Re: Amerindian navigators and Eurocentrism in scholarship

[WWallace@freedom.org (William Wallace)]

On Thu, 11 Sep 1997 23:50:00 GMT, matts2@ix.netcom.com (Matt
Silberstein) wrote:

>In sci.anthropology WWallace@freedom.org (William Wallace) wrote:

>>	It is also of interest that using rafts clearly demonstrates
>>naval skills so primitive that they are the only examples of their
>>use. 

>I am sorry, but I really disagree about this. I think the prevalence
>of rafts off South America stems more from the presence of balsa. If
>you have balsa, you don't make a standard style ship and if you have
>oak, you don't make a raft.

	It is unclear how one goes against the wind or even sideways to
it without a keel. This severly limits ones navigational abilities and
makes going back and forth between two points a seasonal matter if the
winds shift with the seasons. 

	The idea of rowing a raft brings to mind several remarks
unsuitable for polite company. While it can be done the lack of
streamlining would make at least 90% of the effort wasted. That would
make it unlikely to be able to move against currents and wind. 

	As to technology, balsa being light does not make it good. Steel
and concrete work quite as well for ships. If balsa is the only wood
that is one thing. But even the basic canoe is preferable and on one
of Columbus' voyages a rather large one was spotted if the story isn't
apocryphal. 

	Even in the most primitive "things that float" found have
streamlining of some sort. About the only thing that doesn't is river
barges that do not move under their own power. 

=====
Any sufficiently convoluted argument can be made to appear to be science
as the layman equates incomprehensibility with science.