>As for the possible Polynesian contact with
>South America, to the doubters, I would note, how then, did the sweet
>potato, a distinct South American crop reach the Polynesian and Melanesian
>cultures?

After doing some further research into the sweet potato, Ipomoea Batatas,
the case doesn't seem to be as clearcut as you make out:

"There are 5 major hypotheses to explain the introduction of I Batatas
 to the central and western Pacific, none of which can be either
 summarily dismissed or neatly confirmed:
 1. prehistoric introduction by South American Indian rafts drifting
    downstream and downwind
 2. prehistoric introduction on Polynesian canoes returning from a round
    trip to South America
 3. historical introduction by the Portuguese from the Atlantic
 4. historical introduction by Spaniards from the Pacific
 and
 5. natural dispersal by drifting capsules"
    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Of course hypotheses 3&4 can be dismissed if the Hather and Kirch article
I cited earlier is correct and they identified a 900 year old I. Batatas
specimen on a Polynesian island.

"Purseglove (1968) suggests introduction ... by natural dispersal; the
 seeds are viable for more than 20 years; they are hard and dormant
 unless sacrificed; they are impervious to salt water; and they are not
 buoyant, but the capsule is.  I doubt that the seedlings could survive
 in the drift zone on an ocean beach, but conceivably capsules could
 have been picked up by some Polynesian beachcomber, or seeds might
 have germinated along the banks of a tidal estuary."

Above quotes are from:
Sauer, Jonathan D.
  1993 Historical Geography of Crop Plants. Boca Raton: CRC Press.

Interestingly, Jonathan Sauer appears to be the son of Carl Sauer, a
researcher who Joseph Campbell seems to rely on for a lot of his
assertions about botanical evidence of contacts.

The article referenced in the quotes is:
Purseglove, J.W.
  1968 Tropical Crops: Dicotyledons. New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Looks like Yuri's "silver bullet" just lost its ability to kill were-wolves.

> South American Amer-Indians did not engage in cross ocean
>voyaging, as far as is known, whereas, the Polynesian peoples are well
>known for their epic trans-Pacific voyages in which they managed to settle
>just about every habitable island group. Easily they could have touched
>South America during one of those exploratory voyages, and if they made
>contact, one thing they would have wanted was the sweet potato, as it was
>a root crop, just like taro, with which the Polynesians were well
>acquainted.

I would identify trans-Pacific voyages as being ones which crossed from
one side of the Pacific to the other (i.e. South America).  Under this
definition, Polynesians are necessarily known for their trans-Pacific
voyages - that's what is being examined here.

Also there are South American cultures like the Sican and Chimu which are
known to have carried out a maritime trade.  Some researchers believe
these groups carried on sea-trade with the Tarascans of Western Mexico (see
my earlier post). If this is correct then South America -> Polynesia seems
more likely to me than Polynesia -> South America -> Polynesia.

> That they did not pick up pottery and other traditions is
>not very surprising, as pottery making, in fact, had died out among the
>Pacific island cultures, because the makeup of many of the islands lacked
>clay neede to make pottery, and pottery was space consuming and cumbersome
>for the out-riggered ships they used to cross the ocean.
>
>Frank J. Yurco

Excellent point, when cultures do contact one another they won't necessarily
pick up all the technology of another group - just what is useful to them.
Lots of non-ceramic groups have lived side by side with cultures to whom
ceramics were an essential part of every day life.

Peter van Rossum
PMV100@PSU.EDU