Polynesians in America: Pre-Columbian Contacts with the New World

2011

Co-authored with T. L. Jones, A. C. Clarke, M.-A. Cordero, R. C. Green, G. Irwin, K. A. Klar, E. A. Matisoo-Smith, D. Quiróz, J. M. Ramírez-Aliaga, A. A. Storey, and M. I. Weisler. We suggest that the most parsimonious explanation for the material, linguistic, biological, mythological, nautical, chronological, and physical anthropological evidence summarized in chapters 1–13 is that Polynesians made pre-Columbian landfalls in the New World. Further, based on this evidence, we identify three likely locations of contact: southern Chile, the Gulf of Guayaquil in South America, and the Santa Barbara Channel in North America. All of these contacts we argue occurred during the late Holocene between approximately cal A.D. 700 and 1350. None of them altered the course of prehistory in these regions in the extreme ways suggested by hyperdiffusionists (i.e., they did not cause the emergence of New World civilizations); nonetheless, local populations in both Polynesia and the Americas were the recipients of new technologies and domesticates that affected their subsistence practices and lives. Cultures changed. This conclusion is not based on any single piece of evidence but rather on the totality. The possibility that Polynesians made such contacts has been discussed and debated for nearly two centuries. Both theoretical resistance to the notion of transoceanic diffusion and lingering ethnocentrism among American scholars have contributed to stubborn dismissal of this idea, especially in the United States. Previously, it was also possible to raise enough doubts about certain empirical patterns that archaeologists had in some cases justification for rejecting transoceanic contacts even in the face of archaeologically, ethnographically, and experimentally demonstrated Polynesian seafaring capabilities. Some of the early counter-arguments, however, were also convoluted and far from parsimonious. Findings from new methods and more rigorous analyses of previously cited and new evidence now make direct cultural contact the simplest possible explanation for the co-occurrence of various cultural and biological traits in Polynesia and the Americas. In our view, convergence, coincidence, and independent adaptive innovation simply do not offer credible alternative explanations for the patterns described in this volume and summarized more briefly below. The archaeological evidence also clearly shows that these patterns are not the result of transference into and through the Pacific by Europeans in postcontact times.

We suggest that the most parsimonious explanation for the material, linguistic, biological, mythological, nautical, chronological, and physical anthropological evidence summarized in chapters 1–13 is that Polynesians made pre-Columbian landfalls in the New World. Further, based on this evidence, we identify three likely locations of contact: southern Chile, the Gulf of Guayaquil in South America, and the Santa Barbara Channel in North America. All of these contacts we argue occurred during the late Holocene between approximately cal A.D. 700 and 1350. None of them altered the course of prehistory in these regions in the extreme ways suggested by hyperdiffusionists (i.e., they did not cause the emergence of New World civilizations); nonetheless, local populations in both Polynesia and the Americas were the recipients of new technologies and domesticates that affected their subsistence practices and lives. Cultures changed.

We suggest that the most parsimonious explanation for the material, linguistic, biological, mythological, nautical, chronological, and physical anthropological evidence summarized in chapters 1–13 is that Polynesians made pre-Columbian landfalls in the New World. Further, based on this evidence, we identify three likely locations of contact: southern Chile, the Gulf of Guayaquil in South America, and the Santa Barbara Channel in North America. All of these contacts we argue occurred during the late Holocene between approximately cal A.D. 700 and 1350.

California Archaeology, 2012

In 2007 the discovery of pre-Columbian chicken bones from Chile provided the first conclusive evidence for prehistoric Polynesian contact with South America. When looking for further commensal data to address the issue of trans-Pacific contacts, we found a museum collection of human remains recovered from Mocha Island, a small island located approximately 30 km off the Chilean coast. The morphology of the crania suggests they may be of Polynesian ancestry. Here we present craniometric analyses for the six complete crania from Mocha Island, Chile and discuss the implications for further research into prehistoric trans-Pacific interaction.

2012

The Contemporary Pacific, 2013

Commensal models, which can be used to infer prehistoric human mobility, have been designed and applied to understand migration and interaction in the Pacific (Matisoo-Smith 1994, 1996). This chapter describes the elements of successful commensal models and examines how these models may pertain to finding evidence for prehistoric contact between Polynesia and the Americas. Setting out individual components will aid in the identification of new candidate organisms and the collection of data sets appropriate for testing hypotheses of contact between Polynesia and the Americas. In examining the development and utility of commensal models we will focus the bulk of our discussion on those plants, animals, and viruses that have either been identified as evidence for contact or have the potential to in the future. This chapter will serve to clarify the current state of knowledge regarding organisms with real potential for prehistoric transference between Polynesia and the Americas as well as providing the means by which others may be reasonably excluded.

2011

pp 171-193.

The notion of trans-Pacific contact between Asia and Meso-America was formerly confined to the speculative fringe of prehistory. However, an expansion of evidence from genetics and archaeobotany has made contact certain and provides great credibility to previously assumed material culture transfers. The challenge is now rather to assign dates, routes and potential cultural transfers. The paper will propose; a) That in all cases, contact was through voyages by Austronesian or SE Asian mariners b) That contact was opportunistic and probably not part of an established trade route, hence the lack of permanent Austronesian settlement in the New World There are three fairly clear phases of Austronesian contact, with the earliest between the Philippines and Meso-America. This must have taken place early in the colonisation of SE Asia and involved the transfer of the blow-pipe, the backstrap loom and probably ikat weaving techniques. The second contacts were between South America and Eastern Polynesia, and resulted in the adoption of the sweet potato, the bottle-gourd and types of fish-poison. Sailing rafts and characteristic ‘birdman’ images are found in Ecuador. Chickens travelled to South America and are found in the Chilean archaeological record. A third phase, relatively late, may have been between New Zealand and other parts of Southern Polynesia and Chile, resulting in transfers of types of ceremonial axe, the chicken and the settlement of Chilote. A case has also been made for contact with the Klamath Indians of California, with the transfer of sewn boats and compound fish-hooks, but this remains controversial.

2019