(carl) wrote in message . com...
(George) wrote in message . com...

snip

Oceanic voyaging was not done in a Waka Taua or a Waka Pinakaku..
It was achieved in Waka Hourua or the double hulled Waka Taurua...
And any or all of the above look nothing like the Canadian West canoes..

you bet! and if you want to see a sea worthy Waka Hourua head on down
to the Auckland maritime museum , they look very little like a
canadian canoe and they go significantly faster.

Yup. Of course were Yuri asked he would be unaware of the significant
differences that reserve the waka Taua and the waka Pinaku and the
tapus involved!

Go to http://www.koekejunction.hnpl.net/ hit the photo and almost at
the bottom of the left hand side frame is the link to my Waka page.
Any-one who can contribute other waka and their locations (if not
already present) are welcome to email me with the details

Yuri Kuchinsky wrote:

Linguistic evidence can never prove anything (outside of
linguistics, that is). At best, such evidence can only
_suggest_ some things, which then need to be proven by hard
physical evidence, such as archaeological.

Yes, I know you're chronically skeptical about linguistic evidence,
Yuri, since it almost never supports what you're trying to prove.

This is news to me...

Let's just say in this case all the "suggestions" go one way.

According to you.

And to everyone else who actually knows something about it.

Meanwhile, here's a "credible authority" for you. It seems
like you still have a lot to learn in this area...

"Their [Canadian West Coast Natives'] canoes are large and
roomy, capable of accommodating scores of men; they are made
with great skill and artistic talent; they are of all
primitive craft the most fitted for meeting the conditions
of oceanic voyaging, and have a great resemblance to the
Maori war canoe." (J. M. Brown, PEOPLES AND PROBLEMS OF THE
PACIFIC. London, 1927, Vol. II, p. 68)

This is it? Dear old Macmillan Brown? You were right to put "credible
authority" in quotes. But what does he actually tell us here?
The NW Coast people built big canoes. We knew that.
They resemble the Maori war canoe (JMB being a New Zealander). Hm. In
what way exactly?

Something for you to investigate perhaps.

No, something for you to explain to us, since it is you who is putting
this forth as evidence for your claims.

Besides being big canoes made by peoples who have
access to big trees? Is there some particular detail of their structure
that would lead us to conclude that the one must have been derived from,
or inspired by, the other? JMB does not say.

It could be the carved bow and stern pieces, for example.

Uh huh? Just the existence of such things, or their particular form? You
can show that whatever it is is found nowhere else in the world?

And finally they are "most fitted for meeting the conditions of oceanic
voyaging". Wait a minute. The Maori war canoe, as I understand it, is an
adaptation to lake and river travel (which were not an issue in tropical
Polynesia).

Your understanding may be wrong.

It may be. Unfortunately your crossposting has not brought us any fresh
expertise from among the boat-builders or the New Zealanders. And I know
your understanding is no better than mine.

It is used along the coasts as well, of course, but you do
not cross an ocean in such a vessel. When the Maori, in recent years,
have taken up oceanic voyaging, they have built themselves big double
hulled canoes. With sails. And what about sails on the NW coast? I was
struck by Cook's statement that the Nootka knew nothing of sails. Is
there good evidence for them being used elsewhere on the NW coast? How
feasible is it to get from British Columbia to Polynesia without sails?

Now that you've crossposted this to some other groups, perhaps we'll get
some useful information.

Ross Clark

Same types of sail have been identified both in Canada and
NZ. Also, same type of double hulled canoes.

Reference?

Ross Clark

benlizross says:

snip

Unfortunately your crossposting has not brought us any fresh
expertise from among the boat-builders or the New Zealanders.

snip a bit more

Then FFS cut the cross-posting and leave us alone here in boat-building land.

Here's a clue (from New Zealand, no less...):
http://carcino.gen.nz/images/image.p...22/arguing.jpg

Tanx.

Steve

Yuri Kuchinsky wrote in message ...
carl wrote:


snip


you bet! and if you want to see a sea worthy Waka Hourua head on down
to the Auckland maritime museum , they look very little like a
canadian canoe and they go significantly faster.

Those who have studied both types of craft disagree.

No.

http://www.newzealand.com/travel/about-nz/culture/discovery-vintage-new-zealand/$profiles/hekenukumai-busby.cfm
is as much a real authority on the Waka as its possible to find.
The Canadian dug out
http://www.civilization.ca/aborig/wa.../wad05eng.html resembles
the waka in no way what so ever.

The only claimant to the link between the canoe of Canada and the New
Zealand waka is an Australian who quotes heyerdahl at length.
A google search will lead you to those articles....

and, if you are -really- interested in the waka
http://www.nzbooks.com/nzbooks/produ...vans0790007150
and Jeff will be only to happy to sell you his book...

Yuri Kuchinsky wrote in message ...
carl wrote:

(George) wrote in message . com...
Yuri Kuchinsky wrote in message ...
benlizross wrote on 23 Jun 2004
in article :

Yuri Kuchinsky wrote:

benlizross wrote:

Yuri Kuchinsky wrote:

benlizross wrote:

[snip]

The mainland that the
Polynesians came from was Asia -- or at the very least, their sailing
technology came from there.

How so?

In actual fact, the evidence points elsewhere.

Really? Perhaps you could give some evidence in support of this amazing
claim.

There's a marked similarity between the Canadian West Coast
canoes and Polynesian canoes, for example.

And no similarity between Polynesian canoes and anything further west?
Goodness! But with all due respect to your vast nautical knowledge,
Yuri, perhaps you could cite some credible authority who says so?

See below, Ross.

And
who describes the sailing techniques and deep-sea navigation systems of
these Canadian West Coast people?

You mean you don't know this?

Or are you trying to imply that there's nobody who had
described these things?

And then there would be the problem of
why the Polynesian words for "canoe", "outrigger", "sail", "paddle", etc
etc are of Austronesian origin....

Breathlessly awaiting your evidence.

Ross Clark

Linguistic evidence can never prove anything (outside of
linguistics, that is). At best, such evidence can only
_suggest_ some things, which then need to be proven by hard
physical evidence, such as archaeological.

Meanwhile, here's a "credible authority" for you. It seems
like you still have a lot to learn in this area...

"Their [Canadian West Coast Natives'] canoes are large and
roomy, capable of accommodating scores of men; they are made
with great skill and artistic talent; they are of all
primitive craft the most fitted for meeting the conditions
of oceanic voyaging, and have a great resemblance to the
Maori war canoe." (J. M. Brown, PEOPLES AND PROBLEMS OF THE
PACIFIC. London, 1927, Vol. II, p. 68)

Oceanic voyaging was not done in a Waka Taua or a Waka Pinakaku..
It was achieved in Waka Hourua or the double hulled Waka Taurua...
And any or all of the above look nothing like the Canadian West canoes

you bet! and if you want to see a sea worthy Waka Hourua head on down
to the Auckland maritime museum , they look very little like a
canadian canoe and they go significantly faster.

Those who have studied both types of craft disagree.

Yuri.

Yuri Kuchinsky in Toronto -=O=- http://www.trends.ca/~yuku

It is a far, far better thing to have a firm anchor in
nonsense than to put out on the troubled seas of
thought -=O=- John K. Galbraith


Ok
you think they are similar
in what way do you think they resemble each other?

please share your experience in designing and using these types of craft

carl says:

Yuri Kuchinsky wrote in message

snip

Ok
you think they are similar
in what way do you think they resemble each other?

please share your experience in designing and using these types of craft

And please, since you are still cross-postewd to a boatbuilding group, let's
have some numbers to back it up like the Prismatic Coefficients, some reference
to section shapes, displacement-length ratios, etc, instead of just some
anthro-geek mumbo-jumbo about "they're the same length and they both float,
so..."

Thanks Yuri,

Steve

Apparently on date 25 Jun 2004 19:21:31 -0700, (George) said:

Yuri Kuchinsky wrote in message ...
carl wrote:

you bet! and if you want to see a sea worthy Waka Hourua head on down
to the Auckland maritime museum , they look very little like a
canadian canoe and they go significantly faster.

Those who have studied both types of craft disagree.

No.

http://www.newzealand.com/travel/about-nz/culture/discovery-vintage-new-zealand/$profiles/hekenukumai-busby.cfm
is as much a real authority on the Waka as its possible to find.
The Canadian dug out
http://www.civilization.ca/aborig/wa.../wad05eng.html resembles
the waka in no way what so ever.

You know, I've never imagined that they were so different. A dug out canoe
ought to resemble any other, initially, regardless of who built it and where.
But the finishing off is quite significant and, as you say, quite differently
executed.

It's remarkable that Heyerdhal didn't even check to see if there were
similarities between the two, in order to see that, actually, there are
striking differences.

Martyn Harrison wrote in message . ..
Apparently on date 25 Jun 2004 19:21:31 -0700, (George) said:

Yuri Kuchinsky wrote in message ...
carl wrote:

you bet! and if you want to see a sea worthy Waka Hourua head on down
to the Auckland maritime museum , they look very little like a
canadian canoe and they go significantly faster.

Those who have studied both types of craft disagree.

No.

http://www.newzealand.com/travel/about-nz/culture/discovery-vintage-new-zealand/$profiles/hekenukumai-busby.cfm
is as much a real authority on the Waka as its possible to find.
The Canadian dug out
http://www.civilization.ca/aborig/wa.../wad05eng.html resembles
the waka in no way what so ever.

You know, I've never imagined that they were so different. A dug out canoe
ought to resemble any other, initially, regardless of who built it and where.
But the finishing off is quite significant and, as you say, quite differently
executed.

It's remarkable that Heyerdhal didn't even check to see if there were
similarities between the two, in order to see that, actually, there are
striking differences.

This is always the sad thing about the heyerdahls of the world. Once
they have an idea there is no shifting them.
All the linguistic and genetic evidence wasn't enough to convince him
And here, his devotee Yuri accepts the waka claim, without actually
comparing the Canadian logboat and the waka stating his 'knowledge'
comes from 'experts' in the field, who, when examined, have no
expertise in the field.....

In article , Yuri Kuchinsky
wrote:

Linguistic evidence can never prove anything (outside of
linguistics, that is). At best, such evidence can only
_suggest_ some things, which then need to be proven by hard
physical evidence, such as archaeological.

the physical evidence is also fragmentary. consolidating that
information into a historical theory is always a matter of conjecture,
not proof as it might exist in other disciplines.

don't be such an ameteur.

Apparently on date 26 Jun 2004 13:17:44 -0700, (George) said:

Martyn Harrison wrote in message . ..
Apparently on date 25 Jun 2004 19:21:31 -0700, (George) said:

Yuri Kuchinsky wrote in message ...
carl wrote:

you bet! and if you want to see a sea worthy Waka Hourua head on down
to the Auckland maritime museum , they look very little like a
canadian canoe and they go significantly faster.

Those who have studied both types of craft disagree.

No.

http://www.newzealand.com/travel/about-nz/culture/discovery-vintage-new-zealand/$profiles/hekenukumai-busby.cfm
is as much a real authority on the Waka as its possible to find.
The Canadian dug out
http://www.civilization.ca/aborig/wa.../wad05eng.html resembles
the waka in no way what so ever.

You know, I've never imagined that they were so different. A dug out canoe
ought to resemble any other, initially, regardless of who built it and where.
But the finishing off is quite significant and, as you say, quite differently
executed.

It's remarkable that Heyerdhal didn't even check to see if there were
similarities between the two, in order to see that, actually, there are
striking differences.

This is always the sad thing about the heyerdahls of the world. Once
they have an idea there is no shifting them.
All the linguistic and genetic evidence wasn't enough to convince him
And here, his devotee Yuri accepts the waka claim, without actually
comparing the Canadian logboat and the waka stating his 'knowledge'
comes from 'experts' in the field, who, when examined, have no
expertise in the field.....

Quite.

The puzzling thing about this, is the motivation. Clearly, a poster reads a
book, a misleading one, and comes to a newsgroup where they present their
opinions on some matter, opinions formed by the book they have read.

These opinions are devalued by reasoning, extra information, etc. The proper
response to this is:

1) as an absolute minimum, identify that the opinion(s) were, in the first
place, mistaken.

2) react to this information, probably the most likely way is to squink out of
it, by unjust logical games, etc.

3) or to accept the information and learn more (heck, this is usually no fun)

4) or to drop the debate rather than digging the hole deeper, and come back in
with a different set of opinions (and possibly a different usenet identity).

Possibly option 4) is the least loss of "face", 2) gets you labeled by most
people (who aren't as easily fooled as posters like to imagine) and 3) is most
likely the best way to build a good reputation.

Option 1) is absolutely essential, failing to realise when you are wrong is a
mental disease of some sort, either the issue is too difficult to understand
(i.e. people who reject relativity do so due to not being able to understand
it) or it is easy to understand and your own mind is deceiving you. Matters
like are discussed in here, almost all fit the "easy to comprehend" category,
so failing to achieve 1) comprehension of error, points to a very stupid or
confused person.

Options 2 - 4 reflect a persons attitude, possibly at the time, the less honest
strategies are likely to be most common.

One of the problems I can see, is a false belief in personal credibility.
Someone may believe other people hold them in high regard. In this case,
changing their opinion, however wrong it may be, would threaten a loss of
credibility with these unknown lurkers. If that is how someone imagines things,
they really ought to try smelling the coffee and reflect that opinion of the
masses, generally follows the opinions expressed. If people in here, are not
agreeing, chances are that this is reflected in the people who are here but do
not (or rarely) speak.

IOW, when you realise you are in error, the way you react, and what people
subsequently say about you / your ideas, is probably pretty much a reflection
of the actual reputation of you / your ideas.

Putting this another way, if Yuri was agreeing with me, I'd have to sit down
and have a good long think about what it is I have gotten so badly wrong.

In the case of Heyerdhal, his "reputation" reflects book sales. This is a very
real thing and his motivation is quite different, he is making money by doing
what people want him to do. He isn't trying to do science.