
>started arguing that the justification process of "apples to apples" is
>not necessary 'cos of the shorter inter-island voyages undertaken today
>by Hokule'a and other Pacific navigators.
>
Exactly. What is wrong with this argument, in your eyes?
>I think "you" have a problem Jim understanding the gist of my argument.
Very much. You have never answered the question, "Why is the Heyerdahl
theory better than the other?" in a way that I can understand it. Why
is all the other evidence meaningless? Why does the heroic voyage
appeal to your heart? Are heart and theory reconcilable, or should we
admit that we are really on two boats crossing in different directions on
different voyages arguing over the small patch of water where we happened
to meet?
>Also I think you're resentful that someone questions your authority so
>you attempt to "bash" & "patronize" & "condescend" to these individuals
>like myself.
Humph. On the Net, I have no authority, only two hands on the keyboard.
If you feel condescended to, that is perhaps a perception of your own creation.
I engage you as an equal - if I was condescending, I would dismiss and
ignore you. Instead, I engage you in the same way I engage my peers and my
friends in debate.
>Jim. All these interisland voyages you speak of do not warrant evidence
>that is credible enough to dismiss the Kon Tiki voyage.
No one has dismissed the Kon Tiki voyage as an accomplishment, but as
adequate justification for the Amerind settlement theory. My question
now is, Why is this other evidence not credible? What evidence would
you accept as credible?
>
alfred schuster
Al Aiono <ala...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>moira rodan <s95000647> wrote:
>
>"Heyerdahl's theories are nothing but racist claptrap. This white
>bastard thought that our sailing technology wasn't up to European
>standards and the only direction our ancestors could sail was with the
>wind. The fact is that our navigational and sailing technology was the
>best in the world at the time. We were and are surrounded by sea for
>centuries and we understood how to tack against the wind. Heyerdahl's
>theories are an insult to us and our ancestors and to our navigators still
>practicing their ancient art today."
>
>Moira,
>
>I hope they're not teaching you this BS at the University of the South
>Pacific? Your insults won't help any in the art of communication.
>Trust me.
>
>sailing into the wind. But sailing from island to island into the wind
>is not the same as sailing from the Asiatic seas to Polynesia. Sure we can
>stand behind the speculation of "symbolic meaning" assuming therefore our
>ancestors used the same skills & practices to travel from the west.
>
>accusation that Heyerdahl thought our sailing standards were not up to
>European standards. Hence his motivation [I take it] for undertaking such
>a venture. This seems more like a notion derived by some angry, racist
>Polynesian/Pacific intellectuals.
>
>I hope we can keep the dialogue going here without further affronts on any
>person regardless of their race, creed, color, blood type, DNA, hair type
>and so on.
>
fa'afetai lava al, i've read with interest your assumptions or whatever
you want to call them on heyerdahl and his expeditions. i don't want to
involve myself with the debate but i am curious as to what purpose this
debate serves.is it for a research thesis of some sort or is it to fa'ali
lou poto i le lalolagi.afai o lea, ia i lau vaai ua lava ma totoe lou
poto. faamalo atu ia oe le suesue.
ia manuia oe le uso.
alfred schuster.
L. M. Weaver
clipped
>
> Originally I asked for an expedition of types that is "EQUAL" to the Kon
> Tiki in offering us a practical solution. Your team ignored this &
> started arguing that the justification process of "apples to apples" is
> not necessary 'cos of the shorter inter-island voyages undertaken today
> by Hokule'a and other Pacific navigators.
>
>
> You & your peers are confusing emotion with logic. You're accusing me of
> being emotionally charged to support these (your implication here Jim)
> romantic notions of Heyerdahl's Kon Tiki theory. Yet you deny the fact
> that a logical justification is deemed necessary. This is preposterous
> Jim. All these interisland voyages you speak of do not warrant evidence
> that is credible enough to dismiss the Kon Tiki voyage. You have no such
> expedition which supports all the mountains of corroborating evidence you
> have. Therefore the evidence you have is no more guesswork than that
> which you conclude of the Kon Tiki.
>
> Heyerdahl writes 800 pages of theory to support a REAL expedition. Have
> you read this Jim? Has Mr. Holohona? Has Karen Lofstrom? Have you read
> "Fatu Hiva" to get a feel for Heyerdahl's motives? Have you raised the
> question to yourself what kind of man puts his life on the line to
> undergo such an expedition, write a book as voluminous as "American
> Indians In The Pacific," then continue to follow his heart and undertake
> other expeditions for the last 50+ years?
>
clipped
>
> Al Aiono (ala...@earthlink.net)
The Kon Tiki voyage is no evidence whatsoever. Sure it shows that the
Indians COULD have gotten to to Polynesia, but so what? The vikings not
only could have gotten to America but did -- does that mean that America
was settled by Scandinavians? And who cares what Heyerdahl's motive was,
or what kind of man he was. Lot's of nice, well-meaning people believe all
sorts of nonsense. Here is an amusing tidbit of linguisic trivia, one drop
of water in the ocean of linguistic evidence. "'ato" in at least one
language on guadalcanal means sago palm leaves, which they use to make the
roofs of their homes. In Tonga they don't have sago palms, but use coconut
palm for that purpose, and in Tongan "'ato" means simply roof. Does that
prove anything? In itself no. In combination with about a million other
such such things, and the lapita pottery and flora and fauna, it settles
the issue.
BTW Sweat Potato was clearly know in Polynesia before the Europeans, and
clearly came from America, so some traffic had to go East to West. That is
merely a fascinating side line, however, and in no way changes the big
picture. The evidence for a migration from South East Asia is there, and
overwhelming -- only faith is sufficient to demonstrate the alternate
scenario.
Michael
Al Aiono
Interesting insight Michael. Thanks for participating.
Cheers.
Al.
Paul Bickerstaff
>So are you implying that the Kon Tiki expedition is regarded as just
>another day at sea? Is not Thor Heyerdahl of reputable standing amongst
>his peers?
I guess it depends on what you mean by "reputable standing" and "peers".
Heyerdahl's theories on Polynesian origins are thoroughly discredited
amongst that mix of scientists who have objectively studied the matter.
That Heyerdahl managed to sail a raft from South America to Polynesia
does not prove that the Polynesians did it too. Surely the logic of
that is not difficult to understand. Heyerdahl's journey was a great
adventure and his books are fun to read but that's about all.
>I'm trying to understand how an expedition of such great proportions can
>be so easily dismissed?
When you say it is "easily dismissed" I don't think that you appreciate
the enormous amount of research that has been undertaken into the
origins of the Polynesians. All of the evidence (linguistic, biological,
archeological, etc) points to Asian origins. As far as I know, the only
real mystery is the origins of the kumara.
To give you a very small sample, the Polynesian languages are closely
related to a large group of languages known as the Malayo-Polynesian
languages, which are found all the way to Madagascar! They bear no
similarity to existing South American languages. Linguistic studies
even suggest that Polynesian languages have been heavily influenced
by LONG association with the sea and islands.
The Polynesians retain no mythology of life on a continental land mass.
Given the relatively short period of time that Eastern Polynesia has
been settled (based on archeological evidence, and note that archeological
evidence says that Western Polynesia has been settled considerably
longer) one might reasonably have expected otherwise. Polynesian geneologies
certainly extend way back.
So it's not simply that nobody takes Heyerdahl seriously, it's just that
the alternative view has withstood scrutiny far better.
If you really want to learn more about the subject, I suggest reading
the articles in "The Prehistory of Polynesia" edited by J.D. Jennings
(Harvard Univ Press, 1979).
--
Paul Bickerstaff Internet: pbic...@phys.uidaho.edu
Physics Dept., Univ. of Idaho URL: http://www.phys.uidaho.edu/~pbickers
Moscow ID 83844-0903, USA Phone: (208) 885 6809 FAX: (208) 885 4055