benlizross wrote in article :

Yuri Kuchinsky wrote:

benlizross wrote:

Yuri Kuchinsky wrote:

Not That Kerry wrote:

On Tue, 22 Jun 2004 15:04:03 -0400, Yuri Kuchinsky
wrote:

benlizross wrote:

Yuri Kuchinsky wrote:

benlizross wrote:

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.

Yuri.

Well maybe the Canadian West coasters came from Asia too...why fancy
that...They did!

Yes, kerry (Not That Kerry), you do seem to have a point
here...

It is indeed quite possible, and even probable, that the
Canadian West coasters came from Asia at some point in time
-- skipping along all that near-continuos coast-line --
before they went on to Polynesia, and became Polynesians!

This seems like the most rational scenario, that's also
supported by plenty of archaeological evidence.

Archaeological evidence! Great! Tell us all about it!
Uh...you don't by any chance mean pictures of totem poles, do you?

Ross Clark

For example, the same types of stone sledge-hammers, the
elbow adze, composite fish-hook, patu-type club, stone
pounders and pestles, etc.


I was going to ask you for a reference, but then I noticed that this is
just a selection from the list in Heyerdahl 1952, pp. 92ff. Ho hum.

Ross Clark

I see... So it seems like, according to Dr. Clark's system
of values,

1. Anything that Heyerdahl has ever said is automatically
wrong.

2. Any subject upon which Heyerdahl had ever touched is
automatically tainted, and is no longer worth talking about.

No doubt these assumptions do simplify Dr. Clark's Universe
considerably...

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

Yuri Kuchinsky wrote:

benlizross wrote in article :

Yuri Kuchinsky wrote:

benlizross wrote:

Yuri Kuchinsky wrote:

Not That Kerry wrote:

On Tue, 22 Jun 2004 15:04:03 -0400, Yuri Kuchinsky
wrote:

benlizross wrote:

Yuri Kuchinsky wrote:

benlizross wrote:

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.

Yuri.

Well maybe the Canadian West coasters came from Asia too...why fancy
that...They did!

Yes, kerry (Not That Kerry), you do seem to have a point
here...

It is indeed quite possible, and even probable, that the
Canadian West coasters came from Asia at some point in time
-- skipping along all that near-continuos coast-line --
before they went on to Polynesia, and became Polynesians!

This seems like the most rational scenario, that's also
supported by plenty of archaeological evidence.

Archaeological evidence! Great! Tell us all about it!
Uh...you don't by any chance mean pictures of totem poles, do you?

Ross Clark

For example, the same types of stone sledge-hammers, the
elbow adze, composite fish-hook, patu-type club, stone
pounders and pestles, etc.


I was going to ask you for a reference, but then I noticed that this is
just a selection from the list in Heyerdahl 1952, pp. 92ff. Ho hum.

Ross Clark

I see... So it seems like, according to Dr. Clark's system
of values,

1. Anything that Heyerdahl has ever said is automatically
wrong.

No, this is not entirely correct.


2. Any subject upon which Heyerdahl had ever touched is
automatically tainted, and is no longer worth talking about.

No, this is completely wrong.


No doubt these assumptions do simplify Dr. Clark's Universe
considerably...

No doubt you have not misunderstood what I said quite as completely as
you pretend to. I mentioned the list from H because you posted it here
already some 4 years ago, and, judging by today's posts, I am sure you
have nothing further to add to it.

Ross Clark

"Yuri Kuchinsky" wrote in message
...
benlizross wrote in article :

Yuri Kuchinsky wrote:

benlizross wrote:

Yuri Kuchinsky wrote:

Not That Kerry wrote:

On Tue, 22 Jun 2004 15:04:03 -0400, Yuri Kuchinsky

wrote:

benlizross wrote:

Yuri Kuchinsky wrote:

benlizross wrote:

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.

Yuri.

Well maybe the Canadian West coasters came from Asia too...why
fancy
that...They did!

Yes, kerry (Not That Kerry), you do seem to have a point
here...

It is indeed quite possible, and even probable, that the
Canadian West coasters came from Asia at some point in time
-- skipping along all that near-continuos coast-line --
before they went on to Polynesia, and became Polynesians!
This seems like the most rational scenario, that's also
supported by plenty of archaeological evidence.

Archaeological evidence! Great! Tell us all about it!
Uh...you don't by any chance mean pictures of totem poles, do you?

Ross Clark

For example, the same types of stone sledge-hammers, the
elbow adze, composite fish-hook, patu-type club, stone
pounders and pestles, etc.


I was going to ask you for a reference, but then I noticed that this is
just a selection from the list in Heyerdahl 1952, pp. 92ff. Ho hum.

Ross Clark

I see... So it seems like, according to Dr. Clark's system
of values,

1. Anything that Heyerdahl has ever said is automatically
wrong.

2. Any subject upon which Heyerdahl had ever touched is
automatically tainted, and is no longer worth talking about.

No doubt these assumptions do simplify Dr. Clark's Universe
considerably...

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

So you really really think that they are linked ?
If so what are the implications and are there any real implications ?
In other words so what ?

benlizross wrote:

Yuri Kuchinsky wrote:

benlizross wrote in article :

Yuri Kuchinsky wrote:

benlizross wrote:

Yuri Kuchinsky wrote:

Not That Kerry wrote:

On Tue, 22 Jun 2004 15:04:03 -0400, Yuri Kuchinsky
wrote:

benlizross wrote:

Yuri Kuchinsky wrote:

benlizross wrote:

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.

Yuri.

Well maybe the Canadian West coasters came from Asia too...why fancy
that...They did!

Yes, kerry (Not That Kerry), you do seem to have a point
here...

It is indeed quite possible, and even probable, that the
Canadian West coasters came from Asia at some point in time
-- skipping along all that near-continuos coast-line --
before they went on to Polynesia, and became Polynesians!

This seems like the most rational scenario, that's also
supported by plenty of archaeological evidence.

Archaeological evidence! Great! Tell us all about it!
Uh...you don't by any chance mean pictures of totem poles, do you?

Ross Clark

For example, the same types of stone sledge-hammers, the
elbow adze, composite fish-hook, patu-type club, stone
pounders and pestles, etc.


I was going to ask you for a reference, but then I noticed that this is
just a selection from the list in Heyerdahl 1952, pp. 92ff. Ho hum.

Ross Clark

I see... So it seems like, according to Dr. Clark's system
of values,

1. Anything that Heyerdahl has ever said is automatically
wrong.

No, this is not entirely correct.

Well, now we would expect Dr. Clark to specify which of
Heyerdahl's contributions to Polynesian history may be
important.

But, I'm afraid, Dr. Clark has been remarkably short on
specifics of late...

2. Any subject upon which Heyerdahl had ever touched is
automatically tainted, and is no longer worth talking about.

No, this is completely wrong.


No doubt these assumptions do simplify Dr. Clark's Universe
considerably...

No doubt you have not misunderstood what I said quite as completely as
you pretend to. I mentioned the list from H because you posted it here
already some 4 years ago, and, judging by today's posts, I am sure you
have nothing further to add to it.

Ross Clark

Have you yet dealt with what had already been posted some 4
years ago?

I guess not... So let me help you here a bit. Here's the
goods,

[quote what had already been posted some 4 years ago]

The following info is all brought together in Heyerdahl's
AMERICAN INDIANS IN THE PACIFIC, pages 92ff.

- special similarities between NWC and NZ, noted by Capt.
Cook
- similar double canoe
- same type of rudimentary sail used both on NWC and in NZ
- the sewing of wood
- same canoes, and same techniques of canoe-making
- same canoe-decorations
- the special neolithic elbow adze: identical on NWC and in
Polynesia.
- the rectangular plank-house
- similar house facade decorations, and house-posts
- mortuary and ancestral poles
- very similar petroglyph designs
- identical pounders and pestles
- identical hand-clubs (patu clubs)
- various fishing implements, especially the halibut hook
- the earth oven
- bark-cloth manufacture

[unquote]

Yuri.

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

But scientists, who ought to know
Assure us that it must be so.
Oh, let us never, never doubt
What nobody is sure about.
-- Hilaire Belloc

Carmen wrote:

"Yuri Kuchinsky" wrote in message
...
benlizross wrote in article :

Yuri Kuchinsky wrote:

benlizross wrote:

Yuri Kuchinsky wrote:

Not That Kerry wrote:

On Tue, 22 Jun 2004 15:04:03 -0400, Yuri Kuchinsky

wrote:

benlizross wrote:

Yuri Kuchinsky wrote:

benlizross wrote:

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.

Yuri.

Well maybe the Canadian West coasters came from Asia too...why
fancy
that...They did!

Yes, kerry (Not That Kerry), you do seem to have a point
here...

It is indeed quite possible, and even probable, that the
Canadian West coasters came from Asia at some point in time
-- skipping along all that near-continuos coast-line --
before they went on to Polynesia, and became Polynesians!
This seems like the most rational scenario, that's also
supported by plenty of archaeological evidence.

Archaeological evidence! Great! Tell us all about it!
Uh...you don't by any chance mean pictures of totem poles, do you?

Ross Clark

For example, the same types of stone sledge-hammers, the
elbow adze, composite fish-hook, patu-type club, stone
pounders and pestles, etc.


I was going to ask you for a reference, but then I noticed that this is
just a selection from the list in Heyerdahl 1952, pp. 92ff. Ho hum.

Ross Clark

I see... So it seems like, according to Dr. Clark's system
of values,

1. Anything that Heyerdahl has ever said is automatically
wrong.

2. Any subject upon which Heyerdahl had ever touched is
automatically tainted, and is no longer worth talking about.

No doubt these assumptions do simplify Dr. Clark's Universe
considerably...

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

So you really really think that they are linked ?

That's right, Carmen.

If so what are the implications and are there any real implications ?
In other words so what ?

Well, there are great many reasons why we might want to
study history. For example, it's important, it's
educational, and also it can be great fun!

Why Study History?
http://history.hanover.edu/why.html

So, Carmen, would you now perhaps suggest some reasons why
we should not study history?

Yuri.

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

"Genuine ignorance is ... profitable because it is likely
to be accompanied by humility, curiosity, and open
mindedness; whereas ability to repeat catch-phrases,
cant terms, familiar propositions, gives the conceit of
learning, and coats the mind with varnish water-proof
to new ideas" -- John Dewey

Yuri Kuchinsky wrote:

benlizross wrote:

[snip]

I was going to ask you for a reference, but then I noticed that this is
just a selection from the list in Heyerdahl 1952, pp. 92ff. Ho hum.

Ross Clark

I see... So it seems like, according to Dr. Clark's system
of values,

1. Anything that Heyerdahl has ever said is automatically
wrong.

No, this is not entirely correct.

Well, now we would expect Dr. Clark to specify which of
Heyerdahl's contributions to Polynesian history may be
important.

You don't seem to be reading at all carefully these days.
I simply rejected your ridiculous suggestion that everything H ever said
was "automatically" wrong.

But, I'm afraid, Dr. Clark has been remarkably short on
specifics of late...

Still haven't learned how to work Google Groups yet?

2. Any subject upon which Heyerdahl had ever touched is
automatically tainted, and is no longer worth talking about.

No, this is completely wrong.


No doubt these assumptions do simplify Dr. Clark's Universe
considerably...

No doubt you have not misunderstood what I said quite as completely as
you pretend to. I mentioned the list from H because you posted it here
already some 4 years ago, and, judging by today's posts, I am sure you
have nothing further to add to it.

Ross Clark

Have you yet dealt with what had already been posted some 4
years ago?

I guess not... So let me help you here a bit. Here's the
goods,

[quote what had already been posted some 4 years ago]

The following info is all brought together in Heyerdahl's
AMERICAN INDIANS IN THE PACIFIC, pages 92ff.

- special similarities between NWC and NZ, noted by Capt.
Cook
- similar double canoe
- same type of rudimentary sail used both on NWC and in NZ
- the sewing of wood
- same canoes, and same techniques of canoe-making
- same canoe-decorations
- the special neolithic elbow adze: identical on NWC and in
Polynesia.
- the rectangular plank-house
- similar house facade decorations, and house-posts
- mortuary and ancestral poles
- very similar petroglyph designs
- identical pounders and pestles
- identical hand-clubs (patu clubs)
- various fishing implements, especially the halibut hook
- the earth oven
- bark-cloth manufacture

[unquote]

Well, I notice you've still got "bark-cloth" in there, even though it
was made clear to you at the time that the NW coast peoples did not make
bark-cloth. We also dealt with the earth-oven here quite recently. It's
very widespread, no evidence of anything special.
And you can take out the word "special", which is a kind of pixie-dust
that Thor likes to sprinkle on various descriptions.
This leaves us with a lot of artefacts that (in Thor's opinion) are
"similar" or "very similar" or "identical". And here I fear we are
likely to get into the same impasse as we did with the "totem poles" a
while ago. You will look at them and say they are so similar they must
be related, whereas others will look at them and not see such a
similarity, beyond what one might expect from functional constraints,
chance resemblance, and common inheritance from an Asian past.
But if you can expand on one or two items and add something to what's on
the bare list, we might be able to have a discussion. What's special
about the halibut hook, for example? Since the Polynesians didn't catch
halibut, what would be the corresponding Polynesian hook?

Ross Clark

,
"Yuri Kuchinsky" wrote in message
...
Carmen wrote:

"Yuri Kuchinsky" wrote in message
...
benlizross wrote in article :

Yuri Kuchinsky wrote:

benlizross wrote:

Yuri Kuchinsky wrote:

Not That Kerry wrote:

On Tue, 22 Jun 2004 15:04:03 -0400, Yuri Kuchinsky

wrote:

benlizross wrote:

Yuri Kuchinsky wrote:

benlizross wrote:

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.

Yuri.

Well maybe the Canadian West coasters came from Asia
too...why
fancy
that...They did!

Yes, kerry (Not That Kerry), you do seem to have a point
here...

It is indeed quite possible, and even probable, that the
Canadian West coasters came from Asia at some point in time
-- skipping along all that near-continuos coast-line --
before they went on to Polynesia, and became Polynesians!
This seems like the most rational scenario, that's also
supported by plenty of archaeological evidence.

Archaeological evidence! Great! Tell us all about it!
Uh...you don't by any chance mean pictures of totem poles, do
you?

Ross Clark

For example, the same types of stone sledge-hammers, the
elbow adze, composite fish-hook, patu-type club, stone
pounders and pestles, etc.


I was going to ask you for a reference, but then I noticed that this
is
just a selection from the list in Heyerdahl 1952, pp. 92ff. Ho hum.

Ross Clark

I see... So it seems like, according to Dr. Clark's system
of values,

1. Anything that Heyerdahl has ever said is automatically
wrong.

2. Any subject upon which Heyerdahl had ever touched is
automatically tainted, and is no longer worth talking about.

No doubt these assumptions do simplify Dr. Clark's Universe
considerably...

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

So you really really think that they are linked ?

That's right, Carmen.

If so what are the implications and are there any real implications ?
In other words so what ?

Well, there are great many reasons why we might want to
study history. For example, it's important, it's
educational, and also it can be great fun!

Why Study History?
http://history.hanover.edu/why.html

So, Carmen, would you now perhaps suggest some reasons why
we should not study history?

Yuri.

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

"Genuine ignorance is ... profitable because it is likely
to be accompanied by humility, curiosity, and open
mindedness; whereas ability to repeat catch-phrases,
cant terms, familiar propositions, gives the conceit of
learning, and coats the mind with varnish water-proof
to new ideas" -- John Dewey

Where did you get the idea that I think we should not study history?

I have been looking into history for a long time and am reasonably
knowledgable about various things.

Carmen

"Carmen" wrote in message ...


snip


Where did you get the idea that I think we should not study history?

I have been looking into history for a long time and am reasonably
knowledgable about various things.

Well Carmen if you involve history (or learning) in your posts then
that excludes Yuris assumptions...
and he feels left out ...

benlizross wrote in message ...
Yuri Kuchinsky wrote:

benlizross wrote:

[snip]

I was going to ask you for a reference, but then I noticed that this is
just a selection from the list in Heyerdahl 1952, pp. 92ff. Ho hum.

Ross Clark

I see... So it seems like, according to Dr. Clark's system
of values,

1. Anything that Heyerdahl has ever said is automatically
wrong.

No, this is not entirely correct.

Well, now we would expect Dr. Clark to specify which of
Heyerdahl's contributions to Polynesian history may be
important.

You don't seem to be reading at all carefully these days.
I simply rejected your ridiculous suggestion that everything H ever said
was "automatically" wrong.

Well, here was a chance for Dr. Clark to demonstrate his objectivity,
and to offer us a few balanced comments about Heyerdahl and his work.

But, alas, this was not to be... and Dr. Clark declined to demonstrate
his objectivity. Perhaps because he doesn't have any?

But, I'm afraid, Dr. Clark has been remarkably short on
specifics of late...

Still haven't learned how to work Google Groups yet?

Still short on specifics?

2. Any subject upon which Heyerdahl had ever touched is
automatically tainted, and is no longer worth talking about.

No, this is completely wrong.


No doubt these assumptions do simplify Dr. Clark's Universe
considerably...

No doubt you have not misunderstood what I said quite as completely as
you pretend to. I mentioned the list from H because you posted it here
already some 4 years ago, and, judging by today's posts, I am sure you
have nothing further to add to it.

Ross Clark

Have you yet dealt with what had already been posted some 4
years ago?

I guess not... So let me help you here a bit. Here's the
goods,

[quote what had already been posted some 4 years ago]

The following info is all brought together in Heyerdahl's
AMERICAN INDIANS IN THE PACIFIC, pages 92ff.

- special similarities between NWC and NZ, noted by Capt.
Cook
- similar double canoe
- same type of rudimentary sail used both on NWC and in NZ
- the sewing of wood
- same canoes, and same techniques of canoe-making
- same canoe-decorations
- the special neolithic elbow adze: identical on NWC and in
Polynesia.
- the rectangular plank-house
- similar house facade decorations, and house-posts
- mortuary and ancestral poles
- very similar petroglyph designs
- identical pounders and pestles
- identical hand-clubs (patu clubs)
- various fishing implements, especially the halibut hook
- the earth oven
- bark-cloth manufacture

[unquote]

Well, I notice you've still got "bark-cloth" in there, even though it
was made clear to you at the time that the NW coast peoples did not make
bark-cloth.

Yes, as I recall it, we'd established that, while the actual cloth
that was made by the Canadian Indians and the Maoris was very similar,
still and all the modern scholars have made up different names for it.
So this was seen as highly significant...

We also dealt with the earth-oven here quite recently. It's
very widespread, no evidence of anything special.

The earth-oven was the same, but this cannot be used as proof.

And you can take out the word "special", which is a kind of pixie-dust
that Thor likes to sprinkle on various descriptions.

Let's quibble about a word now!

Dr. Clark doesn't like the word "special".

This leaves us with a lot of artefacts that (in Thor's opinion) are
"similar" or "very similar" or "identical".

No, here you show your ignorance again (or perhaps your poor
memory)... In lots of peoples' opinion. How about Claude Levi-Strauss,
for example?

And here I fear we are
likely to get into the same impasse as we did with the "totem poles" a
while ago. You will look at them and say they are so similar they must
be related, whereas others will look at them and not see such a
similarity, beyond what one might expect from functional constraints,
chance resemblance, and common inheritance from an Asian past.

Yes, I know, the word "similar" has a very different meaning in Dr.
Clark's private vocabulary.

And, knowing this, I, of course, have those long lists of S American
plants that seem to have come to all sorts of places around the
Pacific, including Polynesia, in ancient times! 36 of them, in fact!

Available from here,

Easter Island and Polynesia
http://www.trends.ca/~yuku/tran/teaster.htm

Even Dr. Clark cannot deny that they are not only similar, but...
actually the same!

So let's see him squirm now.

But if you can expand on one or two items and add something to what's on
the bare list, we might be able to have a discussion. What's special
about the halibut hook, for example? Since the Polynesians didn't catch
halibut, what would be the corresponding Polynesian hook?

Ross Clark

What's the point?

I already know that the word "similar" has a very different meaning in
Dr. Clark's private vocabulary. So he doesn't have to demonstrate it
all over again...

OTOH if someone else is interested, we can talk about these things
further.

Regards,

Yuri.

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

A great many people think they are thinking when they are merely
rearranging their prejudices -=O=- William James