Appendix E: Responses
-
I would like to know what you think, whether you agree with what I've written or not.
Send me your comments to imanua@ yahoo.com
- December 14, 2009
I have spent several hours pouring over your pages and am fascinated by the ideas you raise there. I've been studying polynesian history a great deal recently and have also majored in asia as an undergraduate at UW in Seattle (BA 1994). I quote your work:
'Why for instance don't we find in the Samoan culture evidence of pottery making?'
Why would your ancestors hassle searching for clay in a new place when surrounded by equally useful leaves and poles everywhere they went? These organic tools and utensils could also mislead archeologists attempting to date first arrivals throughout polynesia to believe that the Lapita settlements are not newcomers to the region already populated by sailors coming and going across the entire region from Australia and Taiwan (formerly know as Formosa) in the west to the Americas in the east.
'The Lapita people aren't necessarily Polynesians.'
I'm forced to agree. Very little seems to suggest very clearly that they could be.
'Recent DNA studies of the Pacific rat (Rattus exulans) and chicken bones recently discovered in South America have added more weight to the diffusionist view. Those and the stone polished axes ('toki') found in the Mapuche area in South America are providing solid proof that Polynesians did ventured into the Americas. People going from the Americas into the Polynesian triangle would be just as provable using other evidences.'
Don't they all merely prove contact, e.g. through trade?
'[Kayser, et al] A median-joining network connecting all 39 haplotypes revealed that all Polynesian haplotypes form a tight cluster and can be connected to each other mostly by single-step mutations, with the exception of one of the West Samoan haplotypes. A culture bound up so tightly by the need to maintain pure noble blood for the preservation of mana would definately purify the haplotype.
[Little] Based on the mutations found in the mtDNA. ...most researchers think that groups A, C, and D entered America from Siberia across Beringia some time around 35,000 BC. Group B, they assert, probably came to America from the South Pacific or Japan via boats. It is believed the B groups began this migration not long after the A, C, and D groups arrived. However, the majority of the B group arrived about 11,000 BC. This leaves open the possibility of several migrations by the B group from different locations.'[According to Wikipedia: It is believed that a small human population of at most a few thousand survived the Last Glacial Maximum in Beringia, isolated from its ancestor populations in Asia for at least 5,000 years, before expanding to populate the Americas sometime after 16,500 years ago, during the Late Glacial Maximum as the American glaciers blocking the way southward melted.] Since that last smaller migration, the north pacific has been almost unnavigable by small craft. Shouldn't logic point to a migration by sea 11,000 years ago? Only if you believe that Polynesians were able to move around the vast expanse of ocean as easily as a cowboy rides across the plains. I am almost certain this was the case and that they likely were the latest migration into the gene pool of the Americas prior to the Europeans.
'The Lapita experts explain the lack of pre-Polynesian DNA presence in Melanesia with the "fast train" hypothesis, saying that "the pre-Polynesians moved rapidly through this part" and also preferred taking the more arduous northern route through Micronesia and along the coastal areas.'
I think a lot of experts are side-stepping a glaring known reason for the "fast train" hypothesis: In the Melanesian region, tit-for-tat cannabalism has been the norm until so recent a time that it's not entirely clear it has not outlived the only recently outlawed Texan "he needed killin' " defense. Given that everyone knows about it (ever hear of old timers in Ohio talking about 'the boogey man gonna get ya'? - This is a reference, albeit likely misplaced on a peaceful people, to the Bugi of Indonesia), it's reasonable to assume that the neighboring nations knew full well it was safer to steer clear of contact with those land masses and travel nearer the like-cultured small island peoples, who were also fishermen. Fishing people followed clues as a matter of habit, in much the way westerners know where the traffic is when they walk down the street and only glance to confirm already known dangers, fishing people know which birds are at sea only during the day and where the fish are by what the birds are doing. Coming across undiscovered islands must have been almost a common occurance in the initial expansion, just by virtue of the ease with which the navigators moved about the ocean (Look at the thoughts of Nainoa Thompson, http://pvs.kcc.hawaii.edu/nainoa80tahiti.html, navigator of the Hokule'a as a young man not raised to be a navigator learning how to feel the ocean's movements, then remember that navigators were very numerous in the past).
'Why is the Polynesian name for sweet potato more similar to South America than Southeast Asia? The sweet potato is "kumar" in Peru, "umala" in Samoa,' and "kumara" in other Polynesia communities. It is not so similar when compared to the indigenous languages of Southeast Asia.'
Everyone knows that corn was originated in South America by advanced agriculture mutating grass into edible mega seedpods. I suspect a great deal of the food that has made it's way around the globe prior to Columbus 'discovering' America was mutated by ancient geneticists of the Americas. Those people were either descended from (and/or) dependent on polynesians for trade to other regions. I know little of Samoan myths, but the Hawaiians have myths of floating white islands and birds flying through the sea (icebergs and penguins) so there has been a huge amount of polynesian travel done in the past. Perhaps this kind of Pacific touring was only abandoned after agricultural success at home meant that travelling was not only not necessary, but perhaps seen as a luxury when time spent in the fields meant certain sustenance.
'Their use of biological factors as a determinant element in the development of the pottery verges on racism. Although they say that the Lapita pottery was a localized development, their argument still requires an external catalyst. They explain that the catalyst were lighter skin people from Asia. Why shouldn't a dark skin people given full credit for the development of the delicate pottery art?'
The most famous ancient potters are those of central (modern) China, and they were a very close-knit community by virtue of apprenticeship. The masters of all art forms in China were extremely picky about who they took as an apprentice, and likely always chose from their community. This kind of xenophobia is best reflected today in the still very strong tendency (taboo?) of Japanese (a former vassal state of China - the 'middle kingdom') to never marry foreignors. This kind of apprenticeship would have a strong influence on the experts to believe that independent artisans would need some 'outside catalyst' to perfect delicate pottery.
'The new finding "makes it plausible that the first peopling of the Americas occurred prior to the last glacial maximum," Daniel Mann of the University of Alaska, Fairbanks, said in Science.'
Mann is certain there were no glacial maximi in the 20-30 thousand years preceding the last one?
Peace,
Kurt Frenter - December 1, 2008
Hi; congratulations for such a lot of work, and well-done. This is a very noble undertaking, and I'm impressed by how much research and study you have done.
I just have one question: You said the Mayan word for jar is "olla." I happen to know Spanish, and this appears to be the Spanish word for "jar" or "pot." So, is "olla" both Spanish AND Mayan? How can we know that you aren't confusing Spanish with ancient Mayan words? I would love to continue reading your research, and I would love to find similarities between Mayan cultures and Polynesian cultures. I would also enjoy finding more evidences for the Book of Mormon. But after glancing at some of your work, this question came up, and I thought you might want to address the language issue to me first, in a way that shows you are using Mayan words and not Spanish. If you already addressed that, then I apologize; I skimmed through some of your work.
Samuel RichardsonMr. Richardson,
Thank you for the message. The truth is I took what I read in William Sullivans book and didn't check my facts. I'll change the page and read Sullivans book to see if there was reference to 'olla' being a Quechen word also. It might be a Spanish word only as you pointed out.
I appreciate you pointing this out. Thank you,
Pen Fiatoa - October 23, 2007
Malo my name is Armand,
Im just completing a PhD (Massey NZ) on anthro-prehistory "decoding" (rereading using new techniques and methods) oral histories using Matorohanga's korero (see Smith Percy Lore of the Whare Wananga) as a starting point; and would like to comment on your page that I've just tripped over.
Firstly, what you have collected is probably the going rate to get you started but if you check each one of the items you list, little or none of them are by a local Samoan writer researcher. A closer examination will reveal that the orthodoxy materials weigh heavy with ontological (outsider) views that must be quite worrying from a cultural Samoan perspective. (Sorry if you thought this was going to be an easy whikoi....) To get to the point, despite the latest South American materials (the chicken/tokikura...which have been around for ages) the current Polynesian schema is asymmetrically weighted toward the South East Asian thesis, which from Samoan geographic location standpoint may or may not be beneficial. In the end however I fear my friend Dr Ieti Lima is correct when he says that "more local input into our origin theories is necessary before it gets away on us".
If you are really interested in grappling with this topic, and would like to take your interest to another level I invite you to come research with us. We need more people like you who have a hunger and thirst to get to the bottom of such matters. At Massey Auckland Clunie McPherson has been assisting many of our Samoan relatives towards higher levels of research and study with great success. I know he would welcome you aboard.
I, myself have just completed 5 years study for my doctorate (2 years research trawling the islands and 3 years in South America from Northern Chile/Argentina to Ecuador and Columbia). I am currently in the final throes of the write up - therefore unable to comment much in detail on the dissertation material but I can and will refer to the Mormon topic you raise. I just spent a summer with the Tairona people in Columbia who should interest the Mormon faith.
They have the same cosmogony arrangement as Maori (10 heavens or Maori Rangituhaha has 11) which separate into three pacha that correspond with the three kingdoms (terrestial, telestial, celestial that matche te kauae runga, raro, and rarohenga in Maori). Secondly, they are expert goldsmiths - the best in South America and below their mountainous homeland of Santa marta is a place called Morona. In addition they have a character called Tonupa or Tarapakaa (actually he is popular throughout much of the Inka regions), who is Jesus Christlike (beard, robes and sandals) and went around preaching "peace" during a time of genocidal war. He is pre-Columbian (before the Spanish) so there is no problem with any confusion over the possibility that he was introduced by Europeans.
I have no idea why Sorrenson (Head of anthro BYU) isn't on to this stuff - pretty slack really, especially as this nation lives in an area near the Gulf of Mexico where much of the activity suggested by the Book of Mormon (Zarahemla thesis) at one stage during the 1960s was thought to have taken place. The major point is that they link very closely to Maori and must therefore figure in the Lamanite paradigm quite easily as far as Mormonism is concerned. Perhaps this will whet your interest to come to visit Clunie, or how about this little morsel of interest: just behind Peru is the Amazon biosphere (bird reserve) called "Manu", that has a village called "Apia" not too far distant is a river called "Moa". And finally, have you ever wondered where the name Apolima originated. Check out the real name for Lima in Peru....and then follow the same name to Aparima near Invercargil in NZ. (I think you will find the name Karika from Manu'a is the key to all this, his parents were Ea and Ueuenuku) Sorry but if there are any short cuts to this subject I didn't find any, but I wish you all the best anyway.
He mihi atu kia koe taku whanaunga no Hamoa.
naaku noa atu
Armand Crown - August 6, 2007
I found your thoughts and interpretations on the Solo Ole Va and Pre-Columbian cultures very interesting. I too, believe there is a connection well beyond the currently widely accepted views. Reading your comments made me want to learn even more about the subject and I found your references quite helpful in that regard.
As for your comments regarding your qualifications as a researcher, you might consider this fact. I work in the aerospace industry and have been constantly amazed at how much influence and innovation comes from forces outside of the traditional, more well-known sources. Although NASA, Boeing, Lockheed and the like are all well funded and well staffed, many of the best advances of the past twenty years have come from small, Do-It-Yourself shops owned by eccentric, motivated inventors who rely less on formal training and more on gut instinct and common sense. Today Boeing is proudly boasting as their latest advancement, the construction of the first all-composite aircraft, the 787 Dreamliner, with delivery dates scheduled for 2008. However, most kit plane builders have been playing with carbon fiber fuselages for nearly two decades. Many of the latest advances in automated controls also have their roots outside of formal channels, instead originating in the backroom or workbench of some unknown individual who just happened to be looking at things from a different perspective.
Keep putting your thoughts to paper (or html) and sharing them. Even if they do nothing more than stimulate others to research the topic for themselves, you have accomplished a lot.
Sincererly,
Karl D. Mellor
Vice President - Production
ACTRPRO
www.actr.com - March 12, 2007
I am an American who lived in American Samoa for 4 and 1/2 years teaching elementary school, and learning about traditional Samoan dance and culture. I first became interested in Samoan dance forms upon a visit with a professional dance company in 1986. What struck me was the similarity between Samoan movement seen in the maulu'ulu, and taualuga to movement I had learned when I studied traditional Indonesian dance forms. Some of the movements seemed too unique and similar to be merely coincidental. I wondered whether migration theories could be supported by analyzing dance movement from South East Asian Hindu and Buddhist traditions and comparing them to traditional Samoan Dance. If one considers that movement is another language and means to communicate meaning, relate aesthetics, and transfer culturally significant ideas from one area to another, could it be possible that some Samoan movements carry vesitiges of movement common in Southeast Asian temple dance? Here are some similarities I noticed: Samoan se'e movement created by turning in and out the feet repeatedly causing the dancer to travel fluidly from one place to another, used in Indonesian Temple dance specificity of hand gestures with shapings similar to Indian Mudras or hand gestures. These hand gestures signify religious meaning, are repesented in temple scupltures and perpetuated in both religious and courtly dances throughout Southeast Asia.
As the religions of Hinduism and Buddhism traveled throughout Asia so did the dance, sculptural and architectural forms, adopting variations that represented both the appearance and aethetics of the local communities. Could these dance forms have traveled with those who migrated to Samoa? The sidewards accent of the head a variation that could have been derived from the quick eye shifts common in South East Asian dance and along with the hand gestures or mudras, signifying specific meaning relating to godly or meditative states.Finally, the s-shaped posture a taupo may sometimes make when performing a taualuga, this is so similar to postures seen in many southeast Asian dances and particularly Bharatta Natyam and ancient form of Hindu temple dance. Ultimately, I have always been intrigued by the similarity between Shiva a Hindhu God who danced the world into existence according to Hindhu legend, and siva a Samoan word for dance. While you and others may have considered these ideas, the similarities between dance forms might offer more information about possible routes of migration.
Good luck to you in your work, Karin L. FennHi Karin,
Thank you for visiting my web page and sending me a message.
Yes, the Samoan dance most likely exhibits some aspects of Hinduism. Many traditions that we see in South East Asia are derivatives of various traditions that were introduced by colonizers from India and China starting about 1st century AD. I believe that also happened in areas further east, extending into the central Pacific. Some researchers believe that Polynesians moved into the central Pacific 1000 years BC. So, their pagan traditions would have been affected by visitors from Asia - including dance. However, Samoans have various forms of dance. You mentioned some of them. There's also the sa'a, which I think, after generations of changes, had involved into animated comical moves. (Sa'a is a Zapotec (Central America) word for dance.) There's also a group dance called 'sa'sa, which is very similar to what you might see in other cultures from SE Asia to the Americas. This lead me to conclude that there was definately an admixture of traditions in the central Pacific even before the modern age. Have a great day, and keep in-touch. Regards, Pen Fiatoa - February 28, 2007
Your article is very interesting to read - I am amazed by the information given on eastern Polynesia and a bit of the genealogy connection of the people of Polynesia, in connection to the Cook Islands and Tahiti. Yes I agree with some of the writers stating the origins of their ancestors as told. I for one want to know the truth even the stories told by my tupuna's or matua's. My name is Toi Tu Rahui Tepapa Rautea - I am from the islands of Manihiki and Rakahanga where the Kontiki was wrecked on the reef as a proof of Thor Heyerdahl's theory of the Americas migration.
The tribal affiliation on each island had its own stories. Some believe that just one story was told. There are also others stories that had not been told because of the fear of knowing the real truth. On the islands of Manihiki and Rakahanga, the majority of the people had only one story of their origins from Tapairu and Toa Te Marama from Tumu Te Warowaro, also known as Rarotonga. That was a name given centuries later by latter migration from Eastern Polynesia such voyagers as Karika from Samoa and Tangihia from Rangia Atea.
According to the traditional belief on the islands of Manihiki and Rakahanga there were three lots of migration to our shores. The first migration was from Hawaiki Loa where they brought the kumara on their voyage known to them as Te Hinika or Teinaki, the second migration was from the Hapemama also known as Te Tainoka and Tuanaki and the third was fron Tumu Te Warowaro. People need to understand there were arranged marriages amongst the chiefly people of Polynesia and there are a majority of mixed blood ties.
I am also a direct descendent of the Tuimanu'a (known as the Tui Manu'a Tu Tatau) who married a noble woman from the island of Te Ulu O Te Watu known today as Pukapuka in the Cook Islnds.
Rahuid David - March 1, 2006
Hello Pen Fiatoa,
I just got through reading much of your manuscript on solo.manuatele.net concerning the origins of Polynesians. You bring up many interesting points that deserve further investigation. It's clear that you've got a passion for the subject and have put a lot of work into the effort.
Like you, I also have Polynesian ancestry and have a passionate interest in the subject, in particular the settlement history. However, my own origins are in the Tuomotus and the Marquesas Islands where I also lived for a few years. This interest prompted me to take courses from Patrick Kirch (one of the authors you cite in your manuscript), while I was a student at U. C. Berkeley.
In my own researches on the topic I have found that the predominate theory behind voyaging and exploration of the Pacific by Polynesians was not haphazard or accidental but used a concept called "Return Voyaging." For an excellent treatment on this subject you can see Geoffrey Irwin's book "The Prehistoric Exploration and Colonization of the Pacific." His treatment of the subject makes a compelling read for anyone interested in this topic. He advocates a more dynamic model of voyaging in the Pacific that addresses some of the issues you raise in your manuscript.
Personally, I do not believe that Polynesians originated from the Americas. This is despite the fact that I grew up Mormon, have read the Book of Mormon numerous times, am intimately familiar with the church's doctrines, and was living and attending the LDS church in Petaluma, California at the time of your conversion and baptism in that town (yes, I read your testimony and possibly we've met).
However, I do believe that Polynesians came to the Americas, and that its possible that some (though not many) people may have voyaged from America to Polynesia. At present I do not believe that there is any evidence to support that the latter instance ever occurred. And Heyerdahl's experiment was just that - an experiment that proved nothing about what people actually did.
Nonetheless I still believe it possible, though unlikely, that a small group could have accomplished it and found Polynesia already populated by the descendants of Lapita. These hypotheses do not preclude any possibility that Native Americans could have contributed to the culture and gene pool of Polynesians, it merely significantly diminishes any role they may have played in it.
Any comments you may have are welcome!
Ruth P.Hello Ruth,
I'm glad to hear from you, and appreciate you taking the time to contact me and letting me know about you and your thoughts about the subject.
The Book of Mormon is a controversial book, and it conjures up strong feelings on both sides. Nevertheless, when it comes to the Book of Mormon in this manuscript, it's basically about me and my feelings. My feeings about the Book of Mormon are more important to me than convincing others. I'll let God do the convincing, He's much more able to doing that than me.
About what I've written thus far on the Polynesian migration, it's basically for personal satisfaction and not a claim of finding truths. However, I have read that within the fields of anthropology, there are claims that are made by professionals that aren't that much different from what a lay person would make. It's a fairly new field compare to the other sciences, if you think about it. And as they gather tools from other fields, like biology and geology, it's possible that anthropoligies could be tempted to misuse facts as proof to what may be just theories.
Now, I'm not trying to discredit any science. I'm not qualify to doing that. What I am trying to say is that, I will not take any theory as the ultimate truth until I balance it out with other experiences. A question that I had while compiling a list of words, as you can see listed on my site, is - how were those words transmitted? It's possible that Polynesians brought those going into the Americas or the other way around. It's also possible that these words were developed independently. But, these present options ignite more curiosities and questions.
So, what do I do? As far as the Book of Mormon story about Hagoth, I made an assumption. Based on what I read in the Book of Mormon, and what I percieve as an answer from what I've read about the different groups in Polynesia, the Americas, and Asia, I conclude that there's roots to these common words and traditions. I don't know what others think, and that's not my main concern. I am more concern about what I think. I've concluded based on reading that the Book of Mormon story is more possible than probable.
Ruth, what I've written is a personal story, and I'm presenting it as a technical solution to migration. I'm glad that you read it, and I'm glad that you wrote to me about it. I'll visit the Library and see if they have the books that you mentioned.
Let me know more of thoughts about this subject. I have posted your email in the response page.
Respectfully yours,
Pen Fiatoa- March 3, 2006
Hello Pen Fiatoa,
The Book of Mormon is a controversial subject. From the outside (i.e. non-Mormon), it's a pretty hard pill to swallow that ancient Israelites travelled on ships to the Americas and then managed to populate all of the Pacific Islands. However, this idea is what first made me realize that, in the Modern Era, we haven't really given ancient people enough credit for their spirit of adventure or ingenuity.
The fact is, we do not know if ancient Israelites traveled to the Americas. What would be needed to prove the point is some kind of a "smoking gun" that shows direct physical links between the Americas to the Levant, and in the case of Polynesia links with America. So far, these links have been extremely weak or absent.
For example, Book of Mormon settlers are credited with using the wheel. However, no examples of the use of the wheel are found (except in some toys) in the New World and I do not know of any instance of it being used in Polynesia. This is a pretty major ommission from the archeological record since the use of the wheel was ubiquitous in the Levant at the time that the people would have left for America. Another problem is that the Levant was well into the Iron Age at the time that they would have left for America and this technology was not developed in the New World. If Ancient Israelites did indeed travel to the New World they would have brought these technologies with them -- they would have been too important to leave behind.
Prior to European contact, Polynesia was still in the Neolithic or Stone Age and never developed a written language. If Polynesians came from Israelite ancestors there would be a written record somewhere on stone, tapa cloth or tatoos and this is absent. The Book of Mormon makes references time and again of stone or metal tablets. Again, these are absent from the archeological record in Polynesia. The only exception to this is in Easter Island where early European explorers witnessed what might have been the beginnings of a written language.
On a quick look of your linguistic analysis I noticed that you appear to compare modern day languages with one another. This is extremely problematic due to the fact that these languages are tainted from modern contact with one another. What is needed to bring analytical rigor to the argument are comparisons of the reconstructed languages from the time of when settlement would have occurred.
These are pretty major hurdles to overcome for advancing any theory that Polynesians came from Israelite settlers to America. However, despite these hurdles and improbabilities it doesn't necessariy preclude the possibility and archeologists should entertain this interpretation should there be any new archeological discoveries.
Personally, I see no conflict between what the currently accepted ideas are about migration to the Pacific from the west and the notion that a rag tag group of people sailed from America, ran into and maybe mixed with our Lapita ancestors. But this has yet to be proved.
A few quick comments on your statements concerning science and anthropology. Modern day science is a creature of late renaissance and enlightenment philosophies. The Scientific Method is a powerful tool for helping us learn and make discoveries about the world around us. Bad science results when the facts are gathered with the intent of supporting the hypothesis (i.e. making the facts fit the hypothesis). Good science is when a hypothesis and null-hypothesis (or control group) are stated and then the hypothesis is tested through the gathering of data, observation, experiments, etc. If, through analysis of the data the hypothesis is not supported then it has failed the test and the null-hypothesis is supported. A new hypothesis based on previous findings can then be stated and then the process begun all over again. When enough hypothesis are validated through this process on a given subject -- a theory may emerge. A theory is a heavily substantiated hypothesis. This is why a hypothesis that Polynesians came from Israelite settlers to America is not taken very seriously by the scientific community. The hypothesis has not passed any of the most fundamental tests (i.e. presence of the wheel, iron age technology, a written language, etc.), and as stated earlier, has significant hurtles to overcome.
On the subject of anthropology. I believe a distinction should be made between anthropology and archeology. Anthropology (physical and cultural) are younger sciences than archeology. Physical Anthropology is the child of European white supremecy and imperialism and comes straight out of the late 19th century. Cultural Anthropology has some of the same geneology but was later used as a means to critique modern western culture during the 20th century (Margaret Mead is coming to mind, for an interesting read on this topic see Marcus and Fischer's "Anthropology as a Cultural Critique). Both of these sciences have managed to straighten themselves out for the most part over the last century.
Archeology concerns itself with the physical and material culture of a society. In otherwords, what is actually found. Its beginnings are in the 18th Century with the first scientific excavations occuring in Italy and Egypt. For this reason, I believe that archeological findings tend to be less subject to the whimsies of someone's personal and subjective opinions and interpretations. In otherwords one's culture is less in the way. To the extent possible, I believe that cultural and physical anthropology, along with other disciplines such as linguistics, folklore, geology, geography, botany, etc. should be used to inform archeological findings. In otherwords, given the limitations of each of these sciences taken individually, an interdisciplinary approach should be used to strengthen all when it is applicable.
These opinions stated, you may ask why I have bothered to respond to you in such detail.It is because I appreciate the fact that you have gone to so much work to put the site together. I also believe that what you are doing is a worthwhile endeavor and that you should continue to pursue it, but with more rigor.
Respectfully,
Ruth P.
- March 3, 2006
- September 12, 2005
...quit apologizing! ...heck, Fornander and Kraemer were not even anthropologists but physicians who on their own wrote great books about our Polynesian people ...you will note how little others have noted the depth of the Samoan language. Am working right now on the Pulemelei sanctuary (the largest ancient Polynesian structure built by Polynesians -- located in Savai'I about 60 meters long, 50 meters wide and about 30 meters high (retangular in shape and very similar to sites in Central and South America)...and Thor Heyerdahl was the one who gave inspiration to Tuiatua Tupua Tamasese Efi to conduct archaeological digs etc -- am making preparations now to make a film documentary on this. Tuiatua Tupua Tamasese was very close to Thor Heyerdahl before Thor passed away... I have a copy of the video taken on the purification ceremony that was made on Pulemelei before digs were conducted. Tuiatua was recently also made Deputy Head of State by the Western Samoan government... The other project I'm working on now is the need for the establishment of a Samoan Language Institute similar to what the Israeli government did when it formed a national academy on the Hebrew language. ...we need an institute to become a official "sanctioning" body of Samoan words to English and vice versa --- need to also write a comprehensive Samoan language Dictionary/English. ...Eni
Eni F.H. Faleomavaega, Congressman
American Samoa Territorial Delegate
United States Congress - February 11, 2005
Pen: I have been doing my genealogy, and there are so many questions. There are so many genealogies. Needless to say most of my family are non-members and giving out the genealogy is a crime punishable by death. Well at least they make it that way. I have a chronology of the Tuimanu'as beginning with Fitiaumua to Ali'atama. In any case, why is there so much rivalry within the To'oto'o families of who or which names are important. Also, what is the big war with Lefiti, Moliga, Nua, Leasau, or at least the war on the internet news. They made mention that Salofi was their father. Then who are Levaomana and Pulesilia, the first Taliutafa. Anyhow, I was 1st generation born and raised in America. I joined the Church when all my family opposed it. I served a mission and learned gospel principles while teaching and testifying of them. I have been driven by the belief that my ancestors are waiting for me to have the work done for them.
A lot that you have written resonated with me. Even with weak conclusions, a lot of what you wrote made sense to me. In any case, I know the secrecy that Manu'ans have sworn to keep the genealogies sacred, but it sounds more secret than anything else. Can you shed some light? If the Tuimanu'a title is so ancient then why do the Tuitoga and the other polynesian monarchs have genealogies going back further, especially the maori leading back to hagoth?
Please help me understand. Soifua, Semo (W. Onesemo Taeatafa)Here's my reply to Semo.
Semo: Talofa. First of, I'm not an expert. What I know is only what I've concluded from reading what others wrote about Samoa, both scholars and ordinary people. Your question has two parts - the current political problems in Manu'a and the historical place of Manu'a in Polynesia.
Let me address the second part first. There's a lot of talk about the name SAMOA. Some say that it's all the Samoan island minus Manu'a. They also say that it means sacred chicken or sacred center. Those meanings make some sense if you use the current meanings for the word "moa" - center and chicken. But, the question is where did the word moa, center or chicken, came from. As you might know, usually, in languages, words are created from rudimentary words, and these words come from experiences. It's very hard for me to imagine some people seeing a flightless bird for the first time and yell - "Hey, get that moa!" The traditional name for "moa" in Manu'a is "manu", and this is the name that's used in ceremonial occassions. So, in a "lafoga", you'll hear "ua iai nei manu e fa", instead of "ua iai nei moa e fa". As I explained to a friend of mine, the word SAMOA is really the FAMILY of MOA. That's all Samoa is - the MOA family. The word "Sa" in several Native American languages, AND Egyptian, means both sacred and son. The Samoan word for chicken clearly then came from these flightless bird in the land that was ruled by the Moa family, who ruled somewhere in the middle Pacific. Moa is also the name of a flightless bird in New Zealand, which is not a chicken. I believe that the pre-European Samoans referred to their residence by Savai'i, Upolu, Manono, Manu'a, Tutuila, etc, and never Samoa. Samoa refers to ALL of Samoa by outsiders, and as I said refers to the Moa family.
The popular history of the Tongan occupation of Samoa fails to explain that Manu'a was not part of that occupation. Manu'a was never occupied by the Tongans because of the respect the Tongans had of the TuiManu'a. I've read a lot of references, mostly outside sources, that say that even Tongans consider Manu'a their origin. Now, if the Tongans had this respect anciently for Manu'a, why are their traditions different? I don't think that their traditions are that much different from ours. Stories about Captain Cook's visit to the Tongan islands say that the Tongans hid the information about the Samoan islands from Captain Cook. Eventhough another European previously saw Samoa, Captain Cook pretty much ignored the Samoan islands. That incident is very similar to the reasons why the matais of Tutuila eagerly wanted the United States to possess their island. As you know, Tutuila was ruled partly by matais from Upolu. So, by having the United States take possession of Tutuila, the Tutuila matais ended their subservant to Upolu. They severed ties to their traditional polity, independent, and became top paramount chiefs themselves. That's how the game was played, unfortunately, as it still does today.
About history, if we look at the history of the United States of America, we often start from the Revolutionary War. But, the history of the United States goes further back. If there was no written US history, many would be ignorant of some fact about US history. Unfortunately, the history of Polynesia was kept this way - by word of mouth. Things were forgotten, and altered to suit certain social and political motives. That's what I think Polynesian history had gone through. Maoris wanted to connect themselves to a history that elevate themselves. However, the people from places the Maoris connect themselves to, the Cook Islands, say that they originated from Manono, Apolima and Upolu. So, I don't know why the Moaris can't just say they came from SAMOA. I think it's all political.
I don't think the Tuimanua title is as old as the MOA name. I believe that the title Tuimanua came about because of some great personal deed. "Tui" is a title in Eastern Polynesia, and it was probably given to someone who did something heroic in the central Polynesia. Much like the venerated Malietoa title. Subsequently, the title "tui" then became synonymous with "King". As you know, the word "tupu" is still king in Samoa, but "Tui" became something like the Roman title "Caesar".
According to Freeman, Tagaloa was basically a god of the Manu'ans. My thoughts on this is that he's right. But I think that Tagaloa was a real person who originated from Manu'a, and not from the sky as in the myths. He was revered by some and not by others. I also think that Tagaloa, himself, was once a person of ancient origin. Sutton traced this name back to Eastern Polynesia, and I agree with him. I believe that Tagaloa lead the group that peopled Samoa, Tonga, and surrounding islands. He was probably seen as a visionary, and heroic. Manu'a was probably the first place his group landed, and they named it after an island in eastern Polynesia - Manuka. Others probably broke away from him and branched out to other islands further west. Those who moved out made their own stories based on their own circumstances.
Now, concerning the current situation in Samoa about titles. I'm sorry, but I don't know anything about who is right in this debate. I feel, however, that it's all about pride. President Ezra Taft Benson had a great talk about this very subject. ("Beware of Pride", April 1, 1989, General Conference, Saturday Morning Session) I hate to see the destruction of the matai system, but the current events in Manu'a could undermine and may even destroy the traditional fabric that our ancient parents kept. I enjoyed the CCCS church while growing up in Samoa, but I think that the LDS Church truly has the right message for the children of Moa - they are descendents of Lehi, who traced his roots to ancient Israel. That can't be proven, and of course some will laugh at the notion. Many other groups have made similar claims. I do, however, see some truth about it. I see too many connections between Native American and Egyptian traditions in our culture that it's hard to ignore the inevitable.
That's all for now, my friend. I hope this helps. Soifua, Pen Fiatoa[Additional note] In his book, "The Hidden Maya", Martin Brennan mentioned a moan (muan?) bird - "His way is the moan, the horned screech owl shown in B, that is crowned with the glyph Oxlahun-Chan, Thirteen Sky, referring to the mythological bird that perches above the thirteen heavens." (p. 176)
- February 5, 2005
Talofa! Thanks Pen! I wrote that paper in college while getting my degree in linguistics - I'm sorry to say I had a tight deadline so it isn't as in depth as I would have liked it to be. I took a look at your site briefly - it will take me a while to read it because I have some events coming up that are taking all my leisure time, but I will get to it eventually. I did skip ahead and read the part on linguistic evidence. It sounds pretty good to me - the connection between most of the Polynesian languages is very clear, but the connection to the west not so much. It doesn't take long before a linguistic split is not really traceable given enough isolation and other influences on the language.
One thing I was wary about was at the end where you said "This current language classification ignores any relationship of the Samoan language to the native American languages, which I think exists because of the number of words that are similar between the two languages." I looked into this a little bit myself, and I didn't find anything that suggested a relationship. I don't think that lack of evidence is significant to suggest anything about the history of the spread though. What I would suggest studying, if you are interested in following this further - first look at statistics for the number of similarities across any two given languages. You can always find things that look like they must have come from the same place, but are simply coincidences. Given the limitations on speech, it is not strange that there would be a lot of coincidences. But more importantly, secondly there is a correlation between speech development and vocabulary that increases these 'coincidences'. For instance, sounds like 'ma' are some of the first sounds that babies can make, so it makes since that a lot of languages words for 'mom' are similar to this. In contrast, r's are difficult so baby's early vocabulary does not have a lot of r's.
I think the strongest evidence in the appendix is the word for 'king' - if you can find words that may have been cultural concept exchanges, it strengthens at least the theory of continued contact. If you have any evidence toward these kind of concept exchanges, it would be a good area of the lexicon to look for similarities - or vice versa. Like if you found evidence that the concept of 'king' was exchanged one way or the other. If you can show that the number of similarities in native concepts (not including early language influenced by child development) exceeds the average number of coincidences, it would be compelling for a migration theory.
From what I've studied about the history of the polynesian people, I also believe they had superior and complex navigation skills. I'm also repeatedly impressed by new scientific findings regarding the ancient peoples of south america and believe there is a lot we have yet to discover about those cultures. I'll read further when I have more time. Susan Ware, http://www.susanware.com/samoaspread.htm - Messages from Bruce S. Sutton, author of "Lehi, Father of Polynesia"
- November 30, 2004
You mention that as a child in school in Samoa, you were taught that your ancestors came from the west. That is correct, to an extent. If you follow the Malietoa genealogies back to Tangaloa you will understand why. About 795 AD Te Irapanga of Tahiti married Rangiaoao - they had a son called Tutarangi (Tutalangi) who sailed from Tahiti to Fiji and settled there. Tutalangi had a son called Tangaroa-marouka (also known as Tangaloa or Tagaloa) who left Fiji and went over to the Samoas. Another son - Eimatupua went over to Tonga Tapu - another son - Taketakemaonga went to to Aitutaki - and a fourth son - Tangaloa-manahune went back to his grandfather's home in Tahiti (Rangiatea). So, in fact Samoa, Tonga, Rarotonga (Aitutaki) and Tahiti were all settled from the west in that generation only. Their fathers were all from Polynesia in the east. Tangaloa came from the west. His father Tutarangi came from the east, and his father Te Irapanga came from the east. His grand father Tai-te- ariki came from the east. To go back another 15 generations to Tiki, he came from the east (Tahiti). Another 11 generations to Papa-nui-hanau-moko and Wakea we get them coming from Hawaii and Tahiti. The Book "Lehi, Father of Polynesia" traces all the Polynesian genealogies right back to Adma and shows where they came from and when they traveled. The origins are very clear. Bruce Sutton
- December 1, 2004
My message to Bruce: Thanks for your comment. I do have a copy of your book. Very interesting. I wondered what sort of challenges you had compiling all that information.
Probably the biggest challenge in dealing with the genealogies was caused by the "white man" in the 1820's to the 1880's when we had Spanish, German, English, Dutch, French, etc in the islands, and they all wanted to create a written language. The problem was, that they had different accents and pronunciations for words, and so when the genealogies were written down, one island's ancestor who was the same ancestor of another island had different names. There were fluctuations in use of letters such as i's and o's, l's and r's, o's and u's, k's and t's, E.g. Fale, whale, and whare, all mean house. A great ancestor may have been Tiki, Ti'i, Ki'i, or Kiki. Understanding the old language was necessary. The "white man" in effect, took one language covering the whole of Polynesia and made many different dialects and languages from it. The other chanllenge is identifying the legends and traditions from different islands and then making sure they are in harmony with the genealogies. This was important in identifying travel paths and time frames of events. I hope this helps. Bruce Sutton
January 18, 2005
Just a little clarification on some of Tonga's ancient ancestors. As I look through some modern writings by the so-called academics, there appears to be inconsistency and uncertainty on names. The following should help, I hope. The genealogy line from father to son is: Te Raunuingangata; Te Irapanga (of Tahiti); Tuturangi (went to Fiji); Tangaloa (went to Tonga Tapu); Eimatupua (also known as Eitumatupua or Atumatapua); Ahoeitu; Lalofakangalo; Fanga'one'one; Lihau; Etc. Bruce Sutton
- November 30, 2004
- January 13, 2004
Malo Pen,
I thank you for inviting me to view your site. I had quite a read and found your mapping of the Pacific interesting. Having grown up Mormon myself, I am very aware of the Book of Mormon and the stories contained within. Yet, I emphasize the same point that I posted on AhChing's website. We need to stop defining ourselves through Western eyes. Though your unscientific view was detailed and exciting to read, I can't help but think about how much of it was influenced by Mormon doctrine and Western 'scholars'. Now, the reason why I quote 'scholars' is because this title can be debated, especially in the scientific community. For example, you use Thor Heyerdahl as a prime resource. Yet many well known 'scholars' of Pacific migration theories have ruled out his ideas as incorrect and false; and in the same tolken, these 'scholars' ideas have been debated by other scholars. So as you can see, the picture becomes even more cloudy because it's all based on speculations and hypothetical guesses. In my opinion, I don't believe any of their theories.
My main concern with your writing is that it is (again) based on Western philosophies and research. One example is your Tongan creation story about the half Melanesian/Polynesian boy being killed because he was lighter skinned than his two brothers. The first misunderstanding is that this is a "Tongan creation story". This is NOT a Tongan creation story, and in actuality, it is the geneology of the first Tu'itonga, 'Aho'eitu. He was the son of Tangaloa 'Eitumatupu'a and Va'epopua, a woman from a village outside of Mu'a. According to Tongan belief, Tangaloa 'Eitumatupu'a climbed down an 'Ovava tree (which is located in this village) and mated with a woman from Tonga. The woman was not from Niue. The story goes on to establish the Tu'itonga's reign in Tonga with his brothers being bestowed titles within his royal house. These tiles are the same titles that make up the present day Tongan dynasty. Tongans have a separate creation story that parallels that of Samoans, Fijians, and other Pacific Islanders. Mu'a was also not the traditional name of the King's village. This is in fact a more recent name.
Another point is the separation of light skinned and dark skinned people. This value is a product of early missionization and colonization. When Western colonizers first entered the Pacific they brought with them their beliefs of superiority and inferiority. Part of this belief was that lighter skinned people were more attractive, appealing, intelligent, civilized, etc., than darker skinned people. This was taught to our ancestors and it passed into the generations to follow. That is why we still hold this belief that darker skinned islanders (such as Melanesians - Mela meaning dark in Greek) are uncivilized and less desired. The Book of Mormon is littered with references of the darker skinned Lamanites warring against the lighter skinned Nephites. In actuality, the color black or 'Uli in Tongan and Samoan symbolizes royalty and power. This is why in Tonga a ngatu 'uli or bark cloth that is stained pure black, is considered the highest and most prestige of any Tongan tapa. The same was true with early Samoan siapo that was made for the Ali'i. The tattoo or tatau, among its other cultural signficances, was a procedure of staining the body in black to darken the skin, giving it the emphasis of royalty and rank. Early Tongan and Samoan high chiefs used to tattoo their body from waiste to knee almost entirely black to exemplify their rank. Those of lesser rank could not tattoo their bodies as black as the higher ranking Ali'i.
You also make references to "Polynesians" having connections with the early Egyptians based on similar words such as "Ra" and "La" or "Sa". The most commonly referred to Egyptian culture is the one that was dominated by the rule of Pharaohs and their belief in the sun god 'Re' (as it is commonly spelled). Being that this dynastic period occurred about 3500 years before Christ, and the first "Polynesian race" settled around 1100 BC, how can it be that the only word to connect the two cultures is the word for sun? Also, if the early Polynesians came out of the cultures of the Americas, as you stated, wouldn't our word for sun be more closely linked with their words like Kin (Mayan for Sun), or tonatiu (Aztec for Sun), or even Inti (Quechan for Sun)? It doesn't make sense to me that this word would change throughout the Americas and then be revived once Hagoth got to Polynesia.
The last point I wanted to make was the theory of Rapa Nui being named by Hagoths early people, and its significance to "Ra" "Ba" and "Nu". The island was actually named Rapa Nui in the 1860's when a group of Western explorers sailed with Tahitian translators to the island. The Tahitians named the island "Rapa Nui" or Big Rapa because it resembled a bigger version of an island in the Tahitian chain called Rapa Iti or Little Rapa. There was no mythical origin to the name Rapa Nui or any ties to Egyptian folklore. "Rapa Nui" was adopted by the Western explorers and it remains to this day. When I was on Rapa Nui in 1999, I asked about this story to several elders. They stated that this was true and that the traditional name of the island is Te Pito o te Henua (The navel of the world). This name, they said, was due largely to the ancient peoples belief that they were the only people left in the world. They believed that their ancient ancestor, Hotu Matua, sailed from Hiva - an earlier name for an island in the Marquesas group above Tahiti. Easter Islanders also believe that they have associations with the civilizations of South America which is evident in their Moai statues and traditional religion. However, these influences came much later when trade occurred between the islands and continent. Eventually the trade lines were severed and Rapa Nui became isolated.
There are other examples in your article that could be challenged, but these are just a few that stood out. To me, the most correct history of our people are the ones that were told by our elders. Many Samoans believe that we originated from within Samoa and nowhere else, that our roots began IN Samoa. This is also true of Tonga. Tongan creation myth begins in Tonga and nowhere else. Maori's of New Zealand have accurately traced the majority of their geneologies back to migrational voyages from Tahiti and Rarotonga. Hawaiians trace their geneological lines from Kahiki, and so on and so forth.
As I stated in AhChings site, we should not discount our own traditions as false and allow the Palagi to dictate our geneology. This is true with science AND with religion. Mormonism has a lot of spiritual virtue to offer and a lot of sacred values that can improve our lives in this world. However, we should not attempt to interpret things in any holy book, such as the Book of Mormon, and create our own assumptions. We do not know what happened to Hagoth and his people. They may have migrated through the Pacific, they may have not. But it becomes dangerous when we as Pacific Islanders begin to enmesh religious beliefs with science to replace our traditional stories. This, in my opinion, destroys our own sacred values as Samoans, Tongans, Fijians, Maori, etc. Everything we ever wanted to know about our origins are contained within our own cultures and our elders. Look to them for direction and wisdom so that we can pass THEIR knowledge on to our children. If we lose this, we lose who we are; and we become like them who need to create stories because we've lost our way. Soifua, Loteni (Rodney Powell) - November 12, 2003
Thank you very much, Pen,
I've looked at your page, and I thought it was quite interesting. Thanks for citing me in your essay. I think people of all faiths should come together in these trying times, and work together towards the better understanding of ancient cultures. Blessings, Yuri.Yuri Kuchinsky:
- "Polynesian origins and Lapita deception": http://www.trends.ca/~yuku/tran/l23.htm
- "Precolumbian Amerindian horse?": http://www.trends.ca/~yuku/tran/9h0.htm.
- November 1, 2003
Dear Pen,
It was a nice surprise to find someone had enough interest to write back to me, I had Chief Savea, from Samoa - and Lawrence A Miller commend me on the article. The articles by Yuri were very interesting and so were yours - a lot of information to digest. I havn't had time to go over it fully, but good on you for doing this.
Basicly, what a lot of this boils down to is; there has been a lot more cultural contact between these early civilisations, than the average european scientist will care to admit. As a teenager I remember going to a number of Egyptian, Chinese, Greek and Inca gold exhibitions and was surprised to see in all four exhibitions a little gold jaguar inlaid with black clover leaves - to me this signified that there must have been contact between these cultures. The SBS ducumentary about the Cocaine mummies is a must see. Not only does it prove Egyptian and Roman contact with the Americas, but it shows how narrow minded European scientists can be - not wanting to admit that anyone crossed the Atlantic until Christopher Columbus did.
I loved Yuri's article scoffing at the pathetic way supposed knowledgeable scientists are clinging on to the Lapita pottery connection with Polynesia. I have just finished reading a scientific book by Anita Smith an Archaeologist who points out that there are major archaeological gaps between Lapita remains and the beginning of Polynesian settlement in the Pacific, sometimes as much as 800 years. Most Archaeologists have seen this evidence but appear to choose to ignore it. The tide is slowly turning and much of Thor Heyerdhals research will soon be vindicated. And with that will come a flood of non eurocentric information that will lead us much closer to the truth about the beginnings of mankind.
I am not a religious person and feel that all humans are equal, each cultural and racial group has a different story to tell, they have influenced each other and some have dominated over others, some stories have unfortunately been erased. All the stories have thier own merit and help unlock a new mystery and create a new connection, they are all interesting and they are all part of the big dynamic jigsaw puzzle we call mankind. Keep up the good work Pen
PeterPeter Marsh is the author of: Polynesian Pathways
http://users.on.net/~mkfenn/Here's my reply to Peter's question sent me in another message - "By the way what does Samoa mean?"
As to the name Samoa - it's a topic in itself. Sa in Samoan is sacred. Sa also connects a person to a particular family. For example, I would refer to you to belong to Samarsh family. The last letter in the name is emphasised. I belong to the Safiatoa family. Therefore Samoa could identify a person to belong to the Moa family. The last a in the word Samoa is always emphasised, and you can tell that people know their Samoan by the way they pronounce Samoa. Then again, the word center (and heart) in Samoan is moa. The word for chicken is also moa in Samoan. So, using these meanings of moa, Samoa could either mean 'a person belonging to the Moa family', 'sacred chicken', or 'sacred center'. I've seen these meanings used. Which meaning is correct? I think it's the first definition - belonging to the Moa family. The Moa family was a prominent family in ancient Manu'a and still today. How that name was acquired by that family might have something to do with the headdress the leaders of ancient Samoans wore made from bird feathers, including the chicken.
- June 8, 2004
I looked over your website. I'm afraid that I find your arguments supporting an American origin (and, through the Nephites, ultimately an Israelite origin) for the Polynesians not very convincing. You seem too quick to draw the conclusions you want from very tenuous evidence. I have just finished reading an advance copy of Simon Southerton's book "Losing a Lost Tribe," in which he discusses the Mormon claims about the Polynesian origins, and shows that DNA evidence does not support those claims. It will appear in September from Signature Books in Salt Lake City. Richard Packham
- March 1, 2004
Dear Pen Fiatoa,
I read your manuscript over the weekend. When I discovered that Dave Burley has already read and replied to you. Your manuscript is interesting, but I have to say to you that I agree with what Dave Burley said in his note to you. There is no scientific evidence to back up your thesis. Sincrely, Richard ShutlerRichard Shutler, Jr.
Department of Archaeology
Simon Fraser University
Burnaby, British Columbia
Canada V5A 1S6 - February 23, 2004
Pen
I am sorry if my response may appear brief and contrary to your beliefs. All I can say is that ALL available scientific evidence including linguistics, biological anthropology, genetics and archaeology (which I have an incredible volume of in my laboratory) clearly indicate a west to east movement that is now well documented, well dated and widely accepted (except of course by Mormon theologians). The work of Thor Heyerdahl was important in showing the world that islands were not isolates and ocean were in fact highways. But the fact that the Kon Tiki made it to east Polynesia (barely and after it was towed into the current) really doesnt prove or even illustrate the possibility of a new world migration by new world peoples. The sweet potato, blue egged chicken and bottle gourde do indicate new world connections. In all of these cases we now believe that it was Polynesians who made the crossing, and to one very specific locale in coastal South America. If Polynesians can find Easter Island, Hawaii or most of the other specks of land in Remote Oceania, why would we not expect them to find a continent? We dont have a specific date as yet for when that happened, but it was most probably in the last 1200 years. Hope this answers your concerns. DaveDavid V. Burley
Professor and Chair
Department of Archaeology
Simon Fraser University
8888 University drive
Burnaby, British Columbia V5A 1S6 - October 1, 2003
Dear Pen Fiatoa,
Thank you for your e-mail with reference to Thor Heyerdahl and an invitation to have a look at your web-site. There are a couple of points I want to make at first, not relating to your web-site, but general points about Thor Heyerdahl and my relationship to him and his work. It is an all too common assumption that Heyerdahl had proposed a west-to-east migration in the Pacific and that he championed this theory until his death. His view on cultural studies can best be classified as a diffusionist, but even that description does not do justice to his views. He only claimed that he had demonstrated that a west-to-east migration was possible, not even probable. As late as two months before he died he aired some of his opinions in correspondence with an Australian archaeologist -- a specialist in Lapita ceramics -- and openly allowed for either a west-to-east or an east-to-west migration. One should not so readily pigeon-hole Mr Heyerdahl and thereby force his so-called theories into a fossilised state. In a television interview, also about two months before he died, he let it be known that he had always proposed the possibility of very unconventional theories (note the distinction between this position and stating that the theories were his) in order to stimulate academic discussion and research. In that he certainly achieved his goal, since his proposed possibilities are always visited when current scholarship addresses the same issues. I therefore regret that you on your web-site attribute to Thor Heyerdahl that which he himself left as an open question until he died.
I was the last archaeologist to work with Heyerdahl on a field project. That was in Azov, Russia. Also here he was true to form and proposed the possibility of a very controversial theory based on the Old Norse Sagas. My area of specialisation is Syro-Palestinian archaeology. I was working on a church project in the Caucasus when I first met Thor Heyerdahl. Being a Syro-Palestinian archaeologist I do have some acquaintance with ancient migration out of the Levant or more generally the Middle East. Whereas ancient literary sources quite often reflect historical events even though they were not written as history in the modern sense of the word, I do not consider a nineteenth century document, written in North America, as having any relevance whatsoever when it comes to shedding light on ancient history.
Having said that I realise that this is a confessional matter for you and will allow you to hold your views without making any further statements about them. It would be good, however, to run a spell-check on your web-page and include a check of the grammar.Cordially,
J Bjørnar Storfjell, PhD
Chief Executive and Archaeologist
The Thor Heyerdahl Research Centre
8 Croft Court
Croft Road
Aylesbury HP21 7RE
England
 |
 |