The evolution of a scientific 'theory' usually makes it difficult to insert into that 'holy-cow' theory other obvious truths as the 'ivroy tower' wants to maintain their 'achademic theories' at all cost, even to the extend of ignoring and even dis-crimiating against any other reasonable and locigal deduction even when it is supported by countless various facts. The call these unacceptable facts 'anomolies' and tend to simply ignore them as though they don't even exist. For example on the one hand they have an established 'sacred-cow' map called the 'polynesian triangle map', by which they like to prescribe what is 'polynesian' and what is not.

What 'science' has done is initially decided that the polynesians are of an asian source and have arbitrarily define an Oceanic boundry which is will accept as 'Polynesian', to the elimination of any group outside that boundry. They have taken three island points and drawn straight lines from them to form a set triangle. The Hawaiian Island is one point, Easter Island is another such defining point and New Zealand is the third. The conclusion is anything in side the triangle is polynesian and anything out side IS NOT. This seem to work quite well to the east and south as there just aren't populated islands to consider there. But to the west there is and one of the island groups they have 'excluded' from being Polynesian is such as Fiji. Now I ask you, when did anything in the real world fit so well within such easily arbitrarily set straight lines?

Well, thank goodness there is a more recent mapping which abandons the western 'straight line' to a degree to include such as Baker, Howland, Tuvalu and Wallis as Polynesian but it still eliminates Fiji. So it ought to understandable the such a single straight line was not goin to work but beyond the arbitrary line, what ought to determine what is and what is not 'Polynesian'? An even more recent effort to find associations with the 'western' islands with Polynesia has taken shape and effectively made a link between Polynesia and almost all the islands to the west of Polynesia. So now the 'Polynesian groups' are put on a laundry list which finally included such a Fiji among others as 'Polynesian Peoples is: Aniwa, Anuta, Austral, Futunan, Fijian, Hawaiian, Kapingamarangi, Mangareva, New Zealand Maori, Cook Islands Maori, Marquesan, Moriori, Niuafo'ou, Niuean, Nuguria, Nukumanu, Nukuoro, Ontong Java, Pileni, Pukapuka, Rapan Rapanui (Easter Island), Renbelian, Samoan, Tahitian, Tikopia, Tokelauan, Tongan, Tongareva, Tuamotu, Tuvaluan, Uvean, Wallisian. Rotuma, Titilevu and other part s of Fiji have significant Polynesian populations due to lineal and historical connections. Fijians have always been considered by most people of the Pacific, especially Polynesians themselves, as bloodline relatives. 'Modern Science' recently verified this connection with DNA sampling. The historical significance of 'who settled the Fiji islands first' IS NOT as important, at least to Polynesians, as the Fijians lineal connections to other Pacific Islanders.

This 'spread' of the Polynesian group(s), as referred to by Anthropologist Ruth Benedict in the 1934 book 'Patterns of Culture' consider the effects of adoption of customs, language and the such. It also supports one of the ways that the 'Polynesian Influence' has been spread as also connected to certain Polynesian legends. Some such legends of the Hawaiians and Maori particulary speak out. The Hawaiian legend speaks of the 'Minihune'. As one story goes, the 'Minihune' were the original inhabitants of Hawaii, and when the 'Polynesian' Hawaiians came upon the Hawaiian Islands they found the Minihune living in the forests and they were a much smaller sized people. As is the Polynesian process, they were the more dominant people in size and 'war fare' and they Hawaiian Polynesians conquered and absorbed the Minihune into their culture and world. The exact details seem to vary with who tells the story.

This is a similiar tale told by the Maori. One of their legends is that the Moriori were the original inhabitants of the land when the Maori came to New Zealand. In one version it is reported that the Maori not only 'conquered' them but actually 'ate' them. Now there are Moriori-Maori people who live on Chatham Island east of New Zealand today who are reported as the indigenous people of that Island. Now the Polynesians are well known for their inter-island wars and the conquering of one group over the another. And there was nothing more deadly than a fleet of Maori war canoes baring down on a village's shore, not even a Viking ship. As a result, certainly an inter-mixing of 'tribes' has occured all through the Pacific. And when one people conquer, then absorb and mingle themselves with another, then variations in appearance and genenitics occur, though the culture and language development favors the conquerer to prevail, many local customs and mannerisms also are maintained. This seems to be more the fit to the story of the Polynesian people and what is being called today the 'Polynesian Spread'.

What is of particular interest is this seemingly same or similar story told from the Moriori perspective. It states:

"Hundreds of years ago the Moriori, of Chataham Islands (including New Zealand?), took a solemn vow of peace known as Nunuku's Law. The decision to uphold this sacred law in the face of aggression in 1835 had tragic consequences. They (the Moriori) were slaughtered, enslaved, and dispossessed of their lands. Nevertheless, the Moriori people survived [but only as a 'mixed' people of both Moriori and Maori blood]."

Note the map at the right which pictures what is now being called the 'Polynesian Spread'. Now I ask, if the Polynesian Spread moved as the picture seems to depict, then they are 'spreading' from east to west and if one takes that 'logical direction' of the spread from east to west and trace it far enough back east to its 'origins' don't you eventually run into the Americas?

And thus, from the information and knowledge which I understand concerning the Polynesian people I postulate my own 'all incompassing theory'. The theory grants that many of the original indeginous peoples of the pacific were of 'asian origin. But they were not the only ones to come to live upon the Islands of the South Pacific. A larger people of stature and strength came from the east in their sailing ships. As they came they entered in upon the indeginous people and in one manner or the other, likely wars of invasion, the two peoples were mingled together. The language and many new food sorces were introduced by these 'invaders from the east (America) such as the kumera or sweet potatoe, and the language which prevailed among the people was highly influenced by the language of the invaders, thus the strong language ties between the Polynesian language and that of the peoples of such as Peru. But as the 'Polynesian Spread' continued west into the Pacific, and as the people from America entered in upon the various groups in the west, the DNA and inheritance features of the people were affected, and thus, though of the same ancestry, the Hawaiian, Maori and the Fijian took of differeing genetic features though still of being the same people but now of a 'poly' mixture of race and color of the American 'Indian' with such as the Asian and Melanesian. And thus the simple Polynesian Triangle map of yester-year ought to be a progressive map showing the 'Polynesian Spread' from its origin of invading influence into the Oceanic 'Asian' and 'Melanesian' lands such as is shown.

Now there is one last 'new theory' to fit into the Polynesian mix. I suppose to an extent that what is considered as the 'primary culture and influence' and just what is considered as an under lying 'sub-culture and influence' come from a matter of one's perspective. So there is one more asspect of modern 'theory' to consider as to the Polynesian explanation. And that is the role and influence which what is labeled as the 'Austronesian Peoples' contribution to the Polynesian. From my perspective the thrust of the spread flow came from the east, namely of that of the American Indian, though for sure upon that which was in many instances what was already there, I would label the 'primary influence' moving the Polynesian people is that force behind the spread of the Polynesian. And thus the secondary or 'sub-culture' I would set as that which was previously there but 'over ran' by the spread movement and that under lying 'sub-culture' is that of the 'Austronesian peoples, the often indegious, but not always already there, as some migration into it 'Polynesia' occurs later as well; thus the secondary influence came from such other peoples and base nations of Oceania, Southeast Asia, Taiwanese aborigines, Malaysia, East Timor, Philippines, Indonesia, Brunei, Madagascar, Micronesia, the non-Papuan people of Melanesia, Singapore, the Pattani region of Thailand, the Cham areas of Vietnam of the Champa Kingdom, Cambodia, Hainan, China and so forth. And as the paragraph accompanying pictured maps shows these underlying and contribution cultures were absorbed into what is today the Polynesian people of the Pacific. And this is a true to life 'theory' worthy of the real world and not just three straight lines arbitrarily drawn to form a triagle in the midst of the Pacific Ocean.

This is What has made the Polynesian significantly different from the Micronesian, Melanesian, or any other such people, and in particular vastly different from the ancient and obscure early Asian connections. And not the 'other' contributing and even circumventing origins that this 'single' original theoretical sourced traditional theory misconstrues? Such an isolationist position ignores the natural prevailing development of man that overwhelmingly exists and is displayed throughout all known histories of man. For example, just what are the origins of the peoples of England? Are they the ancient Celtic Cymry? Are they Norwegian Anglos and Saxons? Are they Round Heads? Are they Britons of Roman connection? Are they Normans from William's Normandy? Or are they of some other Germanic extraction? Just who are the people of England? But you say, 'Sure, but England is so close to Europe and the South Pacific Islands are too remote. Bunk! If the obscure Ancient Asians could have sailed the seas and found the Islands 3, 5 or 10 thousands years ago, then other influencing peoples could have just as assuredly done so since. Just because Europe thought the world flat, and limited to the European, African, and Asian Continents, is no reason to presuppose such ignorance upon the rest of the world.

By their very nature, the 'voyaging' Polynesians are likely to have exposed themselves to other peoples and cultures. Further, who is to say that such oceanic voyages where limited to just the 'poly' - 'asians'? And such has been shown and demonstrated to be the case. Dr. Thor Heyerdahl and his voyage Kon Tiki has shown otherwise. His book about the 'American Indians in the Pacific' presents the compelling truth that other influences other than the Asian, has reached the islands of Polynesia. Only the die-hard who'd still supposes the world to be flat and discovered only by white Europeans, could deny such to be the fact of the matter after reviewing Dr. Heyerdahl's presentation in that book. Is it easier to believe that the non-intelligent sweet potato or kumera dug itself out of the ground, wandered down to an American seashore, jumped in and swam the ocean to the various Polynesian Islands, climbed out on dry land, announced to the native people its name, wandered off the seashore to a futile spot, planted itselt, grew for the Polynesian people's benefit, and said 'eat me?' Or is it far more feasible that a sea voyaging people brought it to the islands with them, knowing exactly what it was, and introduced it into the various Polynesian Islands throughout the pacific triangle? The kumera or sweet potato is of American origin.

Now, is there any evidence in Polynesian traditions that account for a meeting of diverse peoples and of a possible melting of cultures? What of the Hawaiian's stories of the Mehehuni and what of the Maori's stories of the Moriori? Both of these traditions account for a smaller frame people inhabiting the land prior to the landing of the latest Polynesian people's arrival. And which of the 'meeting' societies dominated the other? The cultures, the languages, the blood types, and a number of other things would suggest that the last 'dominating' influence upon the Polynesian Islands of the South Pacific is not that of the earliest determinable originators in the Islands, but it is that of the American Indian influences and its molding of the development of the 'poly'nesian that makes them who they are today. It is what sets them apart and separates them from the likes of the Micronesian, Melanesian, and the Oriental Asian. Even the body size and structure of the Polynesian has been more influenced by the size and structure of the American Indian than the size and structure of an Oriental Asian ancestry.

Science has frequently dispelled and ignored scriptural accounts. It is of interest to point out that such skeptics have denounced the Bible as even being a historical document. Yet they are continually finding historical sites exactly where the Bible proclaimed they'd be. I believe the Bible. Another book of Scripture has pronounced the possibility of American origins and influences upon the Polynesian (Alma 63). It is a part of LDS common belief that the Polynesian Islands of the sea are inhabited by descendants of the Book of Mormon peoples who are also the ancestors to the American Indian. And the Book of Mormon peoples are of Middle Eastern origin. They come from the regions of Palestine and Jerusalem.

It is the nature of the 'poly'nesian to be of 'multiple' or mixed origin, to bend with the tides of its 'discovering' and dominating visitors. As it is the custom of the surviving nature of island people displayed even to their latest known explorers and dominators from modern undisputable history. The white European and Asian visitors have mingled with and have been adopted into the Polynesian families. They are the influencing fathers of many of the Polynesians of today. So also is the influence upon the Polynesian evidenced by the American Indian wood carvings in Aeotearoa, stone carvings in Rapa Nui; and culture, foods, and language connections throughout the pacific.

Indeed the 'poly'nesian is of 'multiple' origin. It is illogical to conclude otherwise.

The possible perspectives of such varied sources of influence reminds me of a little story of a youth schooled in the Biblical concept taught that man was made from the dust of the earth and that when man dies the elements of his body do return to the dust of the earth. " . . . for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return." (Genesis 3:19) Having been told to clean his room, after being so envolved for a while the child called out. 'Mommy, Mommy, come quick. When the mother arrived, the excited child continued, 'Mommy, look here under my bed! There is someone under there and they are either coming or going. In his efforts to clean his room the child had peered under his bed and there discovered a host of 'dust bunnies' accumulated there and to the child he recalled his religeous schooling and deduced that the dust was that of a person 'either coming or going' as it were.

The tracks and traces of archealogical evidence can be just like that. The presence of some item of evidence may well be evidence of the precence of a people. But just like the dust under the bed, it does not always answer the question of whether the people are coming from a place or going to a particular place. Deducing that evidence takes some skill and further information. In the case of the Lapita Pottery, such evidence first tells us that there is a related people associated with that pottering. What we must further deduce is whether that people are coming from somewhere or are going to somewhere. That somewhere from whence these Lapita Pottery people are coming from has been deduced to be from about Taiwan. About 3,000 BC, some deduce, such a pottery mading people appear in Taiwan. Taiwanese pottery was 'red-slipped' but otherwise plain. The 'tattooed' remeniesent patterns which appear on such pottery in the western pacific islands has been taken to identify a 'Lapita pottery people'. And the initial pottery making skills are theorized to have come down from Asia, particularly 'Taiwan'.

The general deduction that an Asian people, likely Taiwanese and others have contributed to the cultural development in the Pacific Islands must be accepted. The pottery associated evidence is there. And the age of such pottery is oldest in Asia (Taiwan), thus the concluded source. Like the 'plain' pottery of Taiwan, much of the like pottery found at Samoan sites is of a plain ware. Actually the Samoan pottery found there 'begins with the Early Eastern Lapita style of decorated thinner walled pottery and ends with thick-walled, coarse tempered Samoan Plain Ware which ceramics in Samoa are 'abandoned' or ended around 200 to 400 A.D. And Samoa seems to be upon the eastern boarder of the 'Lapita Pottery' influence in the Polynesian Pacific. This of course may have a number of reasons causing such. That is the Taiwan Asian influence continued into the eastern lands of Polynesia but the required qaulity 'red-clay' material required to produce the pottery did not. Or such other ancient sites of the pottery are just not found yet. Or the western push of the Asian influence itself stopped.

When speaking of the Taiwanese-Asian source connection, it is stated that the Asian movement into the Pacific may have itself ran into and influenced other already indigenous peoples of the Pacific Islands such of the Austronesian peoples associated with such as Madagascar. Certainly in the 'Far Western Pacific' these Madagascar like people in appearance are there, but then there is the question of whether all such influences are 'coming or going'. As far as what has been labeled as the 'Polynesian Spread', it seems to have come from eastern Polynesia and moved into the Western Pacific Islands. And certainly as telling of a presence and influence as 'pottery' presence is also such items as food produce origins. And agains inters the Kumra or sweet potatoe which is known absolutely to have originated from the Americas. And it has found its way nto the Pacific as are as the western edges of Polynesia and down into New Zealand, that is basically all of that which is 'traditional Polynesia. Certianly that has to speak of an American influence and association somehwere in there.

Truth will out, as there is being found Y-DNA, that is the male direct line paternal origin and sourced DNA which is American Indian DNA found in the Pacific Islanders. To such findings science seems to be now willing to admit of some possible 'slave trade' out of America which brought American Indian DNA into Polynesia but the logic of the Y-DNA being found being that of the 'dominate direct line paternal' DNA may also be used to suggest it just was not only 'slave American Indians' being brought in but a more dominate entrance such as the male virial type associated with a invasion type of male influence. But then again we are back to the question of just where and from what perspective all of these influences are coming from or going to and when. Does the pottery phase out in Samoa speak of lack or and running out of the clay material or does it speak of a westward moving Polynesian Spreading influence from the east about the time of 200-400 A.D., which moved into Samoa and killed the 'potting' influence? The exact answers are still coming forth and the recent admitance of American Indian Y-DNA is just one of the coming truths. Certainly mtDNA of the direct line female DNA alone does not speak as directly to 'male presence' and influence as does Y-DNA results.