[this is based on this reedited post:]
   Re: Lapita and Polynesian origins 
   Author:   Yuri Kuchinsky
   Date: 1998/09/12
   Forums: sci.archaeology, soc.culture.new-zealand

Greg Keyes, or anyone else, failed to address the botanical evidence
demonstrating very clearly that Easter Island and other Polynesians
islands received strong SA influence from the earliest times. All this
amounts to Heyerdahl's general thesis about SA influence in the Pacific
being now proven.

Heyerdahl has demonstrated the moral bankruptcy, the professional
incompetence, and the delusionary flight from reality of the
mainstream Polynesian academic scholarship. Yes, it seems like the 
whole academic establishment in this area is suffering from these problems.

Having made my case about EI, as a bonus, I've been playing with the idea
of defending the more general Heyerdahl theory about Polynesian migrations
-- Polynesian-speakers coming originally from the Pacific north-west of
America. While I'm persuaded that Thor is basically right, at the same time
I'm aware of the great complexity of this subject.

Look at EI -- SA contacts. This is really an open and shut case -- the
evidence is overwhelming. But even here it took me quite a long time to
make this case conclusively in sci.arch -- in this prevailing atmosphere of
lies, hypocrisy, and even outright racism of some posters. So I'm not so
naive as to try to embark on the full exploration of Heyerdahl's more
general theory here. This doesn't seem to be the right place for such a

It is clear to me that Polynesia has been a mixing bowl of various cultures
from the most ancient times onwards. To try to disentangle these cultural
threads is not a simple matter even for scholars who are both competent and
objective. And here we have mostly a collection of obviously biased and
even some clearly dishonest posters. So I'm not so naive to think that in
this atmosphere much serious progress can be made in this area.

Take for example Polynesian mythological traditions. For each account that
says something, there are another few that say something else. Polynesians
migrated back and forth between various islands even in historical times,
and this makes scientific analysis of their traditions very difficult.


Mr Keyes mentioned Polynesian traditions "preserving the memory of the
original migration from the west". But this is hardly so clear. Here's a
quote from Heyerdahl, AMERICAN INDIANS IN THE PACIFIC, pp. 59-60.

""...Ellis (1829, Vol. I, p. 126) had already collected enough Polynesian
traditions to write about their [Polynesian] early migrations: "... it is a
striking fact, that every such voyage related in the account of voyagers,
preserved in the traditions of the natives, or of recent occurrence, has
invariably been from east to west...""

So any assertion that the "majority" of such traditions relate a "journey
from the West" seems like a hopeless oversimplification.

The mainstream Polynesian deceptions are laid bare by their lies and
hypocrisy about the Easter Island. Once this is understood, the whole
mainstream "official history" of Polynesia can be seen as hopelessly

The main thing to understand about Heyerdahl's general theory of Polynesian
migrations is that his theory is based squarely on the geographical and
oceanographical realities, and hence on SIMPLE COMMON SENSE. Heyerdahl
simply looks at the map of prevailing winds and currents in the Pacific
basin, and his theory starts and unfolds from there. The winds and currents

Mainstream academic hypocrites can never change the physical geography of
the Pacific. Sorry, mainstream defenders. All your convoluted theorizing and
question-begging are based on a denial of physical reality. Obviously so.

The truth shall prevail in the end. What we're seeing now in the area of NZ
history -- with all these new winds blowing there -- is a good harbinger of
things to come. The mainstream deceptions, all their intricately
constructed houses of cards, will fall down sooner or later.



Click here to go one level up in the directory.