🚀 go-pugleaf

Bernard Ortiz de Montellano wrote:

> In article <362FCE0B.8E9E17@king.cts.com>, Duncan Craig
> <dunkers@king.cts.com> wrote:
>
> >   So, while the genetic evidence against Heyerdahl is strong as to origins and
> > directions of migrations,  the same evidence seems to support Heyerdahls
> > estimation of the maritime abilities of ancient Polynesians.
>
> Heyerdahl was certainly *not* the pioneer or a controversial advocate for
> the navigating and sailing ability of *Polynesians*. This was and is quite
> the *establishment* view. What Heyerdahl and his disciples here advocate,
> and are disputed, is the sailing capacities of *South Americans*
>
> --
> Bernard Ortiz de Montellano

  I'm sorry if I gave that impression...should have said 'navigating and sailing
ability of ancient peoples". I was refering to Dr. Cann's metaphor of the Pacific as
a "superhighway." There are a few episodes of experimental archaeology;  the attempt
to replicate St. Brendhans crossing of the Atlantic in a skin raft; the scandinavian
recreation of the Chinese monk Hui-sen crossing the Pacific (Tai Ki), the journey to
Tahiti and back of the Hawaiian canoe Hokule'a, as well as Thors' reed boat
journeys. ...all had their genesis in oral or written sources that were outside the
"establishment view".  As much as I may disagree with Heyerdahls theories, he, and
the men of the aforementioned voyages, have valuable contributions to make to
archaeology.  Men who put their theories and asses in flimsy archaic watercraft and
sail the oceans are bound to attract disciples, especially in an established world
fixated on safety and comfort.
Duncan