|
|
Yuri Kuchinsky wrote:
>
> benlizross wrote:
> >
> > Yuri Kuchinsky wrote:
> > >
> > > Hello, Qiwi!
> > >
> > > Long time no talk...
> > >
> > > I see that you've been posting some interesting new evidence
> > > about the matters Polynesian.
> > >
> > > Myself, I've been busy with lots of other stuff, but now and
> > > then I do check sci.arch for the latest merriment.
> > >
> > > qiwi wrote on 29 Jul 2005 in
> > > <1122682610.098353.163250@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
> > >
> > > > The fact is there is only one word in the Polynesian language that has
> > > > been traced to an exact and provable point of origin outside the
> > > > Pacific region and that word is the generic Polynesian term for the
> > > > sweet potato, 'Kumara'.
> > >
> > > Well, there's certainly more than one such word... For
> > > example, how about the old mausoleums known as tupa on
> > > Rapanui and as chullpa in S. America?
> > >
> > > They are both mausoleums, the word is nearly the same, and
> > > they often look the same in both places,
> > >
> > > http://www.trends.net/~yuku/tran/8pb2.htm
> >
> > I would suggest an alternative to Yuri's expurgated version. Google
> > Groups has the whole discussion, including the fact that the tupa were
> > not mausoleums.
>
> What you probably meant to say is that these structures were
> also used for other purposes later on...
No, alas, I meant to say what I said -- that there has been no finding
of human remains in any of the structures called "tupa" on Rapanui. Your
repeated denial of this fact arises from a confusion in your mind
between tupa and a different kind of structure, the hare moa -- a
confusion which is an original contribution of yours to the discussion,
since even Heyerdahl does not share it.
> > > > Ross's word list is too vague to even determine a specific origin for
> > > > any of the words on it. The numerals cant be pinned down to any
> > > > specific point of origin.... and as for words like 'Vavjan' for woman
> > > > and 'HoDal' for rain.....they are just too tenuous to even consider
> > > > them to be of serious value.
> > >
> > > I don't really understand why you feel the need to rewrite
> > > linguistic theory in this area. I see no problem with the
> > > Austronesian languages originating somewhere in Taiwan/South
> > > China.
> > >
> > > According to Heyerdahl, the ancestors of the Polynesians
> > > moved from those parts down to the NW Coast of N America,
> > > and then onwards to Hawaii -- all along following the
> > > prevailing winds and currents. I agree with this picture.
> > >
> > > Thus, I'm afraid I agree in this area more with Ross than
> > > with you... :(
> >
> > Though that might be an amusing novelty,
>
> Hear, hear! :)
>
> > I don't think our agreement
> > would get far beyond Taiwan. As pointed out repeatedly here, the
> > Heyerdahl scenario utterly fails to account for the internal relations
> > among Austronesian languages.
> >
> > Ross Clark
>
> Well, these are archy groups. I'm not about to solve any big
> linguistic problems this morning.
>
> OTOH, as I say, there's certainly plenty of archaeological
> and anthropological evidence for the links between the
> American NW Coast and Hawaii, and Polynesia more generally.
>
> Putting linguistics before archaeology is like putting the
> cart before the horse.
You may think so, but the cart will eventually have to be dealt with.
Ross Clark
|
|