It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Polynesian Trans-Pacific

page: 1
2
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 12 2009 @ 07:38 AM
link   


The impression given in conventional schooling is that the ancients did not traverse the oceans, that their migration was mostly limited to land.

Looking at Polynesian people though, who`s language and culture can be found all across the pacific, from Peru to the Easter Islands, from Canada to Hawaii, from Samoa to New Zealand, from Tahiti to Kiribati, we see that this cannot be true.

In order to establish the trans-pacific connection from the Americas to New Zealand, lets first establish the connection from Hawaii and Rapa Nui (Easter Islands) to the Maori (of New Zealand). Looking at the language-comparison table HERE we can easily see that the languages across the pacific are essentially the same. The word "sky" on Rapa Nui is "rani", in New Zealand its "rani", in Hawaii its "lani". And thats only one of hundreds of examples.

Considering that we`re talking about distances of many ten-thousands of miles and thousands of scattered islands, this is quite amazing.

In establishing the connection to the Americas I´d like to quote from the website Polynesian Prehistory by Peter Marsh, a researcher who apparently disagrees with conventional views.

From The Canadian Connection:



Similarities between Polynesia and Coastal Canadian cultures

Archaeological and cultural evidence suggests that there is a strong connection between Coastal Canada and Polynesia. Both cultures worked in stone in the same manner, designs of implements were almost identical. The use of pottery was completely absent in both cultures.

The design and way of manufacture of the following artifacts bear a striking resemblance:

Tahitian and Haida stone pounders are almost identical.

Stone bowls found in Kaua'i and stone bowls found in the Bella Coola valley from a pre-existing culture are very similar.

Maori and NW Coastal Indian war clubs both have the gaping angry mouth motif on the handle.
Tattooing tool kit design indicates Polynesian kit derived from Haida tattooing implements.
Fish hook design is almost identical.

Fish hook pendants are also identical,

Harpoon heads are similar

Petroglyphs are similar.

Spiritual carvings such as the Tiki is amazingly similar in both cultures.

Large totem poles with figures stacked on top of one another with their tongues sticking out are common in both Maori and Haida cultures.

Haida and Marquesan carvings have similar shaped eyes and mouths.

Carvings around building entrances where the legs form an archway.
The practice of inlaying of Paua shell into the eyes of figures is a style used in both cultures.
Maori war canoes are similar in design to Kwakuitl canoes.

The use of calabashes instead of pottery for carrying water is common to both cultures.

The style plaiting of calabash holders is also similar.

The use of hot rocks to steam and widen canoes, is practiced by both Maori and Kwakuitl.

Earth ovens are used by both cultures

The unique practice of rubbing noses as a way of greeting is used in both Maori and some tribes in the Canadian NW. This suggests definite cultural and spiritual connection.

The use of the glottal stop in speech is similar e.g.; Hawai'i and Haida Gwai'i.
The practice of head deformation of infants is practised on the NW Coast, as it is in some parts of Polynesia.
Polynesians and NW Coastal Indians have similar blood: No B, high A, high M, high R2, moderate Fya.



The Peruvian Connection and The Genetic Evidence provide additional insight into the trans-pacific-contact.

Was the American Continent discovered much earlier, from "the other side"?

Discussion Pro & Con Welcome.


[edit on 12-2-2009 by Skyfloating]




posted on Feb, 12 2009 @ 12:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Skyfloating
The impression given in conventional schooling is that the ancients did not traverse the oceans, that their migration was mostly limited to land.


I think your source may not be up to date. Most conventional schooling doesn't discuss ancients and migrations. University courses discuss multiple methods of transportation in ancient migrations including very evident ocean voyages.


Considering that we`re talking about distances of many ten-thousands of miles and thousands of scattered islands, this is quite amazing.


I think you need to qualify that... it's "island hopping" and some of it was done during the last Ice Age and near the end of it, when ocean levels were lower. They developed very sophisticated charts of bamboo, reeds, grass, and shells (I've seen them) that told them the ocean currents and winds.



Similarities between Polynesia and Coastal Canadian cultures

Archaeological and cultural evidence suggests that there is a strong connection between Coastal Canada and Polynesia. Both cultures worked in stone in the same manner, designs of implements were almost identical. The use of pottery was completely absent in both cultures.


I'm sorry that this will sound sarcastic but he apparently doesn't think that the fact that neither culture had access to good pottery making clays had any impact on their not developing pottery. Polynesian islands are frequently either volcanic or limestone and neither yields good usable pottery clay. It would have been astonishing if they developed sophisticated pottery without good clay.

His "these look like this stuff" list is limited to a few examples. This one made me wince:


Fish hook design is almost identical.

Fish hook pendants are also identical,

Harpoon heads are similar


There is only one basic way to make a fish hook. They ALL look pretty much alike. Materials vary, but fish hooks in one culture look like fish hooks in another...because... it works.


Petroglyphs are similar.

Having done a study of both that was more than "look at a few pictures and then come to a conclusion" (I've gone to sites on Hawaii and in Canada), his statement here is completely wrong.


Spiritual carvings such as the Tiki is amazingly similar in both cultures.


Uhmmm.... no.


Large totem poles with figures stacked on top of one another with their tongues sticking out are common in both Maori and Haida cultures.

I'm sorry, but this is a real head-to-desk sort of moment. He is switching cultures (now it's Haida and Maori) and has no idea what the tongues signify or that the totem poles of the Americas are actually both history and individual clan lineages as well as the occasional social protest. Some were burial places. en.wikipedia.org... (I personally visited many of those in the Wikipedia article)

Most Maori totem poles are spiritual in nature and are different than the Alaskan natives' poles. None of the older ones were "shame poles" or burial places.

Haida and Kwakiutil and Tlingit and Tsmshian are different cultures... but he treats all the Alaskan natives as though they were a single culture instead of nearly a dozen different ones and cherry picks evidence from multiple tribes across the Pacific to make his point.


Maori war canoes are similar in design to Kwakuitl canoes.

They're long, made of wood, have high prows, and are carved. Basic "v" shape. It's hard to see how you would make a swift and efficient canoe capable of carrying many people with any other design (I'm trying not to be snide... I really am... but the "log carved wood canoe" design is one developed by many peoples around the world.

In addition, he appears to have looked at only a few images of these canoes, because other old images of Maori and Hawaiian war canoes clearly show them outfitted with sails (and sometimes outriggers) which none of the American coast war canoes seems to have had.


Discussion Pro & Con Welcome.


I'm trying to not rant, here (and I chopped out a lot more that I disagreed with), but he's going on about things and places that I visited as an anthropology student. People that I spent time talking with and listening to. If he went to those places, he didn't bother talking to elders and tribespeople. He didn't bother reading what the older sources said about the material. He didn't browse town archives.

I would lay money on his not having looked at the Kaaupe pictographs and petroglyphs on Oahu (we spent most of two days trying to find them...but we did find them) or at rock art sites in Canada and other Hawaiian islands. I suspect he looked at them, saw that both cultures used spirals and circles in rock art and said "one of them came from the other!"

So, yes, count me among those who think he has failed to make his point and that he cherry picked a handful of things and didn't study the environment or other factors.

I'm trying to be kind, but... like I said, I've actually been there, walked the walk, talked with the people, sat down with them and listened to them. I find absolutely no merit in any of his findings.



posted on Feb, 12 2009 @ 01:36 PM
link   
Then let me counter not with using him as a source but my own common sense:

If the Polynesian culture and language mad it all the way from New Zealand to Hawaii and to the Easter Islands, why should it not have made its way to the Americas?



posted on Feb, 12 2009 @ 03:20 PM
link   
I'm not sure about the "evidences" pointed on the OP, but they certainly did.

Nothing else could explain why Japanese, Polynesians, Mayans and Brazilian Indians, among others share common or very similar words with the very same meanings.

They either have a common ancestor or got in touch at some point, I'm more inclined to believe on the later option.

Also the geo and topographic configuration in the past wasn't exactly the same. Maybe that's the reason why you can find "roads" on the deep of the pacific.



posted on Feb, 12 2009 @ 03:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Byrd
I'm trying to be kind, but... like I said, I've actually been there, walked the walk, talked with the people, sat down with them and listened to them. I find absolutely no merit in any of his findings.


That specific source was only a random page I happened to find when looking for data to express my own understanding that there was trans-pacific travel.

The linguistic evidence is quite enough for me.



posted on Feb, 12 2009 @ 07:08 PM
link   
reply to post by Skyfloating
 


Great Thread Skyfloating.



I think the giant legends from Mesoamerica and western Europe were actually the Polynesians. I know a few short modern day Polynesians but the majority that I've seen are big.

I found an interesting comment about the Polynesian body on a health-fitness website.

--Why Polynesian bodies build better muscle--
ezinearticles.com...

"Polynesian bodies evolved to develop maximum muscle building capabilities as a means of generating and preserving body temperature...creating a hybrid body of sorts, capable of performing enormous feats of physical labor, on very little calories, and very little water."

The article said that their island jumping desire caused their bodies to adapt to that kind of strenuous life style.


The Olmec heads, the Easter Island heads and the Jentilak Giants of Basque mythology could be related.

Fixed link and added more comments
[edit on 12-2-2009 by lostinspace]

[edit on 12-2-2009 by lostinspace]

[edit on 12-2-2009 by lostinspace]



posted on Feb, 12 2009 @ 07:15 PM
link   
reply to post by lostinspace
 


Could you fix the link to "Why Polynesians build better muscle"...I´d ike to read that


[edit on 12-2-2009 by Skyfloating]



posted on Feb, 12 2009 @ 08:38 PM
link   
i agree.. the facial/skin features in both mayan descendents and maori are extremely similar.

one thing to note is that the Maori arrived in NZ and slaughtered the already settled "Moriori" people that had been there before..

and before the Moriori were there... heh.. check this out..
www.abovetopsecret.com...


-



posted on Feb, 12 2009 @ 09:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Skyfloating
Then let me counter not with using him as a source but my own common sense:

If the Polynesian culture and language mad it all the way from New Zealand to Hawaii and to the Easter Islands, why should it not have made its way to the Americas?


Because humans didn't make it to Hawaii until 300 BC or thereabouts ( en.wikipedia.org... ) and the Easter Islands somewhat after that (en.wikipedia.org... ).

If you remember some of my horribly boring scholarly discourses, you'll remember that we have good evidence for people in the Americas for at least 15,000 years (20,000 years and more is still very controversial but the evidence looks more solid with the newer discoveries.)


[edit on 12-2-2009 by Byrd]



posted on Feb, 13 2009 @ 05:57 AM
link   
Yes I understand people having been there that long. Which makes it even more improbable of nobody having reached the Americas from the Pacific.

Surely you are not suggesting that nobody reached the Americas from the Pacific?



posted on Feb, 13 2009 @ 08:19 AM
link   
The best avenue to travel are along seashores. There is plentifull food, and fresh water ( or ice) at intervals along the route. Simple sailing or manual craft that would stay within sight of land and travel along the shores would be the shrewd approach. Canoe's lashed together would suffice, if weather came you headed for land ( or ice) until weather cleared.
If people came across particularly pleasant area, stay a few years, leave some of the group, and continue. I wouldnt be surprised if this is how people travelled to the America's from Asia, and also from Europe. There used to be far more glaciers, and cold water always supports higher food availability than warm water...it isnt a stretch to figure some people may have sailed or manually travelled along glaciers during the last Ice age from Nothern Europe to North America.

Travelling aloing open ocean is a difficult task, but sticking close to shore and using onshore or offshore breeze to power sail craft, or coastal ocean currents to assist manual craft would have been pretty obvious to our ancestors



posted on Feb, 13 2009 @ 11:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by Skyfloating
Yes I understand people having been there that long. Which makes it even more improbable of nobody having reached the Americas from the Pacific.


Uhm... the Polynesians didn't make it to Hawaii until long after the Americas were settled.


Surely you are not suggesting that nobody reached the Americas from the Pacific?


From the coastlines along Japan, China, Korea, and Siberia, yes. Across Beringia (which was a flat grassy plain and is now underwater), yes. Genetic information confirms it and that there were several migrations from Asia into the Americas.

From Hawaii and Easter Island and New Zealand and Samoa and the Phillipines (etc), no. Although hominids have been in Australia and New Zealand for upwards of 4 million years (and on the mainland near China for even longer ago), they don't actually appear in the Americas until 20,000 years or so ago.

The earliest human remains in the Phillippines (which are pretty close to Vietnam and mainland China) are that of the "Tabon Man" which are around 20,000 years old (about the time of the settling of the Americas): en.wikipedia.org... The cave itself appears to have been used for around 50,000 years.

Again, because of the ice age, the actual distance traveled by water would have been much smaller. You can see maps of it on this page:
www.janesoceania.com...

Looking at the fossil skull itself (a cranium, which may be deformed by natural forces... all sorts of weird things happen to deform bones in certain ways after they are buried) I see some fairly strong brow ridges that are not present in Native American skulls or Northern Siberian skulls (the lineage of the Native Americans.) It does look pretty similar to the Wadjak skull shown on www.janesoceania.com...



posted on Feb, 13 2009 @ 12:26 PM
link   
Please note your original statement:


The impression given in conventional schooling is that the ancients did not traverse the oceans, that their migration was mostly limited to land.

Looking at Polynesian people though, who`s language and culture can be found all across the pacific, from Peru to the Easter Islands, from Canada to Hawaii, from Samoa to New Zealand, from Tahiti to Kiribati, we see that this cannot be true.


Your position has evolved:


Originally posted by Skyfloating
Yes I understand people having been there that long. Which makes it even more improbable of nobody having reached the Americas from the Pacific.

Surely you are not suggesting that nobody reached the Americas from the Pacific?

Now, your original premise is that, not only did the Polynesians do so, but your source maintains that the Polynesians traversed the Pacific so far and so often that they actually influenced (and possibly started) the very cultures of the Americas that we know were in existence before the Polynesians were even Polynesian!

Now, you are reduced to a small statement about how it's unreasonable to say that no Polynesian ever crossed the pacific to the Americas.

In other words, you challenge Byrd to prove a negative?

If I may, I'd like to say that Byrd has made absolutely no inference that Polynesians never reached the Americas. The fact is, the Americas might have been literally swarming with billions of Polynesians for tens of thousands of years, for all we know.

However, none of these hypothetical Polynesians left any evidence of their presence in the Americas at all, so there's no reason at all to believe they were here.

Harte



posted on Feb, 13 2009 @ 04:38 PM
link   
Id like to add a few things


A) polynesians had reached south america well before 500bc or had made contact with S americans, because they already had the sweet potato as a staple long before they got hawaii, and the sweet potato is native to the SA highlands.

B) The people living in the temperate coastal rainforests of NA, are closely related to the Ainu of japan, both culturaly and geneticly.
Ths oceanic currents preclude anyone from hawaii going to NA, but not the other way.
The hawaiians used redwoods and cedars that drifted from NA to make canoes and surfboards.

C)There has been pottery found in SA that comes from a very distinct area of japan, this pottery dates to well before (


I used to have a link to a site by a proffessor from the U of the rykyu's that was fascinating.
It covered the transpacific migrations and the movemnts of people in the SW pacific.
There were also links to some very good japanese sites about the history f the people.



posted on Feb, 13 2009 @ 05:05 PM
link   
just as native americans were believed to have come across the berring straight.. who's to say that some hadn't gone from new zealand to antarctica then up the peninsula to a connected south america?
in earlier days there may have been ice connecting them.

make sure you read this about pre-historic celtic caucasians in new zealand as well..
www.abovetopsecret.com...

-


[edit on 13-2-2009 by prevenge]



posted on Feb, 13 2009 @ 09:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by punkinworks09
Id like to add a few things




A) polynesians had reached south america well before 500bc or had made contact with S americans, because they already had the sweet potato as a staple long before they got hawaii, and the sweet potato is native to the SA highlands.



Howdy Punkinworks


Americas [sweet potatoes] were found in Peru, about 2500 BC. In Polynesia, decidedly precolumbian sweet potato remains have been found in the Cook Islands by AD 1000-1100, Hawai'i by AD 1290-1430, and Easter Island by AD 1525.

Sweet potato pollen, phytoliths and starch residues have been identified in agricultural plots alongside maize in South Auckland by ca. 240-550 years cal BP (ca AD 1400-1710).

Sweet Potato Transmissions
Transmission of the sweet potato around the planet was primarily the work of the Spanish and Portuguese, who got it from the South Americans and spread it to Europe. That doesn't work for Polynesia, though; it's too early by 500 years. Scholars generally assume that either seeds of the potato were brought to Polynesia by birds such as the Golden Plover that regularly cross the Pacific; or by accidental raft drift by lost sailors from the South American coast. A recent computer simulation study indicates that raft drift is in fact a possibility.


So the Polynesians could have received them by interdirect arrival or by the Polynesian or the less likely the SA bringing them out. However there is no evidence for that contact



TextB) The people living in the temperate coastal rainforests of NA, are closely related to the Ainu of japan, both culturaly and geneticly.



Hans: More correctly the Ainu and the people who went to the Americas had a common ancestors, who moved to both locations




C)There has been pottery found in SA that comes from a very distinct area of japan, this pottery dates to well before (


Hans: No there was pottery found in Ecuador that some theories said looked like Jomon pottery but the similarities of artistic designs were not supported by other evidence



posted on Feb, 13 2009 @ 09:41 PM
link   
reply to post by Skyfloating
 




The impression given in conventional schooling is that the ancients did not traverse the oceans, that their migration was mostly limited to land.


Not really Sky, the movement of men to Australia, Madascagar, Japan and throughout Polynesia is well covered - of course I grew up in Hawaii so I was well steeped in Polynesian voyaging capabilities.

Now what you could say is that we don't know what sort of boat/float technology the first men to go to Australia used. Or how he got to Cyprus, or to San Tome but not Principle, to the Canaries but not the Azores - all interesting stuff.

[edit on 13/2/09 by Hanslune]



posted on Feb, 13 2009 @ 10:05 PM
link   
Maybe the people just flew from island to island in ancient times. One of the few remaining primitive peoples left on this earth tell modern folk that they know how to fly. I believe the Mek tribe of West Papua (Western New Guinea), Indonesia said they knew the art of flight.

They probably meant if you find the right narcotic you could go where no man has gone before.



posted on Feb, 13 2009 @ 10:20 PM
link   
reply to post by lostinspace
 


Most cultures have flying legends and myths, many people today have dreams about flying.

Using your imagination and a bit of chemical assist you can travel pretty much anywhere you like, unfortunately you always end up where you started.



posted on Feb, 14 2009 @ 04:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by Hanslune
reply to post by lostinspace
 
Using your imagination and a bit of chemical assist you can travel pretty much anywhere you like, unfortunately you always end up where you started.


Hahahaha!

That depends on the dosage used, otherwise you might end up in the "place" where no man has returned



new topics

top topics



 
2
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join