138: Did Polynesians get to the America’s?

Did they? What evidence is there? It turns out that there is enough to question the possibility, just as Thor Heyerdahl once suggested. There are language, fauna, flora, physical and anthropological links that all suggest Polynesians made pre-Columbian landfalls in at least three locations in the America’s. That is not to say there was anything extensive but that evidence suggests they did occasionaly.

These contact points would have all occured A.D. 700 and 1350 (the height of the second Pacific exploration [thanks Moana!]) The limited contact did not change the local populations in any huge way, just as the first 15 European ships to visit NZ did not change Maori in any major way other than the evidence of iron and red cloth in some villages. Archaeologists had in some cases justification for rejecting transoceanic contacts even in the face of demonstrated Polynesian seafaring capabilities, but most of that was of the 1970’s race based backlash against Thor Heyerdahl’s theories of diffusionism. Archaologists, when wishing to reject things they dont agree with, come up with other more implausable theories - in this case coincidental adaptations. (These are the same type of archaelogist who have seen pre-Polyneisan skeletons in NZ but would never admit it.)

The possible Mapuche (Peru) connection has been argued against, in spite of quite sustantial evidence in support of it. We have had a few articles about such a connection - http://tangatawhenua16.wixsite.com/the-first-ones-blog/single-post/2017/03/31/Sidestep-Mocha-Island The Santa Barbara Channel connection was dismissed when Jones and Klar suggested in 2005 that Polynesians had made contact with the Chumash and Gabrielino in California. Political correctness should have no place in verifiable investigation. If it is, it is; regardless of who does like it. But we know that political correctness will initially rear its head at our 8' skeleton find as well, it shouldn't but it will! But if they exist - they exist...some will just have to get over it.

The sweet potato and the gourd in the South Amercian/Pacific connection are obvious records of prehistoric contact with the Americas. It should be universally accepted. Only on Rapanui, and particularly with the structures Ahu Vinapu, is there a mention of American influence in Polynesia

Everyone acknowledges the seafaring expertise of the Polynesians. Pacific colonization was intentional exploration, althoguh there would be cases of random voyaging and accidental discoveries that would have been a series of exploration voyages. As Polynesian culture developed seafaring accelerated eastward into an area of open and unknown ocean. Almost every island was discovered by Polynesian explorers (except Lord Howe) and huge distances would have been covered to find them all. Navigation would have been an art form to be able to do so repeadedly. Most of the exploration was done within 300 years with New Zealand being colonized by the Polynesians just 290 years later. The quicker East Polynesia was settled, the more effectiev the migrations.

The craft were simple but effective and their outrigger sailcraft were able to sail across wind and probably even upwind slightly, although this is not known for sure. Computer modeling (a poor research tool that relies on too many assumptions) assumed only downwind sailing yet that does not match the archaeological record of island discovery even in earlier, Lapita times. These basic craft, (maybe modified?) helped in the discovery and settlement of the Marquesas (A.D. 700), Mangareva (A.D. 900), Hawai’i (A.D. 850), and Pitcairn (A.D. 950). From these locations is is quite feasable they set the stage for further exploratory seafaring that resulted in multiple American landmass visits. Contacts with the Americas, then, likely occurred during the era of rapid Polynesian expansion into the Pacific (A.D. 700–1350).

Here is a look at three locations where contact is shown to have been made, or likely to have been made between the epic period of Pacifc exploration between A.D 800 - A.D 300.

Chile

A.D. 1300–1400. The chicken bones from pre-Columbian Chile were biological remains and could be carbon dated. While the results have been challenged the analyses clearly shows that chickens were introduced to Chile in pre-Columbian times. This led to other rersearch such as artifact comparison, language and skeletal evidence.

José Miguel Ramírez Aliaga is a Chilean archaeologist who after the disocvery of the bones noted remarkable similarities among Mapuche and Polynesian artifacts (and their names). These were both evidence of Polynesian contact in southern Chile. Clavas (and we have done an article on these here - http://tangatawhenua16.wixsite.com/the-first-ones-blog/single-post/2016/05/31/55-The-Mapuchi-Tokis-1) have long been argued to have Polynesian origins are indeed so striking in their similarity to specimens from the Mori-Ori and some other areas of Polynesia. There is more; a sewn-plank boat, compound bone fishhooks, and composite harpoons.

Chickens were introdcued to South Anmerica in the 1500's. Yet no one could explain why there exists in the Quechuan language a word for chicken (hualpa or walpa). Hualpa is not Polynesian. Polynesians called chickens moa. The chicken bone discovery blows away the contrived arguments developed prior to explain the existence of this word. A search was made for a Polynesian source for the word toki (adze). While the Chilean sewn-plank boat is most commonly known in Mapuche by the name dalca, formerly spoken on Chiloé Island. These boats were also made and used by west Patagonians kia¯.lu. The Hawaiian word is kialoa, which means “long, light canoe used in surf.” In Polynesian languages the (k) and the (t) and interchangable. The Polynesian root word tia (means “to sew”). Another Polynesian form, loa, (means “long.”) the base*tia in kia¯.lu. is the same base used in the northern hemisphere by the Gabrielino in their word for the sewn-plank canoe: ti’at. The other west Patagonian word for boat, ta˘ lı˘na˘, can be compared with the other Gabrielino word for boat, tarayna, taraynxa. Lastly, a Polynesian word for harpoon or short spear (Hawaiian ’e¯lau, we¯lau) that is also represented in Alacaluf (oué-léé “spear, harpoon”) and Chumashan (wi¯li ¯ “ironwood, harpoon”). Are these all simple coincidences?

Chile could have been reached from Rapa Nui but voyagers starting out from that location would be much more likely to make landfall farther north. However, in El Niño conditions one could have landed in the Mapuche area from Rapa Nui in addition to points farther north. Outside El Nino, voyages from Pitcairn or Mangareva would have landed on the Chilean coast from 12-14 weeks. The striking similarities in artifact styles between New Zealand and the Chatham Islands and the Mapuche area in Chile raise the possibility of voyages with the westerlies to Chile from the Chathams.

The Gulf of Guayaquil (Equador)

AD 800. Contact in Equador is also disputed. Archaeological and linguistic records suggest that two-way voyaging was involved and that this occured at different items. The sweet potato, not from southern Chile, was found in the vicinity of the Gulf of Guayaquil in Ecuador. Yet it is recognised that the sweet potato was widespread in Polynesia at the time of European contact. Variants of the word kumara were in parts of both Polynesia and South America. The only explanation is two-way voyaging by Polynesians who carried not only the sweet potato but possibly also the bottle gourd out into the Pacific. A variety of kumara was used by indigenous people in the Gulf of Guayaquil. This is evidence for diffusion and suggests further that the point of embarkation for the sweet potato may have been the Gulf of Guayaquil or was accomplished by one-way voyaging with a sailing raft from Ecuador, as Heyerdahl believed.

Guayaquil is the only place in South America where sails (of any kind) were employed in pre-Columbian times. That they were triangular sails suggest strongly they were introduced from Polynesia rather than independently invented in South America. If invented locally it would only be around AD 800 as they were not of common use on that coast and would have been more widespread. That they occur in exactly the same area from where the sweet potato entered the Pacific seems more than mere coincidence. Sweet potatoes were established on Mangaia around A.D. 1000, so it makes sense they were obtained somewhat earlier from South America. A.D. 800 coincides with the beginning of a growth period in Ecuadorian prehistory where distant groups began long-distance trade, some of which involved transport by sea. It is possible that sails derived from Polynesia were associated with an increase in maritime trade in prehistoric Ecuador. The contact in Ecuador seems to be greater than that in Chile in the 1300s when chickens arrived. Bottle gourds may have provided a more effective technology for storing fresh water during long voyages. See the netx section for gourds.

While computer modelling is not wholly accurate, simulations showed that return voyages from the southern coasts of South America were possible, vessels that embarked from the coast of Ecuador on exploraiton without knowing the Pacific, were more likely to make landfall in Polynesia.

The Santa Barbara Channel (California)

AD 700 & 1300. One can onmly look at this after the other two are considered in the light of that evidence. Contact appears to have occured in two time frames that had differing influences on the peoples involved.

Five items suggest Polynesian influence in the Santa Barbara Channel.

1. Sewn-plank boat technology

2. Compound bone hooks

3. Barbed shell fishhooks

4. Barbed bone fishhooks

5. Composite harpoons.

Sewn-plank boat construction was found only in the Santa Barbara Channel in North America. One has been found in New Zealand. Details of the construction process and tools used to produce the boats show remarkable similarities with Polynesia, as documented by Jones and Klar. Watercraft were used to reach the Channel Islands up to 10,000 years ago, but the sewn-plank canoe sometime between A.D. 400 and 700. The styles of these two technologies and their co-appearance suggest that they were introduced from outside. Native people in Chile and California did not adopt sails or outriggers despite their potential exposure to the technology. While this might seem odd, Chumash people did not adopt sails even when they saw them in 1542 when they were visited by the Spanish explorer Juan Cabrillo.

Language seems to have a connection too. The proto Chumashan word for “sewn-plank canoe,” *tomolo’o, and the Central Eastern Polynesian *tumu rakau (“a product from wood”) were related. The word tomolo is not constructed from native Chumashan elements, and thus was almost certainly a borrowing—yet none of the languages spoken by the Chumash peoples’ neighbors have any remotely similar word.

Also identified were the strong similarities between the Gabrielino word for their sewn-plank canoe, *ti’aat, and Central Eastern Polynesian *tia (“to sew”), as well as the Gabrielino taraina, tarainxa (“to carve or hew”) and Central Eastern Polynesian *talai (“to carve, hew”). As described above, to these we can now add the occurrence of the same *tia (“to sew”) as part of the word used to refer to sewn-plank canoes in Chile and the same Gabrielino word for boat, ta˘ lı˘na˘, used in west Patagonia in the far south. In addition, the word for harpoon in Chumashan is kalui. Like tomolo, this word is not made up of common Chumashan words and was almost certainly borrowed from another language. Polynesian = *tala (“sharp-pointed object, spine, prong”) and *hui (“bone”). The second word is apparently a pan-Polynesian term (*welo [“spear; to fish with a spear”]. Hawaiian: ’e¯lau, we¯lau; Alacaluf: oué-léé; Chumashan wi¯li ¯). This tends to suggest the origin was FROM Polynesia. Exchange may have been one-directional for Chumash-Polynesian contact, but it is possible that one of these contact events helped spread the bottle gourd into the Pacific.

Dating of the archaeological record suggests that Polynesian-style innovations were introduced into southern California in two pulses, one at around A.D. 700 and the other around the time of the migrations to NZ. This timeframe equates to the era of greatest Eastern Polynesian long-distance seafaring. A.D. 1300 also coincides with the introduction of chickens to the coast of southern Chile, while the earlier contact event is similar to the age ascribed for contact in the Gulf of Guayaquil. Any journey by sea from Polynesia to southern California would have been challenging. It is most likely that voyagers who made the later contact originated from Hawai’i, given the similarity in the bone curved hooks. Canoes could sail north from Hawai’i and then turn east with westerly winds across the northern side of the clockwise-rotating current. Sailing north for 10 to 15 degrees of latitude would have required a more robust upwind rig than was seen in Hawai’i historically, but El Niño could have made a difference. Conditions similar to the El Niño of 1982–1983 might have allowed canoes to sail directly from the Marquesas to Rapa Nui, which was usually impossible. So much could have been dependant on proven conditons they awaited such as El Nino. Prior to that there could have been many Polynesian explorers who were forever lost at sea and never reached anywhere, nor returned home. As we have said often enough, the only reason we know Cook reached NZ is because he arrived back in England.

Conclusions

All the above are compelling reasons to ensure that the diffusion events represented by Polynesian/American contacts are considered within the prehistoric cultures along the west coast of the Americas and in Polynesia. That's not at all mentioning the New Zealand swamp hen (Pukeko) which has a twin in Coastal Equador called the Purple Gallinule.

Careful research and expert investigations can fully apply the diffusionist/culture to historical anthropology. Using specialists in archaeology, linguistics, genetics, physical anthropology, along with prehistoric navigation we can understand pre-Columbian and post-Columbian culture contacts without resorting to the racist and outlandish conclusions of the early 1970s which were aimed at Heyerdahl by those attemping to discredit him.

Maybe the bones and associated artifacts we seek will prove something quite extraordinary about ancient Pacific migrations and that is why they were so well concealed, in a way no one should or could ever find them….until we came along. But I'm sure we will also be considered racist even if we are referring to non-white races as to who was here first, such is the determination of some to keep the truth under wraps. Which is odd really as that would be a self defeating argument.