Re: bark cloth (Re: Polynesian canoes
From: Philip Deitiker (Donevenask_at_worlnet.att.net)
Date: 07/23/04
- Next message: Ken Down: "Re: Roman Music (?)"
- Previous message: Orion: "Re: Suitcase Nukes, Martial Law & Civil War"
- In reply to: t(nospam)kavanagh: "Re: bark cloth (Re: Polynesian canoes"
- Next in thread: Yuri Kuchinsky: "Re: bark cloth (Re: Polynesian canoes"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Fri, 23 Jul 2004 03:53:46 GMT
"t(nospam)kavanagh" <"tkavanag"@(nospam)indiana.edu> says in
news:cdpspq$jkd$1@hood.uits.indiana.edu:
> [This is a reconstructed posting]
>
> Yuri Kuchinsky wrote:
>
> [Full citation restored]
>
>> > > >> > Yuri wrote:
>> > > >> > "The cloaks of shredded inner bark in the
>> > > >> > National Museum
>> > > >> >from New Zealand and the Queen Charlotte Island
>> > > >> >are so much
>> > > >> > alike, that it takes a close inspection to
>> > > >> > distinguish
>> > > >> >them." (A. P. Niblack, THE COAST INDIANS OF
>> > > >> >SOUTHERN ALASKA
>> > > >> > in Rept.
>> > > >> > Nat. Mus. Brit. Columbia, 1888)
>> > > >> >
>> > > >> > I guess you missed it the first time...
>> > > >
>> > > > And you missed my reply also, didn't you. Go do your
>> > > > homework.
>> >
>> > See my reply in the other thread. The 1888 date is
>> > semi-correct; it is the Annual Report for the year 1888,
>> > published in 1890. Note that Yuri has continued to use
>> > Heyerdahl's miscitation of the institution's title,
>> > "Nat. Mus. Brit. Columbia" (there is no such
>> > institution) despite my correction of that in 1998.
>
>> Obviously your research skills leave much to be desired.
>>
>> The full name of the publication that I cited is,
>>
>> Provincial Museum of Natural History, British Columbia,
>> Report for the year 1888.
>>
>> I wonder why you couldn't figure this out on your own...
>
> Just how does one get from "Provincial Museum of Natural
> History, British Columbia" to the abbreviation, "Nat. Mus.
> Brit. Columbia"?
>
> This morning I went back to our main library (the one that
> is sinking) and again looked up Niblack's report in the
> USNM annual report for 1888 (Heyerdahl's AIitP is checked
> out, so I couldn't see exactly how he cited Niblack) and
> then spent some hours this afternoon and evening (thus the
> lateness of this reply) doing a web search on such keywords
> as Niblack, Provincial Museum..., etc.
>
> Albert Parker Niblack (1859-1929), was, of all things, an
> Indiana native, born in Vincennes, just down the road from
> here on the Wabash River; some of his papers are in the
> Indiana Historical Society, but unfortunately, they do not
> include any materials on his NWC journeys. He joined the
> Navy, and "In 1882, was sent to study collections in the
> U.S. National Museum and then to investigate the Indian of
> southeastern Alaska in the summers of 1885, 1886, and 1887"
> (HNAI 7:74). But that period was not a full-time
> investigation: it was "...in the summer months (May through
> October)" (Niblack 1890) when he served as an ensign on the
> US Coast and Geodetic "Alaska Survey." Somehow during that
> three-break nine-month period, he found the time to do
> ethnographic research along the NWC; it must have been
> minimal. Note that in the quote above, his knowledge of
> "the cloaks of shredded inner bark in the National Museum
> from New Zealand ..." is based on his examination of the
> USNM collections, not from any direct ethnographic
> knowledge.
>
> This commentary is not meant to impugn Esn. Niblack's
> intelligence, just to question his ethnographic knowledge;
> while he did have personal knowledge of NWC textiles, his
> knowledge of New Zealand textiles was limited to those of
> the USNM. I do not have to hand, but could find out, what
> the USNM had in 1882.
>
> [Niblack did go on to write an influential paper on Naval
> discipline which became the "Blue Jacket's Manual," the
> basic handbook for Naval recruits, and he did become a Rear
> Admiral in the USN, but he apparently never wrote anything
> else about the NWC.]
>
> FWIW, a web search--including OCLC--on Niblack's "Coast
> Indians..." turns up *only* the 1890 AR USNM and the 1970s
> reprint thereof. The Provincial Museum of Natural History,
> British Columbia, was founded in 1886. At best, the on-line
> references to its annual reports give them as ca. 20-40
> pages, nowhere near the ca 160 pages which would be needed
> to reprint the USNM paper.
>
> And finally, a little later in that same paragraph that
> Yuri is wont to quote, Niblack concludes "... yet the
> resemblances and similarities are as likely to have arisen
> from the like tendencies of the human mind under the same
> external conditions, or environment, to develop along
> parallel lines as through contact or common origin."
I think any American in 1888 who managed to accomplish any
ethnographic or otherwise cultural anthropology would be
'something'. However, I have had fortune to read some of the
primary literature in 1888 and needless to say, there is alot to
be desired in many feilds of study.
BTW Skimming the latest PBS documentaries we probably should
not mourn Heyderdahl to long, he appears to have many clones.
Fellow last night saying east coast native americans look
chinese because they arrived from china in 1421, alas and also
built the NewPort Tower.
There is a point to be made about logic. Ole Carl Sagan
encapsulated it in his story about greek traders pondering the
allmighty. Now if this fellow over here, he says his god is this
and does this and that, and is allpowerful, the only god. Then
this other fellow he say his god is that allpowerful but does
the otherthing, and so on, eventually one gets to the point to
question all stories about the allmightiness of any god.
Here we have a situation whereby everybody is laying claim to
have settled the new world before columbus, no we see a theory
of direct soluterean contribution via Atlantic passage,
Transpacific voyages, African voyages, Voyages by Vikings,
Irish, Nuns and Priests, Chinese from Madagascar, Egyptians, .
. . . . . . . . . . .
American must have been the worlds biggest kept secret in
1450. Everyone knew how to get there except historian, scholars
and mapmakers.
I hear alot in these programs, well you offer no convincing
proof, but then the contentious answer 'well you can't disprove
it'. Archaeological is hampered by the fact that history is
sometimes politically excised and artifacts can be interpreted
many ways. And the DNA is to recent to prove anything . . . . .
Right.
Except the DNA is very specific, particularly with regard to
HLA where native americans came from. South americans, such as
the Gauyaki and other lowland tribes have an enriched compliment
of haplotypes that are found little elsewhere in the world
except in the Japanese and Ryukyuans, and to a lessor degree
Tiawan aboriginals and even more distally papua New Guineas. The
specific haplotypes in south americans are enriched in one group
of people and are nodal in this people, the Japanese. When the
Korean haplotypes (haplotypes enriched in koreans that probably
came with Yayoi, about 78% of japanese haplotypes) are
subtracted out of the Japanese frequencies, and the Japanese
frequencies are adjusted to compensate, the Japanese and Certain
south american tribes show themselves to be sister populations.
The second group of native americans, those that live from the
chilean highlands to desert southwest bear the 0401/0402
haplotype, which is relative rare in the rest of the world. The
only people close to the americas via a reasonable passage are
the Ainu of Northern Japan, and this haplotype probably came
from western eurasia along with several other WEA haplotypes
found in siberia, but not along the west or SW pacific rim.
The chinese are characterized by the B46 haplotype, this is
very common everywhere in the world where oriental wet rice
farming has spread, except Korea and Japan (probably because
they already had a form of 'dry' rice farmning). The B46
haplotype is not found amoung native americans, period. The
super B8 haplotype, which is common in the irish and norse, is
not found amoung the least disturbed native american tribes.
There is an african haplotype B6801, which is found in native
americans, but not SE asians, problem is that there is a trail
of B6801/2 going all the way from africa through siberia to the
new world.
In terms of haplotypes within the native american population
that resemble WEA there are a good many. However there is a big
problem I have noticed trying to connect them to old world
populations, these haplotypes are very fragmented, which means
that the last common ancestor of native americans and WEA
peoples were probably a very long time ago (20 to 40 kya), for
these haplotypes. From the point of view of the colonization of
the new world by any of the following: The basque, the Irish,
the Norse; there appears to be a rather large problem, these
peoples have charactersistic west eurasian haplotypes that
characterize NW africa, iberia, western france, Ireland,
Scottland, Cornwall and Scandinavia. These haplotypes are the
least similar to these WEA-like fragments. The most similar
peoples in europe are germans, austrians, french, italian, and
greeks. The nodal center of these european similarities is far
away from the LGM coastline of europe. Therefore it looks like
that towards the LGM europes population was split, between
peoples who survived west of a barrier and those that survived
south of the same barrier. Those that survived south managed to
send immigrations eastward into siberia, those that survived
west hunkered down and then spread inland after then end of the
LGM.
There was a time I thought that taiwan aboriginals and thus
polynesians had a connection with Japan, and potentially more
direct connections to the new world. However I have found, with
more careful analysis and new data, that the haplotypes the tw
aboriginals share with the moari and Japanese are actually
higher frequency in the koreans, and likely came with the Yayoi
immigrations, this means that the connection between taiwan and
Japan closed off well prior to the migration between the NW
pacific rim.
There is rather little evidence from the HLA suggesting a
polynesian migration to the pacific northwest. The Tlinglet and
Athabascans have very unique and unusual HLA frequencies, the
Tlinglet themselves look as if they were a people who were
plucked from northern Japan or from the Amur region (new data
favors certain tribes in the Amur river region) The Athabascans
appear to have an older new world history. There is very little
evidence suggesting a polynesian immigration to south america to
any great degree.
The most recent evidence of long range migrations in the
precolumbian new world population is within the Inuit peoples,
for example the Eastern Inuit and Greenland Inuits have very
similar makeup relative to the Yupik Eskimoe population. All of
these group have a minor set of haplotypes with little
equilibration with the major fraction of new world haplotypes.
This minor set I would estimate is less than 3000 years within
the new world, and likely originated from the area of the
northern or western black sea. Similar haplotypes are also found
in the Yakuts and Uigars but not the Buriat. I should also
mention that a major recombinant in the Yakuts appears to be of
recent origins from elsewhere, and the particular recombinant
appears to have either come from northern Japan or from the New
World or some people that was intermediate between Japan and the
New World that has since been displaced. IOW gene flow in
siberia is very multidirectional.
The point is that if I was one of those greek traders who
specialized in the examining these grandious claims, and I
myself had few magic pills in my pocket that could put the fear
of god in any of these claimants, I would want to see at least a
few of their majic pills. Where is this evidence of this
exchange, from a DNA point of view? I would be willing to bet if
I went to Japan and started taking samples of villages sooner or
later I am going to find a few that could be confused as SA HLA.
One could already confuse the Tlinglet HLA as being siberian, a
more direct example. So if polynesian, chinese, irish or norse
were colonizing, why is it only the peoples who colonized from
asia, particularly NE asia, able to demonstrate a connection
that 'stuck' in the precolumbian new world. I am not discounting
the intermittant shipwreck, everything else leaves an
irrefutable trace, where's the beef?.
Yuri has a big problem that extends beyond his god Heyderdahl,
if these polynesians were so successful in reaching all these
far off places, you think that they should leave some genetic
traces in a village or 2 that we could trace easily back to
Fiji, New Zealand or Taiwan. To all these claims made here and
on TV, there is no genetic evidence that supports their claims.
The year is 2004, not 1888.
-- Philip - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Mol. Anth. Group http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DNAanthro/ Mol. Evol. Hominids http://home.att.net/~DNAPaleoAnth/ Evol. of Xchrom. http://home.att.net/~DNAPaleoAnth/xlinked.htm Pal. Anth. Group http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Paleoanthro/ Sci. Arch. Aux http://groups.yahoo.com/group/sciarchauxilliary/
- Next message: Ken Down: "Re: Roman Music (?)"
- Previous message: Orion: "Re: Suitcase Nukes, Martial Law & Civil War"
- In reply to: t(nospam)kavanagh: "Re: bark cloth (Re: Polynesian canoes"
- Next in thread: Yuri Kuchinsky: "Re: bark cloth (Re: Polynesian canoes"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
