'More delusional than Darwin': arguing about the past with Tongan Mormons

A researcher from Maori television’s Native Affairs programme called me last week to ask for some help with a feature on the gang of politically motivated pseudo-historians who insist, against all of the evidence, that white people – Celts, or Vikings, or Phoenicians, or even immigrants from some distant planet - settled New Zealand thousands before the ancestors of Maori, and created a technologically sophisticated and peaceable civilisation here.

From 2008 to 2012 I wrote a number of pieces on the pseudo-historians for this blog and other sites, and even appeared on radio once or twice to discuss the phenomenon, but because I lived in Tonga I lost touch with their activities. I warned Native Affairs that Matthew Dentith, whose meticulous and perhaps masochistic investigations into all manner of curious beliefs have been rewarded with a book contract by a top academic publisher, was probably a better source on the recent antics of the ‘whites were here first’ crowd.

I have to admit that a year in Tonga has made me resigned to, if not sanguine about, the phenomenon of pseudo-history. For reasons I can’t now remember, I had imagined that the malady was confined to my white-skinned, traditionally imperialistic tribe, and that once I’d despatched myths of pyramids in the Waipoua Forest and observatories on the hilltops of Auckland it would be more or less cured. After a year of sitting around kava circles hearing stories about drowned cities in the Pacific, ancient UFO bases in the Tongan countryside, and the Lamanite founders of Polynesia, I no longer imagine that fantastic and imperiocentric versions of history are the preserve of palangi culture.

A couple of weeks ago I discovered a discussion about the history of the Pacific at the Tonga Topix site, after one the participants in the discussion mistakenly cited a post on this blog as evidence for his views.

Many of the people arguing at the Tongan Topix site appeared to be Mormons from Western Polynesia, and I doubted whether they’d have much sympathy for a monolingual palangi atheist who turned up to tell them that their narrative of the past, with its epic migration to the Americas and the Pacific by the people of the Old Testament, was wrong. At the same time, I didn’t like the idea that my blog had suddenly become a cog in the vast and creaky machine of Mormon historiography.

Here are some excerpts from the long and less than fruitful argument I ended up having at Tonga Topix.

 

Uiha wrote:

we polynesians r seed of Joseph that was sold to Egypt…we r part of da 12 tribes of Israel, point blank folks ,if we come frm asia wouldn't we be lookin slant eyed…we look more like native americans

 

Scott wrote:

Nobody claims a close connection between Han Chinese or Japanese and Polynesians. Have a look at an Ainu person or at one of the indigenous people of Taiwan. They look rather like Polynesians. There's overwhelming genetic, linguistic, and archaeological evidence to support the idea that Polynesians are, like the Ainu and the indigenous Taiwanese, descendants of the Austronesian people who emerged from Asia four or five thousand years ago. The evolution of Polynesian culture took place in the region we now call Polynesia.

Samonga wrote:

I don't think original Polynesians were Asians...however, they did mix later on... you can't really rule out migrations from South America as some of our myth migrations kinda fits in with what Uiha is talking about? The mayans believe in a descending God...so do Polynesians...Maybe it’s a mayan belief that we believe in a descending God from the heavens? Maybe the descending God is Jesus?

Uiha wrote:

mr hamilton no body knos wer polynesian people originated frm ,u n sum scientists claim we came frm asia, a slant eyed culture ,how absurd is that POLYNESIANS DON"T LOOK ASIANS…u all delusional ,frm theorizin n guessin wer polys come frm ,jussa like da numnut darwin dat say man come frm apes…u all more delusional than darwin

Scott wrote:

Once again, Uiha, the ancestors of the Polynesians, the Austronesian peoples who came out of mainland Asia and Taiwan five thousand or so years ago, are not the same people as the Han Chinese, the Japanese, the Koreans, and so on. Google some images of the Ainu, the indigenous people of Japan, or the indigenous peoples of Taiwan.

David Burley has dated Lapita pottery pulled from sites along Tongatapu's Fanga'uta lagoon at close to three thousand years old. Are you suggesting that the people who settled at Nukuleka and elsewhere on the lagoon were the same people in the Bible, which records events which are supposed to have occurred about three thousand years ago? How did they travel across the world, develop a distinct material culture, and set up shop in Tonga?

The sad thing is that Tongans who buy into this stuff are recycling the myths concocted by discredited white men like Heyerdahl and the early Mormons. They've internalised a false version of their history, and ignored the data unearthed by both palangi and Polynesian scientists over the last century.

You claim that people only arrived in the Americas about three thousand years ago. It's hard to know where to begin replying to such a notion, but it might be worth mentioning Monte Verde, a site in southern Chile which has become famous for being the oldest known human settlement in the Americas. Monte Verde has been extensively excavated, and scientists have dated it using radiocarbon techniques, the analysis of pollen spore, and stratigraphy. They estimate it was settled about twelve thousand years ago. 

Tongagodz wrote:

I looked into this Mormon claim to descendants of the ancient people of the Americas voyaging to the isles of the Sea and their time frame would have been about 550 AD and there were more than one voyage there and back and these people were coming to live it wasn't an expedition... from what we know to be true about our ancient people, that came from the Gods and we were fair skin folks w a bridge to our nose n t average height for a man was 6ft. So, of science can improve upon all that we welcome it.

Samonga wrote:

Anything is possible? Polynesians in early days were noted to be fair skinned people? I’m just stating possibilities n questions as we wont know the truth until we depart from this life. With Asians going into Tonga these days,4 generations from now and the next DNA sample will have Tongans under Asia n their descendants will be taught they came from Asia...

Scott wrote:

We can observe the histories of many Pacific societies and see evidence of migrations changing the material culture and ideas. For example, we can look at Kiribati and note the names of Samoan mountains that turn up there, despite the flatness of the landscape, or we can look at the way that a Tongan vocabulary has overwhelmed the substrate of a non-Tongic language in Niuafo'ou.

It is reasonable, on the basis of evidence like this, to suppose a Samoan migration to Kiribati and a Tongan migration to Niuafo'ou. But where are the thousands of American words in Tongan and other Polynesian languages? Where are the tools made in American styles, out of American stone? Where is the DNA?

Tongagodz wrote:

tonga has pyramid tombs for the ancient kings…pyramid building for interning deceased royals is not an Asian fang, it reeks biblical…Lapita people were water folks they weren't into building these type of structure…There's no way that these ocean folks could evolved on they own into these types skills necessary to accomplish out pf nowhere in the middle of the ocean such remarkable accomplishments. 

Scott wrote:

The notion that some cultures are static, and can’t change without contact with superior people from distant regions of the world, belongs to nineteenth century European thought. Whether or not they receive stimulus from outside, cultures change continually in all sorts of ways. Aotearoa had very little if any contact with the rest of Polynesia, and yet Maori society in the North Island evolved profoundly in a few short centuries, moving from a virtually hunter gatherer basis to a sedentary basis and seeing the construction of monumental sites. In the Chathams things moved in the other direction, as the Moriori evolved a simpler culture to deal with an extreme environment.

In his classic book The Evolution of the Polynesian Chiefdoms Patrick Vinton Kirch tries to create a theoretical framework in which the changes that Pacific societies went through can be understood. He emphasises the growth of population and the depletion of resources on small islands, and links these events to the growth of hierarchy and to warfare. It's no surprise Tonga, with its fertile soil but limited area, became very hierarchical and martial over the centuries.

If you're going to claim that the Lapita people didn't develop into Tongans, but instead were helped out by a migration of American people, then you need to show us the material, genetic, and linguistic evidence for such an event. The shoreline of Fanga'uta lagoon has been extensively excavated, and we have a clear picture of the layers of materials found there. Where is the layer of materials - tools, weapons, and so on - that hails from the Americas? Where are the American words in Tongan? Where is the non-Austronesian DNA?

Samonga wrote:

So what if they didn't find anything in Nukuleka? There’s evidence but still hidden under ground n evidence at the bottom of the seabed...pity uz cant get there, like getting to the bottom of the waters between Eua n Tongatapu… Tonga didnt have the resources or tools say what the Americas had...but they adapted with what they had? They had no massive rock slabs so they got it from Uvea...they wanted bigger boats so they chop the trees in the Lau group...who taught dem? Obviously some foreigners came with this knowledge, they were also sun worshippers...

Uiha wrote:

not only do we have physicle evidence ,but spiritual evidence, JESUS CHRIST appeared to da people of da americas,n established his church among them n the LORD taught them of the FATHER IN HEAVEN ,n ordained them with the HOLY PRIESTHOOD ,n da HOLY CHOST,n wen JESUS ascended to da sky,the LORD promised dat he will return,the native americans speak of da great white spirit wen da europeans came to da north americas ,n da actec montezuma made a fatal mistake by mistaking Cortez as da great white god dat promised to return frm da sky, n in Tonga captain was told of da OTUA dat lived in PULOTU(HEAVEN),daannngggg we all jussa conected da dots n proved we originated frm america ,n da BOOK OF MORMON is a true account of da people of da americas,n THE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST AND OF THE LATTER DAY SAINTS is da true church of CHRIST that was established by JESUS here on da americas n was written on GOLDEN PLATES that GOD gave to JOSEPH SMITHin the name of JESUS CHRIST HALLELUJAH praise da LORD amen

Jestr wrote:

Tongans are mixed, many of us got mela and poly blood, due to karate kung fuing all over the pacific. It is mainly Sa's that claim to be pure polys. Evidence is evidence buddy, you came from down through south east Asia.

Scott wrote:

The idea that Tongans had to wait around for some pale-skinned South Americans to turn up and teach them how to create monumental architecture is not credible. There are numerous examples of societies developing such architecture on their own. There was no need to go to 'Uvea, because of the supplies of beach rock in Tonga. The quarries on Pangaimotu, Fafa, and Hihifo beaches show that plenty of rock was taken locally. Some stone might have come from 'Uvea, but by that time monumental architecture would have been well and truly established.

Samonga claims that the excavations of archaeologists at Nukuleka and other places in present-day Tonga are worthless, because the ancient people that came from the Americas settled on islands that have since sunk to the bottom of the sea.

There are two problems with this idea. In the first place, a lot of study on the geology of Tonga has been done, and we know which islands were where thousands of years ago. Maps of the palaeoshoreline of Tongatapu, for example, show how much of present-day Nuku'alofa was underwater when the Lapita people arrived close to three thousand years ago. There was less, not more, land in Tonga thousands of years ago, because sea levels were higher, so the only way an island could have existed then and sunk since is through some sort of volcanic eruption or earthquake. I'm not aware of any evidence for such an event. If it occurred then it would surely have left a tephra, or layer of debris, in the soil for excavators to find.

Let's assume, though, for the sake of argument, that a large number of Americans came to Tonga long ago, built a civilisation on an island, and then saw that civilisation disappear. The problem of the lack of evidence for any sort of influence from the Americans on Tongans remains. Where is the American DNA in Tongans? Where are the American artefacts? Where are the American words? Perhaps it could be argued that the Americans stayed on one remote island, had no contact with Tongans, and then disappeared without a trace under the water. But even if that outlandish scenario were assumed to be true, the fact would still remain that there is no discernible trace of American influence on Tongan culture or in Tongan blood.

I can only assume that those who want to make Americans into the ancestors of Tongans have religious reasons.

Tongagodz wrote:

l will make a claim that upon discovering Tonga some witnesses inquired about a set of stones steps found right on to Nuku'alofa warf, that was really high and it turns out they were remnants of a pyramid t size of t ones in S America it was said it was made in a zigzag form exactly like ancients Americas n Egypt. Bcoz of natural disasters it sustained damage n t natives slowly took the stones for personal use and later it was probably destroyed.

Maorigurl wrote:

Hi Scott, I'm reading through a lot of your comments & blogs & what I wanted to ask you is; You put a lot of emphasis in theories from scholars & discoverers, papers & journals but I see nothing from traditional polynesian methods. We are all cultures which hand down our skills & history by word of mouth, stories, dance, song, folklore & teaching none of which you mention, does this mean it is not a valid source for you?

Just so you understand my point I have learnt everything I know about my culture in the first instance in this way & continue to learn by this method & now papers, theories etc in which I try to align what I already know. How is it that our most powerful source of knowledge handed down from generation to generation by word of mouth (which could essentially describe journals are but read generations later with no one to fill in the questions or the small details) not also be included in our assumptions, validations of how we come to be?

Uiha wrote:

foreigners need to stop theorizin about our proud heritage

Scott wrote:

Hi Maorigurl, you make a fair point. I accept that there is a disconnect between the motives and methods that many Polynesian have when they talk about their history and the motives and methods of most academics investigating the ancient history of the Pacific. Academics often want dates, and like rigorous empirical methods, whereas folks telling stories round the kava bowl rely on oral history, songs and so on, and are less interested, in my experience, in getting some precise date for an event than in making some sort of point to their listeners.

But I don't think this is necessarily an ethnically-based difference, because some of the key academics studying Pacific history are Polynesian, and the fact is that many palangi - the palangi who live in the rural region of NZ where I grew up, for instance - also have little interest in academic study of the past, rely on oral tradition, and are less interested in getting the dates right than making some practical point.

The Tongan historian Sione Latukefu did a lot of oral history in Tonga, but wrote a famous essay insisting that this evidence had to be backed up with other types of evidence, like the written record or archaeological data. And Te Rangi Hiroa/Sir Peter Buck seems to have taken a similar position.

I think that oral history can help us understand a culture, but I am sceptical about how much we can rely on it for facts. It seems to me that when people tell a story they are telling you about how they see the event they are describing, and that this is what is valuable. Whether the event occurred in the way they describe, or occurred at all, is another question. I think there are particular problems with trying to use oral history to establish chronologies of past events. It's amazing how quickly dates get muddled when stories pass from mouth to mouth.

A student of mine was doing a history of his village of Kala'au, and some of his informants discussed the visit of a group of scientists interested in the huge rock that sits near their homes. The scientists visited in 2008, but the villagers, when talking to my student last year, thought they had turned up in 2004.

Last November I visited the village Kolomaile on 'Eua and talked with some of the elders there about the raid on 'Ata by slavers, which occurred in 1863. The elders dated the event to 1887.

I think that people like Uiha show the importance of getting the facts of the past right, even if, as you point out, the facts aren't all that matter when we think about and talk about the past.

[Posted by Scott Hamilton]