The results of a new study reported in Nature (“Native American gene flow into Polynesia predating Easter Island settlement“, published July 8, 2020) found “conclusive evidence for prehistoric contact of Polynesian individuals with Native American individuals (around AD 1200) contemporaneous with the settlement of remote Oceania. Our analyses suggest strongly that a single contact event occurred in eastern Polynesia, before the settlement of Rapa Nui, between Polynesian individuals and a Native American group most closely related to the indigenous inhabitants of present-day Colombia.”
The Norwegian explorer Thor Heyerdahl controversially suggested that prehistoric South American populations had an important role in the settlement of east Polynesia and particularly of Easter Island (Rapa Nui). Several limited molecular genetic studies have reached opposing conclusions, and the possibility continues to be as hotly contested today as it was when first suggested. This new study, led by computational biologist Alexander Ioannidis and population geneticist Andrés Moreno-Estrada, analyzed “genome-wide variation in individuals from islands across Polynesia for signs of Native American admixture, analysing 807 individuals from 17 island populations and 15 Pacific coast Native American groups.”
The study was reported in both the New York Times with the title and subtitle “Some Polynesians Carry DNA of Ancient Native Americans, New Study Finds: A new genetic study suggests that Polynesians made an epic voyage to South America 800 years ago” while ScienceNews used “South Americans may have traveled to Polynesia 800 years ago: DNA suggests people from the Americas had a role in the peopling of Pacific islands.” These opposing explanations for the contact are illustrated in the following graphic from the NY Times.
I also like John’s and Ugo’s comments.
I would add that we need to have the same attitudes about Book of Mormon “data.” When the Book of Mormon says two ships were lost (Alma 63:7–8), the idea that those were the ancestors of Polynesian people is a hypothesis. It is a fun idea to think about, but it is just an unproven possibility, currently. We must be careful not to assume too much of either scientific data or the Book of Mormon record. Sometimes popular, unproven ideas that have been around a long time become “proven” facts in many people’s minds. As John pointed out, data (two ships were lost at sea) and data interpretation (the people were carried westward to Polynesian islands) are two different things. The Book of Mormon author’s interpretation (that the people drowned) is also a possibility. Another possibility, as this new DNA data suggests, is that people could have traveled from the Americas to Polynesia later, even after the Book of Mormon record ends. The later travelers could also be Lehite descendants. As people who accept the Book of Mormon as the word of God, we object when people take other data too far. For example, the idea that because Native American DNA matches more closely with Asians than with Middle Eastern people, the Book of Mormon is untrue. We should be sure to not push data that seems favorable to us too far, as well.
I very much appreciate John Butler’s cautious and informed remarks on this essay.
I fully agree with the comment posted by Dr. Butler. This is a remarkable contribution to the field of genomic studies involving indigenous inhabitants of both the Americas and the Pacific Islands, which in noways proves anything about specific events described in the Book of Mormon narrative, but offer an important glimpse in what could have happened on the matter of oceanic migrations within an ancient historical context. In other words, considering that any scientific research dealing with DNA and ancient population migrations is limited to sample availability and data interpretation, this work supports the plausibility of gene flow (and therefore human contacts) from the American continents to Polynesia.
The language of the Jabbali people of the Dhofar region in Oman (Khor Rori and Khor Kharfot) appears to have heavy Austronesian influences.
This potentially means that the language of the people of “Bountiful” is related to the language of the people who discovered America 300 years before Columbus.
“In the recent decades only a few remarks about Modern South Arabian (MSA) lexis has appeared in the literature: for example, ogan (2015:546) describes MSA vocabulary as having a “peculiar aspect, at times so strikingly ‘non-Semitic’ that some sort of external influence (substratum or adstratum) might legitimately suggest itself as an explanatory model” … The twofold aim of this chapter is, on the one hand, to describe the influence of Arabic on MSA lexis, and, on other hand, to propose Austronesian, and specifically, a pre-documentary phase of the Malagasy language (in its turn influenced by Malay and Javanese languages), which is part of the south-east Barito sub-group, as the source of some of the above-mentioned hitherto unidentifiable MSA lexical items, on the basis of formal and semantic correspondences, as well as of the historical and textual evidence of an Austronesian presence in the geographical area where MSA languages are spoken at present. The chapter is divided into two main sub-sections: the first one is devoted to the Arabic lexical interference in MSA, while the second one illustrates the hypothesis of an Austronesian influence.”
A sketch of the Kuria Muria language variety and other aspects of Modern South Arabian:
https://www.academia.edu/42613361/A_sketch_of_the_Kuria_Muria_language_variety_and_other_aspects_of_Modern_South_Arabian
I provide this comment as a DNA scientist and a member of the Church who as written on DNA and the Book of Mormon. In my opinion, the relevance of this article to members of the Church is that DNA results from this study suggest oceanic travel existed between South America and Polynesia probably at least 800-1000 years ago. This study is in no way a “proof” for Hagoth’s existence or Nephi’s voyage 550 years earlier!
If you read the fine details on the study, the authors admit that more samples are needed to answer more detailed questions. It is important to keep in mind that data and data interpretation are not the same thing. Data interpretation is much more fluid – and where some data will convince one person, the same data will not convince someone else. The quotes in the news article are a nice illustration of this fact. As with any scientific data, keep in mind that possibilities are not the same as probabilities.
Personally I think Thor Heyerdahl’s Kon-Tiki expedition in 1947 did as much if not more to show the possibility of South Americans reaching Polynesia than this DNA study.
In my limited, dim view from the pew, it matters little which evidence does more—Heyerdahl’s Kon-Tiki expedition with his “nine dear Bolsa logs,” or the current DNA study. It is rather the strength that occurs when suggestive evidences come together. Thor made me hope for more!