H. Conclusion

Well, you made it to the end of the manuscript, and I appreciate you reading it. I previously stated that I'm not a scholar. No, I don't claim any qualification beyond what I'm reading about this interesting subject. These notes started out from a moment of excitement when I first read the text of the "Solo ole Va." Later, when I got hold of William Sullivan's book, "The Secret of the Incas," I was presented with information that provided certain clues to connections between the Solo and pre-Columbian traditions. Sullivan's book prompted me to look to other sources to find more root ideas that might strengthen my understanding of my own Samoan culture. My search will not end here, but will continue. Because of the constant change I make to this page, coupled with my weakness in the English language, there are undoubtedly many spelling and grammatical errors that need fixing. I'll continue to review and make necessary corrections and improvements. Also, the emphasis on race in this manuscript is done solely to exemplify and clarify the main thesis. I humbly ask for your understanding and forgiveness if this offends you.

There are many qualified people who advocated the east-to-west migration of the Polynesians from the Americas, the most famous being Thor Heyerdahl. Their research and books continually teach me about the world of Polynesia and Samoa. The buzzword amongst a growing number of experts is "diffusion." They assert that people from different areas of the world moved into the Americas, including perhaps a group from the pacific area. The migratory nature of man would most likely involved the movement of people into and out of the Pacific region, and as Heyerdahl viewed it, a highway of sort on the grand Pacific Ocean. I'm indebted to all scientists doing research in this part of the world, whatever their views are on this issue, for their scholarship that will further improve my understanding of my ancestors. I will now conclude by restating my main thesis, something that had already been suggested by others, that a group migrated from America into the central Pacific, and its interactions with peoples that were already there created the present-day Polynesians. The clue to this is evidenced by the myths and the knowledge of celestial objects that our ancestors shared with their progenitors. This can also be indirectly supported by modern studies that are performed within Polynesia and surrounding areas. My study of these relationships has reinforced my belief that this group is tied to an ancient society in pre-Columbian America that is recorded in the Book of Mormon. Archaeology consists of excavating and interpreting ancient artifacts. The excavation part is more scientific and can somewhat be verified using the scientific method. On the other hand, the interpretive part can be very subjective. There ae many cases where different archaeologists interpreted a piece of artifact differently. In the politically charged and subjective field of Lapita research, we should be cautious when specialists start making statement like "it's been proven". Modern research points to a culturally diverse Pre-Columbian America. I think that that was the case in most parts of the world in ancient times - full of human activities. In those days, unfortunately, the deliberate destruction of entire societies was an acceptable mean. The astronomical growth in world population today is due, in part, to the fact that, despite major modern wars and disasters, we've somehow dampened the genocidal destruction of massive populations. In pass generations, an entire people and societies could easily disappear from human history without any trace. The lucky few had their remains enshrined in the blood and psyche of their children, as well as in their myths and legends.

Critics of the westward migration of Polynesians are finding solace in recent scientific findings that seem to support their view of an eastward migration. There are few finds that indicate a connection to the Americas, other than the sweat potato, a few items, some familiar words and uncertain shared DNA. If the Polynesians migrated eastward, why did they do it? In my view, the proponents of the Melanesian origin of Polynesians have much to explain. What caused the sudden burst of excitement that spurted a unique group into the central Pacific with different characteristics from their supposed progenitors? According to the Lapita experts, it only took a few hundreds years for this group to traverse the 2000 miles from their starting point in New Guinea to Polynesia. If that's the case, why is the DNA study showing little commonality between Melanesians and Polynesians? Clearly, for me, the central Pacific is the melding point of these diverse groups, and the homogeneity in the Polynesia-Melanesian stock exists only in the Lapita research papers.

Although there is a strong support, based on Lapita findings, of a Melanesian origin of the Polynesians, there's a growing support of alternative views that run counter to the Lapita conclusions. A growing amount of materials, including the "Solo ole Va" and other Polynesian traditions, suggest a westward migration from the Americas. The study of the Pacific rat also shows that the Polynesians are recent arrivals, thousands of years later than first assumed.

"The presence of pig, dog, and chicken bones at the lower levels of a number of early archaeological sites, along with indirect evidence of the use of domesticated plants, testifies further to the probability that voyagers carried with them the species needed for colonization, and that they were not introduced piecemeal by a long series of random drift voyages..." (1)

Unfortunately, these new findings do not provide definite answers to the most vexing question of why the Polynesians would migrate eastward. Accepting a west-to-east migration, based on observations such as the one quoted above, could be problematic. For instance, how did they know where to go without any foreknowledge of where they wanted to settle, and without the aid of aerial maps? This reasoning would suggest that the Polynesians had in their possession a satellite picture of the pacific area to know and plan trips in advance, and means of communication between remote islands.

I've presented here a possible explanation for the origin of the Polynesians that provides, I think, a more reasonable answer to the question of why they're there. A group of people from Pre-Columbian America ventured out into the open sea because of curiosity, adventure, and the desire to colonize the northern lands. Whether it was by choice or misfortune, they ended up on the eastern-most islands of the Pacific. They gradually made their way to the western Pacific where they encountered the Melanesians that resulted in the assimilation and amalgamation of their culture and traditions. The upshot of the "Tonga-Fiji" conflict caused many of them to retreat eastward to places that they already knew, and to places westward.

Pen Fiatoa
Columbus, Ohio
October 2003