Re: bark cloth (Re: Polynesian canoes

From: George (gblack_at_hnpl.net)
Date: 07/26/04 

Date: 26 Jul 2004 01:34:04 -0700

"t(nospam)kavanagh" <"tkavanag"@(nospam)indiana.edu> wrote in message news:<ce1hbk$4n0$1@hood.uits.indiana.edu>...
> Yuri Kuchinsky wrote:
> >
> > "t(nospam)kavanagh" wrote:
> >
> > ...
> >
> > > 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."
> > >
> > > tk
> >
> > There are 2 separate issues here.
> >
> > 1. Were these cloaks similar in appearance?
> > 2. How to explain this similarity.
> >
> > Niblack testimony re #1 is important.
>
> And superficial. Twined-bark technologies occur world-wide.
>
> > His attempt to address #2 is open to debate.
>
> By using the word "attempt" here, rather than phrasing the "issues" in
> parallel, e.g., "Niblack's] testimony re #2 ...", you are clearly
> showing your own prejudicial bias against Niblack's testimony #2, rather
> than an objective effort to refute it.
>
> Conversely, why isn't #1 "open to debate." Niblack provides no evidence
> or examples of what he thinks are similarities, no specifics, no
> artifact numbers (he was, after all, doing research in the USNM which
> numbers its artifacts). While Niblack did visit the NWC for a total of 9
> months over three years, and some undetermined time at the USNM, he
> never visited New Zealand.
>

Most 'authorities' of those days were able to arrive at conclusions
without actually going onto the sites.
:-)

Quantcast