 | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
|
I'm real interested in Pacific Island archaeology. Now, I believe straightforward that Easter Island was just Polynesian (no aliens, no Inca.) But question: how would a people develop writing (the rongo rongo) where all of their similar cultures didn't? Also, how, according to the theory that they took writing from the Spanish, could they take this new, abstract concept and apply it to make their own writing, one more complicated and unique from anything else in the world? Also, theories on how the sweet potato got to Polynesia (not involving Heyerdahl, though I greatly respect him and admire him, or aliens)? |
|
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |  | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| Subject: | | Re: Rongo Rongo |
| From: | |
Onza
|
posted
Sun, Jan 23 2005, 11:45pm
|
The question of Easter Islanders' development of writing shouldn't actually be "how," it should be "why." Writing is generally only used by large civilizations with central governments that need a means of record keeping.
Rongo Rongo is unusual and may have been experimental. I forgot the name of the guy who allegedly cracked the code, but after reading his translation and claims associated with it, I think he was using a lot of guesswork and imagination.
I don't know about the sweet potato, but I won't rule out the possibility of ancient contact with South America. I know you didn't want a Thor Hyerdahl answer, but that's the best one i can think of, and it's nothing like the aliens theory. |
|
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |  | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| Subject: | | Re: Rongo Rongo |
| From: | |
dorje
|
posted
Tue, Jan 25 2005, 6:32pm
|
I disagree. The only prerequisite that I can see for writing is the need to record records to prevent disputes. A large civilization with a central government does not increase people intelligence or adaptability. Lets look at the situaltion. There was a culture using limited resources and it appears that they had a growing population. Do you think that they might have argued over those resources? Answer. Of course. So, if people came to an agreemont over the use of whatever, how do they hold each other to it? They write it down. If they don't have writing and they need it, they'll invent it. Writing was not invented not primarily for government record keeping. it was invented primarily for recording contracts.
Dorje |
|
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| Subject: | | Re: Rongo Rongo |
| From: | |
Onza
|
posted
Tue, Jan 25 2005, 9:03pm
|
I never meant to make it sound like people in a large civilization with central government are more intelligent than people in other societies; I did not even think of writing as a measure of intelligence. All humans are equally intelligent. (Smartness on the other hand, will vary.) The notion that writing and other characteristics generally attributed to large civilizations are a mark of superior intellect is a gross fallacy that has been used to justify the mistratment of people around the world.
You are right about writing being required for record keeping. Indeed necessity is (generally) the mother of invention. But usually the societies that have required such record keeping were fairly large with a complex economy centered around a state or semi-state government. Not because of intelligence, but because of greater necessity. Rongo Rongo is the only case that I can think of offhand in which a complete bona fide writing system (if it truly is that) was used by a smaller-scale society. Obviously it is possible because it happened, but it is not very common in the historical record. |
|
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| Subject: | | Re: Rongo Rongo |
| From: | |
dorje
|
posted
Mon, Jan 31 2005, 4:51pm
|
You're right on most points here, just not in considering Rongo Rongo surprising. OK, as far as writing origins though, lets go to Tornbe. Civilization as a whole are a result of challenge and response. This can not be predicted, because, though civilizations or cultures may face a challenge, the response is always the result of the ideas, actions, and thinking of individuals. Writing is a similar response in different cultures to various challenges and, now that i think about it, my previous post wasn't quite right either. China throws everything off. In China, the challenge was not the need for recordkeeping, but the need to predict the future. It would appear from what we have found that chinese ideograms began as an oracular activity that then expanded into other areas. In Mesepotamia, on the other hand, writing began as a purely economic record keeping activity and then was picked up by religious and civil authorities. But the only prerequisite to writing in either of these cultures was a need/challenge and an individual or group of individuals who come up with the idea of drawing symbols for either sounds or concepts/objects. Not all cultures, faced with the name challenge come up with writing. The celts instead developed a class with highly developed techniques of memorization, though they did use writing, especially for monuments. Its likely that writing was borrowed into celtic culture though and that there own response to the challenge/need for some kind of record keeping was not the development of writing. On Easter Island, the need to control resources was a severe challenge, someone, as had happened in other cultures, responded to by creating a writing system. Sometimes we get tempted to think of the study of history, civililizations, and cultures as a science where if certain conditions are met, then certain things happen. It just doesn't work that way. Individuals are way to unpredictable.
Dorje |
|
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |  | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| Subject: | | Re: Rongo Rongo |
| From: | |
Nobody
|
posted
Mon, Jan 24 2005, 1:50pm
|
|
Is Rongo Rongo, a pictographical writing system? If it is, it's sorta like reading a totem pole? |
|
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
|
Rongo rongo is a hieroglyphic symbol writing of about 350 different symbols which has been impossible to decode. It's read right to left than flip the tablet upside down and read left to right and so on. I agree with Onza, the guy who "translated" it was just guessing. Good point about central government. It really is strange. Perhaps they simply had foresight to protect their ideas through writing. Could Polynesians, better seafarers than Inca, have gone to South America and gotten sweet potato? |
|
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| Subject: | | Re: Rongo Rongo |
| From: | |
Matt Deres
|
posted
Mon, Jan 24 2005, 8:58pm
|
Could Polynesians, better seafarers than Inca, have gone to South America and gotten sweet potato?
That's where I'd put my money. In terms of seafaring ability, it's easy to underestimate the polynesian and melanesian people, but a glance at the globe and the expanses they're *known* to have covered gives us a clue.
Did they reach South America? I don't see why not - exploring the Pacific is what they *did*.
There are all kinds of bizarre pre-Columbian contacts between various cultures that should never have known about one another, but for which some evidence exists: Japanese in Central America, for one.
Matt |
|
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
|
I've heard of the Chinese in Mexico, too. I agree people underestimate the Polynesians (ex. Hyerdahl overlooking Polynesians as the voyagers to Easter Island.) |
|
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| Subject: | | Re: Rongo Rongo |
| From: | |
enigma
|
posted
Tue, Jan 25 2005, 4:51pm
|
|
why is it so hard for people to consider unorthodox ideas/theories when it comes to ancient architecture/civilization? heyerdahl's theory is as good as any, i would go as far as to say its almost obvious that the easter islanders had contact with, or originated from, other cultures around the world. |
|
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| Subject: | | Re: Rongo Rongo |
| From: | |
Onza
|
posted
Fri, Jan 28 2005, 2:05pm
|
Good point, I mean, how else would they have gotten to the island to begin with?
No... islanders are too primitive and dumb to build boats. They must have come from outer space! |
|
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| Subject: | | Re: Rongo Rongo |
| From: | |
clawfish
|
posted
Sat, Jan 29 2005, 11:01am
|
|
Hyerdahl's theory that South Ameicans went to the islands was based on prevailing currents-not on a "dissing" of polyniesians. His first observation was how difficult it would of been to get to the island moving east and how easy it would have been sailing west. Also it should be noted that when Thor proposed his theory that NO ancient people were being given credit for sailing any farther than they could see land and that NO culture had technology to cross oceans. His primary theory was that there was alot lot more traveling going on than was accepted. The prevailing theory for pacific exploration at the time was peopling the pacific took thousands of years and was based on small groups getting swept to sea and then accidently bumping into islands so Hyerdahl deserves credit not thumping 40 to 50 years after the fact. |
|
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| Subject: | | Re: Rongo Rongo |
| From: | |
Gilgamesh
|
posted
Thu, Feb 3 2005, 2:02pm
|
> Could Polynesians, better seafarers than Inca, have gone to South
> America and gotten sweet potato?
It wouldn't be suprising. As you put it, the Polynesians were superb sea-farers. The Inka never really experimented with oceanic travel (as far as I am aware anyway). Thats why the Polynesians spread from Hawaii and Rapa Nui in the east to New Zealand in the west; and pretty much every little island in between too. Fiji, Tonga, Samoa, the Marquesas, etc.
Until recently, the Malayo-Polynesian language family was the most widespread in the world, stretching from Madagascar and the Indian Ocean to Malaysia, Indonesia, the Philippines, most of SE Asia in fact, and all those little islands like New Zealand, Hawaii, Tahiti, etc. Thats a pretty impressive feat. |
|
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
|
