Pacific islanders likely found Antarctica first: study | Hacker News Reader

Pacific islanders likely found Antarctica first: study

phys.org

102 pointspseudolus78 comments

I think this is falling into conjecture which is unprovable.

It is however, the class of outcome I think should definitely be considered plausible, and possible.

But that also admits the plausibility of Phoecians, Romans, reaching the Americas. Could have, but didn't to the best of our knowledge.

Because of a culture of glass and metalworking, they're both outcomes we could expect to "prove" by archeological finds. Coastal locations to 100km inland might withstand the timescale, and yield something, but its needle in a haystack time, and the vikings didn't leave very much behind. (a counter example we have higher confidence in, which yields very little structural evidence)

I do think pacific/island stone tools would stand the same test, but I can't see how an "edge" to antarctica would sustain preservation of worked tools. If you found them in the continental offshore ooze, that would be amazing. (or for that matter, roman artifacts offshore of the americas)

It's fantasy science, but then think about "doggerland" and what is being found in shallow waters between the UK and continental Europe.

Maybe when we start manganese nodule mining by robot, we're going to turn up the equivalent of roman coke tins, phoecian pencil stubs and Islander burger-wraps?

>the plausibility of Phoecians, Romans, reaching the Americas. Could have

not really. Their ships (even quite large ones for example https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olympias_(trireme)#/media/File...) weren't ocean going (like for example giving the way of construction the hulls wouldn't have been able to sustain the heavy waves stress for many days, etc.). To compare this is an example of the ocean going ships - Viking drakkar - in which Americas were first reached:

https://youtu.be/XORSpUUy0lQ?list=RDCMUCNnLNJLZj11RlFYq4HZ6c...

That said, there is some evidence there may be a roman shipwreck off the coast of Brazil, which has yet to be excavated. While roman designs are not ocean-going, it's entirely possible that they might have been blown off-course and managed to survive the journey.

Would we expect the sailors to have survived as well? Or would they have run out of water like halfway across?

If the ship was intact, they were probably fine with water. A large ship departing harbor without a few months of water onboard would be the most egregious incompetence on the part of the quartermaster. If they were low on water, then you can be sure they would capture rainwater at the first opportunity, and in the tropics they would have to be pretty unlucky to get no rain. Also, this voyage is commonly done in 3 weeks or less. Africa to northern Brazil is the shortest crossing, and it's a downwind run the entire way. That said, if the ship was irreparably damaged anywhere off the NW coast of Africa, it _would_ likely wash up somewhere along the north coast of S America or the Caribbean regardless of the sate of the crew.

Since the ship is believed to be near the mouth of a river, that would imply that some sailors survived the trip and navigated to a source of fresh water.

You're projecting modern standards of safety and reliability into a millennium in which they do not belong.

Nobody is gonna sail a warship with a huge expensive crew across the ocean without a damn good reason. Such reason almost certainly never materialized, that's a given.

But local mediteranean cargo vessels are more than seaworthy enough to cross the Atlantic in the same way that I can haul 3000lb in a Ford Ranger. Water and navigation will be your issues. The capability to get it done with not that much luck needed is there. I can't think of is why someone would both have the requisite provisions and a reason to sail west for weeks on end other than a "Skydiving From Space, Brought to you by Red Bull(TM) " style vanity project. And the economic surpluses at the time simply weren't large enough to support a lot of that kind of activity so it's doubtful anyone would have done it.

If there were Roman stories of reaching a land across the sea that sounded a lot like North America, then you'd be right.

> that also admits the plausibility of Phoecians, Romans, reaching the Americas

The theory about Pacific islanders has evidence; the above does not.

> It's fantasy science

That's a fantasy comment.

While it may be a possible that the Maori discovered Antarctica hundreds of years before the Europeans, I am not sure the evidence is there for likely.

I have seen this pattern too many times. Many times a historian with a point to prove (often in the service of something about their nation) looks at poetic writing/oral tradition, and interpreting them in the best possible light, makes a statement that such as such was in fact known hundreds of years before.

Other examples include people who talk about the Bible or the Koran having sayings that allude to quantum physics or modern astronomy. Another example is Nostradamus, where his poetry is fluid enough that any interpretation can be pushed into it after the fact.

We should just be very leery when a researcher find what they were wanting to find when using very malleable sources(oral poetry tradition many hundreds of years after the fact).

The difference is that there is no way that Biblical or ancient Islamic scholars would have the equipment to study quantum physics or advanced astronomy. It is entirely plausible that Polynesians who settled as far south as the Chatham Islands could sail further south. Granted, with no archaeological evidence, we can't say for sure. A better parallel I think would be the Viking discovery of America. Before we found the archaeological evidence, all we had was the sagas and the medieval reports. It's certainly enough of a lead to warrant looking at the ice with some ground-penetrating radar.

Yes, it is similar but one difference is that the Norse oral histories were written down only 250 years after the events plus that there are a couple of references to later expeditions in the Icelandic chronicle, including a logging expedition to the Americas blown off course. So the Norse contact had really strong support even before the archeological evidence.

Several months ago a study came out showing that pacific islanders not only made it to South America 800 years ago, but sailed back to Easter Island and other pacific islands after genetic mixing.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/08/science/polynesian-ancest...

Hard to imagine what motivated them to keep sailing all that way with no guarantee they would find anything.

Hitting the population limit of your island, and strong cultural norms around exploration.

You could say that about almost any explorer ever.

But modern explorers don't expect death if the "nothing" situation comes to pass. These were people that staked their life.

Well modern explorers have the benefit of always knowing that there is a "something", but probably still understand that there is risk in what they are doing. Historically though, plenty of explorers from many different cultures travelled to where there was potentially "nothing". Why would Pacific Island cultures be any different?

They brought food, they captured water from rain and condensation, and they could fish. Yes it was risky but they had a lot of runway due to their expertise on the water.

Modern explorers also can be reasonably assured there will be enough food to go around next year or the year after if they stay home.

But they did. They used a lot of different indication for where islands were - bird migration, ocean currents, etc.

Testosterone.

So these days with so many artificial ingredients and ultra processed foods and sedentary habits leading to decreased testosterone these journeys might not have taken place had they had our modern diets [and as child comment adds, lifestyle]?

I'm far from a scientist, but in my observations and reading, lifestyle has a far bigger impact than diet. Hard work boosts testosterone, there was even a study done showing how much it was boosted during chopping wood, for example. Modern folks are sedentary and often overweight, both of which contribute to lower testosterone, likely moreso than diet ever could.

Men today are observably less 'manly' than in the past. But we seem to try to find someone or something to blame other than ourselves.

Maybe also selection pressure (which has largely been removed). The men _who_survived_ were more manly in the past.

Perhaps, but I think we can drill down a bit further.

Many third world countries have foods much, much more processed than we do in USA, yet they don't exhibit such effects generally.

My own family is a huge old Irish/German conglomeration...I have 12 uncles and aunts. There's very clear demarcation of millenials vs the older ones, and especially those raised in a rural setting vs urban.

I'd honestly like to see studies of how many, let's say 'metro' men spent summers bucking hay or stripping tobacco as a kid. I did, but I'm clearly less grizzled than my cousins who did such work year round as a kid.

And I don't mean any of this to be insulting. I'm way less manly than my own father, and a millennial who spent childhood glued to screens.

Why do you describe something like bucking hay or stripling tabacco as 'manly' when it was a common activity for women as well in traditional society?

I don't. I just mentioned them because they are very common labor intensive summer jobs where I grew up. Replace with whatever your local variant would be.

It seems that phthalates (plastic softeners) are also reducing testosterone.

https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/dev225

A bit of A, a bit of B.

The modern diet is also very processed and refined. White bread and white rice were not available for mass consumption until industrialization.

Japan's navy solved an issue with beriberi disease after changing the rations from white rice to barley. https://www.atlasobscura.com/articles/rice-disease-mystery-e...

Problem is that unless you've actually got symptoms of low testosterone, it's not a big issue. Low T being the cause of men's problems today is a myth.

Men and women travelled on the canoes together. Colonisation of islands is difficult if you only have guys eh?

Certainly oral legend of the Māori is mixed crews e.g. “According to some accounts, Horouta was the first waka [=canoe] to make landfall in this region. The captain of the Horouta was Pawa, the navigator was Kiwa. It carried a large crew of men, women and children – as well as a dog named Whakao, belonging to Pawa.”

Having women and children on board isn't necessarily incompatible with the idea that the drive for the insanely risky exploration was fueled by testosterone.

They had already come a very, very long was from Asia to Australia, Fiji, Tonga, Samoa, French Polynesia, Hawaii, etc. Finding land in an impossibly vast ocean was kind of their jam.

If you see birds come from that direction, or tides come from that direction with flotsam, then you can bet there is land. Within certain range, if you see specific clouds or tones on the horizon, you can also imply land. Also, if you head that way the Americas are kind of hard to miss.

I think the article alludes to it. First sons world inherit everything so little brother would have to sail out to find new land.

Curiosity is a very powerful thing.

How do we know they didn't know they would find anything? There is lots of evidence that we have lost perspectives on how to analyse our environment as we have gained new ones through technology.

Or the Americas sailed east and discovered Easter island?

This theory is substantially less likely for a few reasons:

* The predominant oceanic currents in the South Pacific around Rapa Nui come from Polynesia, not South America. So you're not likely to be drifting towards Rapa Nui. Indeed, traveling from Polynesia to South America via Rapa Nui isn't a particularly far-fetched idea.

* Polynesia, and earlier Austronesian antecedents, had a much stronger tradition of long transoceanic voyages. (Austronesians crossed the Indian Ocean and settled Madagascar before Africans set sail from their own coast to reach it).

I think I read somewhere that the DNA studies showed genetic transfer in one direction only, S. America to Polynesia, and not the other way, which seems like a bit of a counter argument.

There are studies which has shown that some Amazonian natives had partial Melanesian ancestry which supports the argument.

If you mean these [0], I think they are talking specifically about a migration route through the Aleutians?

[0] https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2015/07/mysterious-link-emer...

What is more likely, a culture renowned for its seafaring ability and resiliency on tiny islands exploring far beyond their homeland, or a group from a resource rich continent leaving and reaching far despite their lack of experience with naval navigation and at-ocean life?

I would put my money on the islanders being the explorers rather than the mainlanders.

That was Thor Heyerdahls theory and he proved it possible with his Kon Tiki expedition but I think more recently DNA testing has shown that islands (including Easter Island?) has been settled by people from Asia.

(Writing this I realize you might have meant that people from South America went to Easter Island and back, but as far as I know there hasn't been found traces of a strong culture for navigation in South America.)

>traces of a strong culture for navigation in South America

Further, the motives for diaspora were not there. Native south Americans had barely scratched the Amazon. There was so much left to explore and exploit on the continent. Going on a crazy at sea journey just was not necessary.

> Native south Americans had barely scratched the Amazon

The Amazon basin had millions of inhabitants in the 15th century. Population declined precipitously after European diseases arrived, and did not recover to prior levels for 300+ years afterward.

I’d assumed this was likely as the trip was done from South America in recent history: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kon-Tiki_expedition

I also understand there’re plants in parts of South America that originated in Polynesia.

It is the other way around. The sweet potato is natively from America, but it made it to Polynesia, unclear how.

The fact that the leading theory of anthropologists for a long time was vegetation rafts is laughable in the face of the distances Polynesian people regularly traveled, it speaks to the parochial nature of much of the field.

Sweet potatoes found in Polynesia diverged from their ancestors in the Americas 100,000 years ago, long before the islands were colonized by humans.

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-04488-4

Also, the fact that many Polynesian languages used nearly the same word for "sweet potato" as some South American languages (kuumala -- Polynesian vs. kumara/cumal -- Quechua) is kind of a clue, yes?

The fact that the "vegetation raft" theory persisted for more than a few seconds in the face of this knowledge always astonished me.

Not just nearly the same. It's literally kūmara in Māori.

Is it the same "Tombez Potato" writers of the 19th century report as being commonly grown and consumed in the Pacific Islands like Marquesas?

Original article - "A short scan of Māori journeys to Antarctica" - published in the Journal of the Royal Society of New Zealand:

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/03036758.2021.1...

Thanks for the source.

Something I'm confused by: this article seems to credit Maoris for discovery of Antarctica long before Europeans, but they didn't arrive in Aotearoa (now-New Zealand) till the 14th century, and the paper claims 7th century contact. Wouldn't that mean their Moriori predecessors made this journey? Do Maoris consider themselves part of Moriori lineage?

Edit: looks like my knowledge on this came from old textbooks no longer deemed true. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pre-M%C4%81ori_settlement_of...

Even that aside, isn't the evidence a bit thin? Finding oral records of snow or ice doesn't mean a lot when icebergs pass by Aotearoa all the time.

The Moriori are not predecessors to the Maori, but rather more likely an offshoot. Their unique culture was perhaps partly due to the resource poor environment but also partly because mainland Maori culture was undergoing a revolution at the time of the split.

I find it interesting that they call out European male explorers but then go on and talk about Hui Te Rangiora who was male but isn't called out for being male...

Also your link is a bit more cautious in their claim saying: "they were likely the first humans to set eyes on Antarctic waters and perhaps the continent" which does not diminish their navigational accomplishments but falls short of the post's title.

The end of the section titled “Māori in the European ages of Antarctic exploration” addresses gender and the lack of records about Māori women who were early antarctic explorers.

This doesn't actually claim they found Antarctica proper, but that they found the Antarctic seas and icebergs.

Which is not to diminish the accomplishment (Polynesian navigators were crazy good) but to scope it so it's not discarded as ridiculous (since getting within sight of Antarctica proper is next-level difficult).

I was thinking about this too, but it doesn’t seem like there’s an island far enough north that it would make much of a practical difference: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Antarctic_and_subant...

The study makes mention of potentially spotting icebergs, not islands.

7th century is the beginning of the Viking Age as it was close to the global warming peak of the first millennium. The waters at those high latitudes became survivable for people in open boats, and similar to Greenland back then, the warmest part of the Antarctica probably became survivable too.

Antarctica being survivable seems unlikely. Unlike Greenland, Antarctica has the Southern Ocean's Circumpolar Current keeping it cold: https://blog.csiro.au/explainer-how-the-antarctic-circumpola...

"beyond the accounts of European male explorers that usually predominate."

Here I was reading a fun account about Polynesian Antarctic seafaring and then that happens.

Not sure what you mean. You were reminded that our historical record of exploration was written by, and mostly features, Europeans? Not exactly a controversy, that in particular.

I love reading out of place attacks on men in every article these days. Really refreshing to see identity politics flamewars in a article about Antarctica discovery. I can't imagine why he would have a problem with it.

It's perfectly contextual (the whole point of the article is looking past records kept by European explorers). I think maybe people grate at seeing the words "white|European male" in any context but that's not the writers problem, that's a fact integral to the story.

Here's the passage in question for those that haven't seen TFA.

>Wehi said collating traditional Maori accounts helped give a broader view of Antarctic history, beyond the accounts of European male explorers that usually predominate.

>"History tends to be told by one voice and there's often a dominant narrative," she told the New Zealand Herald.

> "Often indigenous history and even women's history becomes invisible, so for me it's about making that history visible."

I was offended because of the male adjective. If they had said European explorers that would have been normal but the gender of the European explorers seems to not be very relevant and included only for political signalling reasons.

> Often indigenous history Often indigenous history is not history because it is not written. Usually it's a collection of stories with wildly varying roots in facts.

That also describes written history

Vaguely reminiscent of how it was mandatory to make random remarks towards bourgeoisie in soviet institutions

As a child, I had a book that was like an encyclopedia of the world for kids. Neary every entry was littered with mentioning class struggle, political systems of countries and political views of prominent people. Guess what I learned from the article about Scott and Amundsen?

tangentially, the Scott base redevelopment looks pretty neat. https://www.scottbaseredevelopment.govt.nz/

ok but do they have like... proof? anything beyond old folk tales? an actual landing site or artifacts? no? then they didn't get there first.

You can't say for certain that they did or did not without evidence in either direction. It's not like it would be unlikely for them to have sailed there, they have far long journeys in their history.

Just as you can't argue that an exquisite set of china is orbiting Jupiter, similarly you can't claim that they reached Antarctica without some proof.

You can argue that they may have reached Antarctica with evidence, which is exactly what this study does and provides. History and science are primarily built on evidence and levels of uncertainty, not proof.

Finding physical evidence in Antarctica seems extremely unlikely. This study does not claim they got to solid ground, or even that they landed on the ice shelves that surround most of the continent.

Similarly there are no artefacts proving that the first explorers to reach the north pole actually did, and there are multiple disputed claims.

There is physical evidence of Polynesian exploration and settlement on the Auckland Islands, south of New Zealand's main islands by 465km of open ocean [1], about 20% of the way to Antarctic soil, so it seems very unlikely that they wouldn't have explored further south. The thing is there's not much there, just ocean until you meet the ice around Antarctica, so there isn't likely to ever be any physical evidence.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auckland_Islands#History

Reply on news.ycombinator.com