Re: bark cloth around the Pacific

From: benlizross (benlizro_at_ihug.co.nz)
Date: 07/19/04 

Date: Tue, 20 Jul 2004 08:58:33 +1200

Yuri Kuchinsky wrote:
>
> grimly bubble wrote:
> >
> > "Tom McDonald" <tmcdonald2672@charter.net> wrote in message
> > news:10fg7vl8a92cu51@corp.supernews.com...
> > > Yuri Kuchinsky wrote:
> > >
> > > > "grimly bubble" <gadol@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:<40f6eef9$1@clear.net.nz>...
> > > >
> > > >>"Yuri Kuchinsky" <yuku@trends.ca> wrote in message
> > > >>news:40F6E181.9173C93B@trends.ca...
> > > >>
> > > >>>[based on my old post from Feb 1999]
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>>NZ: indigenous Phormium tenax.
> > > >>>
> > > >>>In the more rigid climate of New Zealand, cloth is made from
> > > >>>a kind of mulberry, the Phormium tenax (indigenous to NZ,
> > > >>>also known as New Zealand flax),
> > > >>
> > > >>Nope, flax is nothing at all like mulberry.
> >
> > Well I guess the website must be right, I had silkworms as a kid, and the
> > neighbour had a mulberry tree which was my supply of leaves. I have some
> > flax in the back yard, and a new set of spectacles, I'll pop out and have a
> > look.........
> >
> > Nope, neither plant looks in any way lile the other. There is nothing to
> > get bark off around a flax flower but the leaves are pretty fibrous.
> > Mulberry leaves are smaller rounder and softer. The tree has a trunk, the
> > trunk has bark. Just how you could get a similar fibre from both plants is
> > a big mystery to me.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > This website indicates otherwise,
> > > >
> > > > Natural History Museum of Florence - Anthropological Section
> > > > http://www.unifi.it/unifi/msn/antrop/route/ocfr_eng.htm
>
> Hello, grimly bubble,
>
> OK, you must be right. Having the thing growing in your back
> yard (and a new set of spectacles, to boot!) will win this
> argument any time... :)
>
> So this just shows how much we can trust them Professional
> Scholars. :)
>
> Scratch "a kind of mulberry" from my original post;
> everything else seems to be OK.

Nice of you to admit an error for once, Yuri, even if it did result
simply from pasting that thoroughly confused paragraph from the Florence
museum site.

But what's the "everything else" in your original post? Most of it just
says that people in different parts of the Pacific had different plants
to work with, so they did different things with them. Sure, but how does
this support Heyerdahl? There seem to be only two specific points:

(1) The alleged similarity of NW Coast and Maori twining of fibres. But,
to quote you:

W Coast weaving techniques are very similar to NZ since the
materials used in the two areas provide parallel fibers.
Hence "finger-weaving" was required.

That is why Captain Cook noted that the finger weaving
techniques were so similar in Canada and in New Zealand.

Note the "since" in the first paragraph. You provide your own functional
explanation! So this is no evidence of a historical connection between
the two areas.

(2) The bark beaters again. Very simple functional objects, though as we
now understand the work they did was different. What specific
similarities cannot be explained by convergence?

Ross Clark

Relevant Pages

  • Re: bark cloth around the Pacific
    ... Yuri Kuchinsky wrote: ... >> get bark off around a flax flower but the leaves are pretty fibrous. ... Just how you could get a similar fibre from both plants is ... > Hello, grimly bubble, ...
    (sci.anthropology)
  • Re: bark cloth (Re: Polynesian canoes
    ... Yuri Kuchinsky wrote: ... "The cloaks of shredded inner bark in the National Museumm from NZ ... .Niblack, A.P. The Coast Indians of Southern Alaska and British ... .similarities between the NWC and NZ. ...
    (sci.anthropology)
  • Re: bark cloth (Re: Polynesian canoes
    ... Yuri Kuchinsky wrote: ... "The cloaks of shredded inner bark in the National Museumm from NZ ... .Niblack, A.P. The Coast Indians of Southern Alaska and British ... .similarities between the NWC and NZ. ...
    (sci.archaeology)
Quantcast