you guys should prove my criticism wrong instead of accusing me of being on a smear-campaign. The only response I've gotten this far from Acharya's supporters misquoted its source - Robert Tulip using proof of settlement of the Solomon Islands (just about 150 miles or so from the Bismarck archipelago) as proof that the Polynesian expansion was way earlier than the scholarly consensus thinks.
My comment Miekko refers to is above in this thread. People can read it and see Seirios/Miekko is coming here with an obviously hostile and ignorant agenda, quite stupidly misrepresenting my response and give the impression of inability to read what I actually said or to admit mistakes. This leaves Miekko looking like a goose.
Robert Tulip wrote:
[Miekko said "The first error to leap out of the text is that ... Pacific voyages have been estimated to have begun at least 30,000 years ago."] http://arf.berkeley.edu/projects/oal/ba ... slands.htm
states "Early Human Settlement of Near Oceania
The oldest known occupation sites are radiocarbon dated to ca. 36,000 years ago (the late Pleistocene), on the large island of New Guinea and in the adjacent Bismarck Archipelago [and] ... would have required open ocean transport, suggesting the presence of some form of watercraft." Now you may say Acharya was talking about Polynesia, but this quote on the settlement of New Britain and Bougainville can reasonably be considered the beginning of the long Pacific voyages.
I point out that the long Pacific sea journeys began more than 30,000 years ago with the sea crossings to the Solomon Islands/Bougainville. Miekko is right that Bougainville is not in Polynesia, but it is correct to see these Pacific voyages as the precursors of the later Polynesian voyages, which was my point. Miekko's inability to read continues with the claim I allege this is "proof that the Polynesian expansion was way earlier." I did not allege Polynesia was itself settled 30,000 years ago. Nor did Acharya, who was talking about long Pacific voyages by Polynesians before they got to Polynesia. 150km by sea is a long way, although not as long as the later Polynesian voyages. Indeed, it was the ancestors of the Polynesians who made the long sea voyages in Melanesia 30,000 years ago.
ancient mariners who journeyed thousands of miles through the open seas, such as the Polynesians, whose long, Pacific voyages have been estimated to have begun at least 30,000 years ago.
Long Pacific voyages did indeed begin at least 30,000 years ago, if not the final voyages to what is now classed as Polynesia. It is actually not relevant that the long Pacific voyages of the Pleistocene, going well over the horizon, were by Pacific Islanders in Melanesia. Miekko's abusive comment rests on the flimsy and tendentious assertion that a sea journey by primitive people of 150 km is not a long way. Try it yourself in a canoe with no map.
Miekko uses an incorrect source who states "There are signs that the settlement of the islands of the Pacific began as early as 1500 BC" which as I showed is blatantly wrong in ignoring the settlement of the Solomon Islands 30,000 years ago. Miekko wrongly state "Papua New Guina [sic] [settlement did not]... require any considerable open-sea navigation" and "Acharya's estimate [is] one order of magnitude greater than that which scholars seem to agree on." I showed these statements were false, since Bougainville is still part of PNG, but I am still waiting for a retraction and apology. Instead we got a feeble further attempt at misrepresentation.
In fact the Polynesians travelled early from Melanesia, where they had arrived via long sea voyages in the Pleistocene. So great point Miekko, it wasn't the Polynesians who travelled across the sea 30,000 years ago, it was their ancestors.
See an informative discussion at http://the.honoluluadvertiser.com/artic ... 00356.html
with the following map:
This map shows a reconstruction of Polynesian expansion from Melanesia, in an article citing a number of leading Pacific archaeologists. Your depiction of this claim as "pseudoscience" is just wrapping your malevolence in a shameful gotcha effort to misrepresent a statement that is factually correct. You should apologise to Acharya and to me and retract your incorrect smear of her scholarship.
But wait, there's more. Miekko's response
on my comment about Sicily is very lame. Miekko says the Atlas of the Classical World "says the Island of the Sun was Sicily, but not that Sicily per se "means" the island of the Sun. There is a rather important difference there." This semantic irrelevance is elevated by Miekko into a completely false and insulting blog title "A Case Study of Pseudoscience". More a case study of ignorant slander by Miekko, who has not retracted the false statement "there doesn't really exist any reason to posit that [Sicily] means anything along the lines of "sun"." No reason except that the 1959 Atlas of the Classical World says so. Until people admit blatant errors no one here is likely to start to have any respect for them. Acharya welcomes constructive engagement, but not misrepresentation and stupidity.