Poll/AHC: Maximum Polynesian expansion

Which is plausible for alternate Polynesian settlement? (multiple choices allowed)

  • South America

    Votes: 28 51.9%
  • Galapagos and other islands off South America

    Votes: 39 72.2%
  • Australia

    Votes: 42 77.8%
  • North America

    Votes: 10 18.5%
  • Atlantic

    Votes: 3 5.6%
  • The Poles

    Votes: 4 7.4%
  • Back to Asia

    Votes: 17 31.5%
  • Other

    Votes: 3 5.6%

  • Total voters
    54
And yes, I mean Polynesian and not Austronesian as a whole. It really irritates me when people say
"Polynesians" reached Madagascar. Anyways, just a reminder of how vast the Polynesians settled from their homeland of Hawaiki in the first millennium AD:
  • To the east, the Polynesians almost certainly reached South America. The most direct evidence of this is the sweet potato, an American crop which has been found throughout Polynesia since long before European arrival. Also, Polynesians call the sweet potato kumara or some variant thereof and the Quechua word for sweet potato is kumar. There are also some controversial chicken bones in Chile which may or may not be from Polynesians.
  • To the south, Polynesians arrived in Aotearoa/New Zealand and were soon making small settlements as far south as Rakiura/Stewart Island to catch muttonbirds. Rakiura, it is worth noting, was the southernmost populated place outside South America.
  • To the north, the Polynesians settled Hawai'i (which they named after their ancient homeland) and created a state society there out of literally nothing, complete with monumental architecture, divine kings, and armies with a dozen thousand men.

So how plausible are the following?
  • South America: A lasting society in coastal South America with identifiable Polynesian attributes, such as an Austronesian language, a belief in mana, ranked hierarchies, etc.
  • Galapagos and other uninhabited islands off South America: Well, why not? But any Polynesian societies here would be pretty underdeveloped due to lack of easy sources of water.
  • Australia: The Maori settle southeastern Australia/Tasmania, or alternatively some voyagers from Hawaiki settle in Queensland early on.
  • North America: The Hawaiians get bored and try their luck (before the 1400s when the Hawaiians forgot how to make long-distance voyages to Tahiti). Eventually they end up on the pacific coast of North America.
  • The Atlantic: The Polynesians reach the southern tip of South America and sail northeast. Alternately, the Polynesians colonize Central America and enter the Caribbean.
  • The Poles: The Polynesians go nuts and decide to go to either the Arctic or Antarctica. The former is probably more likely even if both are extremely long shots; the Polynesians discovered Hawai'i because they saw the golden plover migrate from the north to Tahiti and back again, and knew that there had to be some sort of land up north. Well, the golden plover actually lives in the Arctic during the summer, so the Hawaiians decide to follow the plover once more and ends up bumping into an Inuit kayak.
  • Back to Asia: The Polynesians, for some reason I can't think of right now (there were Japanese castaways in precolonial Hawaii, maybe one convinces the islanders that a voyage to the west is worthwhile?), decide to sail west and eventually make a settlement in some underdeveloped part of coastal Asia. Bonus points if the Polynesians ultimately return to Taiwan.
  • Other: Any other ideas?
 
The Polynesians did not create a state-level society anywhere, merely various chiefdoms with differing degrees of complexity, some of which, such as in Hawaii, were very high.

This aside, I quite like the poll and question. I think Australia and the South American islands are the most plausible,as I don't think there are any areas of Asia both primitive enough to the dominated by Polynesians and which also can accommodate their agricultural package- The Moriori only survived because the Chatams were there for the taking. Meanwhile, North America just doesn't seem like a plausible direction for them to go in, given their trajectory OTL, and South America was almost certainly already contacted OTL, and if they didn't see any reason to expand there OTL, why would they TTL?
 
Last edited:
The Polynesians did not create a state-level society anywhere, merely various chiefdoms with differing degrees of complexity, some of which, such as in Hawaii, were very high.
See Robert J. Hommon's The Ancient Hawai'ian State: The Origins of a Political Society and Patrick V. Kirch's How Chiefs Became Kings: Divine Kingship and the Rise of Archaic States in Ancient Hawai'i. Both Hommon and Kirch are some of the most important and knowledgeable historians of ancient Hawai'i elsewhere (in particular, Kirch's On the Road of the Winds is the definitive introductory work on Polynesian precolonial history).
 
My votes were

Galapagos and other islands off the coast of South America
As you said, the Polynesians are known to have interacted with South American peoples. The prevailing wind and currents on the South American Pacific coast both run from south to north, so it shouldn't be hard for the Polynesians to follow the Peruvian coast north and come across the Galapagos and other islands. Really, this seems to depend more on opportunity and desire than ability. However, and again as you said, the societies on these islands will be relatively underdeveloped due to resource constraints. I didn't vote for South America because I didn't think there were any locations on the South American coast where the Polynesians could settle and retain an identifiably Polynesian culture. As far as I know, their culture wasn't suited for habitation of the kinds of places they'd find on the South American coast. So, they would have to adapt either by assimilating into local cultures and societies or by adopting practices of those same groups. Either way, it didn't seem like a strong recipe for remaining as a culture that could be identified as Polynesian.

Australia
This one is honestly fairly self-explanatory but it could either be an early settlement during the initial wave of outward migration, or an extension of the Maori colonization of New Zealand which continues on to Tasmania and the Australian mainland. Personally, I find the later option more interesting.

The Poles
Antarctica seems the more likely option here. The major issue here is the time for the Polynesian peoples closest to Antarctica to develop an agricultural system viable for the region. The Maori were just about on the edge of their cultural package in the South Island, and the Moriori seem to have been beyond the agricultural elements in the Chatham's. I don't know if it's been determined what kind of lifestyle the Auckland Island inhabitants lead, but it seems reasonable to presume it was not agricultural. So, there are big impediments to pushing further south, but I don't think they're insurmountable given enough time to develop solutions. The Arctic I just doen't see as plausible for actual settlment. If they really, really wanted to the Polynesians could probably get to the Aleutians from Hawaii, but that's an awfully long way with not many stopover points. At most, I could see them having some minor contact with Alaskan natives analougous to OTL contact with South America

Back to Asia
Honestly, the best route for this is basically a "back migration" through Micronesia. I know that this occurred to a degree IOTL, leading to some of the Polynesian Outlier Islands, but if it happened more intensely and more consistently the islands in question could be fully subsumed into the broader Polynesian culture and region. With this i'm thinking of areas like the Carolines and Marianas in particular, as my understanding is that they are thought to have been opulated from the same Austronesian migrations that eventually lead to the Polynesians. As such, they have some significant similarities to each other but are distinct. A similar process could probably occur in Melanesia. Anyway, Micronesia can act as a path back to Polynesian contact with Taiwan as well as the Bonins. I don't think the Polynesians can plausibly settle any other regions of Asia and not simply be assimilated into the extant culture. The disparity is simply too large.
 
Australia is very plausible, considering it's right next door, as are the Polynesians spreading to various other island groups. And, of course, after a few island groups, that gets them to South America.
 
However, and again as you said, the societies on these islands will be relatively underdeveloped due to resource constraints.
Yep. Basically, all Polynesian societies can be divided into three broad groups: Traditional (more egalitarian ones like the Moriori), Open (simple chiefdoms like Rapa Nui and Aotearoa), and Stratified (extremely complex chiefdoms like Tahiti, and including what we may call archaic/incipient states like Hawai'i and Tonga). Clearly, Stratified societies aren't an option in Galapagos; they only arose in extremely favorable archipelagos.

Due to Galapagos having only one large permanent source of freshwater and its poor history of rainfall, I see any Polynesian society here being more Traditional than Open. Per Kirch,
[Open societies, examples of which are the Cook Islands, Marquesas, Mangareva, Easter, and New Zealand] all arose on midsized islands [except New Zealand which is an exception due to its unfavorable climate], on which substantial populations (in the low thousands) could develop, but they were also resource restricted. Ecologically, such islands were fragile, and the combination of limited land and ecological vulnerability meant that these islands were prime locations for intensive resource competition once a "full-land" population density had been achieved.​
I am unsure if Galapagos can support populations on the level of Open societies due to aforementioned water issues.

OTOH I suppose the Andean influence could make the Polynesians on Galapagos undergo secondary state development and become more stratified, but in such a scenario the Polynesians would be heavily dependent on South America in many, many ways.
 

Zachariah

Banned
Back to Asia's the most plausible of them all- there's plenty of evidence that it happened IOTL. The Niaosung Culture, aka today as the Siraya, were basically iron-age Polynesians, and it's now believed that the Hayato/Kumaso people of Southern Kyushu and the Goto Islands were also Polynesians who'd migrated northwards, with Sumo Wrestling and the Hayato Dance coming from them. Just increase the amount of migration northwards in the early stages, get more interchange between them and the rest of the Polynesian trade sphere (bringing the rest of the Polynesians forward into the iron age as well), and at the very least, you could have Taiwan, the Ryukyu islands and Saikaido becoming Polynesian (or rather, remaining Polynesian, as opposed to being conquered, subjugated and Japanized by the Yamato). As for the assertion that the Polynesians didn't create state-level societies anywhere; have you ever heard of Nan Madol, aka Soun Nan-leng (Reef of Heaven), aka 'the Venice of the Pacific'? And of the Saudeleur Dynasty, who ruled over the island of Pohnpei and used the city as their capital? I'd argue that the Saudeleur Dynasty certainly was an example of a Polynesian centralized nation-state.
 
@Zachariah: You're conflating Austronesians and Polynesians.

The Niaosung Culture, aka today as the Siraya, were basically iron-age Polynesians, and it's now believed that the Hayato/Kumaso people of Southern Kyushu and the Goto Islands were also Polynesians who'd migrated northwards, with Sumo Wrestling and the Hayato Dance coming from them.
The Siraya were East Formosan speakers and the Hayato may have been Austronesians, but certainly were not Polynesians.

I'd argue that the Saudeleur Dynasty certainly was an example of a Polynesian centralized nation-state.
While the Saudeleur certainly resembled Stratified Polynesian societies in many ways, Pohnpei speaks a Micronesian language, which should be distinguished from Polynesian, which unlike Pohnpeian is a branch of Central Oceanic languages.
 

Zachariah

Banned
@Zachariah: You're conflating Austronesians and Polynesians.

That's like accusing someone of conflating Latin peoples and Romanics. Er, yeah?

The Siraya were East Formosan speakers and the Hayato may have been Austronesians, but certainly were not Polynesians.

Again, that's like claiming that "The Latins were Latin speakers and the Sicilians may have been Latin peoples, but certainly were not Romanic". Polynesians are a subset of the Austronesian peoples, which originated from migrations out of Taiwan between 3000 and 1000 BC; the Austronesian language family can be linguistically traced back to ancient Formosan, not the other way around. If you're going to specify that, in order for any group to be classified as Polynesian, they had to have migrated directly from Polynesia, then you might as well argue that, in order for any group to be classified as Romanic or Latino, they had to have migrated directly from the Lazio region of Central Italy. Which would be kind of absurd, wouldn't it?
 
That's like accusing someone of conflating Latin peoples and Romanics. Er, yeah?
No... The Austronesians are speakers of a vast language family (and, to some limited extent, cultural complex) that originated in Taiwan and probably southern China. The Taiwanese aborigines, Malagasy, the Malays, the Bugis, the Pohnpeians, and the Hawaiians are all Austronesians.

The Polynesians are a small subset of Austronesians who speak the Polynesian languages and have key cultural similarities, having been a united people fairly recently in linguistic terms. The Polynesians include the Hawaiians, but do not include the Pohnpeians (who share the same Lapita heritage as the Polynesians but do not come from Hawaiki), nor the Malay/Bugis/Malagasy peoples (descended from Austronesians who remained in Southeast Asia and speak non-Oceanic languages), nor the Taiwanese aborigines (who speak the most diverse array of Austronesian languages in the world, none of which are Polynesian).

Conflating Polynesian and Austronesian is almost exactly like conflating Germanic and Indo-European.

Again, that's like claiming that "The Latins were Latin speakers and the Sicilians may have been Latin peoples, but certainly were not Romanic".
No, it's like saying "the Latins were Italic speakers and the Sicilians may have been Indo-European peoples, but certainly were not Celtic" in response to a claim that Latins and Sicilians were Celts. Which would be true.

If you're going to specify that, in order for any group to be classified as Polynesian, they had to have migrated directly from Polynesia
To be classified as Polynesian they need to at least speak a Polynesian language (traced back to the homeland anthropologists call Hawaiki). This is the same reason that, to be classified as Celtic, the people in question must be associated with a Celtic language and not Hindi or Russian or any other language related to Celtic.

you might as well argue that, in order for any group to be classified as Romanic or Latino, they had to have migrated directly from the Lazio region of Central Italy.
Indeed, for a group to be classified as a Romance people in linguistic terms, they must speak a language descended from Latin. Just like a group that is classified as Polynesian must speak (or spoke, for most Kanaka Maoli or Rapa Nui) a language descended from the proto-Polynesian language spoken in Hawaiki.
 

Zachariah

Banned
No... The Austronesians are speakers of a vast language family (and, to some limited extent, cultural complex) that originated in Taiwan and probably southern China. The Taiwanese aborigines, Malagasy, the Malays, the Bugis, the Pohnpeians, and the Hawaiians are all Austronesians.

The Polynesians are a small subset of Austronesians who speak the Polynesian languages and have key cultural similarities, having been a united people fairly recently in linguistic terms. The Polynesians include the Hawaiians, but do not include the Pohnpeians (who share the same Lapita heritage as the Polynesians but do not come from Hawaiki), nor the Malay/Bugis/Malagasy peoples (descended from Austronesians who remained in Southeast Asia and speak non-Oceanic languages), nor the Taiwanese aborigines (who speak the most diverse array of Austronesian languages in the world, none of which are Polynesian).

Conflating Polynesian and Austronesian is almost exactly like conflating Germanic and Indo-European.


No, it's like saying "the Latins were Italic speakers and the Sicilians may have been Indo-European peoples, but certainly were not Celtic" in response to a claim that Latins and Sicilians were Celts. Which would be true.


To be classified as Polynesian they need to at least speak a Polynesian language (traced back to the homeland anthropologists call Hawaiki). This is the same reason that, to be classified as Celtic, the people in question must be associated with a Celtic language and not Hindi or Russian or any other language related to Celtic.


Indeed, for a group to be classified as a Romance people in linguistic terms, they must speak a language descended from Latin. Just like a group that is classified as Polynesian must speak (or spoke, for most Kanaka Maoli or Rapa Nui) a language descended from the proto-Polynesian language spoken in Hawaiki.

And Hawaiki is indisputably NOT Hawaii; It's now widely acknowledged that the most likely location of Hawaiki, if it was indeed a place, was Taiwan. And how do you define the Polynesian languages? The Polynesian languages only, a sub-grouping of East Fijian- Polynesian, of the Central Pacific branch, of the Oceanic branch, of the Malayo-Polynesian family, of the Austronesian language group? In which case, according to your argument, for a group to be classified as a Romance people in linguistic terms, they'd have be speakers of the Romanesco derived dialect, a sub-grouping of Central Italian, of the Italo-Dalmatian branch, of the Romance branch, of the Italic family, of the Indo-European language group. 'Polynesian', if you want to restrict the term to the Polynesian languages of geographical Polynesia alone, is just as narrow and specific a grouping of the Austronesian language group as Romanesco is of the Indo-European language group. For people to be classified as Romance peoples, they only have to speak one of the Romance languages; in the same way, the equivalent of that would be classifying all those who spoke one of the Oceanic languages as 'Polynesian'. This would thereby include the Micronesians, which shouldn't be distinguished from Polynesians any more than Neopolitans, Sicilians or Venetians should be distinguished from Italians. Or, alternately, if you'd classify speakers of one of the Italic languages, including Sabellic and Venetic, as sufficiently 'Romanic', then by the same token, speakers of any of the Malayo-Polynesian languages would be sufficiently 'Polynesian' to count for the purposes of this challenge.
 
And Hawaiki is indisputably NOT Hawaii
Of course Hawai'i is not Hawaiki (technically the Proto-Polynesian pronunciation would have been Sawaiki as Wikipedia points out, but whatever). The Big Island was (possibly?) named after Hawaiki, along with other places like Savai'i in Samoa.

It's now widely acknowledged that the most likely location of Hawaiki, if it was indeed a place, was Taiwan
No, not even the Bugis or Malays (never mind the Polynesians, much further removed from the Taiwanese homeland) have any memories of Taiwan. The Polynesian homeland, which we may for convenience's sake call Hawaiki even if it wasn't technically a place, was located in western Polynesia centered on an arc from Tonga to Samoa, but also including Futuna and 'Uvea. See Kirch and Green's Hawaiki, Ancestral Polynesia: An Essay in Historical Anthropology.

And how do you define the Polynesian languages? The Polynesian languages only, a sub-grouping of East Fijian- Polynesian, of the Central Pacific branch, of the Oceanic branch, of the Malayo-Polynesian family, of the Austronesian language group?
Yes, because that's literally the only definition of Polynesian languages, a group of closely related Austronesian tongues descended from a common language spoken in western Polynesia around two thousand years ago.

In which case, according to your argument, for a group to be classified as a Romance people in linguistic terms, they'd have be speakers of the Romanesco derived dialect, a sub-grouping of Central Italian, of the Italo-Dalmatian branch, of the Romance branch, of the Italic family, of the Indo-European language group.
No, because that's not the definition of Romance languages, the only definition of which is to refer to the languages descended from Latin.

'Polynesian', if you want to restrict the term to the Polynesian languages of geographical Polynesia alone, is just as narrow and specific a grouping of the Austronesian language group as Romanesco is of the Indo-European language group.
It really isn't. Proto-Polynesian was spoken around the same time as Proto-Romance was (and probably a few centuries earlier), so even if we assume a constant rate of linguistic evolution (which is dubious) "Polynesian languages" would be just as narrow and specific a grouping as "Romance languages". Not to mention there are a lot more Polynesian languages than Romance ones.

Furthermore, I am not talking only about the Polynesian languages of geographical Polynesia but simply all the languages descended from Proto-Polynesian, which includes languages spoken in Melanesia and Micronesia (e.g. Tikopia).

For people to be classified as Romance peoples, they only have to speak one of the Romance languages; in the same way, the equivalent of that would be classifying all those who spoke one of the Oceanic languages as 'Polynesian'.
No, because Oceanic is a much larger grouping that includes Polynesian. Calling all Oceanic speakers 'Polynesian' would be like calling all centum-speakers 'Romance', which you'd agree is ludicrous.

This would thereby include the Micronesians, which shouldn't be distinguished from Polynesians any more than Neopolitans, Sicilians or Venetians should be distinguished from Italians.
Then please explain to me why exactly historians and anthropologists speak of "Polynesian outliers" like Tikopia and Nukuoro, if in your opinion all Austronesian speakers in Melanesia and Micronesia are Polynesians.

speakers of any of the Malayo-Polynesian languages would be sufficiently 'Polynesian' to count for the purposes of this challenge.
Absolutely nobody thinks the Javanese are Polynesians.
 
Since most everyone agrees on the plausibility of a Polynesian Australia, what would such a place look like? I'm guessing any Maori settlement would end up looking like the Maori, but an earlier settlement directly to Queensland from the Polynesian heartland might result in extremely complex societies akin to Hawaii and Tonga. Thoughts?
 
And yes, I mean Polynesian and not Austronesian as a whole. It really irritates me when people say
"Polynesians" reached Madagascar. Anyways, just a reminder of how vast the Polynesians settled from their homeland of Hawaiki in the first millennium AD:
  • To the east, the Polynesians almost certainly reached South America. The most direct evidence of this is the sweet potato, an American crop which has been found throughout Polynesia since long before European arrival. Also, Polynesians call the sweet potato kumara or some variant thereof and the Quechua word for sweet potato is kumar. There are also some controversial chicken bones in Chile which may or may not be from Polynesians.
  • To the south, Polynesians arrived in Aotearoa/New Zealand and were soon making small settlements as far south as Rakiura/Stewart Island to catch muttonbirds. Rakiura, it is worth noting, was the southernmost populated place outside South America.
  • To the north, the Polynesians settled Hawai'i (which they named after their ancient homeland) and created a state society there out of literally nothing, complete with monumental architecture, divine kings, and armies with a dozen thousand men.

So how plausible are the following?
  • South America: A lasting society in coastal South America with identifiable Polynesian attributes, such as an Austronesian language, a belief in mana, ranked hierarchies, etc.
  • Galapagos and other uninhabited islands off South America: Well, why not? But any Polynesian societies here would be pretty underdeveloped due to lack of easy sources of water.
  • Australia: The Maori settle southeastern Australia/Tasmania, or alternatively some voyagers from Hawaiki settle in Queensland early on.
  • North America: The Hawaiians get bored and try their luck (before the 1400s when the Hawaiians forgot how to make long-distance voyages to Tahiti). Eventually they end up on the pacific coast of North America.
  • The Atlantic: The Polynesians reach the southern tip of South America and sail northeast. Alternately, the Polynesians colonize Central America and enter the Caribbean.
  • The Poles: The Polynesians go nuts and decide to go to either the Arctic or Antarctica. The former is probably more likely even if both are extremely long shots; the Polynesians discovered Hawai'i because they saw the golden plover migrate from the north to Tahiti and back again, and knew that there had to be some sort of land up north. Well, the golden plover actually lives in the Arctic during the summer, so the Hawaiians decide to follow the plover once more and ends up bumping into an Inuit kayak.
  • Back to Asia: The Polynesians, for some reason I can't think of right now (there were Japanese castaways in precolonial Hawaii, maybe one convinces the islanders that a voyage to the west is worthwhile?), decide to sail west and eventually make a settlement in some underdeveloped part of coastal Asia. Bonus points if the Polynesians ultimately return to Taiwan.
  • Other: Any other ideas?

The biggest constraint is time, since at some point, the Europeans are going to show up and wreck whatever they have going.
  • South America - I doubt it. There's too many native groups there, they'd just assimilate into one of them. There's a high possibility that this happened OTL, judging by how Polynesian DNA was found in one group of Amazonians. It's likely other Polynesian lineages existed but died out due to European diseases and other effects of European colonialism.
  • Galapagos etc. - Definitely plausible. The currents lead directly to it. There's also the possibility of settlement in the Juan Fernandez Islands and Cocos Island. The Juan Fernandez Polynesians are the most interesting because they're near to the Chiloé Archipelago, which is the site of potato domestication. If they grow potatoes, then the Juan Fernandez Polynesians could expand into some of the outlying/remote islands of southern Chile in Chiloé, the Chonos Archipelago, etc. and replace the local peoples. The potato could possibly be transmitted to elsewhere in the Polynesian world.
  • Australia - Yeah, either way it's possible. The Maori could find it by themselves early on, and judge it worthy of settlement, even though they need to fight the Aboriginals, or as you said, it could be settled by another group of Polynesians. There's also the late potential of the Maori colonising Tasmania during the Musket Wars era in the same way they colonised the Chatham Islands. I think the best potential for Polynesians is outlying islands like Tasmania/surrounding islands and Kangaroo Island, where the Aboriginals are weaker or non-existent. It probably also means that Lord Howe Island and Norfolk Island will get settled as well, and stay settled.
  • North America - This one I'm not sure of. They might be able to overwhelm a local group Californian Indians, as well as settle a place like Clipperton Island. But it is very far. A Hawaiian-derived (or any other Polynesian group--my bet is on Galapagans being the other potential group) culture in pre-Columbian California? Seems cool.
  • The Atlantic - Not happening. They'd just get assimilated by one of the many cultures in the region, even if you might get some new Central American group migrating to the Caribbean with Polynesian-derived technology. It would be like that one (very doubtful) paper which claimed Polynesian contact with a group of California Indians, except actually true. Tierra del Fuego just seems like the Polynesians would ignore the place, therefore they aren't going past there.
  • The Poles - Highly doubtful. Maybe a more successful settlement on Auckland Island which lasts until outsiders notice it? Maybe also Campbell Island, but anything else seems implausible, especially settlement on Antarctica itself. For the Arctic, the currents aren't really conducive for leading you there easily. The best hope is we get Juan Fernandez potato farmers (or even farmers of quinoa or other Andean crops) that somehow make it to Alaska or the Aleutians, but that's highly, highly implausible. If they did make it there, I'm not certain they'd last against the Aleuts and other Southern Alaska natives without being destroyed or assimilated into their group.
  • Back to Asia - The islands which make up Japan's Ogasawara municipality would be likely for Polynesian colonisation. Same with the Daito Islands of Okinawa. Unless they were swamped by Japanese colonists at a later date, they'd survive as a culture. Anywhere else I'm not sure they'd survive as a distinct culture.
  • Other - The Line Islands and other parts of Kiribati might be settled by Polynesians, with perhaps some assimilation of the locals if a "back to Asia" expansion occurs. This would likely create new Polynesian outlier societies on various islands. The other idea is islands at one point settled by Polynesians like the Kermadec Islands, Pitcairn Islands, etc. remaining settled by Polynesians into historic times. So let's say "every island at one point settled by Polynesians, but uninhabited when Europeans first showed up."
 
Last edited:
The potato could possibly be transmitted to elsewhere in the Polynesian world.
Could the potato revolutionize Maori society, being another crop suitable to the temperate climate (OTL the Maori were pretty dependent on sweet potatoes and hunting-gathering)? Even in North Island the precolonial Maori had a population density of 1~2 people per km2, compared to 19 people per km2 in Hawaii (much of which is volcanic wasteland) and a shocking 67 people per km2 in Tonga. The only reason for this was the lack of suitable crops.

With potatoes, could New Zealand become home to extremely complex societies like in Tonga or Hawaii?

But it is very far.
Technically California is closer to Hawaii then Hawaii is to Tahiti/Kahiki, and we know Hawaiians regularly sailed to Tahiti and vice versa before c. 1400. I don't know the Pacific currents very well, but couldn't California be actually easier to sail to than Hawaii, since the initial explorers who settled on Tahiti had to deal with windless regions of the Pacific (something Polynesians had never known before)?
 
Since most everyone agrees on the plausibility of a Polynesian Australia, what would such a place look like? I'm guessing any Maori settlement would end up looking like the Maori, but an earlier settlement directly to Queensland from the Polynesian heartland might result in extremely complex societies akin to Hawaii and Tonga. Thoughts?


An early settlement during or shortly after the Lapita era along the Queensland coast could result in agricultural settlements which survive and grow to be large civilizations, though I do think that a civilization that survives in the long term will end up becoming a Polynesian (or Melanesian)/Aborigine creole culture rather than something purely Polynesian.

Looking at what's grown in Queensland nowadays, Polynesian staple crops like bananas, sugarcane, Asian yams (which I do wonder about having the potential to hybridize with native yam species) and taro can do quite well though taro will require irrigation during the dry season (this could become the basis of centralized social organization and monument-building-a civilization built on aqueducts and canals rather than pyramids).

If the Polynesian interlopers introduce pigs, they will probably spread quite far and cause quite a bit of damage. Controlling feral pig populations will be a major concern of both the *Queensland creoles and native Aborigines. The bow and arrow might end up re-adopted throughout Australia not as a weapon of war but as a hunting tool used to maximize the culling of sounders which threaten plant life. Rather than boars, pregnant or nursing sows will be seen as the most prime targets by hunters as a way to control this population.

Perhaps communities in the southeast might end up modelling themselves after the *Queenslanders, adopting some of their agricultural techniques to native crops like millet, or using the engineering technology previously used to create taro paddies to create eel or other fish farms-essentially practicing the sort of horticulture/aquaculture of Aboriginal cultures IOTL, but earlier and on a more intense level. With bush tucker under constant threat from piggies, these communities may have no choice but to abandon their decentralized way of life in favor of a model that resembles Eurasian farming.

EDIT: I guess the Lapita does not fall strictly within OP's definition of "Polynesian". Still, it does appear to be directly ancestral to the Polynesian cultures, and an ancient Australian settlement does contrast with the medieval-era Maori settlements other posters have suggested so I'll leave it up.
 
Last edited:
Could the potato revolutionize Maori society, being another crop suitable to the temperate climate (OTL the Maori were pretty dependent on sweet potatoes and hunting-gathering)? Even in North Island the precolonial Maori had a population density of 1~2 people per km2, compared to 19 people per km2 in Hawaii (much of which is volcanic wasteland) and a shocking 67 people per km2 in Tonga. The only reason for this was the lack of suitable crops.

With potatoes, could New Zealand become home to extremely complex societies like in Tonga or Hawaii?


Potatoes are not likely to be brought all the way to New Zealand because there is not likely to be direct trade with Andean peoples. The plants Maoris get will likely be plants grown in the Marquesas, Samoa, Tonga, and the Cook Islands before they are traded or brought to them-and I don't believe those islands are good potato-growing land. Tropical maize cultivars, on the other hand, could grow there. And maize taken from the tropical coast of South America is liable to have had some genetic interaction with Andean maize, and so carry the dwarf-8 allele which can allow maize to adapt to cold weather and temperate seasons. So, maize introduced to New Zealand via Polynesian trade routes could produce a temperate cultivar which could feed a very large population and a Tongan-type civilization. However, this form of intensive maize agriculture would be limited to north of the 40th parallel.
 
taro can do quite well though taro will require irrigation during the dry season (this could become the basis of centralized social organization and monument-building-a civilization built on aqueducts and canals rather than pyramids)
OTOH, if you look at Hawaii, the more populated and developed islands--places where elements of state society were best established--are Hawai'i and Maui where society was dependent on dry-field farming of sweet potatoes rather than O'ahu and Kauai where agriculture was irrigated taro farming. Archaeologist Patrick V. Kirch suggests this is mainly because Hawai'i and Maui could support much larger populations, if lower population densities, and ethnographer Richard Hommon argues that this is because the more precarious conditions of life there facilitated radical social transformations like the rise of kingship.

I could see similar dynamics being replicated in Australia, with the rain-fed, drier areas ultimately prevailing over the taro irrigation centers.

I guess the Lapita does not fall strictly within OP's definition of "Polynesian".
But people from the Proto-Polynesian homeland could have reached Australia just as easily as the Lapita, so all's fair.
 
Could the potato revolutionize Maori society, being another crop suitable to the temperate climate (OTL the Maori were pretty dependent on sweet potatoes and hunting-gathering)? Even in North Island the precolonial Maori had a population density of 1~2 people per km2, compared to 19 people per km2 in Hawaii (much of which is volcanic wasteland) and a shocking 67 people per km2 in Tonga. The only reason for this was the lack of suitable crops.

With potatoes, could New Zealand become home to extremely complex societies like in Tonga or Hawaii?

Definitely potatoes would be huge, as they were OTL during the Musket Wars. But how do you get them from South America to Aotearoa over what would be a decentralised trade network? I think the Juan Fernandez Polynesians would be most important for the spread of potatoes, and they could bring other Andean crops with them too. Getting the entire Andean crop package in New Zealand is too much to ask for IMO, but parts of it? Would be very interesting, and also a good way to get the Maori established on the Auckland, Campbell, and Antipodes Islands. The massive increase in population would trigger a revolution in Maori society, which might result in migrations off the islands and toward Australia (and those sub-Antarctic islands, and the Kermadec Islands and back toward Polynesia/Melanesia/etc.).

I'd be curious to know an estimate of Maori population in 1750 AD if you brought the potato in, say, 1330 AD, which we could say is two generations after Polynesian settlement in Juan Fernandez from Rapa Nui. I suppose quinoa, oca, etc. would be nice to have too.
 
The Polynesians could settle Australia through the south,but the north might be difficult especially facing Papauns. They did colonize Easter Islands,so the Galapagos and surrounding islands are easy enough. South America,perhaps not as conquest but mayhap as mercenaries,traders and pirates with enough intermarriage that they aren't completely absorbed. North America,well California is easy enough,tho they'll have competition with equally aggressive Pacific Northwest tribes,but if they ally with some southern California tribes,they might can hold their own. If they make into the Caribbean,they can hold their own with the Carib and Arawak,maybe even trade with the Mayans. Doubtful they make it to Antarctica,but if they do get ahold of Andean crops and especially guinea pigs and llamas,they could colonize the Subantarctic Islands.
 
Top