Besides the east-west mixup, not all Polynesian movements were towards the east. As I understand it, Hawaii was settled from what is now French Polynesia. That’s a northern expansion, not an easterly move. And New Zealand was a southward movement.
Doh! Did it again. East. Point is, they knew where there were already islands and what was unknown “territory” where they might find uninhabited land.
They also used the ‘The Return Safety Rule’ - Traditionally, navigators often preferred starting exploratory trips against the wind so that if they found nothing, turning back meant a fast, safe ride home with the prevailing wind at their backs
Yes, surely if an expedition set out and never returned, the remaining people must have taken it in stride as a matter of course. It must have happened a lot. I agree that there must have been a lot of succumbing at sea.
I often wonder if members of the the Rapa Nui founders ever made a return visit?
How close to the wind could Polynesian vessels tack?
And whence comes the name “Rapa Nui”, given that the inhabitants were dead before European explorers found the island?
Huh? There definitely still was a Polynesian population on Rapa Nui when the first Europeans arrived. The one thing that was already lost was the knowledge of their script, there were (and are) still examples for it, but nobody could read it anymore, and it hasn’t been deciphered until today.
ETA: there are still Rap Nui people on the island, though they are in decline and endangered. They suffered a lot under the Europeans since their discovery. Many of them were enslaved and sent to Peru in the 18th century.
Which mainly relies on the same DNA study by Ioannidis - fortunately, giving a bit more detail than the abstract did, thanks.
I do have to wonder how the Colombian natives could manage to travel to Polynesia, since it appears they were not known as large canoe makers nor long distance navigators. IIRC even Da Gama came perilously close to starvation (and water shortage) trying to cross the Pacific with a (very) rough idea where he was and how far to go. Someone blown off shore from Colombia would be unlikely to have packed supplies for a 4,000 mile journey to the Marquesas or Pitcairn. Whereas, these long sea voyages were something the Polynesians were experienced at. But, looking at the map - it would be surprising if the Polynesian explorers made it to Colombia but failed to notice the Galapagos, which were not far off that route. One aspect of navigation that Polynesians were good at seemed to be detecting nearby islands over the horizon from assorted clues - wave patterns, birds, clouds, etc.
The lesson of the demise of Vikings in Newfoundland, and the fate of assorted European earliest colonies, is that the locals would be very reluctant to accept colonies from afar when they were already at the carrying capacity of their land. I’m guessing the Polynesians, if they arrived in Colombia, would have been able to pack up and go home and tell folks that there was nothing there (further east ) for them. OTOH, the oral history of the origins of Easter Island suggest the group that departed the Cook Islands as a colony likely knew where they were going, implying there had been earlier explorations there. I’m guessing that the Polynesians were not in the habit of loading a boat with the whole family, chickens and pigs and sweet potatoes, just on spec? That original explorations were likely male crews ready for hardship. (Which would also explain why they would have brought some local women back if they made it to Colombia?)
Wait, when and who did this?
Nobody, that’s my point. Many people have tried, but no one succeeded so far.
Colombians didn’t have to travel to Polynesia and Polynesians didn’t need to travel to Colombia. They just had to meet anywhere along the Pacific coast of South America.
ETA: I’m not being clear. Colombian DNA could likely be found anywhere in South America. including places closer to the inhabited Pacific Islands.
Yeah, it is easy to do.
“hasn’t been deciphered until today” connotes that it has been deciphered, recently. (I had the same reaction that Lucas Jackson did to the phrasing.)
Oh, now I see, really bad wording on my part, I meant “to this day”. Sorry.
The point is - the closest point to the Marquesas is about 4,000 miles, the point at the border between Ecuador and Peru. The distance to Colombia (Colombia and Ecuador border) is 4,200 miles. Most of the rest of South America is further. (Thank you, Google Maps) So the effort to get there, either way, would be extraordinarily beyond what most Polynesian exploration did. Pitcairn (inhabited at one time then abandoned) to Easter Island was about 1200 miles. Kiribati to Hawaii was about 1100 miles. Tonga to New Zealand about 1100 miles. (Less if they went from Norfolk I.)
I’m not saying it was impossible, just saying that was a helluva distance and a helluva risk. And presumably they filled up with supplies when they got there, for the trip back. Another interesting question is how durable those canoes were for long immersion. I assume they were less susceptible to things like barnacles and worms since they could be hauled ashore and dried out, unlike large sailing ships.
Google suggests Tahiti to Hawaii took about 3 to 4 weeks, 2600 miles, so the trip to Colombia would be 6 weeks or less.
I haven’t been able to stop thinking of this. Imagine it; all of the excitement of building of the boats, the planning, the wonder of how the new world would be.
Then the hardships associated with oceangoing travel. Sun exposure, the constant bobbing and wave riding, Wet clothes, wet food. I recently read the accounts of the folks that came over on the Mayflower. That was a much better boat and the conditions onboard were horrible.
And then, for those that did not find an island, the eventual running out of food and water. Seeing your friends and love ones die one at a time. All the while holding out hope. Ugh…
Might make an interesting short story though.
It happens right I’m now staying at a hotel on a Caribbean island. Which has as an item of outdoor decor a replica of Columbus’ Pina, the smallest of his fleet.
Which looks to me like a 50-ish foot open skiff w sails. Barely adequate to sail to an adjacent island you can easily see from your home beach. It has nearly no shelter.
Those brave / foolhardy bastards set off from Spain across the Atlantic in that toy with no real honest idea of what lay ahead.
Neutronium 'nads; every man without exception. Or stupid; very stupid.
In short: I share your horror and admiration in equal measure.
They “knew” exactly what lay ahead although they were mistaken. They thought that the coast of Asia lay ahead and they were going to establish a quick and very lucrative trade network. A linguist was on board who spoke Aramaic, Hebrew and Arabic because they thought they would run into Jewish or Arabic merchants. They thought for years that they found islands off the coast of India. This takes nothing away from their courage and dumb fucking luck.
The Polynesians were truly looking for undiscovered islands.
Just to emphasise how amazing that these voyages were being made, if you hold a pencil up at arms length, that is about 0.5 deg of arc. That is your aiming window - the visibility of an island in the vastness of the Pacific. This is the island itself, which is hopefully not a low atoll, plus its immediate ecological zone that hints at land being present. You have to hit that bearing every day for a month, allowing for winds, weather, currents, cloud, or you just sail past your island after weeks of voyaging and potentially either hit South America or starve. (this is a gloss, there were navigation paths that were not linear, but still …)
It doesn’t just speak to bravery and trust in leadership, but also the technology of their craft and the knowledge that accumulated across their great age of migrations and voyaging and which was held by successive navigators. We get a glimpse of that with Tupaia, the navigator-priest who accompanied Cook on the Endeavour, and more with extant traditional Pacific sailing knowledge. Truly awesome in every respect.
They did, but the trips of settlers like the Pilgrims where they ‘thought’ they knew but woefully underestimated the hardships, were almost worse.
Mayflower, for example; about 100 passengers were squeezed into the dark, damp gun deck of a merchant cargo ship not built to carry people.
Most passengers suffered continuous seasickness, and a diet high in salt weakened their bodies during the grueling 66-day crossing.
These weren’t soldiers or rugged explorers, they were 69 total landlubber adults, (50 men and 19 women, including three pregnant women), mostly in their 30s. And about 30 crewmen.
Add to that 14 teenagers aged 13 to 18.and 19 children aged 12 and under, plus three babies born during or shortly after the journey.
I suspect that the Polynesian expeditions were much like this except in a canoe alongside pigs, dogs, chickens and rats.
(Have you ever smelled pig shit?)
All of which pales compared to the hardships endured by the “cargo” on contemporaneous slave ships crossing the Atlantic.
The horrors are different, but signing up voluntarily for whatever lay ahead was somehow more potent than being a mere victim of other people’s rampant assholicness.