168
10 Studying the History of Spice Island Migration Through Cultural Diffusion
technological diffusion from Polynesia because the dates involved are so much earlier than those for the settlement of Eastern Polynesia, which is seen as the only
possible source for such a diffusion. Similarly when Eastern Polynesia is seen as
the only possible source for migrations to Hawaii, conceivable dates for the first settlement of Hawaii are severely constrained. Unfortunately it may not be easy to find
unassailable archaeological evidence to challenge this constraint. As Terry Hunt and
Robert Holsen [7] explain,
the earliest sites in Hawai’i are those that have had the most time for destruction by nature
and the activities of prehistoric and modern people, and for deep burial by colluvial and
alluvial sedimentation. Finding and dating early occupations in Hawaii is the problem of
sampling the rarest phenomena in a population. Probability theory states that rarest phenomena are correspondingly difficult to encounter in samples, especially in relatively small
ones. . .Furthermore, the samples used from the archaeology of Hawai’i are far from representative. The bulk of field work today is contract archaeology, conducted primarily in
leeward zones—environments that might not, in all cases, have been settled until somewhat later than well-watered windward areas. . .in spite of the real potential for erroneously
early dates, we must be careful that current predilections about what is “too early” do not
seriously bias our interpretation.
The volcanic nature of Hawaii and its vulnerability to tsunamis and cyclones
decreases the likelihood of finding evidence from early coastal sites. One would
expect too a discrepancy in time between the arrival of the first colonists and the
first discernible archaeological footprint for this arrival. We have seen from Palau
a 2,300-year gap between the dating for the first palynological evidence of disturbance and first archaeological evidence of settlement. Tradition suggests the
possibility of multiple early migrations to Hawaii and so of small settlements strung
out through the Hawaiian archipelago, each separate settlement requiring time for
a recognizable archaeological footprint to be generated. The danger of extinctions
or near-extinctions for isolated early groups while their numbers are small is also
relevant in terms of the earliest archaeological evidence we can expect to find in the
Hawaiian archipelago. The early migration history of Hawaii may indeed be easier
to infer from evidence preserved in oral traditions than from artefactual evidence.
As we saw in Chapter 5, traditional accounts preserved in New Zealand suggest
a first-wave Spice Island discovery of Hawaii by Tama-rereti and early migrations
to Hawaii from the Spice Islands. That Hawaii was settled before the cold period
of 1000 BC is supported, we have suggested, by the finding of Hawaiian-style
single-piece curved shell fishhooks in southern California dated to before 1000 BC.
Tradition also records the visit by the second-wave explorer, Maui the Navigator,
to Hawaii (in about AD 100 by our reckoning) following his visit to New Zealand.
The fact that Maui is recorded as landing at Mahitahi (Bruce Bay) on the west coast
of the South Island of New Zealand, where the East Australian Current would have
taken him, establishes that second-wave explorers, like first-wave explorers before
them, followed the sailing and exploring strategy of following fast warm currents
flowing out from the West Pacific Warm Pool. That Maui followed sailing instructions to New Zealand probably handed down from first-wave explorers and voyaged
to Hawaii immediately afterwards suggests he also had access to sailing instructions
10 Studying the History of Spice Island Migration Through Cultural Diffusion
technological diffusion from Polynesia because the dates involved are so much earlier than those for the settlement of Eastern Polynesia, which is seen as the only
possible source for such a diffusion. Similarly when Eastern Polynesia is seen as
the only possible source for migrations to Hawaii, conceivable dates for the first settlement of Hawaii are severely constrained. Unfortunately it may not be easy to find
unassailable archaeological evidence to challenge this constraint. As Terry Hunt and
Robert Holsen [7] explain,
the earliest sites in Hawai’i are those that have had the most time for destruction by nature
and the activities of prehistoric and modern people, and for deep burial by colluvial and
alluvial sedimentation. Finding and dating early occupations in Hawaii is the problem of
sampling the rarest phenomena in a population. Probability theory states that rarest phenomena are correspondingly difficult to encounter in samples, especially in relatively small
ones. . .Furthermore, the samples used from the archaeology of Hawai’i are far from representative. The bulk of field work today is contract archaeology, conducted primarily in
leeward zones—environments that might not, in all cases, have been settled until somewhat later than well-watered windward areas. . .in spite of the real potential for erroneously
early dates, we must be careful that current predilections about what is “too early” do not
seriously bias our interpretation.
The volcanic nature of Hawaii and its vulnerability to tsunamis and cyclones
decreases the likelihood of finding evidence from early coastal sites. One would
expect too a discrepancy in time between the arrival of the first colonists and the
first discernible archaeological footprint for this arrival. We have seen from Palau
a 2,300-year gap between the dating for the first palynological evidence of disturbance and first archaeological evidence of settlement. Tradition suggests the
possibility of multiple early migrations to Hawaii and so of small settlements strung
out through the Hawaiian archipelago, each separate settlement requiring time for
a recognizable archaeological footprint to be generated. The danger of extinctions
or near-extinctions for isolated early groups while their numbers are small is also
relevant in terms of the earliest archaeological evidence we can expect to find in the
Hawaiian archipelago. The early migration history of Hawaii may indeed be easier
to infer from evidence preserved in oral traditions than from artefactual evidence.
As we saw in Chapter 5, traditional accounts preserved in New Zealand suggest
a first-wave Spice Island discovery of Hawaii by Tama-rereti and early migrations
to Hawaii from the Spice Islands. That Hawaii was settled before the cold period
of 1000 BC is supported, we have suggested, by the finding of Hawaiian-style
single-piece curved shell fishhooks in southern California dated to before 1000 BC.
Tradition also records the visit by the second-wave explorer, Maui the Navigator,
to Hawaii (in about AD 100 by our reckoning) following his visit to New Zealand.
The fact that Maui is recorded as landing at Mahitahi (Bruce Bay) on the west coast
of the South Island of New Zealand, where the East Australian Current would have
taken him, establishes that second-wave explorers, like first-wave explorers before
them, followed the sailing and exploring strategy of following fast warm currents
flowing out from the West Pacific Warm Pool. That Maui followed sailing instructions to New Zealand probably handed down from first-wave explorers and voyaged
to Hawaii immediately afterwards suggests he also had access to sailing instructions