How did the Polynesians find Hawaii?

This reminded me so much of James Michener’s description of the trip from Bora Bora to Hawaii in his 1959 novel Hawaii that I had to wonder whether he’d read the book and used it as a source. Bingo, Googling turned up a reference to a book review that Michener did of Murchie’s book.
So, if you want to read a chapter of a novel that describes the journey, including the legends and navigational chants of earlier travelers, the food they brought, their awe at first seeing Polaris, then you’ll enjoy Chapter 2: “From the Sunswept Lagoon” in Michener’s Hawaii.

It’s available at the link below, condensed, under the title “West Wind to Hawaii” starting on p. 26. A group on Bora Bora are unhappy with conditions there and decide to follow a “mysterious old chant” that implies that generations earlier travellers had returned after discovering how to navigate 30 to 50 days to the land “under the Little Eyes”, the Pleiades.

The Pacific Golden-Plover may have been an important factor in the discovery of Hawaii.

This bird spends the northern winter on various Pacific islands including Hawaii, Tahiti and the Marquesas. It then migrates to Alaska for the breeding season.

Natives of Tahiti and the Marquesas, being bird-savvy, would have noticed these birds flying north-northeast and disappearing for months. It would make sense to think there might be some useful land in that direction.
Note that long “voyages of discovery” probably were speculative, and often failed. Departing the Marquesas Islands, there’s no way to be certain that a significant island chain lies some 4000km NNE, or that you’ll pass close enough to see it, even with well-developed island-finding skills. If you hope to survive, you of course must carry sufficient people, animals and plants that you can set up housekeeping if and when you arrive.

Yes, unlike the people who hailed from the various kingdoms that comprise Caucasia, the Polynesians didn’t need to wreck their ships to move the plot forward.

Turn left at Greenland.

Michener covers this in his novel Hawaii. Take it for what it’s worth.

By the time Captain Cook was tootling around the Pacific (we marked the 250th anniversary of his landing in Australia last week) there was an incredibly detailed knowledge of the disposition of the Central Pacific islands and their navigational interconnections. Cook met and took on board a scholar-navigator-priest named Tupaiaat Tahiti who produced maps for Cook and gave him some inkling of just how this vast area was inter-connected and known about.

To get to the landfalls west of Hawaii already required mastery of navigation and ship-building, living on both high islands and atolls, and intimate knowledge of how to minimise the risks of being at sea. Still, venturing into the sunrise to see what is there, even with these in your pocket, was something I could never imagine.

Someone else arrived here before the Polynesians, or at last before those Polynesians. They were gone when the Polynesians arrived but left behind some sort of basic stone structures. No one knows who they may have been or what happened to them. That seems to be the basis of the menehune, Hawaiian leprechauns.

Then transit through the Northwest Passage.

I thought it was covered in “Kon-Tiki”, which is still in print.

Heyerdahl showed a bunch of floating logs could float a long way, but its the comparison between racing car drivers driving high-precision rally cars [Polynesians] and hoons who’ve stolen a family sedan without realising none of them can drive a manual [Thor H].

Heyerdahl might not have had all of the skills of an expert Polynesian navigator, but he had to have learned a lot of them to make his trip even possible.

Heyerdahl wasn’t navigating except in the most general way. He used the prevailing trade winds and ocean currents to travel westward. He wasn’t trying to reach any particular island. He relied on the fact that there were so many islands in his path that he would be likely to pass close to or collide with one by chance. While he demonstrated the proof-of-concept that a balsa raft was durable enough to travel thousands of miles, as has been said, it wasn’t really comparable to the accomplishments of the Polynesians.

Heyerdahl was basically a crackpot (although, like most crackpots, his ideas had a grain of truth). He believed that the first inhabitants of the Pacific Islands, as far west as Samoa and north to Hawaii, had been colonists from South America. The Polynesians came later, via a circuitous route through the North Pacific, after colonizing Northwestern North America.

Archaeological, genetic, and linguistic evidence has demonstrated convincingly that the Polynesians had their ultimate origin in insular Southeast Asia, and perhaps Taiwan. They reached Tahiti and the Marquesas by around 700 AD. After 900 AD they underwent a rapid expansion eventually reaching Hawaii, New Zealand, and Easter Island.

However, there is definite evidence that there were some Precolumbian contacts between Polynesia and South America. Most notable is the sweet potato (Ipomoea batatas), which originated in and was first cultivated in the Americas. It was found to be a staple crop throughout much of the Pacific by the first European explorers. Although the seeds are somewhat salt-tolerant, the words used for the plant are similar in Quechua (spoken in South America) and in Polynesia, suggesting a human role in its dispersal. The plant is most commonly propagated by vine cuttings.

While a drifting raft from South America could have brought the sweet potato to Polynesia, I think it’s much more likely due to a two-way voyage by Polynesians. The South American cultures were not blue-water sailors, and traveled mainly along the coasts. While a long haul, a voyage from Polynesia to South America was comparable to other trips the Polynesians accomplished. There is also more controversial evidence that chickens might have been introduced to South America from Polynesia before they were brought in by the Spanish.

On the other hand, recent genetic work has shown a small component of South American ancestry in the population of Easter Island that predates European contact by hundreds of years, suggesting at least here the contact might have been from the East.

Well, the ultimate origin of the Polynesian people was in the Olduvai Gorge. Go back far enough, and everyone’s from somewhere else.

And South American genetics in Easter Island could also have meant that islanders sailed to South America, and brought South Americans back with them. Though then again, while we know that the Columbian-era South American cultures were not blue-water sailors, can we rule out that they might have been, at some point in the past, and lost the technology?

Well, the ultimate origin of the Polynesian people was in the Olduvai Gorge. Go back far enough, and everyone’s from somewhere else.

And South American genetics in Easter Island could also have meant that islanders sailed to South America, and brought South Americans back with them. Though then again, while we know that the Columbian-era South American cultures were not blue-water sailors, can we rule out that they might have been, at some point in the past, and lost the technology?

:dubious:I’m not sure what point you’re trying to make here. Surely the more recent origins of human populations are of interest, no? The Polynesians appear to be a mixture of Austronesian peoples originating in Taiwan, and Melanesians that came from Southeast Asia. Austronesians colonized as far West as Madagascar and as far East as Easter Island at least.

The authors of the study that found Precolumbian Native American ancestry in the natives of Easter Island (Rapa Nui) found that scenario to be more likely.

Heyerdahl apparently found some pre-Incan pottery in the Galapagos, but no signs of permanent settlement such as graves or buildings. I don’t believe there is any indication of pre-European visitation to the Juan Fernandez archipelago off Chile.

There would have been little motivation to sail far offshore in the Pacific for South American civilizations. There is a very rich offshore fishery supported by the Humboldt Current, but once past that the fishing would be poor. There aren’t really stepping-stone islands which might motivate seafarers to go farther and farther looking for more.

In contrast, the ancestors of the Polynesians were able to gradually hone their sea-faring abilities as they moved farther and farther out into the Pacific. In the Western and Central Pacific, the islands weren’t too far apart and reachable with a few days sail. By the time they reached the Eastern Pacific they were skilled enough to make voyages of thousands of miles.

I’ve long been fascinated with the discovery of Easter Island and the feat it was making it there. But surely it could have only been a one way attempt. They must have intended to go that for as they had provisions to make it. And presumably the people they left at home never knew if they made it to another island or not. It makes me wonder how many such expeditions set out to parts inknown and didn’t find another island.

Follow up question: do we know how big the raft that discovered Hawaii might have been and how many people might have been onboard?

Why couldn’t it be that a few explorers went there, found it, came back, and then brought their families and the resources to form a colony?

The Polynesians, since this was their life and home and field of expertise, became experts at finding new islands and settling there. However, some quibbles:

Given the distance, unlikely they were “blown off course”. As mentioned above, they suspected from the bird life that there was something out there, and they went and found Hawaii. Finding new islands, and settling them, seems to have been a mission of theirs, no doubt when necessary to relieve population pressure. They went looking for new islands, I presume, then having found suitable ones, came back for a settler boatload.

Also, Easter Island was the exception. Pitcairn Island and “nearby” islands had been inhabited and then abandoned by earlier Polynesian settlers for lack of necessary resources. they were a long way from any other islands, and Easter Island even farther from there. I don’t recall reading any evidence that Easter Island received any more visitors after the initial settlement, so it may be an anomaly of isolation in the Polynesian world. Warfare, climate change, clear-cutting and/or rats eating all the tree nuts (so they could not build boats) have all been blamed for their social collapse. Jared Diamond in “Collapse” describes fields littered with rocks which would seem counter to how to farm - until it was realized they provided just enough shelter from wind and cold to allow crops to grow in their wind-shadow.

The Polynesians didn’t use rafts but large sailing canoes, often double-hulled. See my post #20. Given the fact that several far-flung island groups were discovered in a period of only a few hundred years, it’s possible that there was a deliberate effort to explore for new territories. The first discovery was probably by one or a few canoes with only a few people. After the discoverers returned, organized colonization was most likely by a flotilla of several large canoes, probably carrying dozens or hundreds of people, as well as domestic animals and plant cuttings. While the exact dating of the colonization of Hawaii has been controversial, there is evidence of a first wave of colonization around 1000 AD from the Marquesas, followed by another around 1200 AD, from Tahiti or vicinity. In New Zealand, the Maori had a tradition that the original colonization was by a large flotilla of canoes.