(1) Of all the daring deeds in the history of Man, few can rival the great voyages of the Polynesians. From their origins in the west, they spread north, south, and east, ever east. Yet what of the furthest east? Were the Americas a sea too far?
(2) The origin of the Polynesians is a mystery that has long perplexed anthropologists. From vagrant Indo-Aryans to castaway Amerindians, it is the latter idea, through the exploits of Thor Heyerdahl, that has captivated the world. Genetics, however, are less kind than the public
(3) Today, we know beyond doubt that the Polynesians came, not from the Americas, but from Asia - almost certainly what is now Taiwan, and before that, the south Chinese coast.
Yet just because the Polynesians did not come *from* America, does not mean they did not go *to* it.
(4) There are, in fact, numerous strands of evidence - individually enticing, collectively overpowering - that point to a period of contact, how long we cannot say, between the voyagers of the Pacific and the folk of the South-American seaboard.
(5) We may begin by noting smaller features, signs of exchange: One is the presence in Hawai'i shortly after first contact of goatweed, Ageratum conyzoides - a weed native to South America. Inversely, turmeric - an Asian plant, was used by the Amahuaca and Witoto tribes.
(6) It has been claimed, based on carbon-dating, that bones of Araucana chickens predate Columbian contact.
If true, this poses an obvious issue, chickens being an Old World species deriving from Indonesia. This particular data-point, however, has been challenged by other dating
(7) Far more difficult to contest is the presence and importance among various Polynesian peoples of the sweet potato - an American plant which, crucially, does not float. Unlike plants such as coconuts, which can disperse across oceans, sweet potatoes must be shipped.
(8) Genetic analyses indicate 2 separate introductions of sweet potatoes to Polynesia - one following European contact, and one *preceding* it.
Even more definitively, the Polynesian word for the plant is kumara - the word in Quecha and Aymara is k'umar/k'umara.
(9) Genetic studies have not only been done on vegetables. Several studies have found links between Polynesians and Amerindians. Even tribes as isolated as the now-extinct Botocudo people of the interior Amazon possessed a haplogroup unique to Austronesians.
(10) Only last year, Ioannidis et al. (2020) found that peoples in the Gambiers, Marquesas and Pallisers, as well as Rapanui, showed clear signs of Amerindian admixture, pointing to a single contact-event prior to the settlement of Easter Island.
(11) Though direct cultural evidence is rarer, it is not absent. The word for "stone axe" in Rapanui is "toki". The word in Mapuche is "toqui", in the extinct Yurumanguí "totoki". There exist strong similarities, down to the ornamentation, between Mapuche and Rapanui stone clubs.
(12) The last point I will mention here is that of boats. Heyerdahl crossed in a square-sailed raft, believing this to be representative of the native Peruvian "balsa" crafts. It most likely was not. Strong evidence indicates the Peruvians at contact had oceanic-style spritsails
(13) Though much debate has raged on this point, largely due to the utter lack of any surviving balsa-crafts, it seems clear that the original sails were in fact of a characteristic, triangular oceanic-style, whose presence pre-dated European contact.
(14) Despite its roaring success in the eyes of the public, the ultimate legacy of the Kon-Tiki expedition was largely to sour anthropology against any talk of trans-Pacific contact. However, we must not let that cloud today's research. Heyerdahl was wrong on much, but not all.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
A striking takeaway of the last 10 years of the aDNA revolution - from the Indo-Europeans, to the Bantu, to the Swahili, to the Japanese - is that you might sooner trust a toddler to pick out a 50-meter target with a revolver than an archaeologist to identify an ancient migration
It should be self-evident that we cannot simply derive from this a reverse principle, and conclude that wherever contemporary archaeologists denied a purported migration, it really did take place - yet the scope of the discrediting is remarkable.
What are we to make of as-yet unresolved fine-grained questions, such as the Dorian invasion, the Hebrew conquest of Canaan or other traditional narratives long contested by the now-dubious consensus? Again, we cannot simply default to the inverse conclusion, but one wonders.
"Real, unembellished history" according to quite a number of historians seems to consist largely of ppl sitting around, munching bread and porridge, between periodic bursts of fighting over miscellaneous economic factors.
>Knight is recorded as composing a poem to persuade his captor lord to free him:
"Bet that happened lol"
>King gives a stirring speech before battle:
"Sure that happened"
>Viking is heads out to Constantinople, motivated by a dream:
"Definitely not embellished mhm"
Never underestimate a dusty historian's ability to regard as improbable literally any display of human spontaneity, whimsy or unconditioned willpower.
This is only half true. Rwanda is a cohesive, fairly well-run and (by regional standards) prosperous and stable country. The Congo, it is true, is essentially not a real state, hence why the massive size disparity between it and Rwanda confers no military advantage.
It is an interesting quirk of the global export of the nation state system that we aren't really able to account for "unorganized regions" anymore. With the exception of Antarctica, every plot of land *must* be attached to a specific polity with a government and a flag.
This works well enough in some parts of the world, but it obviously fails elsewhere, where the reality on the ground simply fails to match the internationally recognised construct. The Darién Gap is only "part" of Panama and Colombia in the most tenuously nominal sense.
There is a phenomenon I've noticed a lot in many contemporary walks of life - term it "introductionism": ppl never actually reading primary literature, or watching classical movies, or engaging directly with high art, but interacting with everything through "accessible" mediums
In a world of limited time, I've come around to the realisation that 8/10 times, instead of reading a book ABOUT Shakespeare, read Shakespeare. Read Plato. Just read that book you want to get to, don't read endless books ABOUT reading that book.
"You can just do things", but for literature and the other arts.
Sure, you might need some help to interpret, say, Aristotle or Hegel - so maybe get a complimentary book to help you, or read a brief introduction to the core concepts, but *do not* then stop there.
Unclear why so many seem to struggle to understand that just because the original speakers of Proto-Indo-European *were* a single, definable ethnogroup, that doesn't mean IE-speakers *today* are.
Obviously there's no such thing as an "Indo-European race" - Indians, Afghans, Kurds, Spaniards, Germans and Lithuanians are not all part of one esoteric, "hyperborean" identity. But the original PIE-speakers would indeed have been a particular tribe or cluster of related tribes.
"Indo-European-speaking peoples" is the correct term today, because thousands of years after the aboriginal PIE-speakers left their Urheimat, the correlation between steppe-ancestry and language is extremely small. But, again, that doesn't mean this retroactively applies as well.
One of the most frustrating tendencies in academic conversations around novel belief systems like Wicca or New Age spirituality is researchers caveating all their (invariably devastating) assessments of the historical claims with varieties of "-of course far be it from me to devalue people's deeply held beliefs, I don't want to say that anyone is wrong in their convictions..."
Rubbish. If somebody is claiming to be "reviving the authentic religious expression of the British Isles (or wherever)", and you are systematically demolishing every one of the assertions underpinning said religious system, then you patently ARE devaluing said misguided notions.
Truth claims are truth claims - it is not "kind" or "respectful" to treat these as ultimately irrelevant, and indeed doing so is ultimately a sign of supreme arrogance and contempt, since you don't even consider it worth *looking at* whether said beliefs are correct.
I ultimately have substantially more respect for both Richard Dawkins & Ray Comfort than I do for the dithering, obsequious academics who, in their attempts to be conscientious, end up treating ppl like you would a little girl being told that yes she is a princess.