Print Page | Close Window

2 immense Easter Island achievements

Printed From: History Community ~ All Empires
Category: Regional History or Period History
Forum Name: History of Oceania, South-East Asia and Pacific
Forum Discription: Discuss the history of SE Asia: Malaysia, Indonesia, Singapore etc.
URL: http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=23796
Printed Date: 27-Apr-2024 at 17:55
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 9.56a - http://www.webwizforums.com


Topic: 2 immense Easter Island achievements
Posted By: Sander
Subject: 2 immense Easter Island achievements
Date Posted: 13-Mar-2008 at 01:02
I made some comment in Pinguins Easter island thread but  its replaced by another one and transported to  this tread . This way I can combine it with another thing I was planning to post already Big%20smile  
 
Because Easter island is politically part of an american nation its not out of place to discuss some things in that sector. But, geographically, linguistically and culturally its Pacific. Since the following achievenments are  pre contact and therefore Pacific history in the first place, I'm placing them here (does not matter much if some things are discussed in more sectors of course ).
  
Achievement 1
 
Everbody knows the statues,  but what 's not so well known (never heard anybody about it ) is that the tallest Moai (some are 9 meter or more) are actually the largest ancient /pre-contact statues in the whole southern hemisphere.
 
No small honour Clap. After all, also below the equator there were worldwide several ancient cultures/ civilzations that did great things with stone (Peru, Bolivia, Zimbabwe,  Java to name a few ). 
 
 
 
 
 Next time , big achievement 2



Replies:
Posted By: Parnell
Date Posted: 13-Mar-2008 at 10:20
Those eyes freak me out...

-------------


Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 15-Mar-2008 at 12:38
It is trye that Easter Island belong to the Polynesian people and traditions and that has a common root with all the people of the Pacific, so the place is in here by geography. However, for Chileans, the island tokens are part of our national publicitary campains LOL
 
The eyes of the moai are freaky because they represent the "soul" of the statue.
 
I am still waiting for the second achievement. Don't wait to long to let us know Big%20smile


-------------


Posted By: Sander
Date Posted: 20-Mar-2008 at 01:50
Second big achievenent ? Ok. Additionally to the whole southern hemisphere, those statues are also the largest ancient ones in the whole western hemisphere ! LOL
Kidding Wink( although its probably true as well )
 
We know that the polynesians were amazing seamen and the voyage to Easter island will always be a great job. Neverthless, there seems to be  some good ( and solid ) ground for giving it an extra honour:
 
Its seems the longest non- stop oceanic voyage ever made in ancient times ( pre- Age of Discovery) of which we even have true proof. From where ever they came; it was always at least 1500 kms of open ocean. The Pitcairns are some 1500 km away and the rest is even further. Its true that Sala Y Gomez is a bit closer but this island is never suggested. That aside, Sala Y gomez itself is more than 1500 km away from any island, so even in that case, the ancestors of the Easter islanders must have crossed at least 1500 km of sea without any possible landfall.
 
I cant think of any other longer ancient voyage , fully oceanic and non- stop that can be proven. Vague references ( if there at all  ) in for example ancient western, sanskrit , Oceanic whatever texts , surely cant compete with the scientific evidence the easter islanders have. Such records could have omitted one or more of the possible stops/landfalls ( quite common ) that were always within a range of 1500 km. There can be the element of boasting or even fiction, to take skepticism to the extreme. None of this applies to the voyage to easter island, of course.  No written or oral records are even needed here. Its very simple : no earlier landfall was possible.
 
Besides, most likely the ( initial ) voyage was much longer than 1500 km ocean. Its seems supra natural to believe that , from where ever they came went straight to easter island, if they did not even know the place before they left.
 
Good chance there is some extra stuff for  Easter island promotion campaigns. LOL



Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 20-Mar-2008 at 02:32
Originally posted by Sander

Second big achievenent ? Ok. Additionally to the whole southern hemisphere, those statues are also the largest ancient ones in the whole western hemisphere ! LOL
Kidding Wink( although its probably true as well )
... 
I cant think of any other longer ancient voyage , fully oceanic and non- stop that can be proven. 
 
.... 
Besides, most likely the ( initial ) voyage was much longer than 1500 km ocean. Its seems supra natural to believe that , from where ever they came went straight to easter island, if they did not even know the place before they left.
 
Good chance there is some extra stuff for  Easter island promotion campaigns. LOL

 
That's very interesting, although I know some other great achievements:
 
(1) They were the only polynesian people that invented writing. And perhaps the only people in the southern hemisphere that had it. (Incas lacked it, and Mayans aren't in the Southern Hemisphere)
 
(2) They remember the first historical person in the history of Chile: Hotu-Matua (amazing, isn't?), whose memory was preserved orally since the 7th century A.D.
 
(3) They developed high forms of medicine, poetry, astronomy and agricultural practises that few people, besides experts, know.
 


-------------


Posted By: rider
Date Posted: 21-Mar-2008 at 22:22
Hmmh. The Incan quipo was much more sophisticated than our writing systems and therefore I consider their achievement greater.

And I also think that if we speak of statues on the southern hemisphere, such great buildings as the cultures of South America built for thousands of years are unrivalled even amongst the Polynesians.


-------------


Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 21-Mar-2008 at 23:13
I cant think of any other longer ancient voyage , fully oceanic and non- stop that can be proven.

Perhaps the people who populated Madagascar? They were Austronesians, so they came at the least from Indonesia.


-------------


Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 21-Mar-2008 at 23:47
Originally posted by rider

Hmmh. The Incan quipo was much more sophisticated than our writing systems and therefore I consider their achievement greater.
 
I dissagree with quipos. All the evidence points to the fact they were accounting books, and nothing else. They recorded numerical data according to cathegories. In fact, Incas had schools for people to memorize events, and that was the main source for Spanish and Indian colonial historians to record the history of the Inca Empire, which is very detailed indeed.
 
The Rongo-Rongo tablets have a more mysterious origin. Some say the script is very old and came from South East Asia, no matter than in there nor in any Polynesian island a script has been found so far. Other theory, that I believe is more realistic, is that Polynesians had the idea of the script when they had the first contact with Spaniards. Spanish adventurers were very formal and always carried a lawyer with them. They made a writen act of possesion on from of the islanders and made them to sign the deal. And then read it aloud. The idea of writing was there, although all the caracters of Rongo Rongo are polynesian.

Originally posted by rider


And I also think that if we speak of statues on the southern hemisphere, such great buildings as the cultures of South America built for thousands of years are unrivalled even amongst the Polynesians.
 
Well, as far as I know, there aren't statues so large in the Andes region at all. What exist is larger buildings and more complex engineering. However, not as big monuments as totems made of a single stone.
 
 
 
 


-------------


Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 21-Mar-2008 at 23:49
Originally posted by Mixcoatl

I cant think of any other longer ancient voyage , fully oceanic and non- stop that can be proven.

Perhaps the people who populated Madagascar? They were Austronesians, so they came at the least from Indonesia.
 
Well, Polynesians, Micronesians and Malgache people are all related and speak Austronesian languages. I bet theirs naval engineering was shared in the ancient past.
 
Austronesian peoples were, indeed, the best sailors of the ancient world, up to the European Age of Discovery.
 
 


-------------


Posted By: Sander
Date Posted: 22-Mar-2008 at 18:57
Originally posted by Mixcoatl

I cant think of any other longer ancient voyage , fully oceanic and non- stop that can be proven.

Perhaps the people who populated Madagascar? They were Austronesians, so they came at the least from Indonesia.
Good suggestion.
 
In case of the  deep sea route , which seems the most likely one, the route was Malay archipelago> Nicobars > India > Maledives > Seychelles > Madagscar but in theory Diego Garcia ( below the Maledives) could have been touched on the way. From there the longest open sea leg would be slightly less than 1500 km. Of course, its not said that they used all possible stops- they might as well have skipped some- but i m just pointing out the  possibilities.  
 
In case of Easter Island, the funny thing is that I cannot even find a possibility to  get there without crossing at least 1500 km of open sea.


Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 23-Mar-2008 at 13:23

That's why I really don't believe Polynesians reached the Americas.

To reach it from Easter Island, they would have need to travel 3.525 km. more of open sea. That's too much, I guess.


-------------


Posted By: Omar al Hashim
Date Posted: 24-Mar-2008 at 08:32
And perhaps the only people in the southern hemisphere that had it. (Incas lacked it, and Mayans aren't in the Southern Hemisphere)

The Javanese, Tanzanians, Kenyans, Zimbabweans and Madagascans are however, and they all were writing down what the king had for dinner.

To reach it from Easter Island, they would have need to travel 3.525 km. more of open sea. That's too much, I guess.

Its not if you knew it was there. People have sailed Polynesian ships from Easter Island to Chile in modern times.
Even if they did go they probably would just have been outnumbered and integrated into the native population.

-------------


Posted By: rider
Date Posted: 24-Mar-2008 at 18:03
I think it would be rather difficult to miss S-America if you started towards it...

Oh, Penguin, I did mean the stone constructions and buildings, not statues.




-------------


Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 25-Mar-2008 at 00:28
Originally posted by rider

I think it would be rather difficult to miss S-America if you started towards it...
 
 
If reached South America alive, of course. 3.500 kms. aren't a piece of cake at all. Not even for Polynesians. Even more, Polynesians have many stories about sailors missing.
 
Originally posted by rider


Oh, Penguin, I did mean the stone constructions and buildings, not statues.
 
Well, in that case I agree. Just remember Sacsawaman.


-------------


Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 25-Mar-2008 at 00:42
Originally posted by Omar al Hashim

...
The Javanese, Tanzanians, Kenyans, Zimbabweans and Madagascans are however, and they all were writing down what the king had for dinner.
 
Really? If you mean the Austronesian settlement of Madagascar, as far as I know there didn't carry writen language to Africa. If I am wrong, please site sources. That's a topic on which I am very interested.
 
Anyways, Indonesia is just below the equator, so I guess it is in the Southern Hemisphere, but I forgot about it.

Originally posted by Omar al Hashim

...
Its not if you knew it was there. People have sailed Polynesian ships from Easter Island to Chile in modern times.
 
 
Of course I know those ideas. I am Chilean LOL
 
There is no definitive proof that such a theoretical trip ever happened, though.
 
 
Originally posted by Omar al Hashim

...
Even if they did go they probably would just have been outnumbered and integrated into the native population.
 
Certainly. If that ever happened, the most likely would be it was a one-way-trip.
 
For instance, the tree of bread and pigs were unknown in South America in pre-contact times. If visits were routinary, then certainly those animals would have existed in the Americas as well.
 
The only evidence that may point to a possible contact are:
 
(1) The presence of sweet potato in Polynesia; which could have spread after columbus, anyways, but nobody is certain.
 
(2) The Araucanian (Mapuche) chicken, that existed in Chile before contact, and that was the only chicken in the Americas.
 
(3) Curantos, or sea food cooked in a hole in the ground, made of rocks, and covered with vegetables, that could be a parallel invention or a Polynesian influence.
 
However, everything is circumstancial. No direct evidence of Polynesian presence has ever been found in South America.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 


-------------


Posted By: Sander
Date Posted: 25-Mar-2008 at 05:15
Wether they did or not is different issue but there is little reason to think they could nt.
 
Some 3500 km to the americas would be rather a piece of cake compared to the discovery of easter island and some other places. The really hard thing in long open sea sailing is not to keep sailing but to  hit your target. If the target aint known its a matter of surviving untill you reach something.  In case of the Americas, a gigantic target ( 30.000  km from north to south ) that cannot be missed is awaiting after 3500 km sailing east, while in case of easter island they sailed ( at least ) 1500 km  to hit a tiny spot.
 
 
 


Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 25-Mar-2008 at 11:58
Originally posted by pinguin

Originally posted by rider

I think it would be rather difficult to miss S-America if you started towards it...
 
 
If reached South America alive, of course. 3.500 kms. aren't a piece of cake at all. Not even for Polynesians.

But on the other hand, they probably landed on Easter Island after sailing eastwards from French Polynesia into the unknown it would have been an extraordinary coincidence if Polynesians did hit one tiny island which they did not know existed but did never reach a huge continent.

Also it would mean that Polynesians would have stopped their explorations after having reach Easter Islands. (and after all they did reach Sala y Gómez)


-------------


Posted By: rider
Date Posted: 25-Mar-2008 at 17:14
Where's Sala y Gomez?

-------------


Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 25-Mar-2008 at 18:06
500 or so km east of Easter Island, its size is less than one square km.

-------------


Posted By: rider
Date Posted: 25-Mar-2008 at 19:27
How on earth can you accidentally find something THAT small?

-------------


Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 25-Mar-2008 at 23:48
Originally posted by Mixcoatl

...
Also it would mean that Polynesians would have stopped their explorations after having reach Easter Islands. (and after all they did reach Sala y Gómez)
 
Where did you get that?
 
Salas y Gómez didn't have settlers at contact time. I have never heared that Polynesians reached there.


-------------


Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 25-Mar-2008 at 23:51
Originally posted by rider

How on earth can you accidentally find something THAT small?
 
Following the birds... I am not kidding.
 
And also, seeing the presence of islans far away by "reading" the waves patterns and clowds configurations. It is quite complex the empirical methods polynesian had to determine the presence of far away land. But, I tell you, they weren't just travelling blind in that huge ocean that is the Pacific.


-------------


Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 26-Mar-2008 at 00:39
Originally posted by pinguin

Originally posted by Mixcoatl

...
Also it would mean that Polynesians would have stopped their explorations after having reach Easter Islands. (and after all they did reach Sala y Gómez)
 
Where did you get that?
 
Salas y Gómez didn't have settlers at contact time. I have never heared that Polynesians reached there.

It was not inhabited, but the Eastern Islanders were aware of its existance, evidenced by the fact they had a name for it: Birds Island on the Way to a Far Away Land...


-------------


Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 26-Mar-2008 at 12:35
references, please.
 
 


-------------


Posted By: red clay
Date Posted: 26-Mar-2008 at 12:55
Originally posted by pinguin

references, please.
 
 
 
Why? you never do.  I'll change that to seldom.
 
 


-------------
"Arguing with someone who hates you or your ideas, is like playing chess with a pigeon. No matter what move you make, your opponent will walk all over the board and scramble the pieces".
Unknown.


Posted By: red clay
Date Posted: 26-Mar-2008 at 13:02
Originally posted by pinguin

Originally posted by rider

How on earth can you accidentally find something THAT small?
 
Following the birds... I am not kidding.
 
And also, seeing the presence of islans far away by "reading" the waves patterns and clowds configurations. It is quite complex the empirical methods polynesian had to determine the presence of far away land. But, I tell you, they weren't just travelling blind in that huge ocean that is the Pacific.
 
 
Odd how you accept voyages of 3-4,000 mi. in the Pacific in open canoes, but not the Atlantic.  Particularly if the South Atlantic circulation was followed the longest leg in open water would have only been approx 1,100 mi.
 
 


-------------
"Arguing with someone who hates you or your ideas, is like playing chess with a pigeon. No matter what move you make, your opponent will walk all over the board and scramble the pieces".
Unknown.


Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 26-Mar-2008 at 14:08
Originally posted by red clay

 Odd how you accept voyages of 3-4,000 mi. in the Pacific in open canoes, but not the Atlantic.  Particularly if the South Atlantic circulation was followed the longest leg in open water would have only been approx 1,100 mi.
 
 
Nothing odd about it. Austronesian sailors (Indonesian/Javaneses and Polynesians) were far better sailors than the rest of Eurasians and by far. Just compare the history of navigation, and the techniques, of ancient Europeans and Mediterraneans with Austronesians, and you will get convinced.
By the way, Polynesians didn't cross the pacific in canoes, but catamarans. Saying a catamaran is a canoe is like saying a F-1 car is a bike.  No way to compare both.
 


-------------


Posted By: Seko
Date Posted: 27-Mar-2008 at 16:17
Pinguin, how about making reference to your resources regarding the virtues of Austronesian sailors. Share info on the catamarans, etc. Leave the comparisons with other peoples out of your post too. Thanks.

-------------


Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 28-Mar-2008 at 03:23
Originally posted by Seko

Pinguin, how about making reference to your resources regarding the virtues of Austronesian sailors. Share info on the catamarans, etc. Leave the comparisons with other peoples out of your post too. Thanks.
 
I can't post details right now. However, you could take a look at these sites. I bet you will be surprised by the tecnical details.
 
 
http://www.ruf.rice.edu/~feegi/astro.html - http://www.ruf.rice.edu/~feegi/astro.html
 
http://www.teara.govt.nz/NewZealanders/MaoriNewZealanders/CanoeNavigation/2/en - http://www.teara.govt.nz/NewZealanders/MaoriNewZealanders/CanoeNavigation/2/en
 
http://pvs.kcc.hawaii.edu/designing.html - http://pvs.kcc.hawaii.edu/designing.html
 
 
 
 
 


-------------


Posted By: Styrbiorn
Date Posted: 28-Mar-2008 at 10:09
Catamarans have advantages as well as disadvantages compared to single-hulled ships. Pretending they relate as F1 cars to bikes is simply ridiculous.


Posted By: rider
Date Posted: 28-Mar-2008 at 16:09
Catamarans have just as many disadvantages as advantages - the catamarans we have today sail for half of the year, the other half being too stormy for them. I doubt the Pacific has it otherwise.

-------------


Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 29-Mar-2008 at 02:13
Originally posted by Styrbiorn

Catamarans have advantages as well as disadvantages compared to single-hulled ships. Pretending they relate as F1 cars to bikes is simply ridiculous.
 
Polynesians, Indonesians and other Austronesian people were sailors of high seas in the Pacific when Mediterranean peoples were afraid to lost sight of the coast in that salt lake called Mediterranean LOL
 
Greek, Phoenician and Roman ships were those big cows, or bikes, if you preffer. In comparison Polynesians were masters of the sea and conquered HALF the world, which is the area the Pacific ocean really covers.
 
What it is simply ridiculous is downplay the achievements of Polynesians.
 
 


-------------


Posted By: red clay
Date Posted: 29-Mar-2008 at 04:27
Originally posted by pinguin

Originally posted by Styrbiorn

Catamarans have advantages as well as disadvantages compared to single-hulled ships. Pretending they relate as F1 cars to bikes is simply ridiculous.
 
Polynesians, Indonesians and other Austronesian people were sailors of high seas in the Pacific when Mediterranean peoples were afraid to lost sight of the coast in that salt lake called Mediterranean LOL
 
Greek, Phoenician and Roman ships were those big cows, or bikes, if you preffer. In comparison Polynesians were masters of the sea and conquered HALF the world, which is the area the Pacific ocean really covers.
 
What it is simply ridiculous is downplay the achievements of Polynesians.
 
 
 
 
Ping, no one is down playing the polynesians.  You however have just done the very same. 
Worse, your ridiculing 3-4 major cultures at one time.  You know exactly what your doing. Stop the games and debate the issue fairly.  If you believe the Phoenecians or whoever were unable to sail in an open ocean like the Atlantic or Pacific, then produce credible sources, Not insults.
 
 
 
 
 


-------------
"Arguing with someone who hates you or your ideas, is like playing chess with a pigeon. No matter what move you make, your opponent will walk all over the board and scramble the pieces".
Unknown.


Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 29-Mar-2008 at 04:36
Originally posted by red clay

 
Ping, no one is down playing the polynesians.  You however have just done the very same. 
Worse, your ridiculing 3-4 major cultures at one time.  You know exactly what your doing. Stop the games and debate the issue fairly.  If you believe the Phoenecians or whoever were unable to sail in an open ocean like the Atlantic or Pacific, then produce credible sources, Not insults.
 
 
What I know about Phoenicians is that they:
 
(1) make the round trip around Africa. Everyday they started sailing earlier in the morning, but they rested on land at night with theirs boat at the coast. They were excelent sailors but they weren't high seas navigators.
 
(2) There is no reliable evidence so far about Phoenician presence in the Americas.
 
 


-------------


Posted By: red clay
Date Posted: 29-Mar-2008 at 04:51
Originally posted by pinguin

Originally posted by red clay

 
Ping, no one is down playing the polynesians.  You however have just done the very same. 
Worse, your ridiculing 3-4 major cultures at one time.  You know exactly what your doing. Stop the games and debate the issue fairly.  If you believe the Phoenecians or whoever were unable to sail in an open ocean like the Atlantic or Pacific, then produce credible sources, Not insults.
 
 
What I know about Phoenicians is that they:
 
(1) make the round trip around Africa. Everyday they started sailing earlier in the morning, but they rested on land at night with theirs boat at the coast. They were excelent sailors but they weren't high seas navigators.
 
(2) There is no reliable evidence so far about Phoenician presence in the Americas.
 
 
 
 
Sources for this.  What are you backing any of this up with?  I don't care which culture or subject, sources.  And not the hall of mutt either.  Credible sources.
 
 
 


-------------
"Arguing with someone who hates you or your ideas, is like playing chess with a pigeon. No matter what move you make, your opponent will walk all over the board and scramble the pieces".
Unknown.


Posted By: Styrbiorn
Date Posted: 29-Mar-2008 at 09:28
Originally posted by pinguin

 
Polynesians, Indonesians and other Austronesian people were sailors of high seas in the Pacific when Mediterranean peoples were afraid to lost sight of the coast in that salt lake called Mediterranean LOL
 
Greek, Phoenician and Roman ships were those big cows, or bikes, if you preffer. In comparison Polynesians were masters of the sea and conquered HALF the world, which is the area the Pacific ocean really covers.

What are you talking about? I was talking about characteristics of ship types, not superiority of one culture over another - why are you constantly interpreting every single thing people say as a 'culture X vs culture Y' comment?.

Anyway, the Mediterreanean "cows" as you call them, were warships or merchants, able to carry heavy loads of weaponry or goods. The catamarans would have been less suitable for their purposes, being leisure ships in comparison.


The Phoenicians didn't conquer half the world, they conquered a few small dots not covering more than a few percent of the Roman empire. Everyone knows the Polynesians were great sailors, but don't exaggerate.


Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 29-Mar-2008 at 14:57
Ok. Let's not discuss about culture, then, but go technical.
First, Austronesian people (Of which, Polynesians form part), started theirs epic colonization of the Pacific 5.500 years ago in Taiwan. At the end, they colonized lands that covered more than half the world, from Madagascar to Fiji and Easter Island, and from Hawaii to New Zealand.
 
 
No other people in the world colonized places so widespread by sea before the European Age of Discovery in the 15th century.
 
Even more, it is known that Indonesians are mentioned with regularity as the best sailors in South-East Asia, with frequent visits to China and Indian, on which they played a role as carriers similar to the Phoenicians in the Mediterranean.
 
The question is how they managed to do that?
 
The key was the technology they had for sailing, that basically covers to items:
 
(1) The design of theirs ships.
 
(2) The techniques for high-seas navigation.
 
With respect to the design. It is quite obvious Austronesian people had since very early times an amazing variety of ships. The key to understand theirs technological superiority is to realize all of them have either counterweights or were plainly catamarans.
 
Just compare. This is a typical Phoenician ship of ancient times:
 
 
Just compare. This is the javanese Borobudur ship, of the kind that brough the Indonesian-Javanese immigrants to Madagascar.
 
 
And a modern replica:
 
 
Just note that the javanese design is oriented to transoceanic travel. Therefore, they don't use hoars, so they have counterweight floating devices, instead. Also pay attention to the fact that these ships have two sails of the "lateen" kind, and have a rudder.
A typical Polynesian catamaran had a design even more impresive. Look at the blueprints
 
 
 
 
Rather than just a large canoe, this ship also worked under the counterweight principle, presented a small resistence to the water.
 
 
Hawaii has the best studies on ancient canoes, so all these examples come from there.
A model called Hokule, developed recently in Hawaii.
 
 
 
 
So, the ship was there.
 
Now, let's analize what sailors say about the differences between Catamarans and Monohulls. This article that follows is very revealing. The author is talking about modern catamarans versus monohulls that people uses in pleasure trips.
 
However, some of his conclusions are very interesting:
catamarans are faster than monohulls.
catamarans don't sink as easy
catamarans can carry more load.
 
In short, a perfect ship to conquest the Pacific.
 
 
We will examine Polynesian navigation techniques later.
 
http://www.multihullcompany.com/Article/Catamaran_Vs_Monohull - http://www.multihullcompany.com/Article/Catamaran_Vs_Monohull
 
 
CATAMARAN VERSUS MONOHULL – WHICH IS BEST FOR YOU?
by Phillip Berman

 
I’ve long been fond of quoting the 16th century Scottish philosopher David Hume who wrote that “all advantages are attended with disadvantages.” For Hume the good life had nothing to do with the quest for perfection, but the effort to discover the wise compromise that might inch us closer to fulfillment. Every person who contacts The Mulithull Company is striving to follow Hume’s advice (whether they know it or not!). They hope to make the wise compromise when choosing their yacht. As such, they seek honest answers to three primary questions:
  1. Is a sailing catamaran really right for them?
  2. If so, what is the best catamaran for their needs and budget?
  3. And which catamaran offers them the most value for their dollar?
Here I’ll endeavor to tackle the first question by discussing the advantages and disadvantages of a catamaran over a monohull.
COMFORT AT ANCHOR

The great success of catamarans in charter programs over the past decade is due primarily to the fact that catamarans offer enormous advantages over monohulls when the anchor is dropped. These benefits are as follows:
  1. Catamarans are considerably more stable than a monohull. As such, they do not bang back and forth in swells. So catamaran cruisers can eat, sleep, and live far more comfortably on the hook than a monohuller.
  2. Catamarans are much wider than monohulls and therefore provide enormous aft cockpits. In tropical climates this is an enormous plus because cruisers tend to spend the majority of their time dining, reading, and lounging in the cockpit under the protection of the bimini.
  3. The main salon of a catamaran is on the same (or nearly the same) level as the cockpit. Unlike a monohuller, catamaran sailors do not step down into a deep dark place (where the windows are generally above eye level), but rather straight from the cockpit into a light filled salon. I don’t mean to get New Age here, but catamaran sailors truly “Live in the Light.” Onboard a catamaran you remain intimately connected to the world outside. This makes cooking, reading, dining, navigating and lounging far more pleasant on a catamaran than a monohull.
  4. Because catamarans are more stable, those onboard do not enter into an extended stowing routine whenever they hoist anchor. Similarly, catamaran sailors do not enter into an extended un-stowing routine when they drop anchor. Having lived on both catamarans and monohulls, I cannot stress what a huge plus this is for live-aboard sailors.
  5. When sailing with three or more people catamarans offer much more privacy as the two hulls, and the suites and heads within them, are far away from each other.

SPEED UNDER SAIL

Because a catamaran does not have to carry a heavy lead keel underneath to stay upright, they are generally faster than a similarly sized monohull – especially off the wind. However, catamarans that carry keels cannot point as high into the wind as a monohull. They will, however, typically arrive at an upwind destination at about the same time because they are moving much faster. They sail a greater distance, but at a much higher speed.

A catamaran with daggerboards and good quality sails will point as high as a similar sized monohull. It will also travel at a much higher rate of speed and therefore arrive at upwind destinations sooner. (Note: these are generalizations based on apples to apples comparisons – a performance monohull vs. a performance cat, a cruising cat vs. a cruising monohull, etc.) It is important to note that most of the production catamarans on the market are under-powered charter designs made for trade wind sailing. In light airs many of these designs perform poorly unless larger headsails or a roachier mainsail are added.

In winds under 8 knots most catamarans, due to extreme wetted surface drag, are not any faster – and often slower – than similar sized monohulls.

COMFORT UNDERWAY

Because a catamaran does not heel it offers far more comfort underway than a monohull.

For example:
  1. Cooking is much easier on a cat underway and more pleasant as you are looking out on the world and not “down below.” Most catamarans do not have gimbaled stoves and ovens because they simply don’t need them.
  2. Your guests are far less prone to sea sickness because you have mostly fore and aft pitching and very little beam-to-beam motion. Catamarans don’t roll from swell to swell like a monohull.
  3. Walking on the deck of a cat underway is far easier as the boat is sailing flat. This makes sail changes and reefing much, much easier and a lot safer. The danger of falling overboard on a catamaran is considerably less than on a monohull.
  4. Finally, it is much nicer to sleep on a boat that doesn’t heel.
One advantage most monohulls do have when underway is that they don’t pound or slap. Catamarans with low bridge deck clearance (the distance from the water to the bottom of her salon floor underneath the boat) are prone to pounding and slapping on the undercarriage in lumpy confused seas when sailing upwind. This banging and slapping is quite disconcerting when you first experience it. At times, in very lumpy seas, you will feel as though the boat is getting pounded to pieces. Most monohulls just don’t pound in this manner and are therefore a bit more comfortable than low bridge deck catamarans when beating into severe lumpy seas in high winds. Note that I am talking about lumpy seas, not necessarily large ones. In large swells bridge deck slapping is generally not a problem. The problem comes in cross-swells and confused seas – what I like to term, "Washing Machine seas."

To overcome the unpleasantness of pounding I believe strongly in catamarans with excellent bridge deck clearance and semi-rounded under carriages that disperse wave action. I also prefer catamarans with few hull protrusions or chines as they increase not only slapping and pounding but magnify hydrodynamic drag.

SAFETY

Monohull sailors have for years argued that multihulls are not nearly as safe. I heartily disagree. One of the primary laws of physics is that “Everything in nature seeks its most stable position.” The most stable position for a catamaran is indeed upside down on the top of the ocean. But the most stable position for a monohull is at the bottom of the ocean. A well built and properly designed catamaran is very hard to sink – you must either be run over by a tanker or suffer a massive fire.

Multihulls gained a bad reputation in the 60’s and 70’s because most of them were home built, not beamy enough, and poorly designed. But modern Multihulls are very hard to capsize. It really takes a monumental act of bone-headedness to capsize a modern cruising Multihull in winds under 70 knots. If you are so bold as to cruise around far offshore in hurricane zones, well, yes, you are taking a serious risk. But so is a monohull sailor. Fact is, monohulls sink about as often as catamarans capsize, which explains why Lloyd’s insurance policies on cruising cats are nearly the same for cats and monohulls of similar value. (Note: racing mutihulls capsize quite often because they are little more than Hobie Cats on steroids, driven to the edge at all times by thrill seeking racers.)

In short, monohull sailors are rescued from liferafts. Multihull sailors are rescued from capsizes. Where would you rather be? Sitting in a small life raft in a storm or sitting securely inside your much larger and more stable upside down multihull? For me, the answer to this is a no brainer.

A faster boat is also a safer boat, as the faster boat is exposed to fewer storms. A catamaran that can regularly pull 220 mile days on a passage from Panama to Hawaii will be exposed to far less storm risk than the monohull that has a hard time regularly pulling 175 mile days. With good weather routing information a Multihull can avoid most serious weather and, at worst, place itself on the most favorable position to avoid the brunt of a storm. Since most multihulls can run before a storm between 10 and 15 knots they offer considerably more options and therefore safety than a boat that has difficulty topping out over 9 knots.

I would say that a monohull is preferable for serious offshore single-handed sailing because you can hove-to in a howler and sleep it out more easily than you can on a catamaran. A multihull does require very careful seamanship in serious storms. For this reason I believe monohulls are better suited to single handed sailing or voyaging in Northern and Southern latitudes. A super well built monohull will often capsize or even roll in a storm, but they generally pop back up, even if the rig has been swept away. Once a catamaran goes over she stays over. But, here again, she generally stays afloat, offering an excellent place to survive until one is rescued.

I also believe that catamarans are superior to monohulls in terms of redundancy. Cruising catamarans generally carry two diesel engines and a diesel generator. An engine failure on a monohull is the end of motoring. Not so on a catamaran. In fact, when motoring, most catamaran sailors only use one engine to conserve on fuel. They use two engines to dock.

And a catamaran has two hulls, not one. Should one of the hulls be damaged you still have another one for buoyancy. A hull fracture on a monohull is a far more serious and dangerous thing that it is on a Multihull.

MANEUVERABILITY

Because most catamarans have twin engines they are far easier to dock than a single engine monohull. A modern catamaran can do a 360 turn in her own length. A monohull cannot do this. However, a monohull under sail is much more maneuverable and certainly will tack a lot faster than a catamaran.

In shallow areas the catamaran is clearly superior to a monohull. Because most cats draw 4 feet or less of water they can anchor in places a monohuller could not even consider. In the Bahamas and the South Pacific the catamaran sailor has a peerless advantage. I often anchor my own cat just a few feet away from a beach, occasionally tying her off to a tree.

HAULING, STORAGE AND SLIPPAGE

While catamarans are better at anchor, monohulls have one huge advantage at the dock, marina or shipyard – they are much cheaper to haul and slip and they have a lot more options. Most catamarans must be slipped on end ties due to their beaminess. As such, there are some marinas a catamaran cannot use. Trimarans are even harder to contend with. And, for the most part, the marinas that do take multihulls charge more.

The beaminess of multihulls also greatly limits the number of shipyards that can haul them. Most 40 foot and over multihulls must be hauled on a 50 ton travel lift. This not only increases the cost of getting the boat out of the water, but greatly limits the multihullers choice of the shipyards he can use for repair and maintenance. This of course limits one’s shopping power and drives up the price for shipyard services.

COST

Catamarans, alas, are very costly to build. Builders must create two hulls, a large salon, and finish all of them off with cabinetry. And the rigging and sails of a catamaran must be more stout because the Multihull doesn’t heal and bleech off loads when hit by puffs like a monohull.

Monohulls can be bought cheaper new and the buyer of a monohull has a lot more choice of builders.

On the used market monohulls are very cheap to buy because the supply presently far outstrips the demand. Such is not the case with catamarans. Used catamaran prices remain quite high and stable, even in our weak economy these past few years. When I am contacted by someone who says they are searching for a cruising multihull under $150,000 I often advise them to buy a monohull. Their choices in a catamaran are very, very limited. Under $100,000 the task is nearly impossible unless one is drawn to very old, one-off models, or older, smaller budget catamarans like the Gemini.

It is of course important to remember that if you buy a monohull cheap you will surely also sell her cheap. If you buy a catamaran properly she will hold her value remarkably well for years to come if the present trend toward catamarans continues. I see no reason why it won’t.
 
--------------
 
In short, Polynesians had a better ship.
 
 
 
 
 


-------------


Posted By: Styrbiorn
Date Posted: 02-Apr-2008 at 13:11
Originally posted by pinguin

In short, Polynesians had a better ship. 



No, they didn't. They had ships more suitable for other tasks.

The conclusions you have drawn are irrelevant, since they are based on modern pleasure cruisers. They have little to do with a comparison between ancient Mediterrenean galleys and polynesian ships.

Catamarans are more stable in the beam-direction, having no tendency to list. On the other hand they may pitchpole, which a monohull never do.

In heavy seas monohulls have a great advantage. Catamarans have to ensure the waves doesn't hit from the side to avoid capsizing. To ensure this they need plenty of space (as they indeed do in the Pacific).

The polynesian catamarans couldn't take nearly as much goods or soldiers as the Greek galleys.

Oars is not a bad thing either as you seem to suggest: in shallow waters with lots of skerries or islands it's necessary to be able to go in all directions in all times. Having a ship without oars in such waters would be really un-intelligent.

In any case it's quite pointless to discuss, since it's all again about apples and oranges; if I was to  cruise long distances in the Pacific I'd choose the catamaran, if I were to do battle or trade in the Aegean I'd choose the galley 7 days a week.


Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 02-Apr-2008 at 17:38
Originally posted by Styrbiorn


No, they didn't. They had ships more suitable for other tasks.
 
Yes, they did. They had ship more suitable for conquering the Pacific
Originally posted by Styrbiorn


The conclusions you have drawn are irrelevant, since they are based on modern pleasure cruisers. They have little to do with a comparison between ancient Mediterrenean galleys and polynesian ships.
 
Nice topic for a thesis.
Originally posted by Styrbiorn


Catamarans are more stable in the beam-direction, having no tendency to list. On the other hand they may pitchpole, which a monohull never do.

In heavy seas monohulls have a great advantage. Catamarans have to ensure the waves doesn't hit from the side to avoid capsizing. To ensure this they need plenty of space (as they indeed do in the Pacific).
 
Yes. I agree on that. Besides, cathamaran are faster, which mean sailors could get very far away from home with the same food.
 
Originally posted by Styrbiorn


The polynesian catamarans couldn't take nearly as much goods or soldiers as the Greek galleys.
 
A small cathamaran fleet could carry everything needed to conquer an island, including chickens, pigs and the tree of bread. They didn't need to carry Spartans from an island to the other in the Mediterranean
Originally posted by Styrbiorn


Oars is not a bad thing either as you seem to suggest: in shallow waters with lots of skerries or islands it's necessary to be able to go in all directions in all times. Having a ship without oars in such waters would be really un-intelligent.
 
You can't cross the Pacific in galleys. Nobody even tried it.
Originally posted by Styrbiorn


In any case it's quite pointless to discuss, since it's all again about apples and oranges; if I was to  cruise long distances in the Pacific I'd choose the catamaran, if I were to do battle or trade in the Aegean I'd choose the galley 7 days a week.
 
Well, I agree on that. But you have to understand Polynesians conquered the Pacific, not just the mediterranean like Greeks and Roman did. It is another scale of things. They happened almost at the same time, though.


-------------


Posted By: Styrbiorn
Date Posted: 02-Apr-2008 at 18:01
Originally posted by pinguin

 
Yes, they did. They had ship more suitable for conquering the Pacific

That doesn't mean they are overall better; it means they are more suitable.


Originally posted by Styrbiorn




Well, I agree on that. But you have to understand Polynesians conquered the Pacific, not just the mediterranean like Greeks and Roman did. It is another scale of things. They happened almost at the same time, though.

Indeed, the Romans had a much more difficult task.


Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 02-Apr-2008 at 19:09
Originally posted by Styrbiorn

That doesn't mean they are overall better; it means they are more suitable.
...
Indeed, the Romans had a much more difficult task.
 
I get what you mean.
 
My point was simply that the best sailors before the Age of Discovery were the polynesians.
I didn't say the most important army, the largest empire or the more advanced in technology and science were Polynesians at all, which we both know is not true.
 
However, the best sailors indeed were the polynesians, because we are talking about High Seas navigation. In the Mediterranean you can have very sofisticated ships to cross that small sea, but it is not the same that navigating in empty ocean during thousand of miles to reach a small island. To do the late job you has to be a superb HIGH SEAS NAVIGATOR, which weren't Phoenicians, Greeks or Romans.
 
Part of the advantage of Polynesians (and Austronesians in general) was having a better technology for HIGH SEAS NAVIGATION, and foundamental on that were the FAST cathamarans. If you want to cross an ocean without dying of hunger you need a fast ship.
 
Perhaps we should discuss the techniques of navigation to make the point clear.
 


-------------


Posted By: rider
Date Posted: 04-Apr-2008 at 15:24
You need a fast ship or a very large cargo hold.

-------------


Posted By: red clay
Date Posted: 04-Apr-2008 at 22:42
However, the best sailors indeed were the polynesians, because we are talking about High Seas navigation. In the Mediterranean you can have very sofisticated ships to cross that small sea, but it is not the same that navigating in empty ocean during thousand of miles to reach a small island. To do the late job you has to be a superb HIGH SEAS NAVIGATOR, which weren't Phoenicians, Greeks or Romans.
 
 
Oh, and you have proof of this, credible sources that can be referenced?
 
 
 


-------------
"Arguing with someone who hates you or your ideas, is like playing chess with a pigeon. No matter what move you make, your opponent will walk all over the board and scramble the pieces".
Unknown.


Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 05-Apr-2008 at 03:13
Originally posted by red clay

...
Oh, and you have proof of this, credible sources that can be referenced?
 
 
 
Do you mean I am not a credible source? ... LOL
 
Anyways. There are tons of documentation in the web and books that discuss the topic of Polynesian navigation. So far I haven't found a direct comparative analysis between Phoenician, Greeks or Roman ships and Polynesian, Javanese and other Austronesian navigators. My conclusions are just personal by comparing both technologies.
I invite other people to do the same. Compare what was available to Phonecians, for example, and what to Polynesians.
 
For instance, it is known that phoenicians sailed during the day... and took theirs boat of the sea at nigh ... That is possible to do in the Mediterranean following routes close to the coast. That's impossible to do in the Pacific, where an average trip took months from beginning to the end.
 
Some references to Polynesian navigation.
 
http://www.hawaiiantrading.com/herb-kane/ah-book/c4.html - http://www.hawaiiantrading.com/herb-kane/ah-book/c4.html
 
http://www.pbs.org/odyssey/voice/20001002_vos_transcript.html - http://www.pbs.org/odyssey/voice/20001002_vos_transcript.html
 
Techniques of navigation are shown in detail in here:
 
http://www.museum.upenn.edu/navigation/Intro.html - http://www.museum.upenn.edu/navigation/Intro.html
 
http://www.pbs.org/wayfinders/ - http://www.pbs.org/wayfinders/
 
The polynesian navigation society:
 
http://pvs.kcc.hawaii.edu/ - http://pvs.kcc.hawaii.edu/
 
And an interesting article
 
http://www.pbs.org/wayfinders/wayfinding.html - http://www.pbs.org/wayfinders/wayfinding.html
 
Wayfinders:
 
An%20Ancient%20Wayfinder
 
By Nainoa Thompson

The star compass is the basic mental construct for navigation. We have Hawai'ian names for the houses of the stars -- the place where they come out of the ocean and go back into the ocean. If you can identify the stars, and if you have memorized where they come up and go down, you can find your direction. The star path also reads the flight path of birds and the direction of waves. It does everything. It is a mental construct to help you memorize what you need to know to navigate.

You cannot look up at the stars and tell where you are. You only know where you are (in this kind of navigation) by memorizing where you sailed from. That means constant observation. You have to constantly remember your speed, your direction and time. You don't have a speedometer. You don't have a compass. You don't have a watch. It all has to be done in your head. It is easy -- in principle -- but it's hard to do.

The memorization process is very difficult. Consider that you have to remember those three things for a month - every time you change course, every time you slow down. This mental construct of the star compass, with its Hawai'ian names, is from my mentor, Mau Piailug. The genius of this construct is how they figured out to get in all this mental information and to compact it, and to come up with decisions based on it.

Tahiti is smaller than Maui, and it is a hard target to hit from 2,500 miles away. Even hitting a target as big as the Big Island is outside of the probability of our navigation. When we go down to Tahiti, we have this mental image of our course line for the trip. We tend to try to follow it, and if we follow it properly, we will end up in what I call a "box." In this box, there are many islands. In the Tuamotu archipelago, we cannot sail into there and not find an island. This box is four hundred miles wide. The first part of the journey to Tahiti is not trying to get to Tahiti, but to make sure that you hit this box. And then we have to identify the island that we hit, and once we do that, we know the direction to Tahiti. Or we can ask the people. Since these are coral atolls, it is very difficult to tell one from the other, so sometimes we ask the people, and hope they tell us the truth, and then from this shield of islands, Tahiti is only about 170-180 miles away. Then we can hit it -- even though it is just the size of Maui.

Now consider the return trip to Hawai'i back from the Marquesas. You are coming from the southeast to the northwest. The Hawai'ian islands are 315 miles wide, but approaching from the course you take from the Marquesas, you are approaching the islands from the skinny side. The trick that we use is that we sail toward Hawai'i, and use the stars to tell our latitude. We keep sailing upwind, and then we turn straight down west toward the Hawai'ian islands.

Sunrise%20at%20sea
At sunrise you start to look at the shape of the ocean. (Photo courtesy of the Polynesian Voyaging Society.)

Space

How do we tell direction? We use the best clues that we have. We use the sun when it is low down on the horizon. Mau has names for how wide the sun appears, and for the different colors of the sun path on the water. When the sun is low, the path is tight; when the sun is high, it gets wider and wider. When the sun gets too high, you cannot tell where it has risen. You have to use other clues.

Sunrise is the most important part of the day. At sunrise you start to look at the shape of the ocean -- the character of the sea. You memorize where the wind is coming from. The wind generates the waves. You analyze the character of the waves. When the sun gets too high, you steer by the waves. And then at sunset we repeat the pattern. The sun goes down; you look at the shape of the waves. Did the wind change? Did the swell pattern change? At night we use the stars. We use about 220 by name -- where they come up, where they go down. When I came back from my first voyage as a student navigator from Tahiti to Hawai'i, the night before he went home, Mau took me into his bedroom and said, "I am very proud of my student. You have done well for yourself and your people." He was very happy when he was going home. He said, "Everything you need to see is in the ocean, but it will take you 20 more years to see it." That was after I had just sailed 7,000 miles.

When it gets cloudy and you can't use the sun or the stars, all you can do is rely on the ocean waves. That's why Mau said to me, "If you can read the ocean you will never be lost." One of the problems is that when the sky gets black at night under heavy clouds, you cannot see the waves. You cannot even see the bow of the canoe. And that is where people like Mau are so skilled. He can be inside the hull of the canoe and just feel the different wave patterns as they come to the canoe, and he can tell the canoe's direction lying down inside the hull of the canoe. I can't do that. I think that's what he learned when he was a child with his grandfather.

The Southern Cross is really important to us. It looks like a kite. These two stars in the Southern Cross always point south (Gacrux on top and Acrux on the bottom). If you are traveling in a canoe and going south, these southern stars are going to appear to be rising higher and higher in the sky. If you went down to the South Pole, these stars are going to be way overhead. What happens if you are in Nuku Hiva, nine degrees south latitude, and you are going to go to Hawai'i? If you are going north to Hawai, the Southern Cross gets lower and lower. If you are in the latitude of Hawai'i, the distance from this star (Gacrux) to that bottom star (Acrux) is the same distance from that bottom star to the horizon. That only occurs in the latitude of Hawai'i. lf you are in Nuku Hiva and looking at the Southern Cross, the distance between the bottom star in the Southern Cross and the horizon is about nine times the distance between the two stars.

Space A%20low-lying%20atoll
A low-lying atoll can be difficult to spot from the sea. (Photo courtesy of the Polynesian Voyaging Society.)

Finding atolls that are very low is extremely difficult, but there are a lot of clues in the ocean to the presence of land. The wave patterns change when an island is near. The behavior of animals in the sea, such as dolphins, will change. Mau can read this. The main guides are sea birds. There are two general types of seabirds that Mau taught us about. The birds we use are the manu o ku (white tern) and noio (brown tern) with a long sharp black beak. These are birds that sleep on their island homes at night. At dawn they go out to sea, and come back at evening to sleep. They go about 130 miles out in the morning and come back at night. The Tuamotus are just filled with them. When we sail about 29 days down from Hawai'i and we see these birds for the first time, we know the islands are close even though we can't see them. This bird, when it is fishing, its wings flutter but when the sun goes down, it will rise up from the water so it can see, and it will go straight back to land. When we see these birds in the day, we keep track of them and wait for the sun to get low, and we watch the bird. The flight path of the bird is the bearing of the island. Then we turn on that bearing, sail as fast as we can, and at sunset we climb the mast to see if we can find the island. And if we can't see it, we heave to until the morning.

On my first voyage in 1980, we saw two birds after the 29th day, and I was extremely relieved. At least we were in the ballpark. I did everything that I was told to do, and the birds did everything I was told they would do. They went up high and they flew away, and we sailed in that direction. At night, we couldn't see the island so we took the sails down and we waited. The next morning, as Mau told us, we looked for the birds to see what direction they were coming from and that would be the direction of the island. In the morning, they go back out to the fishing ground, so the direction they are coming from is the direction to the island.

We had a great crew of 14, and we made a ring around the inside of the canoe before dawn. We waited for the first bird. All hands on deck. Not a single bird. I was in near trauma, my first voyage, early 20s. Mau was very calm and he didn't say anything. We waited and we waited. The canoe was just sitting dead in the water. It was facing south. One of the canoe members was in the back of the canoe and a bird flies right over his head. The night before that we saw the birds flying south, so how come late in the morning, with the sun very high, was this bird coming out of the north? That would suggest that we passed the island. The island was back to the north. In my -- I would say panic -- I thought we had better start sailing back in that direction to find the island before the sun goes down again. I asked the crew to turn the canoe around. The crew was very disciplined. They turned the canoe around -- and you have got to understand that now we are sailing back toward Hawai'i. And Mau, who has always said that his greatest honor would not be as a navigator but as a teacher -- that he would come and make sure that the voyage to Tahiti would be safe but if he didn't have to tell me anything the honor wolud be his. But when I started to sail north he came to me and said, "no." It was the first time that he interrupted the trip. He said, "Turn the canoe around and follow the bird." I was really puzzled. I didn't know why. He didn't tell me why. But we turned the canoe around and now we see other birds flying also. Mau said, "You wait one hour and you will find the island you are looking for."

Mau%20Piailug,%20Wayfinder
Mau Piailug, wayfinder.

Space

And about after that amount of time had passed by, Mau, who is about 20 years older than me -- my eyes are physically much more powerful than his -- he gets up on the rail of the canoe and says: "The island is right there." And we all stood up and we climbed the mast and everything and we just couldn't see it. Vision is not so much about what you do -- but how you do it. It's experience. Mau had seen in the beak of the bird a little fish. He knew that the birds were nesting, and they were taking food back before they fed themselves. He just did not tell me that in our training program.

We base our average sail time on average winds and conditions for 24 hours, but it never is. The majority of navigation is observation and adjusting to the natural environment. The more the weather gets up, the more the navigator needs to be awake, the less he can leave the crew on their own. We estimate that our navigators stay up between 21 and 22 hours a day. We sleep in a series of catnaps. Mau says the mind doesn't need much rest. But the physical body does. When the navigator is on the canoe, the crew does the physical work. When you are tired, you close your eyes. He always said that for him maybe his eyes were closed but inside here, inside your heart, you are always awake. And I have seen that. Outside here in Waikiki, training in 1979, when he was confident that I could steer by myself, he said, "Now I am going to go to sleep and you follow this star path." And like an overanxious student I wanted to try some different angles to feel what the wave patterns felt like and I thought that he wouldn't notice because he was sleeping inside the hulls. And the morning dawned, and he came up and said, "O.K., what did you sail last night? What star bearing did you hold?"

He knew that I had changed course. And when I told him, he challenged me to make sure that I knew where we went. He actually knew, lying in the hulls. Somehow, he has that ability.

 
 
 
 
 
 


-------------


Posted By: rider
Date Posted: 06-Apr-2008 at 09:56
Copying a bloc of text is quite easy Penguin.




-------------


Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 06-Apr-2008 at 13:04
Originally posted by rider

Copying a bloc of text is quite easy Penguin.
 
Copying a block of text is easy, indeed.
 
Selecting what to copy, it is not as easy, though.
 
And knowing about the topic, and also be ready to defend what was posted is less easy.
 
So, what you are concern about the text I copied and I pasted in here?
Perhaps we should go point by point checking about Polynesian navigation. Indeed, that was my intention in the first place.
 
 


-------------


Posted By: red clay
Date Posted: 06-Apr-2008 at 14:16
But where are the sources to support your statement that the Greeks, Romans and Phoenecians were incapable of doing the same?
 
 


-------------
"Arguing with someone who hates you or your ideas, is like playing chess with a pigeon. No matter what move you make, your opponent will walk all over the board and scramble the pieces".
Unknown.


Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 06-Apr-2008 at 14:45
Here there is information on Phoenicians
 
http://phoenicia.org/ships.html - http://phoenicia.org/ships.html
 
Some extract from there:
Phoenican ships
 
http://phoenicia.org/imgs/ships5.jpg">
 
Phoenician cargo ship
http://phoenicia.org/imgs/ships11.jpg">
 
As you can see, those ships were excelent to cross the Mediterranean and to stand pirate attacks, but were slow. You can't cross the Pacific in slow ships. With respect to the skill of navigation, by the time Polynesians were already practising high-seas navigation, Phoenicians were just learning the skills:
 
I quote:
 
Early navigation cautious, increasing boldness

The navigation of the Phoenicians, in early times, was no doubt cautious and timid. So far from venturing out of sight of land, they usually hugged the coast, ready at any moment, if the sea or sky threatened, to change their course and steer directly for the shore. On a shelving coast they were not at all afraid to run their ships aground, since, like the Greek vessels, they could be easily pulled up out of reach of the waves, and again pulled down and launched, when the storm was over and the sea calm once more. At first they sailed, we may be sure, only in the daytime, casting anchor at nightfall, or else dragging their ships up upon the beach, and so awaiting the dawn. But after a time they grew more bold. The sea became familiar to them, the positions of coasts and islands relatively one to another better known, the character of the seasons, the signs of unsettled or settled weather, the conduct to pursue in an emergency, better apprehended. They soon began to shape the course of their vessels from headland to headland, instead of always creeping along the shore, and it was not perhaps very long before they would venture out of sight of land, if their knowledge of the weather satisfied them that the wind might be trusted to continue steady, and if they were well assured of the direction of the land that they wished to make. They took courage, moreover, to sail in the night, no less than in the daytime, when the weather was clear, guiding themselves by the stars, and particularly by the Polar star,20 which they discovered to be the star most nearly marking the true north. A passage of Strabo21 seems to show that--in the later times at any rate--they had a method of calculating the rate of a ship's sailing, though what the method was is wholly unknown to us. It is probable that they early constructed charts and maps, which however they would keep secret through jealousy of their commercial rivals.

 
 
 
 
 


-------------


Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 06-Apr-2008 at 14:52
With respect to Greeks, you could visit a page like this
 
http://www.mlahanas.de/Greeks/Ships/Ships.htm - http://www.mlahanas.de/Greeks/Ships/Ships.htm
 
Where you will find these kind of vessels.
 
A Minoan ship
 
Homeric ships
 
Or a merchant ship
 
Other merchant ships
 
 
Just notice once again that ship have a single squared sail and are heavy, therefore slow. Not suitable for conquering the Pacific.
 
Polynesian ships have two sails that double as square and lateen. They have smaller resistence to water and are several times faster than any Phoenician or Greek sheep. Speed is the key to conquest the Pacific.
 
 
 
Modern models
 
 
A maori canoe,
 
 
 
What a lovely boats, Polynesian had. Fast and simple. That marked the difference.
 
 
 
 
 
 


-------------


Posted By: red clay
Date Posted: 06-Apr-2008 at 17:34
Nice research, except if you go to the bottom of the Phoenecian page you'll see that this is only one man's opinion.  That aside the information about the speed and durability of the Polynesian's ships is impressive, as is the information about their navigational prowess.  Considering all this, tell us again how it isn't possible that the Polynesians reached the Americas.
 
 


-------------
"Arguing with someone who hates you or your ideas, is like playing chess with a pigeon. No matter what move you make, your opponent will walk all over the board and scramble the pieces".
Unknown.


Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 07-Apr-2008 at 01:34
Originally posted by red clay

Nice research, except if you go to the bottom of the Phoenecian page you'll see that this is only one man's opinion.  That aside the information about the speed and durability of the Polynesian's ships is impressive, as is the information about their navigational prowess.  Considering all this, tell us again how it isn't possible that the Polynesians reached the Americas.
 
Well, I am afraid it is possible Polynesians had reached the Americas with theirs catamarans. The only problem with that is that the evidence is weak.
 
You know, Polynesians didn't only travel for fun. They carried a very impresive culture that included farm animals like pigs and chickens, and some vegetables like the tree of bread (from which they actually made their bread). Of them, only the chicken in the Araucania (Mapuche region in south-central Chile) it is -perhaps- the single evidence of Polynesian contact. Other evidence is the sweet potato, but specialists aren't sure if the spread happened before or after columbus. There are some other weak signs, like the curanto (cooking in stoned holes) and perhaps some designs of canoes in the people of the channels in Chiloe, Chile. However, no single cultural element, settlement, genetical traces or skeletons of Polynesians has been found so far in the Americas. I mention Chile often because is one of the more likely places for that contact.
 
If it ever happened, the more likely times of contact are between the 7th and 14th century A.D. for reasons that are too complicated to resume in a paragraph. But if happened, the contact was very sporadical and did affect the evolution of Amerindian societies.
 
 
 
 
 
 


-------------


Posted By: rider
Date Posted: 07-Apr-2008 at 18:37
Hmmh. The paragraph about Phoenicians only proved their remarkable progress in a relatively short time.

-------------


Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 07-Apr-2008 at 20:06

Originally posted by rider

Hmmh. The paragraph about Phoenicians only proved their remarkable progress in a relatively short time.

Rider, by the time Phoenicians were progressing in the art of navigating the Mediterranean sea, Austronesian people were already sailing long trips from Taiwan to South East Asia, getting ready to conquer Madagascar and the far away island of Hawaii, Tahiti, Easter and New Zealand.



-------------


Posted By: rider
Date Posted: 08-Apr-2008 at 16:59
Time is relative.

-------------


Posted By: Sander
Date Posted: 08-Apr-2008 at 17:12
Originally posted by pinguin

 
Well, I am afraid it is possible Polynesians had reached the Americas with theirs catamarans. The only problem with that is that the evidence is weak.
 
You know, Polynesians didn't only travel for fun. They carried a very impresive culture that included farm animals like pigs and chickens, and some vegetables like the tree of bread (from which they actually made their bread). Of them, only the chicken in the Araucania (Mapuche region in south-central Chile) it is -perhaps- the single evidence of Polynesian contact. Other evidence is the sweet potato, but specialists aren't sure if the spread happened before or after columbus. There are some other weak signs, like the curanto (cooking in stoned holes) and perhaps some designs of canoes in the people of the channels in Chiloe, Chile. However, no single cultural element, settlement, genetical traces or skeletons of Polynesians has been found so far in the Americas. I mention Chile often because is one of the more likely places for that contact.
 
 

Misrepresentation. Every reputable academic instution knows, for decades, that sweet potato cultivation is pre-columbian in the pacific.

In case some Hall of Maat stuff is brought up again: Its not a scholarly institution and the article itself is lousy , even by Hall of Maat standards . Some guy refers to Donald Brand, a scholar who suggested a post columbian spead. What he forgets to say is that Donald Brand not only represented a minorirty view in his own days ( the 1950 and 1960s ) but also suggested it 3 decades (!) before the archeological discoveries proved its pre colombian at many places in the pacific. No wonder the writer does not include the book and publishing date in his references . Very embarassing. LOL

The pre-colombian bones of the polynesian chicken - 50 bones of more than 5 chickens ( so not one) - in Chili ( El Arenal ) have provided solid scientific evidence of contact and is by many seen as conclusive proof. As we all know, Polynesians navigate but chickens dont. Scientific world could hardly have wished for better evidence . ( The study and results can be found easily on the net ).

'Arguments ' that pigs ( or other things ) are not in the americas make no sense. The pig did not make it to new zealand ( and some other settled islands) either and this was real settlement instead of only contact. More over, we concentrate on things that are introduced/exchanged , not on those that arent. Its about contact , not settling, so nobody expects massive acculturation or a genetic imprint.

 


Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 08-Apr-2008 at 17:35
Originally posted by Sander

Originally posted by Pinguin

Of them, only the chicken in the Araucania (Mapuche region in south-central Chile) it is -perhaps- the single evidence of Polynesian contact. Other evidence is the sweet potato, but specialists aren't sure if the spread happened before or after columbus.
 

Misrepresentation. Every reputable academic instution knows, for decades, that sweet potato cultivation is pre-columbian in the pacific.

The pre-colombian bones of the polynesian chicken - 50 bones of more than 5 chickens ( so not one) - in Chili ( El Arenal ) have provided solid scientific evidence of contact and is by many seen as conclusive proof. As we all know, Polynesians navigate but chickens dont. Scientific world could hardly have wished for better evidence . ( The study and results can be found easily on the net ).

'Arguments ' that pigs ( or other things ) are not in the americas make no sense. The pig did not make it to new zealand ( and some other settled islands) either and this was real settlement instead of only contact. More over, we concentrate on things that are introduced/exchanged , not on those that arent. Its about contact , not settling, so nobody expects massive acculturation or a genetic imprint.

 
 
Sanders, you know the "proofs" of contact are indirect. Yes, the chances are high it may happened, but the fact remain there is not arqueological remains of human manufacturing, of polynesian origin, in the Americas... so far. Chickens and sweet potatoes are indirect evidence, which is inconclusive if taken by itself. It is my oppinion, anyway.
 
By the way, feel free to cite "every reputable academic institution" that believes the sweet potato controversy is settled. It will be a very interesting novelty for me to find out the controversy died out. I also invite you to show me that all the academics agree the chicken's evidency is final.
 
By the way, the name of my country is Chile and not Chili, which is Mexican for Hot Pepper Wink


-------------


Posted By: DSMyers1
Date Posted: 08-Apr-2008 at 18:41
Excellent work, Pinguin!
 
The topic of early ocean travel is very interesting to me, though I have not studied very much on it.  From what I have seen, the Polynesians were far and away the best navigators of the ancient times.  However, I don't think it out of the question that Phoenicians or Romans could have crossed the Atlantic.  Since the target is so large, all it takes is a boat seaworthy of the crossing and someone dumb enough to head that direction.  If I remember correctly, they certainly had ships that could have made the crossing.  I don't know about the "dumb enough" part--it is possible that some could well have been certain enough of a round earth that they were willing to try it.  Apparently, however, the contact was insignificant.
 
A similar argument, based purely on logic, would say that Polynesians almost certainly landed in the Americas.  Hitting Easter Island is a very difficult target, and the first explorers likely wouldn't have known its existance (I don't know anything about how they would have figured out where land was from a great distance away).  If they were out to explore and were brave enough, they would likely have just kept on going (obviously, somebody went 1500km!).  At that point, making it back would have been hard, particularly if they were following the prevailing winds.
 
Has anyone discussed the trade winds of that region?


-------------


Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 09-Apr-2008 at 03:51
Originally posted by DSMyers1

Excellent work, Pinguin!
 
Thanks
 
Originally posted by DSMyers1

The topic of early ocean travel is very interesting to me, though I have not studied very much on it.  From what I have seen, the Polynesians were far and away the best navigators of the ancient times.  However, I don't think it out of the question that Phoenicians or Romans could have crossed the Atlantic.  Since the target is so large, all it takes is a boat seaworthy of the crossing and someone dumb enough to head that direction.  If I remember correctly, they certainly had ships that could have made the crossing.  I don't know about the "dumb enough" part--it is possible that some could well have been certain enough of a round earth that they were willing to try it.  Apparently, however, the contact was insignificant.
 
Well, although anything that float could made the trip, that doesn't mean necesarily that happened. There is no evidence whatsoever of Phoenicians comming to the Americas.... except in the Book of Mormon, of course Wink
 
 
Originally posted by DSMyers1

A similar argument, based purely on logic, would say that Polynesians almost certainly landed in the Americas.  Hitting Easter Island is a very difficult target, and the first explorers likely wouldn't have known its existance (I don't know anything about how they would have figured out where land was from a great distance away).  If they were out to explore and were brave enough, they would likely have just kept on going (obviously, somebody went 1500km!).  At that point, making it back would have been hard, particularly if they were following the prevailing winds.
 
Well, the trip from Easter Island to the West is not as easy as it seem. First they have to travel 3.800 km in straight line to reach the Americas, or at least 5.000 kilometers in practise. Now, Easter Island had a very narrow time window to do that, because after some centuries of living there, the Easter people extinguished the palm tree, from which boats were made. Between 8th AD and 12th AD it is possible they could have tried the trip to the Americas. It is not impossible, just that evidence is still in debate.
 
If not from Easter Island, the trip would have taken 7.000 kilometers more or less, which is a trip perhaps beyond what polynesians would do. I am not sure though.
 
 
Originally posted by DSMyers1

 
Has anyone discussed the trade winds of that region?
 
More important, perhaps, are the currents. They would had to travel south, very close to the pole, before reaching the Americas.
 
Now, with respect to travelling from Europe to the Americas, if you see the sea currents will notice that reaching Europe from North America is a lot easier than the other way around. Curiously enough, Europe (Ireland, Scandinavia) receive very often boats and floating trunks comming from the Americas. There are quite a bit of testimony of people arriving there as well, probably Inuits or even North American indians. That that could sound fantastic the first time you hear it, has a lot more support that the travel the other direction. In fact, even in the biography of Columbus is mentioned the visit of "Indians" to Ireland, witnessed by the admirald.
 
Reaching the americas from Africa at the equatorial latitud is also possible, but Africans didn't have ships and lacked the sail at the time the pseudoscientific claims of afrocentrist pretends.
 
In the end, the only verified contacts before Columbus so far are the migration of Inuits during the last two milenium to North America and then to Greenland, and the settlement of norse in New Foundland during the 10th century. All the rest, so far, is fantastic speculation.
 
 
 


-------------


Posted By: rider
Date Posted: 10-Apr-2008 at 16:07
To be honest, I've seen quite few works that have been believable and have spoken about the possibility of the trip that John Cabot did in 1497 - making him reaching the continental North America before others.

-------------


Posted By: Sander
Date Posted: 11-Apr-2008 at 13:55

Originally posted by Pinguin

 

Sanders, you know the "proofs" of contact are indirect. Yes, the chances are high it may happened, but the fact remain there is not arqueological remains of human manufacturing, of polynesian origin, in the Americas... so far. Chickens and sweet potatoes are indirect evidence, which is inconclusive if taken by itself. It is my oppinion, anyway.
  
 
Indeed , its very likely. Needles to say that good research rather concludes on basis of all the available data instead of what aint there.
 
And linguistics and - in many cases - archeaological evidence are direct evidence of contact between people.  Especially when they are separated by oceans and  transmission by man is the only attested process in specific cases. 
 
Originally posted by Pinguin

 
By the way, feel free to cite "every reputable academic institution" that believes the sweet potato controversy is settled. It will be a very interesting novelty for me to find out the controversy died out. I also invite you to show me that all the academics agree the chicken's evidency is final.
 
Well then, read some specialized academic papers instead of that Hall of Maat stuff ! Wink
 
Then you would also know that , for decades,  pre- contact kumara cultivation is generally agreed. Just as it is scientifically established to be pre european in the americas, so it is for the pacific. Both are hard to deny . See for example link to the PNAS article that next to the chicken research , mentions some studies about the pre-contact sweet potato.
 
Regarding the chicken. I mentioned conclusive and if you know what conclusive means in academic reseach , you will easily reckonize that the chicken evidence is presented in the article as conclusive evidence for contact. Hint: read the part under the heading conclusion 
 
That those researchers from the involved universities/instutions - not only American, Australian, New Zealand  but even Chilenean (Ramirez , Universidad  de Valparaiso) -regard it as conclusive aint surprising. Domesticated chickens that live on Polynesian islands in the middle of the open ocean dont leave them and cross 1000 miles of open water to a continent unless aided by humans.
 
...
Conclusion
 
This article presents well dated and securely provenienced evidence of a pre-Columbian chicken introduction to the Americas. We are not suggesting that the El Arenal-1 site represents the exact location of introduction or that the related date corresponds to the first or only introduction of chicken to South America. The date corresponds well with current archaeological evidence for the eastward expansion of the Polynesians. Most importantly, the current results demonstrate that chickens with a Polynesian genetic signature reached the south central coast of Chile before European contact with the Americas. Further analyses of additional samples from East Polynesia and South America may allow us to narrow down the source population and timing of introduction of chickens to the Americas. In addition, further archaeological research to examine possible points and timing of contact(s) along the coast and on the coastal islands of South America is clearly warranted.
 
http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/abstract/0703993104v2 - http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/abstract/0703993104v2
 
 


Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 12-Apr-2008 at 04:40
Originally posted by rider

To be honest, I've seen quite few works that have been believable and have spoken about the possibility of the trip that John Cabot did in 1497 - making him reaching the continental North America before others.
 
That's curious, Rider. I always knew Cabot was the first European to reach North America during the Age of Discovery. Of course, the absolutely first European to do that was the norse Leif Ericsson but, unfortunately for him, very few people knew about its achievements before the 19th century LOL, and he was forgotten by history already in the 15th century.


-------------


Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 12-Apr-2008 at 05:20
Originally posted by Sander

Well then, read some specialized academic papers instead of that Hall of Maat stuff ! Wink
 
Then you would also know that , for decades,  pre- contact kumara cultivation is generally agreed. Just as it is scientifically established to be pre european in the americas, so it is for the pacific. Both are hard to deny . See for example link to the PNAS article that next to the chicken research , mentions some studies about the pre-contact sweet potato.
 
Regarding the chicken. I mentioned conclusive and if you know what conclusive means in academic reseach , you will easily reckonize that the chicken evidence is presented in the article as conclusive evidence for contact. Hint: read the part under the heading conclusion 
 
That those researchers from the involved universities/instutions - not only American, Australian, New Zealand  but even Chilenean (Ramirez , Universidad  de Valparaiso) -regard it as conclusive aint surprising. Domesticated chickens that live on Polynesian islands in the middle of the open ocean dont leave them and cross 1000 miles of open water to a continent unless aided by humans.
 
...
Conclusion
 
This article presents well dated and securely provenienced evidence of a pre-Columbian chicken introduction to the Americas. We are not suggesting that the El Arenal-1 site represents the exact location of introduction or that the related date corresponds to the first or only introduction of chicken to South America. The date corresponds well with current archaeological evidence for the eastward expansion of the Polynesians. Most importantly, the current results demonstrate that chickens with a Polynesian genetic signature reached the south central coast of Chile before European contact with the Americas. Further analyses of additional samples from East Polynesia and South America may allow us to narrow down the source population and timing of introduction of chickens to the Americas. In addition, further archaeological research to examine possible points and timing of contact(s) along the coast and on the coastal islands of South America is clearly warranted.
 
http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/abstract/0703993104v2 - http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/abstract/0703993104v2
 
 
 
Quite interesting, indeed. The likelihood of a pre-columbian Polynesian origin for the Araucana chicken is very high, according to that research. However, does it proves that Polynesian visited the Americas, directly? I would say, no.
 
The problem is the following. Of course chickens don't fly so they can't cross an ocean so vast like the Pacific by its own means LOL. They have to reached the Americas in a floating platform with food to survive. For that, though, it is not necesary that humans accompanied them.
 
Sound weird? Nope.
 
Although Polynesians were very skillful, they lost many expeditions and theirs legend record people that went into exploring the ocean and that never returned. Many of those expeditions ended in tragedy. It is very likely one of those boats lost its tripulation and survived with some chicken at sea during a month or so, reaching the Americas. Or it is also very likely Polynesians reached the Americas and were killed on site. Which was what the Mapuches usually did with foreign sailors up to recent times Wink. In both cases, the boats served to carried the chickens but the sailors didn't survive the journey.
 
That's why I ask for archaeological and other evidences to corraborate a contact that, by your evidence shown above, it is very likely to happens.
 
By the way, I got the suspiction that contact really happened, because certain cultural patterns I have already mentioned. However, while there is not a Polynesian site or archeological remains of Polynesian presence in the Americas, the proof would continue to be weak.
 
By the way, this is the famous Araucanian (Mapuche) Chicken, which lacks a "tail" and that put blue eggs. Very weird, indeed
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 


-------------


Posted By: rider
Date Posted: 14-Apr-2008 at 17:11
And you just proved my statement? What's so funny in that...?

-------------


Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 15-Apr-2008 at 01:46
Originally posted by rider

And you just proved my statement? What's so funny in that...?
 
Well, for me it is funny the comparison between Leif Ericsson and Christopher Columbus. First, because the epic of Ericsson was just crossing from Greenland to Labrador in a very boring trip. In fact, in clear days it is possible to see the Americas from Greenland, so there wasn't anything extraordinary in that trip. Perhaps more important that Ericsson landing it was Eric the Red reaching Greenland. That was really an interesting trip, just considering the distance it separates Greenland from Iceland.... Well, not that much, but in those times that distance could have been considered huge.
 
Anyways, even more funny is that nor Ericsson or Columbus had any idea of what they were doing LOL. The first guy that realized a New World was there at the West it was Americo Vespucci, and that's way the Western Hemisphere carries his name.
 
 
 
 


-------------


Posted By: Sander
Date Posted: 15-Apr-2008 at 03:35
 
Originally posted by Pinguin

 
Quite interesting, indeed. The likelihood of a pre-columbian Polynesian origin for the Araucana chicken is very high, according to that research. However, does it proves that Polynesian visited the Americas, directly? I would say, no.
 
The problem is the following. Of course chickens don't fly so they can't cross an ocean so vast like the Pacific by its own means LOL. They have to reached the Americas in a floating platform with food to survive. For that, though, it is not necesary that humans accompanied them.
 
Sound weird? Nope.
 
 
Weird ? Dont be modest , Its priceless.  Behold , the surfing chicken doing 1000 's miles ! LOL
Pinguin,  go to the open sea , throw a plank or treetrunk in it. You see the sea moving ? the waves ? Do you see the plank making circles, going up and down ? You see the water going over it?  Now, throw a chicken on it . How many minutes we give it? Whoops ! a high wave , splash ! See it floating for some time. too bad, the feathers aint waterproof. What a waste of a good chicken. Cry
 
We concentrate on  the attested processes,  human mediated transmission. 
 
Originally posted by Pinguin

 
Many of those expeditions ended in tragedy. It is very likely one of those boats lost its tripulation and survived with some chicken at sea during a month or so, reaching the Americas. ..
 
 
Not likely at all. Without Polynesians on it , its at the sea bottom pretty soon. Polynesian vessels were seaworthy for very long distances but only as long as Polynesian took care of it. Bailing from the crew is needed , because of leaking and water going over the freeboard.
 
"We know that the former big voyaging canoes did leak at the seams and required bailing as indeed all seagoing canoes do today.  But this fact reflects the difficulty of obtaining watertight joinings betweens planks of flexible vessels and is not related to structural strenght. " ( Lewis 1975 :79 )
 
Therefore, Pinguin.  It would appreciated if you refer to relevant studies when you assert something . Thanx  

Lewis , David, We, The Navigators: The Ancient Art of Landfinding in the Pacific, University of Hawaii Press, Honolulu, 1975.

 Star
 
Indeed, the cultural and linguistic connection between the Polynesians and Mapuche is discussed in several papers. It seems that the researchers of University Berkely California and Universidad de Valparairosa, involved in several reseach projects on the polynesian -america contact have pretty much accepted precolumbian arrival of Polynesians and exchanging in some fields. Research is concentrating on the extent of the mutual influences and narrowing down the time of arrival(s). More of this later.
 


Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 15-Apr-2008 at 03:42
Originally posted by Sander

.... 
 Indeed, the cultural and linguistic connection between the Polynesians and Mapuche is discussed in several papers. It seems that the researchers of University Berkely California and Universidad de Valparairosa, involved in several reseach projects on the polynesian -america contact have pretty much accepted precolumbian arrival of Polynesians and exchanging in some fields. Research is concentrating on the extent of the mutual influences and narrowing down the time of arrival(s). More of this later.
 
 
"Valparairosa". Do you mean Valparaiso? Confused
 
Polynesian similar to Mapudungun? That's weird. I woud never have imagined a connection. Is like comparing Spanish with Korean. In fact I could never confuse "Iorana" with "Mari Mari". I know a little bit of both, given that they are languages of the original peoples of my country.
 
Some researchers are pretty wild, indeed. I still can recall the time when Thor Heyyerdhal was a "prestigious" anthropologist; unlike today when he is seen as a clown LOL
 
 
 
 


-------------


Posted By: Sander
Date Posted: 15-Apr-2008 at 04:27
Originally posted by pinguin

Originally posted by Sander

.... 
 Indeed, the cultural and linguistic connection between the Polynesians and Mapuche is discussed in several papers. It seems that the researchers of University Berkely California and Universidad de Valparairosa, involved in several reseach projects on the polynesian -america contact have pretty much accepted precolumbian arrival of Polynesians and exchanging in some fields. Research is concentrating on the extent of the mutual influences and narrowing down the time of arrival(s). More of this later.
 
 
"Valparairosa". Do you mean Valparaiso? Confused
 
Polynesian similar to Mapudungun? That's weird. I woud never have imagined a connection. Is like comparing Spanish with Korean. In fact I could never confuse "Iorana" with "Mari Mari". I know a little bit of both, given that they are languages of the original peoples of my country.
 
Some researchers are pretty wild, indeed. I still can recall the time when Thor Heyyerdhal was a "prestigious" anthropologist; unlike today when he is seen as a clown LOL
  
 
Connection aint the same  as  affiliation/common origin of  the languages.Wink   That aint the case. What they mean is a linguistic connection regarding some loanwords.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 


Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 15-Apr-2008 at 05:27
Well, linguistic pseudoscience of matchings is the more common hoax in pseudo-history. Clowns of all caliber use pattern matching in linguistic to prove that the first Chineses were Black and that the Greek is related with Indonesian.
 
I learn that in the Hall of Maat LOL


-------------


Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 20-Apr-2008 at 04:41
 
Maui man takes canoe navigation high-tech
 

A Maui man who worked on the groundbreaking computer-generated film "Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within" is using the same cutting-edge technology to preserve and spread knowledge of two ancient Hawaiian traditions.

Ronald Perry, proprietor of Pacific Archiving of Napili, hopes to launch interactive Polynesian navigation simulation software in June and has a longer-term project to archive hula performances using motion-capture technology — the technique employed to create lifelike characters in "Final Fantasy," which was released last year.

Perry, 34, worked as technical director/set designer for the $135 million film's Motion Capture Department and was also technical director of the acclaimed 'Ulalena stage show in Lahaina until October. He is probably better known for using computers to design award-winning sets, sound, lights and special effects for Honolulu theater productions.

The Punahou alumnus said a lifelong love of sailing and appreciation for the feats of Polynesian seafarers inspired him to tackle the navigation simulation project, meant for education and entertainment.

The simulation will allow users to travel in a traditional double-hulled voyaging canoe among 300 Pacific islands using celestial markers and other indicators, such as driftwood and seabirds. Perry said users don't need to be familiar with astronomy or ocean currents to play.

Users start by choosing a location from a clickable map, coordinates, or random placement within Oceania. Navigators are given no additional information and are left to explore by their own devices.

The primary screen is an interactive 3-D view from the canoe deck. The user is restricted to the vessel, but the canoe can sail and steer in any direction, except into the wind. Stars in the sky can be highlighted, connected or named for use as personal indicators.

As the voyage progresses, navigators must react to storms, cloudy nights when the stars are not visible, and other weather and ocean conditions.

Perry said he is still refining the project but plans to have the simulation ready for sale as a CD-ROM or downloadable from his Web site by summer.

The Polynesian navigation software is targeted at upper elementary school ages and older.

While finishing work on the simulation, Pacific Archiving's chief business remains virtual tours of vacation rentals, luxury real-estate properties and other projects, such as a virtual tour of the Maui Arts & Cultural Center's Castle Theater and a computer model of a newly designed foot strap for windsurfing.

Perry is also making arrangements to acquire a portable motion-capture system that will allow him to visit different hula halau and record dance movements. Using markers placed on different parts of the human body and multiple cameras, motion-capture photography records sequences of movement and generates three-dimensional information.

The computer archive of hula performances could be used for instruction and to preserve the unique styles of prominent kumu hula, Perry said. Users who access the archive for a fee would be able to control the animation and manipulate the camera controls to study the performance from any point of view.

Perry said he has received an enthusiastic response from the kumu hula about the project.

O'ahu kumu hula John Keola Lake, who is working with Bishop Museum on a special hula exhibit to open early next year, said that, generally, he sees nothing wrong with mixing ancient art and modern technology.

"With the technology we have today, we've got to move with it and use it. As long as it doesn't offend anyone and it preserves the integrity, that's great," he said.

More information on Perry's work is http://www.pacificarchiving.com/ - on the Web .

Reach Christie Wilson at mailto:cwilson@honoluluadvertiser.com - cwilson@honoluluadvertiser.com or (808)244-4880.



-------------



Print Page | Close Window

Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 9.56a - http://www.webwizforums.com
Copyright ©2001-2009 Web Wiz - http://www.webwizguide.com