Replies

  • http://www.users.on.net/~mkfenn/page5.htm

    Article on genetics of polynesians, melanesians, native americans, and their movement!
  • Aloha Ka'ehu:

    Mahalo anui for sharing this. Growing up, I have hear or read various theories of our migration and relations. I also heard about our oli that described our migration and the mythologies that go along with it. This is the mos comprehensive report of which most of it seems plausible and some coincide with what I learned.

    There are other rationale to put into the equation; the shift of land mass, change of current and pre/post ice age. Many factors can affect the theories. In Hawai'i, I was told of a chant that stems from the middle of eurasia and that group travel down to what is known to be the southwest point of the asian peninsula. There they learned sailing and navigation skills. There was more land mass in the pacific so it was easier to navigate through the Pacific.

    We knew Fijians were Melanesian and not Polynesian; but they did adopt some of the Polynesian culture and arts.
    Back then I learned Tonga to be the oldest of the Polynesians, then Samoa. There was a marked distinction between them and the Eastern Polynesians of whom Tahiti, Marquesia, Easter Island, Hawai'i, and New Zealand were part of.

    Legend in Hawai'i also spoke of the Floating Island; mystical and illusive. There are so many stories that I don't have room to retell.

    So far, this dissertation is the best I have heard/read that is close to many things I can agree on; yet misses some of the things past down to us. I do find this most interesting. Lapita relationship is remote.

    Hawaiians had three types of polynesians - keakea, ehu, and ilikou. They made up the full-blooded Hawaiian Polynesian. Some of the things are in our oral history and stuff we already knew before these theories began to appear. I'm sure many more of us can share and/or reaffirm some of the notions.

    Even within the Hawaiian community, there are different schools of thought. One thing we know for sure; we had a highly-developed society that is unique to our region of the Pacific and mighty damn proud of it.
    • Can you explain to me the 3 types of Hawaiians (keakea, ilikou, and ehu? I would love to know more about that.
      • In the 1950s, Napua Stevens had her radio show and she explained this: Kekea or keakea were the fair-skin Hawaiians; ehu were copper-colored complexion, brown luminous eyes, and red hair; ilikou were brown complexion, black hair and brown to dark-brown eyes (much like most of us today).


        Those from menehune stock were short in stature, a little more than 5 feet to 5'5". The average height was around 6 feet+. It was said most ali'i of olden times and warriors were between 7 to 8 feet tall.


        Europeans that saw the Hawaiians remarked at their physics as perfectly symmetrical much like the Greek statues of the gods; they were in top physical shape.

        I guess with all the junk food today, and different life-styles, that image has vanished. LOL....
        • Thanks for the info Tane. Thats very interesting? I think I heard a story about the light skin Hawaiians living somewhere on oahu (waimanalo possibly) in the ancient days. Were the different Hawaiians possibly from Hawaiians mixing with another people?

          Red haired Hawaiians? That's exactly what the article talked about.

          Wow at the 7-8 foot ali'i warriors. Must have been cuz they kept their bloodline strong with the niaupio/pio relationships? Eating healthy and there being no diseases in ancient Hawaii also helps!
          • I guess through the migrations there was always intermixing. I heard the original Polynesian group was from a Caucasoid group that had a touch of negroid and a touch mongoloid (as in mongolia-asian) in its composition. I was a kid when I read that. They stratified the three main groups in the Pacific that way. Melanesian was described as a negroid stock with a touch of caucasoid and mongaloid race; while the Micronesian was basically mongaloid with a touch of caucasoid and negroid. That was their terminology back then.

            My great-great grandfather was a redheaded full-blooded Hawaiian. On the other side, My great-greandmother was keakea Hawaiian with no pubic hair. OOps! Is that telling? Aw, what the heck!

            BAck in the 1960s, they were developing the Seven Seas Hotel in Poipu area on Kaua'i and uncovered some burials. By the size of the leg bone, they determine that person was about 8 feet tall. Of course, needless to say, here cottages tha were built was haunted and so much stuff was going on; that they had to Bless the grounds and buildings. See what happens when you don't follow protocol and disregard our na iwi?

            Kualoa on the Windward side of O'ahu was also a special place for the ali'i and maybe one could have found the kekea strain. Who knows nowadays; everyone is prety all mixed up!.... lol
  • I haven't read that particular document but know of Lapita pottery as a means to date specific Polynesian/Melanesian groups of people having settled particular areas throughout Oceania.

    These are only hard scientific evidence that scientists use to prove of our ancestors' existence although we have oral traditions that already mentioned these areas of where they came from.
    • The article is interesting because it provides evidence that disproves that polynesian originated from the Lapita People. It also goes on to say that the Polynesian genetic makeup is very similar to some native american tribes, rather than any other peoples of the surrounding area. What I find interesting is that, the article then suggests that Polynesians first landed in Hawaii from America, then migrated throughout southern polynesia, which coincides with the oral history of all polynesian peoples homeland being Hawaii/ Havai'ki. Im interested to see the further development of these theories.
      • oops, sorry, i never read it. hahaha So now they're saying not related? We know that Polynesians didn't have pottery, that is a fact, so is that the correlation they're making? Seems like it.

        I wonder what they mean by Poly genetic makeup very similar to some NDNs in the Americas. I guess I should've read that. Any page number you could suggest I start reading from?

        Also, there is not proof I guess of people landing in the islands from the Americas, and as I've questioned others before if that's true, why aren't there similarities in the language? Is it why they say we share some genetic similarities whatever that means? Sorry, just lazy to read the article. hahahaha
        • pages 9-26 talks about genetics and how ancient Hawaii was the genetic core of polynesians. The article basically says that we share a common gene with native americans, but within the native american gene, they cannot find traces of a common lapita/melanesian gene that is present in polynesians nearest "the supposed route" that previous theorists claim was our route into polynesia. Polynesians with common melanesian genes have only occured within the last 1000 years and are found mostly within the area of samoa, tonga, etc.

          Also polynesians also share a common gene with the native aboriginal taiwanese and it is estimated that polynesians left taiwan 6000 years ago before the mongoloid colonization of the area 5000 years ago. Then our ancestors appear in polynesia 22oo years ago. There is a gap of 3800 years where polynesians just seem to disappear and it is believed that now our ancestors may have been living in america because there is no genetic evidence of polynesians anywhere near melanesia area up until 1000 years ago (between polynesia and asia).

          Interesting stuff huh!
This reply was deleted.