Probably the most
extraordinary voyages ever accomplished by man on Earth were not the voyages of
the early European explorers of the age of exploration but the voyages of the
Polynesians after 1 C.E. Sadly we do not have
the details of the voyages themselves; we merely have the indisputable results,
that when Europeans explored the Pacific they found Polynesians from Easter
Island to Hawaii to New Zealand.1 Obviously the
Polynesians had got there, for otherwise they would not be there to begin with.
The obvious question is how did they do this? The facile answer is that they
sailed there; which is obviously true and frankly rather trite. The real
question is how did they actually sail there?
Sadly the whole issue
was basically drowned out in the notion that the Polynesians being a
“primitive” people could not have done it deliberately. Of course Academics
were aware that the Polynesians had outrigger canoes and sailed between
islands, but the notion of long range exploration and colonization was
dismissed and frankly many scholars displayed an amazing lack of interest in
actual Polynesian ship building and navigation techniques.
Also the fact that in
the course of European colonization and occupation of the central Pacific
islands, (Polynesia) a great deal of disruption and social chaos had occurred
didn’t help matters. Still the lack of attention paid to actual Polynesian
culture to help explain how the colonization of the Pacific actually happened
is more than a bit hard to explain.
The idea grew that
deliberate long range voyages were rare and that the colonization of Polynesia
was basically the result of accidental long range voyages.2 This notion, for it
was no more than a notion was based on the idea that the Polynesians being
“primitive” could not have devised a system of long range navigation and
further that their ships, various types of outrigger canoes could not have
successfully navigated such distances and were highly vulnerable to bad
weather.3
This required that
little research be done concerning actual Polynesian boat builders or studies
of the native Polynesian traditions of navigation.
It of course left
plenty of room for the proliferation of “alternative” theories concerning the
colonization of the Pacific by the Polynesians. Thus was set the stage for the
theories of Thor Heyerdahl.4
Heyerdahl was a
fantasist who simply did not believe that the ancient Polynesians could
possibly have sailed and colonized the Pacific from East Asia. They were in his
opinion just too “primitive” to have done so. Instead they have to have done so
from the Americas. Thus Thor Heyerdahl postulated that the ancestors of the
Polynesians came from the area of the Alaska panhandle and British Columbia.
They sailed over the Pacific to Hawaii and then colonized the rest of Polynesia
from there. Heyerdahl talked at great length about the similarities between the
West Coast Indians and the Polynesians etc.5
Heyerdahl
postulated that earlier Peruvian Indians, (ultimately the descendants of people from
the Atlas region of North Africa), brought high culture to Polynesia by sailing
on balsa rafts to Polynesia.6
It turns out that
Heyerdahl’s entire hypothesis is bogus. To put things simply. Heyerdahl just
didn’t understand the fact that the Polynesians speak Austroasiatic languages
which clearly come from East Asia. It appears that the Polynesians ultimately
came from the region of south China / Taiwan. Their ancestors, with their ancestral language, many
thousands of years ago migrated from there first to the Phillipines and then
into Indonesia. From there they spread to the coasts of New Guinea where they
intermingled with the native population producing the Polynesians, who most
definitely have New Guinea cultural traits along with a genetic inheritance.
From there they colonized Samoa and then the rest of Polynesia. No one has
found any influence of an American Indian language, much less those of the
Pacific North-West Coast of North America. The evidence of genetics and archaeology also
indicates an origin in East Asia with some mixture from the people of New
Guinea. The alleged high cultural influences from Peru are similarly dubious.7
It is interesting that
Thor Heyerdahl received then and receives now all sorts of praise for his Kon-Tiki
voyage. The idea being that it was a daring adventure in experimental
Archaeology etc. And of course the exciting Academy Award winning documentary
made from the film that Thor Heyerdahl took during the voyage along with the best-selling book certainly helped. And one
should not forget about Thor Heyerdahl’s genius for self-promotion.8
The result is that Thor
Heyerdahl gets all sorts of credit for being innovative and daring. That he
ignored the well documented navigational skills of the Polynesians is generally
ignored.
A fascinating little
fact is that Thor Heyerdahl is not, by any stretch of the imagination the first
to try the experimental voyage idea in Archaeology. There was for example Eric
de Bisschop. In the 1930’s de Bisschop did extensive research on Polynesian
outrigger / double canoes and on Polynesian traditional navigation techniques.
He built a double canoe in Hawaii and in 1937 sailed from there to Futuna, near
Samoa and then sailed to the Great Barrier Reef off Australia. Then he sailed
from Surabaya to Capetown and from there to Cannes in the Mediterranean. In all
these voyages took 14 months. Thus by 1938 de Bisschop had spectacularly proved
the seafaring capacity of the double canoe / outrigger and its ability to sail
in all sorts of weather.9
De Bisschop series of
voyages were far more spectacular than Thor Heyerdahl’s Kon Tiki trip. However
unlike Thor Heyerdahl de Bisschop had no genius for self publicity and was
forgotten rather swiftly and remains forgotten to the general public at least. This is so even though after
this epic voyage de Bisschop continued to sail experimentally. In fact one of
his experimental voyages was to sail a raft from Polynesia to South America,
(Against prevailing winds and currents.), to complete the Kon Tiki experiment.
Although de Bisschop made it, (Although before reaching South America the raft
was largely wreaked.), the voyage was so slow and difficult and therefore took
so long that it did not provide altogether convincing collaboration for Thor
Heyerdahl’s idea of two way voyages between South America and Polynesia.10
De Bisschop spent much
of his life on various voyages demonstrating the seaworthiness of the double
canoe / outrigger in experimental voyages. Unlike Thor Heyerdahl he was simply
not that good at self promotion and is almost entirely unknown to anyone but
specialists.
Thor Heyerdahl seems to
have been unaware of de Bisschop’s voyages of the 1930s which demonstrated that
the double canoe could sail long distances over the ocean and the navigation
techniques of the Polynesians. What this also demonstrated was that the Polynesian
outrigger / double canoe was perfectly capable of sailing against prevailing
winds and currents. So that contrary to Thor Heyerdhal’s belief Polynesia was
indeed settled from East Asia.
So not only was the
Polynesian double canoe perfectly capable of sailing in all sorts of weather
including severe ocean storms but the navigational skills of the Polynesians
are beyond dispute.
We now know a fair bit
about Polynesian traditional navigation. It appears that the use of stars to
navigate was common and the typical Polynesian Pilot had memorised the position
of hundreds of stars in the sky. Further the Polynesians during the day used
the position of the sun to orient themselves. They could even get a rough idea
of their latitude from comparing the relative position of the sun at the same
time during the day over the voyage. Also Polynesian navigators were experts on
wind and ocean swells, along with birds.11
To give one example.
Polynesian navigators noticed that Polaris, the Pole Star, barely moved in the
sky in terms of any circular motion, however has you moved / sailed north
Polaris moved further above the horizon.12
The Polynesian
navigators would divide voyages into segments which they would mentally
calculate in terms of determining when each segment was finished. Further their
knowledge of birds, and the swells created by unknown islands were a great aid
in terms of discovering new islands on voyages of discovery. Further they could
most definitely sail against prevailing winds and currents. In fact they could
navigate during overcast days and storms by keeping a constant ratio between
the pitch of the ship and the dominant swell. This would enable the ship to
also keep on course.13
Since de Bisschop’s
voyages of the 1930s there has been and continues to be experimental voyages in
outrigger / double canoes. This includes experimental voyages in recreated,
traditional Polynesian double canoes from Tahiti to Hawaii and Hawaii to
Tahiti. In fact in 1976 the double canoe Hokule’a did in fact make such a voyage.
The navigation was entirely traditional Polynesian and managed to reach Hawaii
in about a month and to return to Tahiti in about the same amount of time.14
The old idea that
Polynesia was colonized by accidental voyages is now pretty well disregarded. Aside
from the fact that computer simulations seem to have revealed that accidental
voyages just don’t cut it in terms of colonizing the Pacific it appears that
Polynesian competence in sea craft would appear to indicate that the major way
they colonized the Pacific was through deliberate voyages of exploration and
colonization.15 Further it appears that the Polynesians were in terms of sea
craft and navigation fairly sophisticated. So however unlikely it appears the
Pacific was indeed colonized against prevailing winds and currents.
So perhaps indeed the
Polynesian colonizing expeditions to Hawaii and Easter Island from the Society
islands in the central Pacific were indeed among the most spectacular and
daring human sea voyages.
1. See Terrell, John
Edward, Colonization of the Pacific Islands,
Electronic Copy, 1997. I will send a copy to all who request one. Diamond,
Jared, Guns, Germs, and Steel, W. W.
Norton & Co., New York, 1998, pp.
334-353, Davies, Nigel, Voyagers to the
New World, William Morrow and Co. Inc., New York, 1979, pp. 191-218.
2. IBID, Davies.
3. IBID, Wharram,
James, Boon, Hanneke, The Pacific Migrations
by Canoe Form Craft, Electronic copy, p. 68. Well send copy to all who
request it.
4. See Heyerdahl, Thor,
American Indians in the Pacific,
1952, George Allen & Unwin Ltd., New York, 1952, and Early Man and the Ocean, Vintage Books, New York, 1978.
5. IBID.
6. IBID, 1978, pp.
377-379.
7. Davies, pp. 191-218,
Crawford, Michael H., The Origins of the
Native Americans, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1998, pp. 1-31.
8. See Heyerdahl, Thor,
Kon-Tiki, Skyhorse, New York, 2010.
Original publication date 1948. For the film see Kon-Tiki (1950 Film), Wikipedia
Here.
9. Wharram, pp. 69-70.
10. IBID.
11. Chan Siok Pheng
Pamela, Yang Meng Jasvinder Kaur, Lee Seng Lee, Tan Choon Aik, Jeffry, The Lionhearts of the Pacific: Polynesians -
culture, history and navigation, Electronic Copy, pp. 25-33.
12. IBID, p. 39.
13. IBID, pp. 40-41.
14. IBID, pp. 35-39.
15. Davies, pp.
191-218.
Pierre Cloutier
No comments:
Post a Comment