 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Natural Science Forum / Biology / Paleontology / July 2005Article: Did ancient Polynesians visit California?
Did ancient Polynesians visit California? Maybe so. Scholars revive idea using linguistic ties, Indian headdress Keay Davidson, Chronicle Science Writer Monday, June 20, 2005 Scientists are taking a new look at an old and controversial idea: that ancient Polynesians sailed to Southern California a millennium before Christopher Columbus landed on the East Coast. Key new evidence comes from two directions. The first involves revised carbon-dating of an ancient ceremonial headdress used by Southern California's Chumash Indians. The second involves research by two California scientists who suggest that a Chumash word for "sewn-plank canoe" is derived from a Polynesian word for the wood used to construct the same boat. The scientists, linguist Kathryn A. Klar of UC Berkeley and archaeologist Terry L. Jones of Cal Poly San Luis Obispo, had trouble getting their thesis of ancient contact between the Polynesians and Chumash published in scientific journals. The Chumash and their neighbors, the Gabrielino, were the only North American Indians to build sewn-plank boats, a technique used throughout the Polynesian islands. But after grappling for two years with criticisms by peer reviewers, Klar and Jones' article will appear in the archaeological journal American Antiquity in July. If they are right, their finding is a major blow to North American anthropologists' traditional hostility to the theory that non-Europeans visited this continent long before Columbus. Full text at the San Francisco Chronicle http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2005/06/20/MNG9GDBBLG1.DTL&type= science  SignaturePosted By Robert Karl Stonjek > If they are right, their finding is a major blow to North American > anthropologists' traditional hostility to the theory that > non-Europeans visited this continent long before Columbus. I thought it was common knowledge that the Americas were already inhabited by non-Europeans when Columbus got here. If you're only discovering now, that Polynesians came here a thousand years ago, then it's not nearly as significant of an event as those leading up to The Conquest. The significance of Columbus is that his voyages led directly to the European conquest of the Americas. That's why he is an important figure in history. Signaturepete > > If they are right, their finding is a major blow to North American > > anthropologists' traditional hostility to the theory that [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > to the European conquest of the Americas. > That's why he is an important figure in history. Significance to me is not what it says about "discovery" of the Americas, but what it says about Polynesian seafaring skills. & knowing they made it as far west as Hawaii & Easter Island, it wouldn't be that suprising if they had made it to the west coast, & made contact with - probably were absorbed into - the existing native American populations. A good test would be presence of typical Polynesian food items, such as taro, chickens, or cane rats, that appear in the fossil record of the Pacific islands progressively as the Polynesians arrived. I've never heard of these appearing in North or South America within the past 2000 years though.. Ross Macfarlane >> pete wrote: >>> Robert Karl Stonjek wrote: [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] >> >> Ross Macfarlane And a visit is just a visit. Jois > And a visit is just a visit. > Jois Hmm, not sure that a 2-week voyage across open ocean is "just a visit"... Ross Macfarlane :-) >> And a visit is just a visit. > >> Jois > > Hmm, not sure that a 2-week voyage across open ocean is "just a > visit"... I don't think one could possibly travel by long canoe from Polynesia to the Americas in two weeks, or even from Hawaii in that time. Try two months, minimum. I agree with the comments made about the viability of taro in California soil, it sounds like it'd be a bitch to grow, and why the hell would one want to eat rats if there was venison and geese around and what not? As for chickens, did the indigenous folk in California or wherever even practice animal husbandry at that time? Maybe they weren't able to absorb the concept before all the chickens died, either from local coyotes, or from the winter frost (and I don't think polynesians necessarily knew how bad the winters might be in North America). Ultimately, I suppose its _possible_ that Polynesians, and for that matter the Chinese might've reached pre-Columbian America, as they both had the sea-faring ability to do so, and that needs to be acknowledged more, just as there's some evidence that Egyptians made it to Australia, but at any rate nothing much came from any of these things, and that needs to be remembered too. > >> And a visit is just a visit. > > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Americas in two weeks, or even from Hawaii in that time. Try two months, > minimum. In 1999 a replica Polynesian longboat took 17 days to sail from Mangareva in East Polynesia to Easter Island - something like about 2000km. Hawaii to the west coast looks at least twice that far so you're probably not far off. > I agree with the comments made about the viability of taro in > California soil, it sounds like it'd be a bitch to grow, In the right climate it's OK. California's not the right climate. > and why the hell > would one want to eat rats if there was venison and geese around and what [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > the winter frost (and I don't think polynesians necessarily knew how bad the > winters might be in North America). If I recall correctly, west coast US indigenes were exclusively hunter-gatherers, unlike many native American societies east of the Rockies. > Ultimately, I suppose its _possible_ that Polynesians, and for that matter > the Chinese might've reached pre-Columbian America, as they both had the > sea-faring ability to do so, and that needs to be acknowledged more, just as > there's some evidence that Egyptians made it to Australia, but at any rate > nothing much came from any of these things, and that needs to be remembered > too. Egyptians in Australia? Do me a favour! Arab traders made it to South East Asia in the past 1500 years, & many people converted to Islam & were in other ways influenced by them. Indonesian fishermen visited Australia for hundreds if not thousands of years. That doesn't equate to the Pharoah sailing up the Ord River... Ross Macfarlane >> >> And a visit is just a visit. >> > [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > hunter-gatherers, unlike many native American societies east of the > Rockies. That sort of depends. Some of them depended heavily on live oak acorns. It turns out that burning by local Indians was keeping down weevils that ruined the acorns and removed competing species plus studies show that some how or other the plants natural range had greatly expanded and is now contracting. In other words the plant and the people had a symbiotic relationship. >> Ultimately, I suppose its _possible_ that Polynesians, and for that >> matter [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > Ross Macfarlane > "rmacfarl" <rmacfarl@alphalink.com.au> wrote in message ... >> If I recall correctly, west coast US indigenes were exclusively >> hunter-gatherers, unlike many native American societies east of the [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > contracting. In other words the plant and the people had a symbiotic > relationship. Something akin to Australian aborigines' practice of what's referred to as "firestick farming"... Ross Macfarlane >> > If they are right, their finding is a major blow to North American >> > anthropologists' traditional hostility to the theory that [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > > Ross Macfarlane Did the chumish have the climate to grow taro? If you have something better why would you want to raise cane rats? Chickens need to be feed or at least protected. They work better on islands without preditors. > > > If they are right, their finding is a major blow to North American > > > anthropologists' traditional hostility to the theory that [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > heard of these appearing in North or South America within the past 2000 > years though.. Nitpick: At <2kybp we're not talking fossil record. We're still talking bone, sometimes even rudimentary flesh attached. >From what I've learned about the Chumash and Gabrieleno, they weren't agriculturalists to any real extent so looking for cultivatable plants or domesticated stock (mmm. cane rat!) isn't really much of an indicator one way or another. Without cause to adopt agriculturalist practices, I'm not sure why these items would be around in enough abundance to be visible in the archaeological record. If there was a real influx of Polynesians and not just a canoe or two full of people who showed up and brought the technology and a word for it with them, they didn't leave any genetic trace that I've been able to see. Perhaps it was entirely a Polynesian male connection and Y-chrom would reveal something else, but so far, it's a stretch to think of it as anything more than very minor contact. [...] >If there was a real influx of Polynesians and not just a canoe or two >full of people who showed up and brought the technology and a word for >it with them, they didn't leave any genetic trace that I've been able >to see. ... Have you done RFLP work on those haplogroup B sequences of the American SW which have 16261T and found them to be lacking coding region mutations found in Polynesian sequences which have the same variant? I'm curious to know (and have not seen this aspect clarified in any articles). This question does not relate to the Chumash who had no haplogroup B sequences... Gisele >[...] >>If there was a real influx of Polynesians and not just a canoe or two [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >This question does not relate to the Chumash who had no haplogroup B >sequences... No answer... "Southwest populations also exhibit relatively high frequencies of the B haplotype with T at np 16,261 also found in Mongolia (Kolman et al., 1996) and South China (Yao et al., 2000). The occurrence of this haplotype in the Nuu-Chah-Nulth, located in the Pacific Northwest (Malhi, 2001), as well as in Southwest populations, suggests that this haplotype might be a founding lineage in colonizing populations (Malhi et al., 2002). " (Malhi et al. 2003) I wouldn't call it a "high frequency" myself but it is true that the Polynesian motif developed from a mtDNA haplogroup B sequence which had 16261T in HVR I. In Asia and the Pacific Isles, sequences with 16136C signify subgroup B4b and the ones with 16261T *may* signify B4a. Native American haplogroup B sequences generally have neither variant but the coding region portions of the majority of the few sequences obtained by Herrnstadt et al. are closer to the B4b ones. So, it would be good to know which group the sequences referred to by Malhi et al. belong to or to confirm their B4b classification. If there are some B4a sequences in the New World, it would not be overly shocking because there is evidence of two separate introductions of B4b. Again, if there are, they need not to have been brought here by Polynesians but they could have been brought by the Japanese. My point is - I shouldn't have to keep writing "if". Gisele >>[...] >>>If there was a real influx of Polynesians and not just a canoe or two >>>full of people who showed up and brought the technology and a word for >>>it with them, they didn't leave any genetic trace that I've been able >>>to see. ... [...] >"Southwest populations also exhibit relatively high >frequencies of the B haplotype with T at np 16,261 >also found in Mongolia (Kolman et al., 1996) and >South China (Yao et al., 2000). " (Malhi et al. 2003) >I wouldn't call it a "high frequency" myself but it is true that the >Polynesian motif developed from a mtDNA haplogroup B sequence which >had 16261T in HVR I. ... as has been restated in a recent article: "A common HVS-I motif 16189-16217-16261, classified within haplogroup B4a [30], is shared between Taiwanese and Polynesian populations. This motif was considered first as the genetic link supporting Polynesian origins in Taiwan [10,13]. This root haplotype of B4a from which the Polynesian motif derives by a single HVS-I mutation is, however, widely spread in East Asia. " (Trejaut et al. 2005) http://biology.plosjournals.org/perlserv/?request=get-document&;doi=10.1371/jour nal.pbio.0030247 When researchers are discussing the origin of Polynesians, the similar sequences in America are not mentioned and when they are discussing Native American sequences, the ones in Taiwan, Polynesia are not mentioned. but sequences in both locations may contain the same three variants 16189-16217- 16261 (+ the 9 bp deletion). In America, these are generally found in the American SW and in the Pacific Isles, they are ubiquitous. The ones in the Pacific Isles generally contain an additional variant (16247) which completes the Polynesian motif (but not always!) and which has not reported in the Americas. This is why Jason writes that he has been unable to find "a genetic trace". If additional contradictory information has been obtained from the coding region, then it has not been published to my knowledge. The Ami and Yami are the aboriginal Taiwanese populations which have the highest frequencies of B4a and the Bunun have the highest frequency of B4b. The coding region mutations of the B4b ones, as I mentioned earlier, are closer to the ones generally reported in the New World. Gisele ... > > A good test would be presence of typical Polynesian food items, such as > > taro, chickens, or cane rats, that appear in the fossil record of the [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Nitpick: At <2kybp we're not talking fossil record. We're still > talking bone, sometimes even rudimentary flesh attached. Stipulated. :-) > >From what I've learned about the Chumash and Gabrieleno, they weren't > agriculturalists to any real extent so looking for cultivatable plants > or domesticated stock (mmm. cane rat!) isn't really much of an > indicator one way or another. Without cause to adopt agriculturalist > practices, I'm not sure why these items would be around in enough > abundance to be visible in the archaeological record. I accept that, & also deowll's query on suitability of California's climate for growing taro (which the Maoris only grew successfully in the far north of NZ's North Island, as I recall). Cane rats & dogs were taken by the Polynesians on their long sea voyages because they were portable protein. What might be expected is that if cane rats had arrived, that some may have gone wild, as they did on so many Pacific islands. however there would be more species that would be equipped to compete with them on the North American mainland than isolated islands, & maybe the temperate climate wouldn't suit them either - I don't know. Did the native Americans have domesticated dogs? They must have, surely... > If there was a real influx of Polynesians and not just a canoe or two > full of people who showed up and brought the technology and a word for > it with them, they didn't leave any genetic trace that I've been able > to see. Perhaps it was entirely a Polynesian male connection and > Y-chrom would reveal something else, but so far, it's a stretch to > think of it as anything more than very minor contact. Yes. Even if they'd made it that far, there was no empty land to colonise, unlike the Pacific islands or New Zealand. So they wouldn't have been rushing back to Hawaii to do an Eric the Red-style real estate promotion, as they probably did with their island colonisations... Ross Macfarlane > ... > [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > the North American mainland than isolated islands, & maybe the > temperate climate wouldn't suit them either - I don't know. I just reviewed some DNA work from the Channel Islands for a chapter I'm writing. I didn't go through the arch record all that carefully save the human burials, but I don't recall anyone commenting on any non-indigenous rats. But if they hit the mainland, the rats might not have caught on. This would be a curious problem for Matisoo-Smith if rats are found that could be cane-rats. She's the expert on Polynesian rat DNA. > Did the native Americans have domesticated dogs? They must have, > surely... Yes. I can't recall if Jen Leonard indicated that they had an old world origin or not. If not (though I think that this is unlikely--I think they moved with people from the get-go), then an introduction of old world dogs might show up in the population to some degree. > > ... > > [quoted text clipped - 41 lines] > Yes. I can't recall if Jen Leonard indicated that they had an old > world origin or not. Fiedel, S. 2005 Man's best friend- mammoth's worst enemy? A speculative essay on the role of dogs in Paleoindian colonization and megafaunal extinction. World Archaeology Vol. 37(1): 11-25 Leonard, J. A., et al. 2002 Ancient DNA evidence for OLD World orgin of New World dogs. Science, 298:1613-16 If not (though I think that this is unlikely--I > think they moved with people from the get-go), then an introduction of > old world dogs might show up in the population to some degree. Have been reading along on this thread, but not consistently. One question occurs that might be worth pondering (if not already asked and answered). Polynesian "colonizing" voyages obviously included both males and females with their respective DNA samples. "Exploring" or storm-tossed raiding voyages may not have included all that many females. Vocabulary and technology might be much more easily transfered than genes. Have the genetic studies of the Pacific coast genetic makeup been focusing ONLY on the mtDNA or have they been gender neutral or ????? Regards bk SNIP > I just reviewed some DNA work from the Channel Islands for a chapter > I'm writing. SNIP > Have been reading along on this thread, but not consistently. One > question occurs that might be worth pondering (if not already asked and [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Regards > bk Normally speaking a study would go for mitochondria, Y chromosome, X chromosome or what ever. Going for all of the above and you are talking very serious money. I'm pretty sure that all of the above have been studied to some degree most likely in the order given. > SNIP >> I just reviewed some DNA work from the Channel Islands for a chapter >> I'm writing. > > SNIP > > Have been reading along on this thread, but not consistently. One > > question occurs that might be worth pondering (if not already asked and [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > serious money. I'm pretty sure that all of the above have been studied to > some degree most likely in the order given. There's really no "normally speaking" in these studies. A large bulk of mtDNA work exists in the literature because it's relatively easy to assay. It doesn't recombine, it's generally straightforward to type it in a way that allows others to equate the data, and it exists in high enough copy number that it could be assayed before PCR. It's also far more likely to get ancient mtDNA than any nuclear DNA from prehistoric samples. At least in terms of typing, Y chromosome shares *some* of these properties (doesn't recombine and it's possible to equate results if assays are consistent) but it's very difficult to get out of an ancient sample and only half of the individuals sampled even have Y-chromosome DNA to look at. Money isn't generally the primary problem. The problems are many fold, but sampling trumps the financial difficulties several fold. Pre-columbian lineages have been scantly studied on the west coast and to the best of my knowledge only some mtDNA work really exists with essentially nothing from other genetic systems. >> > Have been reading along on this thread, but not consistently. One >> > question occurs that might be worth pondering (if not already asked and [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > to the best of my knowledge only some mtDNA work really exists with > essentially nothing from other genetic systems. But you can sample the live ones though pure bloods may be rare on the ground. > "JAE" <jae@ucdavis.edu> wrote in message [snip] > > Money isn't generally the primary problem. The problems are many fold, > > but sampling trumps the financial difficulties several fold. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > But you can sample the live ones though pure bloods may be rare on the > ground. MUCH easier said than done. Attracting participants to any study is difficult. >> "JAE" <jae@ucdavis.edu> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > MUCH easier said than done. Attracting participants to any study is > difficult. I thought you said money wasn't the problem or didn't it occur to you? > "JAE" <jae@ucdavis.edu> wrote in message > > MUCH easier said than done. Attracting participants to any study is > > difficult. > > > I thought you said money wasn't the problem or didn't it occur to you? Occur to pay people for samples? This is a subject of considerable scientific and ethical debate. Sufficient for this forum, simply having cash doesn't ensure that you get samples that are at all useful. >> "JAE" <jae@ucdavis.edu> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > scientific and ethical debate. Sufficient for this forum, simply > having cash doesn't ensure that you get samples that are at all useful. If you want people to spend their time and suffer some discomfort to make you happy you need to do something to make them happy. Asking for something for nothing is asking to get nothing. >Pre-columbian lineages have been scantly studied >on the west coast and to the best of my knowledge >only some mtDNA work really exists with essentially >nothing from other genetic systems. So, if the "Polynesian Connection" was via bands of warriors bent on trade, exploration and / or conquests, technology and vocabulary would have made the "trip" without any indication whatsoever in the analyzed DNA record? Hmmmmmmmmmm. 'Tis a puzzlement, isnt it! 8-) Regards bk > ... > [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > Did the native Americans have domesticated dogs? They must have, > surely... There is even something called the American Dingo you might want to look into. The have a close genetic connection to the Oz dingo. >> If there was a real influx of Polynesians and not just a canoe or two >> full of people who showed up and brought the technology and a word for [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Ross Macfarlane >There is even something called the American Dingo you might want to look >into. The have a close genetic connection to the Oz dingo. The Carolina Dog: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/03/0311_030311_firstdog.html "It's a hypothesis," Brisbin stressed, "but we might infer that if dogs look similar on both sides of the Baring Strait land bridge, maybe our first American dogs came over from that area." On Chindo Island, Korea, local free-ranging dogs exist that have apparently been free from hybridization by other breeds. "That native Korean breed, the chindo-kae, is indistinguishable from Carolina Dogs, Brisbin noted. "If they were mixed in a group, I couldn't tell who was who." "Within the realm of laboratory science, very preliminary DNA studies on the Carolina Dogs have provided some tantalizing results. "It's intriguing," Brisbin said, "we grabbed them out of the woods based on what they look like, and if they were just dogs their DNA patterns should be well distributed throughout the canine family tree. But they aren't. They're all at the base of the tree, where you would find very primitive dogs." Such results are not conclusive, as other dog breeds sometimes show similar patterns, but they do beg the need for more extensive DNA testing that could more accurately fix the dogs' place in the genetic universe. "We need more research funding, more testing, and more Carolina Dog DNA," Brisbin noted." In other words, the Australian Dingo and the Carolina Dog may well be related -- but both would have come from Asia almost certainly. Doug SignatureDoug Weller -- exorcise the demon to reply Doug & Helen's Dogs http://www.dougandhelen.com A Director and Moderator of The Hall of Ma'at http://www.hallofmaat.com Doug's Archaeology Site: http://www.ramtops.co.uk >"Within the realm of laboratory science, very preliminary >DNA studies on the Carolina Dogs have provided some [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > family tree. But they aren't. They're all at the base of the > tree, where you would find very primitive dogs." snip >In other words, the Australian Dingo and the Carolina Dog >may well be related -- but both would have come from Asia >almost certainly. Question for you, Doug. If the Carolina Dog was some special branch of the canine DNA tree (from way down on the trunk! 8-) ) and you dumped that particular DNA mix into an environment well stocked with the more cultured DNA of european dogs, would it not very quickly "wash out" any sort of purebred "Carolina Dog" DNA? Let me offer an alternate idea and see if it floats. All of the various breeds of modern dogs that you might find at a Kennel Club show are more or less divergent variants from one basic model. That model was apparently quite well adapted to a feral life, and I suspect that the blueprint would sound very much like a Carolina Dog or a dingo. No frills and neither very large or small, just emminently survivalble. Now if you gathered up all of the show dogs from Madison Square Garten's show, dumped them into a feral environment, some would rapidly disappear, other breeds might flourish, but in the end, once those robust breeds started to interbreed, would the resultant dog (and perhaps even DNA mix) start looking more and more like that ancestoral survivor? That much is just a rambling lead in to the basic question. Could you tell the difference between a "Heinz 57" mix of modern dog DNA and the supposedly ancient "Carolina Dog"? Could the Carolina Dog be nothing more than a homogenized mutt that has recovered the original body plan? Regards bk >>"Within the realm of laboratory science, very preliminary >>DNA studies on the Carolina Dogs have provided some [quoted text clipped - 40 lines] > Regards > bk I believe that it has been observed that in areas where there are many generations of feral dogs, like some parts of India, they do tend to revert to the classic Yeller dog type, very much like the Carolina dog. Lorenzo L. Love http://home.thegrid.net/~lllove "If you pick up a starving dog and make him prosperous, he will not bite you; that is the principal difference between a dog and a man." Mark Twain > I believe that it has been observed that in areas > where there are many generations of feral dogs, > like some parts of India, they do tend to revert to > the classic Yeller dog type, very much like the > Carolina dog. > Lorenzo L. Love Yep. Im just wondering if the DNA sort of makes the same "revision" that the physique does. Can you tell the difference between an original "yeller dog" and one that came about from an amalgamation of breeds strictly by looking at the DNA? I have a sneaking suspicion that it would be very difficult. Im thinking that it might also be really tough to come up with a scenario that would have allowed a population of archaic Carolina dogs to retain some sort of "pure dingo" dna in spite of all of the canine "influx" from the more modern dogs. Just because the "yeller dogs" of the world dont look like poodles and pinschers dont mean than they are the missing links. They may just be the throwbacks you get when you puree all of the various artificial dog breeds. Will the DNA tell the tale? Regards bk > Perhaps it was entirely a Polynesian male connection and > Y-chrom would reveal something else, but so far, it's a stretch to > think of it as anything more than very minor contact. Y-chromosomes of polynesians and native americans have no overlap within a time span of about at least 15000 years. ....except some NA y-lineages showing up in pacific islands where slaves were known to have been taken from the americas. But still no evidence of polynesia -> america Y. Park |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.