George's clarifications are most welcome and timely, and in tandem with Erika Hagelberg's mitochondrial DNA results (Hagelberg et al, 1994) they led me to feel we are steadily moving into a position which might satisfactorily incorporate all the data presently available.</p

Bahn, Paul G.

English

eVols at University of Hawaii at Manoa

Celibate Settlers and Forgetful Fishermen: A Reply to George GillPaul G. Bahn, Ph.D.I read George Gill's response to my review of the Rapa NuiRendezvous with the greatest interest. If I did miss ormisunderstand any points made in the closing session I canonly apologize and plead brain-overload after several days ofno~-stop listening. George's clarifications are most welcomeand timely, and in tandem with Erika Hagelberg'smitochondrial DNA results (Hagelberg et ai, 1994) they le'dme to feel we are steadily moving into a position which mightsatisfactorily incorporate all the data presently available.I still have some quibbles, however. George insists that histheory hypothesizes no introductions (culturally orphysically) by SGJth American Indian females into the RapaNui population, and does not necessarily postulate thepresence of Amerindian females in the first Polynesian canoe.Yet he emphasizes that, according to his theory, thePolynesians "came to inhabit and explore the coastal island!'>and the coast itself of South America" over a period ofyears.I find it very hard to believe that a ~"nch of settlers of anyorigin (let alone Polynesians!) would have no "closeencounters" with Amerindian women during a stay of someyears, and take none with them when they finally departed.This is what I was referring to when I remarked at the end ofmy review that Erika's data would have an impact on thetheory. The total lack of South American mtDNA on RapaNui makes it clear that Amerindian women played no role atall, a fact I find very difficult to reconcile with George'sscenario.Secondly, I feel it is a bit sexist to claim that potsherds andtextiles are "both products of female activity" while the skillsto produce pressure-flaked lithics were male. As recentstudies are highlighting, women produce stone tools (andeven hunt) in many societies, while the association of ceramicproduction with women is by no means a universal pattern:in addition--as the Engendering Archaeology volume admits,albeit very discreetly and rather reluctantly (see Bahn 1992)--while weaving in Aztec Mexico was a woman's activity, mendid it too; and in prehistoric California, acorn processing wasperformed "exclusively by women"--but men did it too!!However, if one goes along with George's assumption thatSouth American fishermen would not also be potters orweavers or even stone-tool specialists, it is odd that theyshould not have conveyed the concept of pottery or pressure-flaking to the islanders; after all, some would have us believethat they brought ideas in art and architecture with them, soRapa Nui Journal 40could they not also have pointed to the clay or obsidian on theisland and said "Hey, back home they make nifty tools andobjects from these. We can't tell you how exactly, but here'sa rough idea"? In short, if any South Americans did make itto Rapa Nui, I still find it very strange that they did not bringeven the concept of Peru's predominant cultural features withthem. Did they all suffer from amnesia?Which brings me to my final query. Not so long ago (RN]4[2], 1990, p.21), George claimed that the low frequency ofcharacteristically Polynesian rocker jaws on the island was"most probably due to Founder Effect" (i.e., to randomchance in the genetic composition of the original founders).Now, on the basis of other cranial traits, it is postulatedinstead that some Amerindians (men only, according to themtDNA data) made it to the island. Could not the cranialtraits also be due to the Founder Effect, or is this impossible?If it is impossible, then, as George points out, to account forthe frequencies recorded the Amerindian men must havearrived early, when the Polynesian population was still low.In other words, if all these data are valid (and having noexpertise whatsoever in cranial morphology or genetics, Ihave to accept what the specialists tell me), then it is"settlement hypothesis NO.2" in George's terminology whichwould cover all the bases: an established East Polynesianpopulation on Rapa Nui, affected at some fairly early stage bythe arrival of a few lost South American men who were theorigin of some very limited skeletal traits, and perhaps ofsome superficial analogies in art and artifacts between theisland and the mainland, but who inexplicably failed toimplant the most basic aspects of Amerindian culture.Barring the discovery of fresh and startling data, I suspectthat this scenario will be with us for some time as the new"establishment view". However, in archaeology it is useful tot Jar in mind that the more established the view, the broaderthe consensus, the more likely they are to be proved wrongeventually!Bahn, P.G. 1992. Review of "Engendering Archaeology: Womenand prehistory" (lM. Gero and M.W. Conkey, eds) JournalofGender Studies 1(3), May, 338-44.Hagelberg, E., S Quevedo, D. Turbon and lB. Clegg. 1994 DNAfrom ancient Easter Islanders. Nature 369:25-26.Vol 8 (2) June 19941Bahn: A Reply to George GillPublished by Kahualike, 1994

A Reply to George Gill

http://evols.library.manoa.hawaii.edu/bitstream/10524/64153/1/04_RNJ_8_2_Bahn.pdf

A Reply to George Gill

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

eVols at University of Hawaii at Manoa