Just did a Uni course in Pacific Island Archaeology - not once did we discuss Nan Madol or Easter Is

page: 2
4
<< 1   >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 31 2012 @ 09:00 AM
link   
If there's a glaring omission in the content of the class, you should've called the instructor out on it publicly. If anything, it would be amusing to watch him (or her) squirm in avoidance of the discussion. But I tend to agree with others above who have suggested that theoretical postulation isn't really a common thing in an introductory class, if that's what it was. You might be reading too much into it.

In fact, it would be a breath of fresh air for the scientific community to, for once, admit they have no clue what they're talking about and therefore won't engage in speculation. But we know their egos will never allow that, so they manipulate data or just ignore it altogether, as may be the case here.




posted on Dec, 31 2012 @ 05:40 PM
link   
reply to post by punkinworks10
 


Thanks for the link punkinworks....kept me busy on and off all day. A much better version of our early history than what we are taught.



posted on Dec, 31 2012 @ 07:31 PM
link   
reply to post by habiff
 


Your welcome,
The guys got some pretty solid ideas, some I have to take with a grain of salt, I'm not entirely sold on whole Egyptian connection. But the material on the origins of modern polynesians is very good and the ideas are being backed up by modern genetics.



posted on Dec, 31 2012 @ 08:35 PM
link   
With regards to Easter Is. as I read the papers by Dr Hunt, there is no real refutation of earlier works, just a refinement of dating.
And actually makes a case for even more rapid degradation of the environment. It all happened in 400 years less time.
Another glaring bad assumption the author makes is that western polynesian were the first people to the islands, and that can be attested to by rat gnawed palm nuts and rat skeletons showing up in the archeological record.
But if the first people there weren't polynesian then you won't find the dame lifestyle or its signatures.
The polynesian could hardly be called a low impact culture, unlike other cultures that adapted to the changing environments they encountered as they moved around, the polynesian brought their old environment with them, in the form of a whole host of plants and and animals ( pigs and rats) , that changed the environments they settled in.
One thing that slaps me in the face as I read about Easter islandis that , among all of the "polynesian" settled islands it the one example of a lack of pigs. The supposed polynesian settlers didn't make there with the pig, how can that be when every other island they colonized aquired the pig.
That clearly shows that polynesian influences on Easter island predate the introduction of the pig into polynesian culture,
One answer is that the pig was a late introduction into polynesian culture, apnd that is direction of dispersal is from west to east, while the direction of dispersal for polynesian culture is from east to west.
A western polynesian tale backs up this idea,

"A Samoan legend tells of first contact with the Fijians; A Samoan voyager visited Fiji and was feasted on pork. He naturally desired to take pigs back with him to his own country. The Fijians, however, refused to allow any live pigs to leave their shores, but they raised no objection to dead pigs being taken as food for the voyage. The Samoans thereupon procured two very large pigs, which they killed and dressed. Unknown to their hosts, they stole some young ones and concealed them in the abdominal cavities of the dressed animals which they covered with leaves. Carrying the dead pigs on poles, they successfully eluded the vigilance of the Fijian "customs officers", and so pigs were introduced to Samoa."

www.polynesian-prehistory.com...
Fiji is west of Samoa, so how did the somoans, whom are supposed to be descendants of fijians, have no knowledge of pigs?
This question is one worm of a " whole can of worms" that have yet to be addresses adequately by mainstream academia.



posted on Dec, 31 2012 @ 09:34 PM
link   
well gotta say, i am disappointed and disturbed by the number of responders who don't see a problem with this.

an introductory course on archaeology in the pacific that leaves out the main archaeological sites there as obviously a complete disaster and a real problem that needs addressing. I think you should be asking a lot of questions about stuff like this and why it is happening at some of the best unis in the country. But i can see that most of you are not going to question it, so there was probably no point bringing it to your attention.

Thanks to the three or so posters who can see it's a problem. Other than that, waste of my time posting, i can see.



posted on Dec, 31 2012 @ 11:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by rapunzel222
well gotta say, i am disappointed and disturbed by the number of responders who don't see a problem with this.

an introductory course on archaeology in the pacific that leaves out the main archaeological sites there as obviously a complete disaster and a real problem that needs addressing. I think you should be asking a lot of questions about stuff like this and why it is happening at some of the best unis in the country. But i can see that most of you are not going to question it, so there was probably no point bringing it to your attention.

Thanks to the three or so posters who can see it's a problem. Other than that, waste of my time posting, i can see.

As another poster said...This is the problem with taking a University or College course as opposed to a Community College self improvement/enrichment class. A course is just one small part of a multi-year program in most cases..and jumping in/out of that long program to grab that one small piece is bound to be disappointing.

Where the Comm College type enrichment classes would likely be geared to give an overall cover of the 'interesting' and 'good stuff' to the topic all in the one class. Just my opinion and experience on that.



posted on Jan, 1 2013 @ 12:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by rapunzel222
well gotta say, i am disappointed and disturbed by the number of responders who don't see a problem with this.

an introductory course on archaeology in the pacific that leaves out the main archaeological sites there as obviously a complete disaster and a real problem that needs addressing. I think you should be asking a lot of questions about stuff like this and why it is happening at some of the best unis in the country. But i can see that most of you are not going to question it, so there was probably no point bringing it to your attention.

Thanks to the three or so posters who can see it's a problem. Other than that, waste of my time posting, i can see.

Hi rapunzel ,
I'm sorry you were disappointed with your class, but the pacific is a really big place with a lot going on for thousands of years.
You could spend a lifetime researching just the lapita presence in melanesia, or lifetime trying to find definative proof as to where the polynesians spent their time ,between 6000 bc and 200 bc, because it wasn't in Polynesia.
And to understand the two places you mentioned, Easter island and nan madol, you have to be able to tell the difference between those two people the polynesians and the lapita or the melanesians who werent lapita.
This can be determined by the little things, such the fact that the lapita used bows and arrows to hunt fish in the shallows where as polynesian trolled in open water with lures to catch different fish, Or the fact that Polynesians used calabashes to carry water and food as compared to the melanesians and lapita who used pottery. Or the fact that certain native American tribes share cultural similarities with the polynesians who settled Easter is.
In the case of nan madol you'd have to be able to identify when the polynesians got there and replaced the existing culture, and you do that with the differences in the tool kit and diet.



posted on Jan, 2 2013 @ 12:49 PM
link   
Easter Island and Nan Madol were both once part of a much larger continent called Lemuria. It covered most of the Pacific ocean. One of the oldest Native American sites is in California. Those might have been some of the first arrivals from this lost continent. The Aboriginals, Indians, and Native americans all hailed from this place.



posted on Jan, 2 2013 @ 02:36 PM
link   
reply to post by rapunzel222
 


i am disapointed that you have failed to reveal the actual title / course number of your alledged archeology course - i am gravitating towards the opinion that this thread is your pathetic ego trip .





new topics
top topics
 
4
<< 1   >>

log in

join