Contrary to the arguments of some that much of the Pacific was settled by Po

游客2024-01-03  20

问题     Contrary to the arguments of some that much of the Pacific was settled by Polynesians accidentally marooned after being lost and adrift, it seems reasonable that this feat was accomplished by deliberate colonization expeditions that set out fully stocked with food and domesticated plants and animals. Detailed studies of the winds and currents using computer simulations suggest that drifting canoes would have been a most unlikely means of colonizing the Pacific. These expeditions were likely driven by population growth and political dynamics on the home islands, as well as the challenge and excitement of exploring unknown waters. Because all Polynesians, Micronesians, and many Melanesians speak Austronesian languages and grow crops derived from Southeast Asia, all these peoples most certainly derived from that region and not the New World or elsewhere. The undisputed pre-Columbian presence in Oceania of the sweet potato, which is a New World domesticate, has sometimes been used to support Heyerdahl’s "American Indians in the Pacific" theories. However, this is one plant out of a long list of Southeast Asian domesticates. As Patrick Kirch, an American anthropologist, points out, rather than being brought by rafting South Americans, sweet potatoes might just have easily been brought back by returning Polynesian navigators who could have reached the west coast of South America. [br] Why does the author mention the views of "Patrick Kirch"?

选项 A、To present evidence in favor of Heyerdahl’s idea about American Indians reaching Oceania
B、To emphasize the familiarity of Pacific islanders with crops from many different regions of the world
C、To indicate that a supposed proof for Heyerdahl’s theory has an alternative explanation
D、To demonstrate that some of the same crops were cultivated in both South America and Oceania

答案 C

解析
转载请注明原文地址:https://tihaiku.com/zcyy/3330250.html
最新回复(0)