6.2 Archaeological Evidence for Spice Island Contact with America
105
single-piece curved shell fishhooks between 1000 B.C. and 500 B.C. (Glascow 1996: 134);
Koerper et al.1995; Rick et al. 2002) or perhaps slightly earlier (Raab et al. 1995; Strudwick
1985).
Ironically, however, in a paper presenting a case for diffusion, Jones and Klar
accept the modern rejection of evidence for this early diffusion, noting that “the
chronology of single-piece shell hooks in California (ca. 1000 B.C.) is considerably
earlier than the settlement of the remote outposts of Polynesia, which is antithetical
to the pattern of Polynesian colonization of the Pacific from west to east” (p. 466).
Jones and Klar were clearly daunted by the date proposed for the earlier Polynesian
contact.
Our central paradigm offers a new context in which to review this disputed
evidence. Evidence for the appearance in southern California of a single-piece
curved shell fishhook before 1000 BC and the attribution of these new fishhooks
to Micronesia and Hawaii support a first-wave introduction and a Kuro Shio route
for this technological diffusion. The evidence Jones and Klar provide for a change
in technology following a 7,000-year period without change offers striking support
for our interpretation of this evidence.
Our paradigm provides a route independent of supposed Eastern Polynesian
involvement and a timing that accords with other first-wave Spice Island explorations before 1000 BC following powerful warm currents flowing out of the West
Pacific Warm Pool. The early date for the settlement of western Micronesia, rather
than late dates for the settlement of Eastern Polynesia, provides the relevant external defining chronological boundary as does dating for the global cold period that
halted voyaging in 1000 BC. The dating of the Californian fishhooks has not been
challenged. In the context of our paradigm, their appearance in southern California
before 1000 BC provides evidence for a “first-wave” voyage of exploration that
followed the Kuro Shio Current to a terminus in southern California.
Our paradigm also provides a new context for Jones and Klar’s own evidence for
Polynesian contact with America in the early centuries AD. Jones and Klar present
a carefully argued case for such contact. Combining archaeological and linguistic
evidence, the case they present provides clear support for our claim that secondwave as well as first-wave Spice Island mariners followed the Kuro Shio Current
to a landfall on the coast of southern California. Their evidence has, however, been
challenged.
The anti-diffusionist arguments made against Lang’s evidence for Polynesian
contact with southern California before 1000 BC – independent evolution of the
technology and the impossibility of early contact between Polynesia and America
because Eastern Polynesia was settled too late for such contact to have occurred –
resurface in Atholl Anderson’s case against later direct contact between Polynesia
and southern California [4]. Jones and Klar focus on linguistic and archaeological evidence relating to the adoption “sometime between ca. AD 400 and 800”,
by Chumashan and Gabrielino speakers from southern California, of sewn-plank
boat technology (common in Island Southeast Asia and Micronesia in the early
centuries of the first millennium AD). They argue that there is evidence at the
same time for “punctuated adaptive change (e.g., increased exploitation of pelagic
105
single-piece curved shell fishhooks between 1000 B.C. and 500 B.C. (Glascow 1996: 134);
Koerper et al.1995; Rick et al. 2002) or perhaps slightly earlier (Raab et al. 1995; Strudwick
1985).
Ironically, however, in a paper presenting a case for diffusion, Jones and Klar
accept the modern rejection of evidence for this early diffusion, noting that “the
chronology of single-piece shell hooks in California (ca. 1000 B.C.) is considerably
earlier than the settlement of the remote outposts of Polynesia, which is antithetical
to the pattern of Polynesian colonization of the Pacific from west to east” (p. 466).
Jones and Klar were clearly daunted by the date proposed for the earlier Polynesian
contact.
Our central paradigm offers a new context in which to review this disputed
evidence. Evidence for the appearance in southern California of a single-piece
curved shell fishhook before 1000 BC and the attribution of these new fishhooks
to Micronesia and Hawaii support a first-wave introduction and a Kuro Shio route
for this technological diffusion. The evidence Jones and Klar provide for a change
in technology following a 7,000-year period without change offers striking support
for our interpretation of this evidence.
Our paradigm provides a route independent of supposed Eastern Polynesian
involvement and a timing that accords with other first-wave Spice Island explorations before 1000 BC following powerful warm currents flowing out of the West
Pacific Warm Pool. The early date for the settlement of western Micronesia, rather
than late dates for the settlement of Eastern Polynesia, provides the relevant external defining chronological boundary as does dating for the global cold period that
halted voyaging in 1000 BC. The dating of the Californian fishhooks has not been
challenged. In the context of our paradigm, their appearance in southern California
before 1000 BC provides evidence for a “first-wave” voyage of exploration that
followed the Kuro Shio Current to a terminus in southern California.
Our paradigm also provides a new context for Jones and Klar’s own evidence for
Polynesian contact with America in the early centuries AD. Jones and Klar present
a carefully argued case for such contact. Combining archaeological and linguistic
evidence, the case they present provides clear support for our claim that secondwave as well as first-wave Spice Island mariners followed the Kuro Shio Current
to a landfall on the coast of southern California. Their evidence has, however, been
challenged.
The anti-diffusionist arguments made against Lang’s evidence for Polynesian
contact with southern California before 1000 BC – independent evolution of the
technology and the impossibility of early contact between Polynesia and America
because Eastern Polynesia was settled too late for such contact to have occurred –
resurface in Atholl Anderson’s case against later direct contact between Polynesia
and southern California [4]. Jones and Klar focus on linguistic and archaeological evidence relating to the adoption “sometime between ca. AD 400 and 800”,
by Chumashan and Gabrielino speakers from southern California, of sewn-plank
boat technology (common in Island Southeast Asia and Micronesia in the early
centuries of the first millennium AD). They argue that there is evidence at the
same time for “punctuated adaptive change (e.g., increased exploitation of pelagic