I came across this, which has a number of comments on post-contact
influences between the NW coast and Hawaii:

http://www.alaskool.org/projects/traditionalife/monumentsincedar/MIC.html

In sci.archaeology benlizross <benlizro@ihug.co.nz> wrote:
: Yuri Kuchinsky wrote:
:
:> In sci.archaeology benlizross <benlizro@ihug.co.nz> wrote:
:
:> : Yuri Kuchinsky wrote:
:> :
:> :> Greetings, all,
:> :
:> :> Recently I've been searching the Net for some totem poles from Hawaii,
:> :> and from the Canadian Pacific coast. And I've been able to find quite
:> :> a few!
:
:> : Good work, Yuri, I'm sure this has been very educational for you.
:
:> And I hope for some others too...
:
:> :> These comparisons will probably impress only those who have no prior
:> :> bias against these sorts of cultural connections. Those who are
:> :> inclined to deny them will probably keep on rejecting such evidence.
:> :> But of course such evidence must be taken in conjunction with much
:> :> other evidence to the same effect, as outlined, for example, in the
:> :> above site by Marsh...
:
:> : Yes, of course it is as you suggest. Except I would word it a little
:> : differently: Those who have no prior bias in favor of these sorts of
:> : cultural connections will not be greatly impressed by the comparison.
:> : Whereas those who are inclined to assert them will see this as striking
:> : evidence.
:
:> Actually, the striking evidence is here,
:
:> http://groups.google.com/groups?oi=djq&selm=an_432662444

: Huh? The striking evidence is in a post of yours from four years ago? So
: what are we wasting our time with pictures of Hawaii for?

Nobody is asking you to waste any of your precious time... Don't like the
subject, just skip it.

: Actually, the post consists of Yuri referring to a book by somebody who
: attempts to show a relation between NW coast art styles and NZ Maori art
: styles. I know you have trouble concentrating one one thing at a time,
: Yuri, but that is not what the present discussion is about.

Many people have noted the similarity between the Maoris and the native
Hawaiians. I guess you missed all that. Another gap in your education...

:> :> "Welcome Figure" at K'we (Mt. Stephens)
:> :> http://collections.ic.gc.ca/totems/exhibit/kwak/kwintro.htm
:> :> This is an old Kwakiutl totem. A deity with a large animal-like head
:> :> -- similar to some Hawaiian figures. This woodcut by Walter Phillips
:> :> is the only record of this figure that we have.
:
:> : I can't comment on every image or every comment, of course. But it is
:> : worth noting that, whereas representations of birds and animals
:> : proliferate everywhere on NW totem poles, they are conspicuously absent
:> : in what you see as the Hawaiian equivalent.
:
:> The dissimilarities are not very relevant in the present context.

: As just illustrated above, your notion of "relevance" is very peculiar.
: Here, of course, it means no more than "I don't want to know that."

How are dissimilarities relevant in the present context?

:> :> http://collections.ic.gc.ca/totems/exhibit/haida/skid/pn_htm/05550.htm
:> :> This Canadian totem has similar mouth and eyes, compared to the
:> :> Hawaiian totems. Compare the following Hawaiian totem,
:> :
:> :> http://www.reefboiproductions.com/Scenes/Scenes5/1480_v.jpg
:> :> Totem Pole at Foster Gardens, O`ahu
:
:> : Now be careful here, Yuri. This actually does look like a NW Coast totem
:> : pole. This image is probably a general picture of the same thing:
:
:> :> http://community.webshots.com/photo/15677290/15817470yFNqgfDVAO
:
:> That's a good one! Thanks, Ross. Yes, it's the same totem pole.
:
:> : In looking around at other pictures from the same Botanical Garden, I
:> : noticed a stone image of the Buddha, which I am pretty sure is not an
:> : indigenous Hawaiian artefact. In fact, I would go so far as to bet you
:> : that this is either a real NW coast totem or a pretty good imitation,
:> : used as an exotic garden ornament.
:
:> My bet is that this is a Hawaiian production. But this is obviously a
:> modern production, that includes some modern elements.
:
:> The only question here is to what extent this modern production is based
:> on some traditional Hawaiian proto-types, if any.

: "Proto-types" which, for some reason, you have not been able to find any
: other pictures of.

Doesn't mean they don't exist.

: Face it, Yuri, this object not only looks quite
: different from any of the other Hawaiian images you have pictures of,

Not quite.

: but unlike those, there is no reason to think it is of local
: provenience, apart from the fact that it is located in Hawaii.

You want to bet?

: Will you
: apply the same logic to the Buddha? Could he be based on some lost
: Hawaiian "prototype"?

The Buddha is not very relevant in the present context.

:> : If you're not inclined to believe me,
:> : perhaps you could email the people at the gardens and ask them.
:
:> Maybe I will. But I'm already pretty sure what this pole is.
:
:> :> HAWAII TOTEMS
:
:> : Now here's another thing I guess you've learned. And this is why, when
:> : you talked about "Hawaiian totem poles", it did not immediately bring an
:> : image to mind for me. Because although the word "totem" is liberally
:> : used by you below in reference to these Hawaiian carvings, you only
:> : found one tourist site that actually uses the word. (Apart from the
:> : exotic object in the Botanical Gardens just discussed.)
:
:> I don't really care how to call them... whatever you call them, they are
:> still the same.
:
: So you admit that your use of the terms is not normal, and is adopted
: just to enhance the illusion that these things are "the same"?

No.

:> :> http://users.imag.net/~sry.jkramer/nativetotems/images/FT5)newzealand.jpg
:> :> Simple Maori totem. Traditional Hawaiian and Canadian totems are quite
:> :> similar.
:
:> : Well, this link didn't work for me,
:
:> Try cuting and pasting the link into your browser. The link is valid. I
:> think it's the bracket in the URL ")" that created a problem.

: OK, this is from the same site that Doug pointed us to. I hope you noted
: the accompanying note on the dubious use of the term "totem" for these
: Polynesian carvings.

I'm not interested in arguing about words.

:> : but I can now guess what you are
:> : going to mean by "totem". And again, nobody actually calls them
:> : "totems", either in NZ or Hawaii, except you and possibly the odd
:> : over-excited tour guide. Just as nobody calls NW coast carvings "tikis",
:> : except you.
:
:> Google search on the keywords,
:
:> Hawaii totem
:
:> produces 17,200 hits.

: Now Yuri, even you know this sort of Google figure means nothing. In
: fact you can get 33 hits by searching "Kuchinsky idiot". Do you suppose
: that could mean something?

What does it mean?

:> :> The following are recent commercially produced images, that may be
:> :> based on some old prototypes,
:> :
:> :> http://www.planetware.com/photos/US/HIO208.HTM
:> :> Carved tikis for sale in Paradise Cove, Oahu.
:
:> : I think we'll just charitably overlook this one, Yuri. Let's say you
:> : were tired. You don't really think airport art belongs in a serious
:> : comparison like this, do you? No, I didn't think so.
:
:> You missed some evident similarities between this "airport art" and the
:> Botanical Gardens totem that you've yourself posted.

: And why would you think there would be any significance in such
: similarities?

There's some significance in all similarities.

:> The only question here is to what extent, if at all, this modern "airport
:> art" is based on some traditional Hawaiian designs.

: A question to which you provide no answer. If it is so based, then we
: can look at the traditional Hawaiian designs, and we don't need to waste
: our time at the airport souvenir shop. This is ridiculous and you know
: it.

No it's not.

:> :> Comparative studies of primitive art have probably been
:> :> jeopardized by the zeal of investigators of cultural contacts and
:> :> borrowings. But let us state in no uncertain terms that these
:> :> studies have been jeopardized even more by intellectual pharisees
:> :> who prefer to deny obvious relationships because science does not
:> :> yet provide an adequate method for their interpretation
:> :> -=- Claude Levi-Strauss, ANTHROPOLOGIE STRUCTURALE, 1958
:
:> : A strange bedfellow for Yuri....
:
:> Why?

: In many ways, not least that L-S's explanations for "obvious
: relationships" normally involved, not ancient migrations of peoples, but
: what used to be called the "psychic unity of mankind", a concept on
: which you have repeatedly poured scorn.

The first step is to admit that these obvious relationships exist.
Levi-Strauss was honest enough to do so, unlike some other commentators.

He may have been wrong in providing an explanation for these
relationships, but this could have been an honest mistake, for which he
may be forgiven. OTOH dishonesty is more difficult to forgive.

:> : By the way, if you want to see some real Pacific totem poles, check out
:> : the malangan culture of New Ireland, as in this image:
:
:> : http://homepages.ius.edu/AEALLEN/STAT1.GIF
:
:> : Unfortunately, it's in Melanesia, but I'm sure you can work it into your
:> : theory somehow.
:
:> Why would I want to do this?

: You mean you are willing to ignore the striking similarities between
: these two areas, just because it doesn't fit into your pet migration
: theory? I'm shocked.

Why should I want to ignore any striking similarities between these two
areas?

benlizross <benlizro@ihug.co.nz> wrote in message news:<3FD2AE53.380C@ihug.co.nz>...

snip
I came across this, which has a number of comments on post-contact
influences between the NW coast and Hawaii:

http://www.alaskool.org/projects/traditionalife/monumentsincedar/MIC.html

Ross Clark:
Nothing about Hawaii on that page.
What, exactly, are you pointing me too, please?

Daryl Krupa

Daryl Krupa wrote:

benlizross <benlizro@ihug.co.nz> wrote in message news:<3FD2AE53.380C@ihug.co.nz>...

snip
I came across this, which has a number of comments on post-contact
influences between the NW coast and Hawaii:

http://www.alaskool.org/projects/traditionalife/monumentsincedar/MIC.html

Ross Clark:
Nothing about Hawaii on that page.
What, exactly, are you pointing me too, please?

Daryl Krupa

Sorry. The main reference is in Chapter X, but there are passing
mentions of Hawaii in Chapters II and III.

benlizross <benlizro@ihug.co.nz> wrote in message news:<3FD3971E.2AA6@ihug.co.nz>...
Daryl Krupa wrote:

benlizross <benlizro@ihug.co.nz> wrote in message news:<3FD2AE53.380C@ihug.co.nz>...

snip
I came across this, which has a number of comments on post-contact
influences between the NW coast and Hawaii:

http://www.alaskool.org/projects/traditionalife/monumentsincedar/MIC.html

Ross Clark:
Nothing about Hawaii on that page.
What, exactly, are you pointing me too, please?

Daryl Krupa

Sorry. The main reference is in Chapter X, but there are passing
mentions of Hawaii in Chapters II and III.

Hokay. From Chapter X, at
http://www.alaskool.org/projects/traditionalife/monumentsincedar/MIC_ten.htm
we can lift this quote:
'Haidas say their inspiration for these quaint monuments
came from waterlogged totempole that drifted to their
beaches in Queen Charlotte Islands from parts unknown
many generations ago.'
Hmmm ... even if that was a Polynesian totem pole, there was
(according to Haida lore, apparently)
no requirement for actual contact with a Polynesian person for
cultural transfer to occur.

And further down, under "How Hawaiians Came To Northwest":
' ... the several cultural similarities between the Haida and
Hawaiian are easily accounted for by recent acculturation.
The record clearly shows that the phenomenal development of
art and architecture among the Haidas and Tsimshians closely
parallels the activity of Northwest Coast traders and their
predominantly Polynesian crews.

The Rev. Jonathan S. Green, missionary from Hawaii, who
visited the Northwest Coast in 1829 ... wrote,
"For more than forty years, our enterprising countrymen have
coasted these shores, and realized immense profits from their
commercial intercourse with the natives…."
In other words, long before the Russians established Sitka
(1799) Americans out of Boston and Salem and British as well,
were trading in the Alaska Panhandle and Coastal British Columbia
and perhaps in every instance coming via Hawaii.

Their crews were made up largely of Northwest Coast Indians and
Kanakas who intermingled freely, aboard and ashore, and
Kanakas married Indian girls and settled down.
Even today one can see their shadows in all Coastal Indian tribes
but especially in the Haida where some of the girls could pass
for Maoris and wavy-haired men resemble full-muscled Samoans and
Hawaiians.'
[Kanaka is the Hawaiian word for 'boy'.]

'Barbeau mentions a part Hawaiian totem-carver named Oyai
who was regarded as the best carver on the Nass.

Just which part of his ancestry contributed the most to his skill
is a moot question, for it is possible that the Kanakas
learned as much from the Indians as the Indians did from them.
Jonathan Green, for one, regarded the culture of the
Northwest Coast Indians on a higher plane that in any of the
South Sea Islands, including Hawaii and New Zealand.'

From Chapter II, 'Antiquity of the Totempole' at:
http://www.alaskool.org/projects/traditionalife/monumentsincedar/MIC_two.htm
'The Alaska or "Kaigani" Haidas are descended from a group
that originally lived on Langara Island and crossed Dixon's
Entrance to Dall Island over 200 years ago.
It is perhaps they who introduced the totempole to Alaska,
if not to the world.
These people have a legend to the effect that
the first totempole drifted ashore on Langara Island,
giving these natives a model from which all totempoles are
believed (by them) to have originated.
It is at least significant that totempoles
were observed at this spot when they were still
unreported by seamen who visited all the other native
settlements of any importance on the Coast.'

The time mentioned was around 1790, which would be ten years after
Green's claim for first contact with American traders.

Further down at that page:
'The foregoing accounts cover a period of exploration of
one hundred years duration and contain about all that has
been recorded concerning totempoles in that century.
From them we may infer that interior house posts were
in general use throughout the entire region before
the coming of white men; that the mortuary pole was common
in Tlingit and Haida villages; that the exterior house post
is Haida in origin, probably originating on Langara Island,
that the detached totempole must be of recent origin,
possibly not over a hundred years old—that totempoles
in general reached their highest development during the
period of white trade and occupation,
roughly between 1840 and 1880.'

And here's another mention of Hawaiian immigrants:

From a review of
'Kanaka: The Untold Story of Hawaiian Pioneers in British Columbia
and the Pacific Northwest':
http://www.utpjournals.com/product/chr/793/kanaka.html
'Hawaiian Islanders came to the area in answer to the fur trade's
demand for labour.
By the 1830s ‘Kanakas' were the single largest ethnic group in
the Hudson's Bay Company's employ on the West Coast, according to
Koppel, and by 1850 they made up fully half the labour force at
Fort Victoria.
By the 1870s Hawaiians had become subsistence farmers, loggers,
and fishers, with the largest settlement on Saltspring Island.'

It would seem that Yuri has discovered evidence that Europeans
travelled between Pacific isalands and the northwest coast of North
America.
Big whoop.

Daryl Krupa

Daryl Krupa wrote:

The time mentioned was around 1790, which would be ten years after
Green's claim for first contact with American traders.

I'm not sure whether Green was American or British, so I don't know who
he means by "our countrymen". The first post-Cook fur trading vessel was
the British "Sea Otter" in 1785, and the first American was the
"Columbia Rediviva" in 1788. I don't see any particular significance to
this particular location or date. I certainly don't think the idea of
totem poles was brought by the Hawaiians. The Hawaiian carvings don't
even look particularly like the NW coast ones, pace Yuri. The
similarities simply aren't that impressive.

If an idea or two passed
back and forth during the period of maximum interaction (say 1790-1850),
that didn't affect the basic styles of the two places, which you can see
quite well illustrated from Cook's voyages, before any of this stuff
took place.

Ross Clark

Yuri Kuchinsky wrote:

Many people have noted the similarity between the Maoris and the native
Hawaiians. I guess you missed all that. Another gap in your education...

That the Maori and the Hawaiians are related does not mean that the one
can stand in for the other at any point where your argument gets into
trouble.

How are dissimilarities relevant in the present context?

You are suggesting that in a comparison of this kind only points of
similarity are legitimate for discussion? Do you see the logical idiocy
of this?

:> Google search on the keywords,
:
:> Hawaii totem
:
:> produces 17,200 hits.

: Now Yuri, even you know this sort of Google figure means nothing. In
: fact you can get 33 hits by searching "Kuchinsky idiot". Do you suppose
: that could mean something?

What does it mean?

It means exactly what 17,200 hits on "Hawaii totem" means.

There's some significance in all similarities.

OK, why would you think that the alleged similarities between tourist
souvenir objects for sale in Honolulu and a totem pole in a botanic
garden in Honolulu would have any relevance to the question of the
origins of the Hawaiians?

benlizross <benlizro@ihug.co.nz> wrote in message news:<3FD56733.15FE@ihug.co.nz>...
Daryl Krupa wrote:

...

The time mentioned was around 1790, which would be ten years after
Green's claim for first contact with American traders.

I'm not sure whether Green was American or British, so I don't know who
he means by "our countrymen". The first post-Cook fur trading vessel was
the British "Sea Otter" in 1785, and the first American was the
"Columbia Rediviva" in 1788. I don't see any particular significance to
this particular location or date. I certainly don't think the idea of
totem poles was brought by the Hawaiians. The Hawaiian carvings don't
even look particularly like the NW coast ones, pace Yuri. The
similarities simply aren't that impressive.

Which seems to refute what Krupa has been saying here...

After all, if we believe Krupa, then these similarities, due to recent
post-European contact, should be quite obvious.

If an idea or two passed
back and forth during the period of maximum interaction (say 1790-1850),
that didn't affect the basic styles of the two places, which you can see
quite well illustrated from Cook's voyages, before any of this stuff
took place.

Ross Clark

As long as these two parties disagree, they refute each other quite
nicely... So keep disagreeing, folks!

Regards,

Yuri.

benlizross <benlizro@ihug.co.nz> wrote in message news:<3FD391CB.E58@ihug.co.nz>...
Yuri Kuchinsky wrote:

Many people have noted the similarity between the Maoris and the native
Hawaiians. I guess you missed all that. Another gap in your education...

That the Maori and the Hawaiians are related does not mean that the one
can stand in for the other at any point where your argument gets into
trouble.

Which trouble?

How are dissimilarities relevant in the present context?

You are suggesting that in a comparison of this kind only points of
similarity are legitimate for discussion? Do you see the logical idiocy
of this?

But I didn't say "legitimate". I said "relevant".

[Yuri:]
:> Google search on the keywords,
:
:> Hawaii totem
:
:> produces 17,200 hits.

: Now Yuri, even you know this sort of Google figure means nothing. In
: fact you can get 33 hits by searching "Kuchinsky idiot". Do you suppose
: that could mean something?

What does it mean?

It means exactly what 17,200 hits on "Hawaii totem" means.

It looks like the words "Hawaii" and "totem" are associated in
people's minds approximately 500 more often, as compared to the words
you've suggested.

There's some significance in all similarities.

OK, why would you think that the alleged similarities between tourist
souvenir objects for sale in Honolulu and a totem pole in a botanic
garden in Honolulu would have any relevance to the question of the
origins of the Hawaiians?

That's a difficult question... And I think it would be unwise for a
man of your limited expertise in this area to try to scale such
logical heights.

OTOH it's quite obvious that any such similarities would make it more
likely that that Honolulu Botanical Gardens totem pole was indeed
carved in Hawaii.

Yuri Kuchinsky wrote:

benlizross <benlizro@ihug.co.nz> wrote in message news:<3FD391CB.E58@ihug.co.nz>...
Yuri Kuchinsky wrote:

Many people have noted the similarity between the Maoris and the native
Hawaiians. I guess you missed all that. Another gap in your education...

That the Maori and the Hawaiians are related does not mean that the one
can stand in for the other at any point where your argument gets into
trouble.

Which trouble?

Well, the immediate presenting difficulty was that your Hawaiian-NW
Coast picture-show was not impressing your audience the way it was
supposed to. At which point you said, "Actually, the striking evidence
is here..." and introduced a comparison between NW coast and Maori
carving.

It looks like the words "Hawaii" and "totem" are associated in
people's minds approximately 500 more often, as compared to the words
you've suggested.

No, it looks like they *occur on the same web page* approximately 500x
more often.

"Kuchinsky idiot" is relatively rare because you're neither very famous
nor part of a large family. "McTavish idiot" gets 496 hits. Heck, even
"Kuchinsky fool" does better at 120. And as for the totems, "Singapore
totem" gets 9,450. How do you suppose that "association in people's
minds" works? Oh, and "Hawaii igloo" gets 7,370. Isn't this fun?

There's some significance in all similarities.

OK, why would you think that the alleged similarities between tourist
souvenir objects for sale in Honolulu and a totem pole in a botanic
garden in Honolulu would have any relevance to the question of the
origins of the Hawaiians?

That's a difficult question... And I think it would be unwise for a
man of your limited expertise in this area to try to scale such
logical heights.

Oh go ahead, try me, Yuri. So far your logical heights have not been
exactly terrifying. Try and explain the significance.

OTOH it's quite obvious that any such similarities would make it more
likely that that Honolulu Botanical Gardens totem pole was indeed
carved in Hawaii.

So let me see. If the totem pole in the Foster Botanic Garden looks like
the souvenirs on sale at the Paradise Cove tourist market, then it is
more likely that the totem pole was carved in Hawaii? Is that the
argument? No, still doesn't make sense. You'll have to spell out the
logic more clearly.

But in any case, we are not arguing about where the pole was carved, but
whose carving tradition it represents.

Ross Clark

benlizross <benlizro@ihug.co.nz> wrote in message news:<3FD63759.3BEF@ihug.co.nz>...
Yuri Kuchinsky wrote:

benlizross <benlizro@ihug.co.nz> wrote in message news:<3FD391CB.E58@ihug.co.nz>...
Yuri Kuchinsky wrote:

Many people have noted the similarity between the Maoris and the native
Hawaiians. I guess you missed all that. Another gap in your education...

That the Maori and the Hawaiians are related does not mean that the one
can stand in for the other at any point where your argument gets into
trouble.

Which trouble?

Well, the immediate presenting difficulty was that your Hawaiian-NW
Coast picture-show was not impressing your audience the way it was
supposed to. At which point you said, "Actually, the striking evidence
is here..." and introduced a comparison between NW coast and Maori
carving.

Well, the only one who was "not impressed" is you... But that was a
forgone conclusion, in any case...

It looks like the words "Hawaii" and "totem" are associated in
people's minds approximately 500 more often, as compared to the words
you've suggested.

No, it looks like they *occur on the same web page* approximately 500x
more often.

"Kuchinsky idiot" is relatively rare because you're neither very famous
nor part of a large family. "McTavish idiot" gets 496 hits. Heck, even
"Kuchinsky fool" does better at 120. And as for the totems, "Singapore
totem" gets 9,450. How do you suppose that "association in people's
minds" works? Oh, and "Hawaii igloo" gets 7,370. Isn't this fun?

But "Hawaii totem" gets 17,200 hits. That's almost 10,000 more...

So I win, anyway!

There's some significance in all similarities.

OK, why would you think that the alleged similarities between tourist
souvenir objects for sale in Honolulu and a totem pole in a botanic
garden in Honolulu would have any relevance to the question of the
origins of the Hawaiians?

That's a difficult question... And I think it would be unwise for a
man of your limited expertise in this area to try to scale such
logical heights.

Oh go ahead, try me, Yuri. So far your logical heights have not been
exactly terrifying. Try and explain the significance.

OTOH it's quite obvious that any such similarities would make it more
likely that that Honolulu Botanical Gardens totem pole was indeed
carved in Hawaii.

So let me see. If the totem pole in the Foster Botanic Garden looks like
the souvenirs on sale at the Paradise Cove tourist market, then it is
more likely that the totem pole was carved in Hawaii? Is that the
argument? No, still doesn't make sense. You'll have to spell out the
logic more clearly.

If you didn't get it already, maybe it's not worth trying to explain
it to you...

But in any case, we are not arguing about where the pole was carved, but
whose carving tradition it represents.

Ross Clark

Yuri.

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

The world is made up, for the most part, of fools or knaves, both
irreconcilable foes to truth; the first being slaves to a blind
credulity, which we may properly call bigotry, the last too jealous
of that power they have usurped over the folly and ignorance of the
others -- which the establishment of the empire of reason would
destroy -- George Villiers

: Yuri Kuchinsky wrote:

:> As long as these two parties disagree, they refute each other quite
:> nicely... So keep disagreeing, folks!

In sci.archaeology benlizross <benlizro@ihug.co.nz> wrote:

: Yes, I'm afraid Yuri's ideas of logic have never gotten beyond the
: children's puppet show level. "These two guys disagree, so they must
: both be wrong." Good grief.

Sometimes the most obvious conclusion also happens to be the correct one.