10.4 The Early Migration History of Hawaii
167
10.4 The Early Migration History of Hawaii
Like New Zealand, Hawaii, as one of the three apices of the Polynesian triangle,
is seen as being remote and inaccessible from Eastern Polynesia. But in the earliest phase of the settlement of the Pacific, sailing from the Spice Islands to the
Hawaiian archipelago through Micronesia avoided the problems of west–east sailing and crossing the Doldrums that confronted later colonizers from the southern
Pacific. Sailing north from Halmahera through Micronesia, exploiting the Kuro
Shio Current and then following the current towards Hawaii avoided the contrary
trade winds below it. The southerly margin of the Kuro Shio Current turns towards
the Hawaiian Group as it approaches it. Though this route may seem to be very
long, it is surprisingly direct. It is, in fact, only about 20% longer than the distance
from Halmahera to Samoa and very much shorter than any other route to Hawaii
from the Spice Islands. Hawaii possesses the largest land area in the Pacific after
New Zealand, the Bismarcks, Solomons, New Caledonia and Fiji (all save New
Zealand recognized as Lapita settlements). Hawaii has wonderfully fertile soils and
the capacity to support big populations. And like New Zealand it can be reached by
exploiting a strong West Pacific Warm Pool current that provides a rapid passage.
Following the Kuro Shio Current a little further east and then sailing directly south
would take a canoe to the Marquesas, where Lapita pots have been found, their clay
sourced to Fiji [5]. For explorers the return voyage from both the Marquesas and
Hawaii could use the trade winds that flow from east to west just above and below
the equator.
Apart from Irapanga’s migration, for which there is genealogical evidence from
a major Rarotongan line (see Appendix 1), the timing of the early migrations to
Hawaii recorded in Maori tradition is difficult to establish. The assumption by modern prehistorians that Hawaii was initially settled from Eastern Polynesia has led
prehistorians in the last decade to argue for increasingly late first settlement dates.
Athens et al. [6], for example, note
The chronology of Polynesian settlement of Hawaii is a hotly debated topic with some
investigators suggesting settlement occurred as early as the first century AD (Hunt and
Holsen, 1991). Kirch’s standard textbook on Hawaiian archaeology cites a date of AD 300
(Kirch, 1985: 58, 68), and he more recently (2000: 291–292) suggests a range between AD
300 and 600. However, we see the chronological data supporting a settlement range of AD
700–800 (Athens, 1997; Masse and Tuggle, 1998; Tuggle and Spriggs, 2000).
For many archaeologists the assumption that Hawaii can only have been colonized from Eastern Polynesia generates a reluctance to consider inconvenient early
evidence. Controversy over the issue of first settlement is generated not just by the
not surprising absence of early archaeological evidence but from the felt need to
establish a date for first settlement that is consistent with accepted late dates for
the settlement of Eastern Polynesia. As we saw in Chapter 6, the appearance of
Micronesian and Hawaiian-style single-piece curved shell fishhooks in southern
California before 1000 BC has been dismissed by archaeologists as evidence for
167
10.4 The Early Migration History of Hawaii
Like New Zealand, Hawaii, as one of the three apices of the Polynesian triangle,
is seen as being remote and inaccessible from Eastern Polynesia. But in the earliest phase of the settlement of the Pacific, sailing from the Spice Islands to the
Hawaiian archipelago through Micronesia avoided the problems of west–east sailing and crossing the Doldrums that confronted later colonizers from the southern
Pacific. Sailing north from Halmahera through Micronesia, exploiting the Kuro
Shio Current and then following the current towards Hawaii avoided the contrary
trade winds below it. The southerly margin of the Kuro Shio Current turns towards
the Hawaiian Group as it approaches it. Though this route may seem to be very
long, it is surprisingly direct. It is, in fact, only about 20% longer than the distance
from Halmahera to Samoa and very much shorter than any other route to Hawaii
from the Spice Islands. Hawaii possesses the largest land area in the Pacific after
New Zealand, the Bismarcks, Solomons, New Caledonia and Fiji (all save New
Zealand recognized as Lapita settlements). Hawaii has wonderfully fertile soils and
the capacity to support big populations. And like New Zealand it can be reached by
exploiting a strong West Pacific Warm Pool current that provides a rapid passage.
Following the Kuro Shio Current a little further east and then sailing directly south
would take a canoe to the Marquesas, where Lapita pots have been found, their clay
sourced to Fiji [5]. For explorers the return voyage from both the Marquesas and
Hawaii could use the trade winds that flow from east to west just above and below
the equator.
Apart from Irapanga’s migration, for which there is genealogical evidence from
a major Rarotongan line (see Appendix 1), the timing of the early migrations to
Hawaii recorded in Maori tradition is difficult to establish. The assumption by modern prehistorians that Hawaii was initially settled from Eastern Polynesia has led
prehistorians in the last decade to argue for increasingly late first settlement dates.
Athens et al. [6], for example, note
The chronology of Polynesian settlement of Hawaii is a hotly debated topic with some
investigators suggesting settlement occurred as early as the first century AD (Hunt and
Holsen, 1991). Kirch’s standard textbook on Hawaiian archaeology cites a date of AD 300
(Kirch, 1985: 58, 68), and he more recently (2000: 291–292) suggests a range between AD
300 and 600. However, we see the chronological data supporting a settlement range of AD
700–800 (Athens, 1997; Masse and Tuggle, 1998; Tuggle and Spriggs, 2000).
For many archaeologists the assumption that Hawaii can only have been colonized from Eastern Polynesia generates a reluctance to consider inconvenient early
evidence. Controversy over the issue of first settlement is generated not just by the
not surprising absence of early archaeological evidence but from the felt need to
establish a date for first settlement that is consistent with accepted late dates for
the settlement of Eastern Polynesia. As we saw in Chapter 6, the appearance of
Micronesian and Hawaiian-style single-piece curved shell fishhooks in southern
California before 1000 BC has been dismissed by archaeologists as evidence for