benlizross wrote:

Yuri Kuchinsky wrote:

Linguistic evidence can never prove anything (outside of
linguistics, that is). At best, such evidence can only
_suggest_ some things, which then need to be proven by hard
physical evidence, such as archaeological.

Yes, I know you're chronically skeptical about linguistic evidence,
Yuri, since it almost never supports what you're trying to prove.

This is news to me...

Let's just say in this case all the "suggestions" go one way.

According to you.

And to everyone else who actually knows something about it.

How many people are that?

Meanwhile, here's a "credible authority" for you. It seems
like you still have a lot to learn in this area...

"Their [Canadian West Coast Natives'] canoes are large and
roomy, capable of accommodating scores of men; they are made
with great skill and artistic talent; they are of all
primitive craft the most fitted for meeting the conditions
of oceanic voyaging, and have a great resemblance to the
Maori war canoe." (J. M. Brown, PEOPLES AND PROBLEMS OF THE
PACIFIC. London, 1927, Vol. II, p. 68)

This is it? Dear old Macmillan Brown? You were right to put "credible
authority" in quotes. But what does he actually tell us here?
The NW Coast people built big canoes. We knew that.
They resemble the Maori war canoe (JMB being a New Zealander). Hm. In
what way exactly?

Something for you to investigate perhaps.

No, something for you to explain to us, since it is you who is putting
this forth as evidence for your claims.

So I guess you're not interested in investigating this
subject for yourself.

Besides being big canoes made by peoples who have
access to big trees? Is there some particular detail of their structure
that would lead us to conclude that the one must have been derived from,
or inspired by, the other? JMB does not say.

It could be the carved bow and stern pieces, for example.

Uh huh? Just the existence of such things, or their particular form?

Both.

You
can show that whatever it is is found nowhere else in the world?

And why is this important?

And finally they are "most fitted for meeting the conditions of oceanic
voyaging". Wait a minute. The Maori war canoe, as I understand it, is an
adaptation to lake and river travel (which were not an issue in tropical
Polynesia).

Your understanding may be wrong.

It may be. Unfortunately your crossposting has not brought us any fresh
expertise from among the boat-builders or the New Zealanders. And I know
your understanding is no better than mine.

I doubt it.

It is used along the coasts as well, of course, but you do
not cross an ocean in such a vessel. When the Maori, in recent years,
have taken up oceanic voyaging, they have built themselves big double
hulled canoes. With sails. And what about sails on the NW coast? I was
struck by Cook's statement that the Nootka knew nothing of sails. Is
there good evidence for them being used elsewhere on the NW coast? How
feasible is it to get from British Columbia to Polynesia without sails?

Now that you've crossposted this to some other groups, perhaps we'll get
some useful information.

Ross Clark

Same types of sail have been identified both in Canada and
NZ. Also, same type of double hulled canoes.

Reference?

Ross Clark

So I guess you know less about this subject than I do...

Yuri.

Yuri Kuchinsky in Toronto -=O=- http://www.trends.ca/~yuku

It is a far, far better thing to have a firm anchor in
nonsense than to put out on the troubled seas of
thought -=O=- John K. Galbraith