Yuri Kuchinsky wrote:
> qiwi wrote:
> > Hey Yuri.... great to see you back....
> > I have never disputed input from the NW coast of North America into the
> > Hawaiian Islands however 55 years of carbon dating have provided us
> > with some valuable clues...
> > Today even the most ardent 'orthodox' theorists have had to bite the
> > bullet and concede the Marquesas were the first group settled in the
> > eastern Polynesian region. Kirch even made a pretty convincing case in
> > 1984 for first settlement there at around 500 b.c. However, even if we
> > go with the conservative date of 0 a.d. this still means the Marquesas
> > were settled 1000 years before the Cooks, 800 years before Tahiti and
> > some 300 years before Hawaii....
> Hi, Qiwi,
> All this may well be true but, in general, I'm a bit
> skeptical about such (negative) archaeological findings.
> Please keep in mind that, for 50 years, the American
> archaeologists couldn't find any "valid evidence" of any
> pre-Clovis human occupation in the Americas.
> But now we learn that all that was bunk, and a grand
> delusion. You can draw your own conclusions from this...
Hello again, Qiwi,
Here, let me add something to my previous post.
Speaking about such (negative) archaeological findings, the
problem with them is that sometimes they can be overturned
So here's an example, from this very interesting website,
Archaeological evidence is pushing back the time
of entry into Hawai'i.
Terry L. Hunt and Robert M. Holsen in "An Early
Radiocarbon Chronology for the Hawaiian Islands"
"... The corpus of radiocarbon dates available to
date may be suggestive of colonisation of the Hawaiian
Islands significantly earlier than has been generally
accepted. Many archaeologists have shifted their
estimate for Hawaiian settlement to approximately AD
300 - 400, and some recognised the potential for even
earlier dates. One particular date (Gak-258 on charcoal)
falls within the first millennium BC. Another date
(Grn-2225 on charcoal) ranges from AD 127 - 249
(range with highest probability), and might represent the
age of initial occupation of the site (Kirch 1985)."
So you see, in actual fact, the earliest Hawaiian human
settlement might even be within the first millennium BC!
All the best,
Yuri Kuchinsky -=O=- http://www.trends.ca/~yuku
Winston Churchill's Commentary on Man:
"Man will occasionally stumble over the truth, but most
of the time he will pick himself up and continue on."