🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <70q64i$hnp$1@whisper.globalserve.net>, on 23 Oct 1998 15:08:02 
GMT, yuku@globalserve.net said...

[snip]

> 
> One more example of clued out journalists who have not done their basic
> homework. If this nerd only bothered to read Heyerdahl, he would not be
> spouting such nonsense. Because Heyerdahl _accepted_ the ultimate Asian
> derivation of Polynesians. He only suggested that they first came from
> Asia to America, following the currents and winds prevalent in the area
> 
The book you referred me to, and one other slightly later book I read by 
him, clearly argued for an African/Middle Eastern source. Where does he 
recant this?

To quote the exchange we had on this:

> 
> : I looked up Heyerdahl today.  I don't know why you gave ma a 1952 
> : reference instead of his 1976 Early Man in the Pacific, although it looks 
> : as though the citations for for this are probably the same as in the 1952 
> : book as none seem later.
> 
> : In Early Man in the Pacific Heyerdahl appears to be putting forward the 
> : hypothesis that people from the middle east and Africa (Hittites are 
> : mentioned) came to SA around 5000 years ago,
> 
> Wakie-wakie, Doug!
> 
> You've been asleep all this time, I suppose, and never heard about any of
> this before? For a big Archaeological Know-It-All, you sure seem pretty
> clued out...

That doesn't look like you saying Heyerdahl accepts an Asian derivation 
for Polynesians, unless you include the Hittites as Asians.

Doug
-- 
 Doug Weller  Moderator, sci.archaeology.moderated
 Submissions to:sci-archaeology-moderated@medieval.org
 Requests To: arch-moderators@ucl.ac.uk
 Co-owner UK-Schools mailing list: email me for details