Re: botanical facts (was: Lapita and Polynesian origins 
   Author:   Yuri Kuchinsky
   Date: 1998/09/22
   Forums: sci.archaeology, soc.culture.new-zealand

   _________________________________________________________________
   
Wade Workman ([17]wade@kuentos.guam.net) wrote:
: Yuri Kuchinsky wrote in message <6u65vm$fn5$1@hub.org>...

[Wade:]
> >: Ever considered that the next stop after Rapa Nui for
> >: the eastward voyaging Polynesians was South America?
> >
> >Yes, I have, and I consider this pretty unlikely. So who else offered this
> >theory in print? Or are you making these things up?
>
> Irwin, Geoffrey. (1992). _The prehistoric exploration and colonization of
> the Pacific._ Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
>
> Although I do not necessarily agree with mechanics of Irwin's
> navigation theory, I do believe he makes a convincing case (based on
> real physical evidence I made add) for the Polynesians having the
> skill, knowledge, and opportunity for landing in South America.

Wade,

I'm familiar with what Irwin says. He's very vague, and never puts a
definite date to his speculations. He thinks Polynesians must have
travelled to SA from EI, shortly after coming to EI. There are many
logical problems with such a view, as Irwin himself understands.

1. Why would they go into the unknown against the current and wind shortly
after coming to EI? I see no good reason. Usually people will explore
further after overcrowding the existing habitat. Such was not the case on
EI then.

2. While Irwin may be right that EI may have been the point of entry for
kumara (too bad for Mr. Stone!), the Polynesians, after picking up the
kumara in SA, and after returning to EI, must have wanted to leave again
right away to spread it around Polynesia? Makes no sense.

3. Also too bad that Irwin directly contradicts the common mainstream
theory, as expressed by Jo Anne Van Tilburg, in EASTER ISLAND, British
Museum Press, 1994, that EI lost contact with the rest of the world after
first settlers got there.

4. And most importantly. Once you admit contact with SA in any definite
way, you are opening the Pandora Box! This will be the death of the
mainstream dogma, I believe. Because, what about the megalithic walls? Did
the Easter Islanders get the idea from SA also? What about tupas? What
about the stone dwellings? And so on...

And so the mainstream house of cards falls!

        ...

In any case, thanks to Wade, we have now definitely passed some kind of a
milestone, folks. He is the first one to cite Irwin here, and to come out
clear with some kind of a (semi-)valid historical scenario to explain all
these obvious EI -- SA parallels.

In spite of my repeated prompting, Ross Clark has never ventured that far
from his usual hazy mumbo jumbo and handwaving. When asked to provide an
alternative historical scenario to the one he dismisses (so bravely!), his
usual reply was "know nothing -- see nothing -- hear nothing". In other
words, he always chose the courageous Three Monkeys of Nikko route.

Wade, to his credit, has now gone beyond that. So let's see what happens
next...

Best,

Yuri.

Click here to go one level up in the directory.