Polynesians and Australia & New Guinea

[Fiver]

Looking at a map of the Pacific and seeing all the geographically-diverse islands settled by the Polynesians (New Zealand, the Solomons, New Caledonia) it seems strange to me that they never found New Guinea or Australia.

Of course, the New Guineans (Malay?) and Australian natives were already in both places by the time the Polynesians could have gotten there, so they wouldn’t have become Polynesian lands as New Zealand et al. did.

But is there any evidence that the Polynesians landed in either place? Evidence of trade, for example, or the remains of a colony a la L’Anse aux Meadows?

[Ike_Witt]

@Fiver

But is there any evidence that the Polynesians landed in either place? Evidence of trade, for example, or the remains of a colony a la L’Anse aux Meadows?

Australia was already settled by the time the area of Polynesia was settled by human migrants.

The people who settled all those islands came out of the same area in southeast Asia.

Was there trade? Yeah there was. Obsidian from the Bismark Archipelago, which is rather close to New Guinea, had been found at sites thousands of miles away.

[Fiver]

@adam yax

Australia was already settled by the time the area of Polynesia was settled by human migrants.

As I said in my OP.

[John_Mace]

Linguistic and DNA analysis put the original homeland of the Polynesians in Taiwan, about 8-10k years ago. They spread southward from there, and then started spreading eastward into what we think of today as the Polynesian triangle.

Australia was populated at least 40k years ago, and perhaps as long ago as 50k years. In fact, we seem to have made a bee-line for Australia as soon as we (our species) left Africa, hugging the coastline of the Indian Ocean, and settling in New Guinea and Australia. There are some extant Polynesian settlements on islands off the coast of New Guinea (Nuguria, Nukumanu, Takuu), but I’m not aware of any evidence that put them in Australia.

[intention]

@Fiver

Looking at a map of the Pacific and seeing all the geographically-diverse islands settled by the Polynesians (New Zealand, the Solomons, New Caledonia) it seems strange to me that they never found New Guinea or Australia.

Of course, the New Guineans (Malay?) and Australian natives were already in both places by the time the Polynesians could have gotten there, so they wouldn’t have become Polynesian lands as New Zealand et al. did.

But is there any evidence that the Polynesians landed in either place? Evidence of trade, for example, or the remains of a colony a la L’Anse aux Meadows?

A curious fact about the South Pacific is that if you start drifting (say in a disabled boat) from many places (Tonga, Samoa, etc.) you end up in the Solomons. Because of this, there are a variety of outlying islands in the Solomons (Rennel, Bellona, Ontong Java) which are populated by Polynesians. You don’t drift onto New Guinea or Australia.

Because of the lateness of the Polynesian diaspora, most of these outlying islands in the Solomons were settled in the last couple of thousand years, and likely at the cost of a reasonable amount of bloodshed.

I know of no records of Polynesian settlements in New Guinea or Australia, however. While it is possible for a boatload of people to take over a small isolated island, it would be nearly impossible on Australia or New Guinea. A small landing force would likely be wiped out in very short order. However, the archaeological history of both places is very incomplete.

w.

[Pleonast]

What always amazes me is the fact that Madagascar was settled less than 2000 years ago, and by South-East Asians, not Africans. Migrations don’t always follow the obvious path.

[Fiver]

@intention

A curious fact about the South Pacific is that if you start drifting (say in a disabled boat) from many places (Tonga, Samoa, etc.) you end up in the Solomons. Because of this, there are a variety of outlying islands in the Solomons (Rennel, Bellona, Ontong Java) which are populated by Polynesians. You don’t drift onto New Guinea or Australia.

That’s kind of dismissive of the Polynesians’ seafaring skills. They were genuine explorers; they didn’t just “drift.”

[intention]

@Fiver

That’s kind of dismissive of the Polynesians’ seafaring skills. They were genuine explorers; they didn’t just “drift.”

My apologies if my writing was not clear. As an ocean aficionado (surfer, diver, commercial fisherman, sailor) who has lived many years in the South Pacific, including six years in the Solomons, I assure you I meant no such thing. The Polynesians were expert navigators, using means (wave reflection patterns, etc.) unknown or unused by Western navigators.

What I meant was that the winds and currents run towards the Solomons, and boats from distant locations frequently wash up there (either with or without people in them). These “drift voyages” are said to be one reason for the large number of outlying islands in the Solomons (which is in the heart of Melanesia) populated by Polynesian peoples.

All the best,

w.

[si_blakely]

@Pleonast

What always amazes me is the fact that Madagascar was settled less than 2000 years ago, and by South-East Asians, not Africans. Migrations don’t always follow the obvious path.

New Zealand was populated less than 1000 years ago.

Si

[John_Mace]

@si_blakely

New Zealand was populated less than 1000 years ago.

Si

Yeah, but New Zealand is pretty far away from any continent with a seafaring culture, and isn’t easy to get to. Madagascar is practically right next door to one (or more) and is relatively easy to get to.

Also, NZ was probably populated as early as 800AD, which is more like 1300 years ago.

[Freddy_the_Pig]

@intention

I know of no records of Polynesian settlements in New Guinea or Australia, however. While it is possible for a boatload of people to take over a small isolated island, it would be nearly impossible on Australia or New Guinea. A small landing force would likely be wiped out in very short order.

Would they, though–especially in Australia? The Australian natives didn’t have a very high population density, nor the political organization to summon a large number of defenders to attack a settlement.

I’m thinking of Jared Diamond’s description of how the Maori overwhelmed the hunter-gatherer Morioris:

The brutal outcome of this collision . . . could have been easily predicted. The Moriori were a small, isolated population of hunter-gatherers, equipped with only the simplest technology and weapons, entirely inexperienced at war, and lacking strong leadership or organization. The Maori invaders came from a dense population of farmers chronically engaged in ferocious wars, equipped with more-advanced technology and weapons, and operating under strong leadership.

To be fair, Diamond is writing of a time after the Maori acquired guns. But it seems that much of his analysis would apply equally well to the time before that, and to a hypothetical collision between Maoris and Australians.

I guess the question I’m asking is this: There were no lasting Polynesian settlements in Australia. Is it more likely that Polynesians never reached Australia (other than perhaps a rare accidental voyage, which for whatever reason didn’t lead to a follow-up attempt at settlement), or that they reached Australia but were unable to settle due to hostility from the natives?

[Wendell_Wagner]

As I understand it, the Polynesians only settled on uninhabited islands. The only exceptions are some cases where one group of Polynesians conquered another group. For instance, Hawaii was apparently settled by one group of Polynesians and later conquered by a second group. New Guinea and Australia, being already inhabited, couldn’t be conquered by the Polynesians. Among other things, I think that Polynesians traveled in such small groups that they couldn’t conquer anyone. There’s some evidence, incidentally, that some Polynesians reached South America and weren’t able to establish a settlement there.

[Blake]

A two part question, each largely unrelated to the other.

New Guinea

New Guinea was explored, settled and traded with (though not dicovered) by Polynesians and proto-Polynesians. The Lapitans were the direct ancestors of the Polynesians and settled large chunks of New Guinea. Do a Google search for “Lapita People” or “Lapita Pottery” for more details.

Moreover Polynesians from areas west of New Guinea were regularly trading with New Guinea into the 18th century at least.

In addition the Polynesian Maori of New Zealand are genetically a blend of true Polynesian and a recent influx of Melanesian ancestry, most probably from from New Guinea.

So to say that the Maori never found New Guinea is just plain wrong. They discovered it very, very early in the piece and have continued to have full knowledge of its existence right through to the present day.

Australia

Nobody knows whether Polynesians ever made contact with Australia. There is some fragmentary evidence, such as the isolated use of shell fishooks in central coastal NSW and the use of wooden broadswords in Northern Queensland which suggest Polynesian contact, but nothing conclusive.

It might seem unlikely that the Polynesians never made contact with Australia when they had such a long and intimate contact with New Guinea, but the Great Barrier Reef would have both confused their navigation techniques and made successful landafall very difficult so it’s certainly not impossible.

More likely the Polyneains made landfall in Austyralia but never managed to establish a colony. Jared Diamond devoted briefly considered why this should be in G,G&S and Flannery devoted alot more time to it in “The Future Eaters”. The simplified answer is that Polyensians were were Tropical agriculturalists and fishermen, and Australia simply isn’t suited to wet tropical agriculture and fishing. The climate is too variable, the soils to poor and the ocean to unprodutive to allow the Polynesian way of life to be viable. Any Polynesians who did make landfall wouldn’t have been able to establish a viable colony. We know that that numerous Indo-Malayan farming colonies in Northern Australia had to be abandoned and the English colonies in Southern Australia almost failed numerous times and did fail multiple times in Northern Australia, and these were people arriving in number and in continued contact with the homeland. For an isolated Polynesian settlement party the odds of actually developing a viable farming/fishing community in Australia would have been virtually nil.

Aboriginal hostility may have been a factor, but only in the North. In the South Aboriginal reations to settlers seems to have been mainly aloof curiosity rather than outright agression. In the North people were abit more agressive, but that was a learnmed reation due to prolonged contact with seafarers/raiders from New Guinea, The Torres Strait and Indo-Malaya.

[Siam_Sam]

There’s a “Polynesian Triangle,” and Hawaii is at the tip of the topmost point. New Zealand may be the tip of another corner, as many Maori words are identical in Hawaiian. (The Hawaiians came from Tahiti about AD 800, if I remember correctly.)

I’ve not heard of the New Guinea natives referred to as Malay before; certainly there’s a physical difference.

And for a good fictional account of how the Tahitians could have made it to Hawaii, I recommend James Michener’s Hawaii.

[Blake]

@Siam Sam

I’ve not heard of the New Guinea natives referred to as Malay before; certainly there’s a physical difference.

I agree, that’s bizarre. Who calls New Guineans Malays?

[intention]

@Freddy the Pig

Would they, though–especially in Australia? The Australian natives didn’t have a very high population density, nor the political organization to summon a large number of defenders to attack a settlement.

I’m thinking of Jared Diamond’s description of how the Maori overwhelmed the hunter-gatherer Morioris:To be fair, Diamond is writing of a time after the Maori acquired guns. But it seems that much of his analysis would apply equally well to the time before that, and to a hypothetical collision between Maoris and Australians.

I guess the question I’m asking is this: There were no lasting Polynesian settlements in Australia. Is it more likely that Polynesians never reached Australia (other than perhaps a rare accidental voyage, which for whatever reason didn’t lead to a follow-up attempt at settlement), or that they reached Australia but were unable to settle due to hostility from the natives?

Dunno about Australia, haven’t spent much time there, but I can tell you that the people of PNG are very tough and warlike, and would be a tough and resolute foe. Also, there’s lots and lots of them … I don’t think that a few canoe loads of Polynesians would have stood a chance against them.

w.

[Siam_Sam]

@Blake

I agree, that’s bizarre. Who calls New Guineans Malays?

I suspect some confusion lies in the fact that half the island belongs to Indonesia, and some Indonesians ARE Malay. Not the New Guineans, though.

[wevets]

@intention

Dunno about Australia, haven’t spent much time there, but I can tell you that the people of PNG are very tough and warlike, and would be a tough and resolute foe. Also, there’s lots and lots of them … I don’t think that a few canoe loads of Polynesians would have stood a chance against them.

Yeah - heck, even the europeans only ever maintained some small coastal outposts in New Guinea, right? Even with their guns and steel they never advanced in force into the interior or mountains of the island until maybe the Australians (of european descent) in World War II, if I remember correctly.

[John_Mace]

@Siam Sam

There’s a “Polynesian Triangle,” and Hawaii is at the tip of the topmost point. New Zealand may be the tip of another corner, as many Maori words are identical in Hawaiian. (The Hawaiians came from Tahiti about AD 800, if I remember correctly.)

New Zealand is the tip of one corner. Hawaii-NZ-Rapa Nui (Easter Island). And Maori is absolutely a Polynesian language-- no doubt about it.

I’ve not heard of the New Guinea natives referred to as Malay before; certainly there’s a physical difference.

To be fair, that was a parenthetical question made by the OP.

There have been some claims that Polynesians made it to South America, but that’s a bit controversial. The latest evidence in support is that pre-Columbian chicken bones recently discovered in Chile have DNA very similar to those found in Polynesia. That’s not conclusive, but it is suggestive.