University of Pittsburgh- Of the Commonwealth System of Higher Education

Polynesian Relationships: Initial Correlation and Factor Analyses of Cultural Data

Author(s): Peter W. Hoon
Source: Ethnology, Vol. 13, No. 1 (Jan., 1974), pp. 83-103
Published by: University of Pittsburgh- Of the Commonwealth System of Higher Education
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3773129 .
Accessed: 14/02/2011 16:25

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless
you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you
may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at .
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=upitt. .

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed
page of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

University of Pittsburgh- Of the Commonwealth System of Higher Education is collaborating with JSTOR to
digitize, preserve and extend access to Ethnology.

http://www.jstor.org
 Polynesian Relationships: Initial
Correlation and Factor Analyses of
Cultural Data1

Peter W. Hoon
DalhousieUniversity

The use of factoranalysisin culturalanthropology has beenreceivedwith

bothenthusiasm and skepticism. To a degree,skepticism mayhavearisen
fromthe earlymisuseof the methodology at a time when the laborin-
volvedwas so prohibitive that researchersused"short-cuts'>questionedby
statisticians(D-riverand SchuesslerI957). However,the adventof the
electroniccomputerhas eliminatedthe problemof labcyrious computation,
and has madeit possibleto programa determinate solutionbasedupon
the rigorousmathematical modelsfactoranalystshad in mindin the first
place (KaiserI960). Recently,Benfer(I972) has emphasizedthe robust
natureof the factoranalyticmodeleven when statisticalassumptions are
violatedandhasencouraged anthropologiststo adaptthe tool to anthropo-
logicalproblems. Therearecurrentlya varietyof completefactoranalysis
programpackagesat computercentersthroughout the worldwhichmake
factoranalyticwork almostroutine(HarmonI+8).
Two principally differentfactoranalyticapproaches havebeen used in
culturalanthropology in recentyears.One approach, commonlyreferred
to as the"R Technique,'> group-stogetherculturaltraitsor ratingchar-
acteristics
whichshow commonality with eachother.Sawyerand Levine
(s966)usedthisapproach to factoranalyzea worldsampleof thirtyrating
characteristicsdevelopedby Murdock(I+7). This analysisreducedthe
originalthirtyratingcharacteristicsto ninebasiccomposite variableswhich
providedethnographers with a parsimonious set of underlyingdimensions
of culturalvariationwithinthe Murdock Alongsimilarlines
classifications.
Murdock andProvost(I973) haverecentlyusedfactorarlalysis to determine
thereis a universalfunctionalsimilarityin the sex allocationof tasksin
a representativeworldsample.
The secondapproach, knownas the "Q Technique," has beenused to
grouptogethercultureswhichshow commonality on the basisof rating
This analysismaybe conceivedas "inverted
characteristics. factoranalysis,"
sinceculturesthemselves makeup the factorsinsteadof the characteristics
upon which they are rated.Driverand Schuessler(I957) used the Q
83
 t 4 eTHNOLOGY
r T -

Techniqueto delineategroupsamongsixteenNorthwestCaliforniatribes
basedupon250differentculturaland archaeological traits.The procedure
Driverand Schuessler usedis basicallysimilarto the procedures used by
the authorin this study.Initially,a rawdatamatrixwas formedwith the
sixteentribesin columnsand the 250ratingcharacteristics in rows.If a
tribein a columnpossesseda giventrait,a "I" was enteredat the inter-
sectionof the columnrepresenting the tribeand the row representing the
trait.If ehetraitwas absentfor the giventribe,a "o"was enteredat the
appropriate locationin the matrix.The presenceand absencedecisions
werebaseduponthe judgments of Driver,Schuessler,andinformants who
had intimateknowledgeof NorthwestCaliforniatribes.Earlierresearch
hadindicatedthatinformants wereableto agreeon thepresence or absence
of a ratingcharacteristicto a scientifically
acceptable degree.
Driverand Schuessler's secondstepin Q factoranalysiswas the inter-
correlationof the culturesby the standardSpearmanproduct-moment
method.The resultof thisstepwasa correlation matrixwhichshowedthe
correlationsbetweenall possiblepairsof cultures.This matrixbecamethe
inputdatafor the thirdstage,factoranalysis,whichgroupedtogetherthe
cultureswhich had relativelyhigh correlations with one another.These
groupsof cultures,or factors,showedethnographers whichculturescovaried
together(showedpresenceand absenceof principallythe samecultural
rating characteristics).Driver and Schuesslerconceptualized factorsas
compositesof severalcultureswhich shareda relativelyhigh degreeof
similarityand whichin turnsuggestedthe cultural prototypes withinthe
culturalareaurlderanalysis.
The currentinvestigationutilizesfactoranalysisin a somewhatdif-
ferentvein thanDriverand Schuessler (I957) did in theiroriginalwork.
In the currentinvestigation,
factoranalysisis usedto delineatebroadgroups
among twenty Polynesiancultures.Once the basic groupshave been
identifiedby factoranalysisindividualrelationships amongcultureswithin
a groupare examinedon the basisof theirintercorrelations. Both factor
and correlation resultsare used to develophypotheses of culturalcontact
and migrationamongthe Polynesian societiesunderstudy,whichin turn,
are comparedwith the findingsof otherPolynesianworkers.
FACTOR
ANALYSIS
OFTWENTY
POLYNESIAN
CULTURES
Method
TwentyPolynesiancultureswereassignedeither"o"or "I" (I - pre-
sent; o absent)for IO4culturalratingcharacteristicsfrom the Ethno-
grarphic (Murdock,
AMtlas I967). The IO4ratingcharacteristicswereselected
froma totalof 58I possibleratingcharacteristics
on the basisof criterisde-
velopedbyThurstone andDegan(I95I). If a particular ratiIlgcharacteristic
werepresentin two or morebut eighteenor lessof the twentyPolynesian
cultures,it was includedin the analysis.The rationalefor thisselectionof
rating characteristics
was to maximizethe capabilityof the ratingchar-
acteristicsto discriminateamong the twenty culturesby making the
 POLYNESIAN RELATIONSHIPS 85
amountof covariance betweenculturesas largeas possible.A ratingchar-
acteristicwhichis presentin o-nlyone cultureor presentin all but one,
merelyintroduces uniqucvariancefor thatculture,anddoesnot showhow
the culturein questiondiffersfrom the other culturesincludedin the
analysis.
Followingratingcharacteristic factoranalysis
selection,a widelyavailable
computerprogrampackage(Dixon I969) generatedmeansand standard
deviationsfor each Polynesiancultureand phi-coefficient correlationsbe-
tweenall possiblepairsof cultures.Fruchter(I957) suggeststhat phi-coef-
if the variance
ficientsmaybe a biasedestimateof variableintercorrelations
of the variablesdiderssubstantially.Examination of the standarddevia-
tionsof the twentyculturesindicatedthatthey dideredby g per cent or
less.
Subsequent intercorrelation
to the generationof the phi-coefficient ma-
trix,the computerpackageextractedS1X factorson the basisof the recom-
mendations of Kaiser(I+O). Unitieswereinsertedas communality esti-
matesandthe programwasinstructed factorswhose
to extractsuccessively
eigenralueswere I or greater.This procedure producedsix factorswhich
in turn were rotatedby the varimaxprocedure(Table I). The purpose
of the varimaxrotationwas to producea simplestructure, definedas the
highestpossiblecorrelations (loadings)on the fewestpossiblenumberof
factors(HarmonI+8). Anceptually,the rotationprocessis analogousto
determiningthe best fit of six regressionlines to six clustersof points

TABLE 1
Factor Structureof Twenty PolynesianCulturesAfter Orthogonal
Rotation of Six Factors
I II III IV V VI
Uvea .79 -.04 .07 .17 .22 -.12
Tonga .74 .15 .21 .02 -.10 .09
Futuna .68 .04 .20 .15 .20 .17
Pukapuka -.08 .79 .13 .05 .28 -.03
Samoa .55 .58 .01 .01 -.01 -.13
Ellice .32 .55 -.02 . 45 -. 20 .03
Hawaii .17 -.08 .73 -.05 -.06 .11
Tahiti .30 .20 .68 .28 .05 .02
Raroia -.29 -.01 .56 .52 .03 -.01
Marquesas .06 .32 .52 -.10 .44 -. 25
Kapingamarangi .18 .31 .45 .17 .23 .01
Tokelau .07 .05 .09 .81 .05 -.01
Manihiki .15 .30 .13 .65 .40 .27
Ontong-Java .17 .01 .01 .60 . 40 -. 31
Niue .26 .11 .15 .57 .38 .33
Mangareva .18 -.12 .39 .40 .29 .30
Tikopia -.07 .23 .13 .16 .73 .08
Mangaia .34 -.08 -.06 .23 .67 .09
Maori -.15 .06 -.01 -.11 .09 .86
Easter .30 -.19 .12 .24 .01 .68
 86 ETHNOLOGY

simultaneously. Table I showsthat the six factorsare relatively distinct

fromone anotherand thatthe criterionof simplestructure has beenrea-
sonablywellapproximated.
Groupsof cultureswhichhavehigh loadingson the samefactorhave
beenset apartin TableI, andcultureswhichhavesubstantial loadingson
morethana singlefactorhavebeenitalicized.For the purposeof study-
ing migrationin Polynesia, it is reasonableto assumethatcultureswhich
loadon thesamefactorsharea commonorigin.Islandswhoseculturesshare
loadingswith tWO factorsmay eitherhavereceivedmigrantsfrom other
cultureswhichloadon the two factors,or, alternatively, may haveserved
as pointsof dispersion for cultureswhichloadon eachof the two factors.
For example,factorIII is comp-rised principallyof the EasternPolynesian
cultureswhosecommonoriginshavebeensuggestedby manywriterson
Polynesia(FornanderI9%; Elbert I953; ChurchiXIgII; Sharp I957;
OliverI96I; BuckI+4; Dyen I965; PawleyI+6s I967; Marshall andGiles
I+8; PoulsenI+8; GreenI97I). The suggestiveloadingsof Raroiaon
factorIV (comprisedof Tokelau,Manihiki,Ontong-Java, Niue, and
Mangareva) suggestthe possibility thatin someway Raroianshadcontact
with one or moreof the cultureson factorIII andfactorIV.
The factorstructure(TableI) raisesa varietyof interestingquestions.
Whichof the EasternPolynesian cultureswhichloadon factorIII served
as thesourcefortheotherEasternPolynesian cultures ? Whatwasthe most
probabledirectionof contactbetweenRaroiaand culturescomprising
factorIV? Similarquestions arisein regardto eachof thefactorsin TableIs
and in regardto othercultures,such as Samoa Ellice,and Mangareva,
whichshareloadingson morethanone factor.Is therea methodof using
thefactorstructure in TableI as a guidein "teasing" out the mostprobable
migrationand settlementpatternfromamongthe twentyPolynesiancul-
turesln t llS lIlVeStlgatlOn K
. . . . * >

An important factto keepin mindis thatthe factorstructure in TableI

represents in a simplifiedformthe originalI90 intercorrelations between
the twentyPolynesiancultures(each possiblepair). Hence one logical
stepis to usethefactorstructure in TableI as a guidein examiningspecific
correlations betweenculturesin the originalcorrelationmatrix.()wing
to the largenumberof correlations, thefactorstructure in TableI simplifies
the taskof examiningcorrelations betweenpairsof cultures.For example
factorIII represents cultureswhichco-varytogetherand hencearehighly
correlated with one another.An examination of the intercorrelationsbe-
tweenthe five culturesloadedon factorIII mightin-dicate whichculture
(or cultures) is the mostprobable choiceas a sourcefor the othercultures
loadedon factorIII.
Given a set of intercorrelations betweencultureswhich load on the
samefactor,themostprobable sourcewouldappearto be theculture which
hasthe highestcorrelation withothercultalres. If morethana singleculture
has high correlations with the others,then eitherit is not possibleto dis-
criminatebetweenseveralpossibilities, or morethan one cultureserved
as a source.In somecases,it iS possiblethat a fairlycomplexmigration
 POLYNESIAN
RELATIONSHIPS
87

patterntook place,but regardless- of what the patternwas, it wouldbe

possibleto determinethe most probablepossibilities on the basisof the
sizesof thecorrelations betweenthecultures. If the factorstructure indicates
thatcultureswhichloadon two factorsmay havehad contactwith each
otherthrougha linkageculture,the specificnatureof this contactcould
be delineatedby examiningall possiblecorrelations betweencultureson
the two factors.Again,the speciSccontactpossibilities wouldbe indicated
by the cultureswhichhavethe largestcorrelations with the "linkage" cul-
ture.
Implicitin such a procedureis an importantassumption. This basic
assumption is thattheprobability of culturalcontactbetweentwoPolynesian
groupsis proportional to the amountof variancethey sharein common.
Sincethe squareof the correlation bretween two variablesrepresents the
proportion of variancethey sharein common,the probability of contact
is roughlyproportional to the size of the correlation coefficient.
This as-
sumptionis similarto theassumption madeby Emory(I+3), Dyen (I965),
Pawley(I+6), andElbert(Igs3). ThesePolynesian linguistsassumedthat
the probability of culturalcontactbetweenpairsof Polynesianculturesis
proportional to the percentage of languageformstheysharein common.In
the currentinvestigation, the probabilityof contactis proportional to
varianceoverlap,or the relativedegreeto whichany pairof culturesshare
the presenceand absenceof the sameculturalratingcharacteristics.
Oncehavingdetermined the probable contactpatternamongthe twenty
Polynesiancultures,questionsariseaboutthe sequenceand directionality
of this contact.For example,whichculture(s)werethe earliestPolynesian
cultures,and how did Polynesianculturespreadthroughoutthe South
Pacific?WhichPolynesian islandsweresettledmostrecentlyandby whom?
Tentativeanswersto thesequestionsmayagainbe givenin termsof rela-
tivelyhigh and low probability eventsif a secondimportantassumption is
made.Thisassumption is thatforcultureswhichhavea highprobability of
contact,thehighertheircorrelation, themorerecenttheircontact.All things
beingequal,an observer in I900 whoexaminedPolynesian culturein Tahiti
andthe Marquesas wouldexpectto findtheseculturesmoresimilarto one
anotherif the Marquesas hadbeensettledby Tahitiansin I850 ratherthan
in A.D. 400.In termsof thecurrentstudy,thecorrelation betweenTahitian
andMarquesan cultureshouldreflecttherelativerecencyof contactbetween
them.Assumingfor the momentthat Tahitiansactuallydid settle the
Marquesas in A.D. 400and Hawaiiin A.D. 8oo,one wouldexpectto find
the correlation betweenTahitiand Hawaiilargerthanthe correlation be-
tweenTahitiand the Marquesas fromthe perspective of an ethnographer
viewingall threecuturesin I900. SinceTahitiis hypothetically the origin
cultureforboththe Marquesas andHawaii,one wouldpredictthe correla-
tionsbetweenbothTahitiand Hawaiiand Tahitiand the Marquesas to
be largerthanthe correlation betweenthe Marquesas and Hawaii.There^
fore,examination of the intercorrelationsbetweenthreeculturesat a time
may producehypotheses aboutthe sequenceand directionality of cultural
contactamongthem.
 88 ETHNOLOGY

In thefollowingportionsof thispaper,the authorwill showhowcorrela-

tion and factoranalysescanbe usedto develophypotheses aboutthe con-
tactand sequenceof migrationin Polynesia.The two assumptions which
guidethisworkcarlbe summarized as follows:(I) the probability
of con-
tactbetweentwo culturesis proportional to the amountof variance(based
upon ratingcharacteristics)they sharein common;(2) the largerthe
correlatiorl
betweerltwo cultureswhichappearto havea high probability
of contact the more recentthis contactis presumedto have occurred
withinthe contextof the Polynesiansettlementtime scale.
ANALYSIS
ANDRESULTS
The emergenceof Tonga,Uvea,andFutunatogetheron factorI (Ta-
ble I) suggeststhatthesecultureseithersharecommonoriginsor served
as sourcesof culturalcontactfor one another.AlthoughTableI indicates
that Niue has had principalcontactwith cultures on factorIV,,evidence
to be discussedlatershowsthatNiue wasmostlikelysettleddirectlyfrom
Futuna.If Niue is includedwith Futuna,Tonga,and Uvea, then the
groupingis identicalto that suggestedby Elbert(I953) and similarin
threeout of fourcasesto thegroupssuggestedby Dyen (I965) andPawley
(I966, I967). These linguistshave reportedthat membersof this group
havethe oldestlanguageformsin Polynesia, and by implication,
thatone
of themservedasthePolynesian "genesisculture."ManyPolynesian scholars
havesuggestedthatTongaservedas the genesisculturefor all of Polynesia
(WilliamsonI924;SharpIgs7;OliverI96I; BiggsIg67;GreenI967 I972;
GroubeI97I). If thishypothesisis correct,correlations
betweenTongaand
the otherthreeculturesshould13ehigherthanotherpossibilities. Table2
TABLE 2
Intercorrelationsof Four CuIturesWith PrincipalLoadingson
Factors I and IV
Uvea Tonga Futuna
Uvea
Tonga .39
Futuna .56 .42
Niue .33 . 27 *45

indicatesthatFutuna,and not Tonga,has the highestoverallcorrelations

with the otherthreeculturesn and so wouldappearto be a moreprobable
choiceas the genesisculturewithinthisgroup.It alsoappearsthatFutuna
had an importantrecentinfluenceon Uveancultureand perhapssome-
whatearlierservedas the migrationsourcefor Niue. Futunansmayhave
settledTongaat an evenearlierdate sincethe correlation
betweenFutuna
and Tongais slightlysmallerthan that betweenFutunaand Niue. An
alternativepossibilityis that Tonga servedas the migrationsourcefor
Futuna,whichin turnservedas the migrationsourcefor Niue andUvea.
The dataheredo not suggesta singledesignation of lzongaas an origin
 POLYNESIAN
RELATIONSHIPS
8g

sourcefor presumably the oldestlinguisticgroupin Polynesia.

Futunaand
Tongaappearto be aboutequallyprobablechoicesas originsourcesfor
Polynesia.
FactorII alsohassimilarities
to thegroupswhichemergedfromlinguistic
analyses.
Pawley(I+6, I9e) reportedlinguisticsimilaritiesamongSamoa,
Ellice,and Pukapuka(and Futunaand Tokelau)and Dyen (I+5) SUg-
gestedsimilarities
betweenthe SamoanandEllicelanguages.Examination
of Table3, intercorrelations
betweenSamea,Ellice,andPukapuka, indicates
that Samoahas the highestcorrelation with the othertwo culturesand
thereforeappearsto lx the bestchoiceas the dispersalsourcefor cultures
TABLE 3
Incorrelations of Three Cultures With Principal Loadings on
Factor II
Pukapuka Samoa
Pukapuka
Samoa .34
Ellice .23 .35

on factorII. Sincethe.correlations
betweenSamoaand Elliceand Samoa
and Pukapukaare virtuallythe samesize, a reasonable hypothesisis that
thetwoweresettledaboutthesametimefromSamoa.
ManyPolynesian scholarshavereportedthe similarities
betweenthe cul-
tureswhichappearon factorIII, andhavefrequentlyreferredto the geo
graphicalareain whichthey are locatedas the generalculturalareaof
EasternPolynesia(FornanderI+9; ChurchillI9II; SharpI957; Oliver
I96I; EmoryI+3; Buck I+4; Marshalland Giles I+8; Poulsens968;
GreenI97I). Polynesianlinguistshavealsonotedthe.similaritiesbetween
the cultureswhichappearon factorIII (ElbertI953; Dyen I+5; Pawley
I966, I967). What kind of migrationpatterndoes factoranalysisof the
culturaldatafromthe EthnographicStlas suggestwithinthe EasternPoly-
nesiangroup?Is there supportfor a singleE.asternPolynesianculture
servingasthemigration sourcefortheothers?
The intercorrelations
betweenthe EasternPolynesiangroup (Table4)
indicatesthat Tahiti has the highestcorrelation
with each of the other
EasternPolynesian cultures.Tahitiappearsto havebeenthe singlesettle-
TABLE 4
Intercorrelationsof Five CulturesWith PrincipalLoadingson Factor III
Hawaii Tahiti Raroia Marquesas Kapingamarangi
Hawaii
Tahiti .37
Raroia .22 .37
Marquesas .22 .36 . 19
Kapingamarangi . 23 .43 . 28 .32
Mangareva . 26 .43 . 27 .27 . 11
 gO ETHNOLOGY

mentsourcefor Hawaii,the Marquesas, Mangareva,andKapingamarangi.

Thisfindingis in generalaccordwithBuck(I+4), Emory(I963), Marshall
and Giles (I+8), and Green(I97I). Specifically,Emory(I968) reported
a strongTahitianinfluenceuponHawaiiandElbert(I953) foundinclusion
of Kapingamarangi with EasternPolynesiaconsistentwith his linguistic
data.The findingsof this study,however,arein conflictwith the archeo-
logicaldataof Suggs(I+I), who suggestedthatthe Marquesas servedas
a secondarysourceof culturaldispersalin EasternPolynesiaand Sinoto
(I968), who favorsthe Marquesas as the principaldispersalpoint.The
datain thisstudysuggesta singleone waysettlement of the Marquesas by
Tahitians.
The sequenceof dispersalfromTahitimay be estimatedfromthe size
of the correlations
betweenTahitiandtheotherfourcultureson factorIII.
Assumingthat the higherthe correlation betweenTahitiand one of the
five remainingmembersof factorIII, the more recentthe contact,the
followingsequenceis indicated:settlementof Hawaiiand the Marquesas
firstaboutthe sametime,followedby the settlementof Kapingamarangi,
and shortlythereafter,Mangareva. The datain the currentinvestigation
suggestthat the Marquesas and Hawaiiweresettledby Tahitiansabout
the sametime.If the Suggs(I+I) dateof the secondcenturyB.C.for the
settlementof the Marquesas is correct,thenthe Emory(I+2) dateof 400
A.D. andthe Green(Ig7I) dateof 800 A.D. for the settlement of Hawaii
wouldappearnot to-be the earliestsettlementdates.Takentogether,the
dataof the currentstudyandthe available radiocarbon
datesfor the settle-
ment of the Marquesas and Hawaiisuggestthat evidencefor habitation
of the HawaiianIslandsby Polynesiansat aboutthe beginningof the
Christianeramaybe foundin futurearcheological workin Hawaii.
SinceNiue and Manihikihavethe highestcorrelation of any paircom-
prisingthe culturesloadedon factorIV, thesetwo culturesappearto have
had relativelyrecentcontactwith eachother.Baseduponthe sizesof the
intercorrelations
betweenthe culturesloadedon factorIV, the following

TABLE 5
Intercorrelationsof Five CulturesWith PrincipalLoadingson F^actorIV
Tokelau Manihiki Ontong-Java Niue
Tokelau
Manihiki 49
Ontong-Java .37 .50
Niue .50 .69 .34
Mangareva .36 .46 . 26 .54

contactsseemmostprobable:Tokelaucontactwitheitheror bothManihiki
andNiue; C)ntong-Javacontactwith Manihiki;andcontactbetweenNiue
and Mangareva.Thesecontacthypotheses suggestedby the culturaldata
wouldappearto be in conflictwith Bayard(I+6), who suggestedon the
 9I
RELATIONSHIPS
POLYNESIAN

basisof linguisticdatathatOntong-Java wassettledfromSamoaor Futuna.

Due to the dearthof literaturewith respectto the possiblecontactpatterns
amongthe culturescomprising factorIV it is not possibleto makeaddi-
tional comparisons betweenthe hypothesesgeneratedby this studyand
thosesuggested byotherPolynesian writers.
The correlations betweenTikopia and Mangaiaand the remaining
nineteenPolynesian cultureswereexaminedto determine themostprobable
originsfor thesetwo cultures.Sincethe two culturesload togetheron a
separate factor,it wouldseemhighlyprobable thatoneof thesetwo islands
was settledfrom the other.Examination of Table 6 indicatesthat this

TABLE 6
CulturesShoxvingthe Highest CorrelationsWith Tikopiaand Mangaia
Niue Manihiki Ontong-Java Pukapuka Mangareva Marquesas
Tikopia .46 .44 .33 .33 .32 .32
Manihiki Ontong-Java Uvea Niue Tikopia Futuna
Mangaia .43 .41 .39 .36 .30 .29

doesnotseemto be thecase.In thecaseof Tikopia,themostprobable settle-

ment sourceis Niue, with Manihikian almostequallyprobablesecond
choice.The mostprobablesettlementsourcefor Mangaiais Manihiki,fol-
lowedby a secondchoiceof Ontong-Java. Also,thepossibility of Marquesan
contactwith eitheror bothof thesecultures,suggestedin TableI, iS not
supportedby examinationof single correlations betweenboth Tikopia,
Mangaia,and other Polynesianculturesin this analysis.Again, these
findingsappearto be in conflictwith the linguisticfindingsof Bayard
(I+6) who suggestedthatTikopiawas settledby Futunansor the Ellice
islanders.
althoughthe factorstructurein the case of Tikopiaand
Surprisingly,
Mangaiasuggestedinitiallythat the two were closelyassociated, it does
not followthatone of the two islandswassettledfromthe otherwhenin-
dividualcorrelations betweeneachwereexamined. If MangaiaandTikopia
havesettlementoriginsin Niue or Manihiki,how couldone explainthe
fact thatthey do not loadon the samefactorwith Manihikiand Niue?
Oneexplanation is thatTikopiaandMangaiaarerelatively differentfrom
thecultureson factorIV, andthatthisdifference is notdueto theirorigins,
butdueto therelativetimesat whichtheyweresettled.Specifically, Mangaia
andTikopiamayhavebeensettledrelativelylateor earlyby Manihikians
or Niueans,whereasOntong-Java, Mangareva,andTokelaumayhavehad
contactwith eitherManihikior Niue at a differentpoint in time.Firth
(I+3) providesa possibleclueabouttherelativesettlementtimeof Tikopia
and Mangaia.Firth observedthe primitivenatureof Tikopianculture
with respectto WesternPolynesia,which leads to the hypothesisthat
 E92 THNOLOGY

TikopiaandMangaiaweresettledfirstby Manihikians or Niueansbefore

settlementof Ontong-Java,Tokelau,and contactwith Mangareva.
Bothculturaland physicalanthropologists haveemphasized the unique
aspectsof EasterIslandand Maoriculturewith respectto the rest of
Polynesia(MarshallandSnowI956; SharpI957; Marshall andGilesI968) .
Heyerdahl(I968) kas presentedthe casefor SouthAmericanoriginsof
EasterIsland.The factthatbothMaoriandEasterIslandcultureloadon a
separatefactor(factorVI) supportsthe observations of otherPolynesian
writersthattheseculturesareisolateswith respectto otherPolynesiancul-
turesandraisesthepossibility
of contactbetweenthem.Thesameprocedures
whichwereusedto determine themostprobable contactsourcesforTikopia
andMangaiawereusedto determine probablemigrationsourcesfor Easter
andMaoriculture.Table7 indicatesthatthe bestchoicefor Maoriorigins
is Easterfollowedby a muchless probablesecondchoiceof Mangareva.
TABLE 7
CulturesShowingthe Highest CorrelationsWith Maoriand Easter Island
Easter Mangareva Niue Hawaii Mangaia Marquesas
Maori .38 .20 .14 .11 .11 -.12
Maori Manihiki Niue Tahiti Futuna Tonga Marquesas
Easter .38 .38 . 32 .30 . 28 . 28 -. 12

These findingsdo not supportthe hypothesisof Marquesan originsfor

Maoriculturesuggestedby Sinoto(I+8) and ulsen (I+8) on archeo-
logicalgrounds.
MaoriandManihikicultureappearto be equallylikelysourcesof settle-
mentforEasterIsland.Olbviously it is not possiblefortwo culturesto have
servedas migrationsourcesfor eachother,so a choicemustbe madebe-
tweeneitherMaorioriginsfor Easteror Easteroriginsfor Maori.Table7
indicatesthat the bestchoicefor Maorioriginsis EasterIsland,whereas
ManihikiandMaoricultureappearto be equallylikelychoicesfor Easter
Island.The mostprobable contactpatternseemsto be initialcontactfrom
Manihikito EasterIslandandsubsequent settlement of New Zealandfrom
EasterIsland.It is interesting
to notethatthe correlations in Table7 be-
tweenbothMaoriandEasterIslandcultureandotherPolynesian cultures
aresmall.Suchevidencelendssupportto the hypothesis thatsettlementof
theseislandstookplacerelativelyearlyin thePolynesian timescale(Groube
I968; EmoryI972).
If Manihikiservedasthesettlement sourceforEasterIsland,£uturearcheo-
logistsshouldfinda radiocarbon dateon Manihikiequalto or earlierthan
the Ayres(Ig7I) radiocarbon dateof A.D. 400for EasterIsland.Primary
artifactssuchas adzebladesandfishhookswhicharefoundin peripheral
EasternPolynesia(Hawaii,New Zealand,and EasterIsland)but not in
supposeddispersioncenterssuch as the Marquesas and Tahiti (Barrow
 POLYNESIAN
RELATIONSHIPS
93

I967),shouldbe foundin Manihiki,sincethe datain this studysuggest

that Manihikiansmay have settledEasterIsland.Polynesianlinguists
(ElbertI953; Dyen I965; PawleyI+6, I+7) have suggestedthat Easter
Islandhas linguisticoriginsin one or more of the EasternPolynesian
trianglecultures.If Manihikiservedas a settlementsourcefor Easter,then
the Manihikians shouldhavedirectlinkswith EasternPolynesia.Evidence
to bepresented laterdoessuggestsucha relationship.
Discussionso far has beenlimitedto possiblecontactpatternsbetween
cultureswhichloadon the samefactors.Whichculturesservedas linkage
pointsbetweenculturalgroupswhich have been established? What are
the mostprobable migrationsourcesforTahiti,Samoa,andManihiki?
In orderto developtentativeanswersto thesequestions, the factorstruc-
turein TableI was scrutinized for possibleoverlaps.One obviousoverlap
is the relatively
highloadingof Samoaon bothfactorI andII, an overlap
whichsuggeststhat Samoanculturaloriginsmay lie in one or morecul-
tureson factorI. In orderto testthe hypothesisof Samoangenesiswithin
factorI, all possiblecorrelations
betweenthe culturesof factorI and II
from the originalcorrelation matrixwere examined(Table8). Table 8

TABLE 8
CorrelationsBetween CulturesWith PrincipalLoadingson Factors I and II
Pukapuka Samoa Ellice
Uvea .07 .41 . 25
Tonga .05 .45 .29
Futuna . 10 . 27 . 24

indicatesthat of the threecultureson factorII, Samoadoes indeedhave

the highestcorrelation withcultureson factorI. Specificallyy
Tongaappears
to have the highestcorrelation with Samoa,a findingin accordwith
Green(I+7, If2), Biggs (I+7), and Groube(I97I), all of whomhave
suggested TonganoriginsforSamoa.
Othercontactpossibilitiesweredetermined by examiningintercorrelations
betweenthe culturesof all possiblepairsof factors(FactorI with Factor
IV, FactorI withIII,FactorII withIII,etc.).The contactpossil}ilitiesthat
these comparisons suggestincludethe following:contactbetweenNiue
and Mangareva;Manihikiand Kapingamarangi; Raroiaand Tokelau;
Manihikiand Ellice;FutunaandNiue; and finallyTahitiand Manihiki,
the expectedlink betweenManihikiand the EasternPolynesia"genesis"
culture.
The most probabledirectionand sequencesof culturalcontactmay be
developedby reference to the precedinganalysesand to threehypothetical
casesof contactamongthreecultures.Assumefor the momentthat the
peopleof islandA settletwo otherislands,B and C, aboutthe sametime
(case I ). If the assumptionthat highercorrelations mean more recent
contactthanlowercorrelations is appliedto thiscase,thenthe correlations
 94 ETHNOLOGY
samesize.Conversely, if A settles
andA-Cwouldbeexpectedto be the
A-B the correlation A-C.
before
B C, the correlationA-Bshouldbe smallerthan then the cor
thereafter B settlesC,
IfA settlesB firstand thenshortly B-C (case2). Although
A-Bwouldbe smallerthanthe correlation at all times A and
relation
A, B, andC areevolving unique characteristics
cultures of hypothetical loss of cultural
wouldbe relativelydissimilarbecause
C B and on to C. In this
in the transmission
traits of culturefromA through
case,the correlation
particular betweenA and C shouldbe smallerthan
correlation betweenA andC in caseI.
the of islandA settleB, andthoseof
Incase3, let us assumethatthe people a compositeculturecon-
islandC settleB ahoutthe sametime producing
C. In this case,the correlation A-B
of culturaltraitsfoundin A and other,butthe correlation
sisting between
andC-Bwouldbe roughlyequalto eachnon-existent, andcertainlysmaller
Aand C wouldbe verysmall,possibly These threecasesserve
thanthe correlation A-Cin eithercaseI or case 2.
to correlations
now be applied
toillustratebasicprincipleswhich can
between triadsof Polynesian cultures.
FigureI includescorrelations among2I Polynesiantriadsof particular
in Table I and sub-
chosenon the bsasisof the factorstructure
interest, between Polynesiancultures.
sequent examination of pairsof correlations of contactand
probable direction
Arrows in FigureI indicatethe most indicatethe most probablese-
the arrows
thesmclllnumbersadjacentto cultures
of contactbetween the in eachtriad.In severalcasesthe
quence redundancy servesto checkand
triads repeatpairsof cultures,but suchFigure 2 summarizes thesedirec-
cross-check hypotheses of directionality. contacts derived
tionalityhypotheses withinthecontextof themostprobable of this paper.
fromcorrelation and factoranalysesin priorportions byanalyses of triadcor-
directionalityhypotheses suggested
In general,the indicatedby singlecorrelation andfac-
relations andthe contacthypotheses aren however,
toranalysesfit togethersurprisingly well (Figure2). There
anomalies which hear discussion at thispoint.The West-
several important
which includesSamoa,Pukapuka,and
ern Polynesiatriadin FigureI, smaller correlation betweenSamoaand
Tongalndicatesthat thereis a the samefactor)than thereis between
Pukapuka(thoughthey loadon holdsthatthe largerthe correlation
SamoaandTonga.If the assumption the contactbetweenthem,then the
betweentwo cultures,the morerecent and Pukapukatook place before
datasuggestthatcontactbetweenSamoa Such a hypothesis contradicts evidence
contactbetweenTonga and Samoa. for Samoa
as a genesis
thatTongais thebestchoice TongaandSamoa.
culture
whichindicates between
onthebasisof thesizeo£thecorrelation
is to assume thatbothhypotheses arecor-
OIne way out of this dilemma but also had recent
culture for Samoa
rect:Tongadid serveas the genesis Another possibility is that Tongan cul-
resettlement contactfromSamoa. contact, and that
by recentSamoan
turein its presentformwasinfluenced with an unknownthirdPolynesian cul-
the originsfor Samoan culture lie case for
correlations weakens the
ture.In any case,the analysisof triad uponsinglecorrelation analyses.
Tonganoriginsof Samoanculturebased
 POLYNESIAN 95
RELATIONSHIPS

Figure 1: Correlations Within Selected Triads of Cultures in Eastern and West-

ern Polynesia. Arrows Indicate Direction of Hypothesized Contact and Numbers
Indicate Sequence.
WESTERN POLYNESIACRITICALTRIADS

UVEAsu2
2 w FUTUNA 2 , 2 SAMOA
/ .42 .36 /245 .21 .39 .56 \
TONGA TAHITI TONGA TAHITI TONGA FUTUNA
.41 > .42,
1
*411 3
2/ MANIHIKI
X A ELLICEN 2 2z TOKELAU 1
/.49 .41 .35 .43 \ 49 . 44
TOKELAU TAHITI SAMOA MANIHIKI MANIHIKI RAROIA
19 .19 .31

FUTUNA \ 1X FUTUNA
1 / FUTUNA
.17 .45 \ /.45 .31 45 .34
TIKOPIA NIUE NIUE MANGAREVA NIUE MANIHIKI
< .46 .54 > .69 >
2 2

2/ MANIHIKIS
w PUKAPUKA 2/ KAPINGAMARANGI a1
43 .41 /.34 .23 .43 .41
MANGAIA TAHITI SAMOA ELLICE TAHITI MANIHIKI
.17 .35 > .41 >
1

X MANIHIKIX
2g TONGA 2, v TONGA
41 .50 .4S .05 g .45 . 29
TAHITI ONTONG
--JAVA SAMOA PUKAPUKA
.33 .34 > 35
1

EASTERN POLYNESIACRITICALTRIADS

2 w HAWAII 1 mMARQUESAS yHAWAII

/37 .22 /35 .27 /.37 .31
TAHITI MARQUESAS TAHITI MANGAREVA TAHITI RAROIA
.35 > .43 3 .37 _
2
1 X RAROIA r X MARQUESAS
1X HAWAII
/37 .27 /537 .26 /35 .19
TAHITI MANGAREVA TAHITI MANG-AREVA TAHITI RAROIA
.43 :, .43 >
.37 3

supportshypotheses
The analysisof triadcorrelations drawnfromfactor
and singlecorrelationanalyseswith respectto the cultureson factorIII.
Together,thesethreeanalysespointto Tahitias the genesisculturefor the
remainingculturesloadedon factorIII. However,the correlationsbetween
 \ TONGA ? , \ MANGAREVA

9t) LTHNOLOGY

Figure 2: Hypothesized Settlement Pattern of Twenty Polynesian Cultures Based

Upon Correlation and Factor Analyses of Cultural Data.
HAWAII

KAPINGAMARANGI \

J<0Xx
ONTONC 0

r r MARQUESAs

MANGAIA \

24

EASTER1. .

-
I b:
MAOR

Tahiti Marquesas, Tahiti Hawaii and Tahiti-Raroiaare smallerthan

thecorrelation betweenTahitiandTonga.Again,correlation evidencetaken
as a wholesuggeststhatthe EasternPolynesian culturesweresettledfrom
TahitibeforeinitialcontactbetweenTongaandTahitiis-presumed to halre
takenplace.As in the caseof Tonga and Samoa this dilemmacan be
resolvedby assumingearlygenesiscontactbetweenTongaandTahitiand
subsequent settlement of EasternPolynesia followedby a secondcontact(in
eitherdirection)betweenTahiti and Tonga.However,due to the vast
distancebetweenTongaand Tahiti,a secondary contactbetweenthe two
culturesseemsto be a relatively unlikelypossibility.The datain this study
provideonly partialsupportfor ltongangenesisof Polynesiasuggestedby
Williamson(Ig24),Sharp(I957),C)liver(I96I), Biggs(I967), Green(I967,
I972); Groube(I97I) andothers.
An overallsequenceof Polynesian settlementcan be formulated on the
basisof correlation sizeandthe contactpatternin Figure2. The datataken
as a wholesuggestthatthe earliestsettlement eraincludedTahitiansettle-
ment of the Marquesas, Hawaii,Raroia,and Mangareva. Settlementof
Easter,New Zealand,andManihiki,seemto haveoccurred roughlywithin
thesametimesphere.Alternatively thelowcorrelations betweenthecultures
of EasterIsland,New Zealand,and otherPolynesianislandsmay not be
due to theirearlysettlement, but ratherdue to the uniquephysicalen-
vironments in whichPolynesian settlersof theseislandsfoundthemselves.
The settlement of Pukapuka andEllicebySamoansseemsto haveparalleled
this first settlementera since the correlations betweenSamoaand both
 POLYNESIAN
RELATIONSHIPS
97

Elliceand Pukapukaare relativelysmallin comparison with the rest of

WesternPolynesia.Settlement of the remainingWesternPolynesiaislands
(Ontong-JavaKapingamarangi, Mangaia,Niue, Tikopia,Futuna,Uvea
andTokelau)seemsto havetakenplaceduringa morerecentsettlement
era.ContactsbetweenNiue and Manihikiand betweenFutunaand Uvea
seemtohaveoccurred mostrecently.
Figure2 indicatesthat certaincultureshaveplayeda morecentralrole
in the settlementof Polynesiathan otherctlltures.Manihikiand Tahiti
appearto have been particularly activeas pointsof culturaldispersion,
whereasHawaii,the Marquesas, Mangaia,and Tikopiaappearto have
receivedsinglegroupsof Polynesian migrantson a singleoccasion.Cultures
whichhave had extensivecontactwith otherPolynesianculturesshould
sharea higherproportion of variancein commonwithall of the remaining
nineteenPolynesianculturesthan cultureswhichhavehad only a single
settlementcontactwith anotherPolynesianculture.The squaredmultiple
correlationbetweena givenPolynesian cultureandthe remainingnineteen
is a suitableindex of just such varianceoverlap.The squaredmultiple
correlation of variancein a particular
reflectsthe percentage variablewhich
can be predictedon the basisof knowledgeaboutthe variancein other
correlatedvariables.
In the left handcolumnof Table9, the twentyPolynesianculturesin-
TABLE 9
A Comparisonof the Percent of Variance (Squared Multiple Correlation)
PolynesianCulturesSharein CommonWith the RemainingNineteenand the
Numberof ContactsEachCultureis Hypothesizedto Have Had With
OtherPolynesianCultures(TakenfromFigure2)
SquaredMultiple Numberof ContactsWith
Correlation Culture OtherCultures(Figure 2)
. 72 Manihiki 8
.66 Niue 5
. 65 Tahiti 7
. 56 Uvea 1
.56 Tokelau 2
.55 Mangareva 2
.51 Easter 2
.50 Tonga 3
.50 Futuna 3
.49 Ontong-Java t
.48 Pukapuka 1
.45 Raroia 2
. 44 Samoa 3
.42 Maori 1
.42 Tikopia 1
.41 Mangaia 1
.40 Kapingamarangi 2
.39 Ellice 2
.37 Marquesas 1
.30 Hawaii 1
 98 ETHNOLOGY

cludedin the presentstudyhavebeenrankedfromhighestto loweston

thebasisof therelativesizesof theirsquaredmultiplecorrelation coefficients.
The numberof contactseachof the twentyPolynesian cultureshavehad
with the remainingnineteen,takenfrom Figure I, iS indicatedin the
righthandcolumn.Inspectionof the tableindicatesthat thereis a high
degreeof correspondence betweenthe numberof contactsa Pcalynesian
culturehas had with otherculturesand the size of its squaredmultiple
correlationwith the remainingnineteenPolynesiancultures.
In general,the squaredmultiplecorrelations seemto supportthe contact
patternindicatedby correlati(ln and factoranalyses.However,Tableg in
conjunction with FigureI give rise to additionalspeculation aboutPoly-
nesianorigins.Tableg suggeststhatManihikiandTahitiwereveryactive
dispersionsourcesfor Polynesiansettlementelsewhere,and the logical
conclusionis that thesetwo culturesarecertainlygood candidates for the
Polynesiangenesisculture.In a recentunpublished work,Marshalland
Giles(I968) concluded thatvarianceassociated withTahitiancranialmeas-
urementshad the greatestoverlapwith otherPolynesiancrania.This ob-
servation led MarshallandGilesto hypothesize thatTahiti,andnotTonga,
is thebestcandidate forthePolynesian genesisculture.
The differences betweensettlement hypotheses suggestedby the findings
in thisstudyandthosesuggestedby archeological dataraisesomeinterest-
ing questions.Specifically, Sinotop(I968) suggeststhat the Marquesas was
the majordispersion centerin EasternPolynesia,whereasthe datain the
currentstudysuggestthatTahitifulfilledsucha role.Green(I967, I972),
Biggs (I967), Groube(I97I) and othershave providedevidenceto sup-
port the hypothesisof Tonganoriginsfor Polynesia,whereasdatafrom
thepresentstudysuggestthatTahitiandManihikimaybe equalto Tonga
ascandidates forPolynesian genesis.
Again,what are the implications if it is assumedthat theseseemingly
contradictory hypotheses arecorrect?It is possiblethatat someearlypoint
in the historyof Polynesiathe Marquesas servedas the initialdispersal
point for EasternPolynesia,and that at a laterpointin time Tahitians
resettledEasternPolynesianislandsor in someway had recentpervasive
culturalimpactin EasternPolynesia.It is alsopossiblethatTongaserved
as the originalsourceof settlement for Tahitiearlyin the Polynesian time
scaleand thatTahitiansresettledTongaat a laterpointin time.Bothof
thesehypotheses allow the investigator to St togetherthe disparatefacts
fromthe archeological evidenceon one handandthe culturalevidenceon
theother.
An important pointto lLieepin mindis thatthe culturaldatain the cur-
rent investigation represents a "photograph" or "slice"of Polynesiancul-
turalrelationships as theyexistedat the timeethnographers gatheredthese
data.Much of the archeological data Sinotoand othersuse to develop
hypothesesabout Polynesiancontactis basedupon archeological traits
whichpredateconsiderably the ethnolographic data.If culturalmigration
patternssuggestedby archeological data matchmigrationpatternssug-
gestedby ethnographic traitdata,thenthereis supportfora generaltheory
 99
RELATIONSHIPS
POLYNESIAN

of single (and so morelikelyaccidental)settlementof Polynesia(Sharp,

I969). To the degreethat linguisticand ethnographic data mismatch
archeologicaldata,thecaseformultiplesettlementandresettlementof Poly-
nesiais strengthened.
Oneveryimportant stepforfutureresearchon Polynesian is
relationships
to comparepreciselythe contacthypotheseswhicharisefromarcheological,
and anthropometric
linguistic,ethnographic, databases.The threecorrela-
tiontechniques employedin thispaper factoranalysis,analysisof correla-
tion pairs,and triads can be appliedin an identicalmannerto different
kindsof anthropological databases.Hypothesesaboutmigrationpatterns
whichemergefromtheapplication of thesamemethodto fourdifferentdata
basescouldbe compared withoneanotherandcheckedfurtherby additional
radiocarbon datestaken directlyfrom the field. Futurecorrelationand
factoranalysesmightincludeotherareasin thePacificandSouthAmerican
mainlandsto determinewith greateraccuracythe ancestorsof the Poly-
nesians.

DATA
OFCROSS-CULTURAL
LIMITATIONS
The datauponwhichany kind of statisticalanalysisis madein cross-
culturalresearchcome from the insightsand observations of the field
ethnographers themselves,andso suchdatacan be no moreobjectivethan
theethnographers whogatheredit. Sincethedatain the SawyerandLevine
(I966) factoranalysisandthedatain thisstudywerederivedfromMurdock
andhis co-workers' analysisof manymonographs writtenby otherethno-
graphers,one obviouslimitationis the loss of accuracyinevitablewhen
aremadethrough"second
classifications hand"interpretation of monographs
writtenbyotherethnologists.
Despitethepossibilitiesthatthereareinaccuracies createdby ratingsbased
uponsecond-hand ethnographic information, thereis indirectevidenceto
suggestthatthe classificationsthemselvesare adequatelyreliable.Two or
moreratersusingthe sameethnographic materialas a basisof theirratings
canattaina respectable degreeof agreement. DriverandSchuessler (I957)
utilized280 ratingcharacteristics for theirNorthwestIndianTribes,and
found that the inter-rater reliabilityvariedfrom .67 to .87, a perfectly
acceptablerange.BarryandPaxton(Ig7I) demonstrated adequatereliability
within£ancyclassification codes.If sucha degreeof reliability existswithin
usedin thisstudy,the Ethnogruiphic
the classifications StZalswouldappear
to be a valuablecontribution research.
to cross-cultural
Anotherlimitation,on occasioninherentin the originalmonographs, is
thelackof information aboutthepresence or absenceof someof Murdock's
culturaltraits.An encouragingdevelopment, however,is the consistent
edortMurdockand his co-workers are makingto includemorecomplete
information as time permitsthroughan analysisof new monographs and
a re-analysisof olderones.In termsof the culturesincludedin the present
analysis,one effectof thesemissingdatawas the decisionto excludethe
Rennelland Rotumacultures,sincethey were characterized by a lack of
information, apparently fromoriginalmonograph sources.
 I00 ETHNOLOGY

AlthoughMurdockand his co-workers areincreasingthe availability of

morespecialized ethnographic data,the presentclassificatory schemedoes
not permitthe inclusionof all specificculturaltraitscharacteristic of Poly-
nesia.TheEthnographicaltlasincludesinformation aboutmarriage, agricul-
ture,andfamilyorganization, but not aboutthe distribution of adzes,dig-
ging sticks,ceremonialheaddress,andtatooingamongPolynesian cultures.
Such informationspecificto a culturalareaas well as Murdock's more
generalclass;fications
wouldenablecorrelation andfactoranalysesto differ-
entiatemoreadequately amongPolynesian cultures.Futurecorrelation and
factoranalyticworkbaseduponeitherethnographic, archeological linguistic,
or anthropometric datacouldincludea largernumberof ratingcharac-
teristicsuniqueto Polynesia.This wouldalsoincreasethe likelihoodthat
the rawdataforfactorandcorrelation analysesarean unbiased andexhaus-
tive sampleof every relevantPolynesianratingcharacteristic within a
chosendatabase.
Thereis alsoan additional reasonfor the inclusionof a greaternumber
of ratingcharacteristics
uniqueto Polynesia in futurecorrelation andfactor
analyticresearch.WalkerandLev (I953)havedescribed statistical
formulae
for determiningwhetheror not the correlations betweentwo variables
and a thirdcommonvariableare significantly different.For example,in
the currentinvestigationit is of interestto know whetheror not the
correlationbetweenTahiti and the Marquesas (r = .35) is significantly
differentfromthe correlation betweenTahitiand Mangareva (r = .43).
Witha samplesizeof IO4ratingcharacteristics in the currentinvestigation,
the differencebetweenthesetwo correlations is not statistically
significant,
but such a differencewould reachstatisticalsignificanceif 300 to 400
ratingcharacteristicswere employed.Therefore,in orderto have con-
fidencein smalldifferencesbetweencorrelation coefficients,
it is necessary
to have a largerpool of ratingcharacteristics in futurework.This con-
clusionis also an argumentfor replicating the currentinvestigation with
a largerpool of ratingcharacteristics and utilizingdifferentdata bases
(anthropometric, archeological,
and linguistic)in order to check the
stabilityof Polynesianmigrationhypotheseswhich emergefrom any
singledatabase.
SUMMARY OFMETHODOLOGICAL STEPS
Due to the rathercomplexseriesof methodological stepstakenin the
presentinvestigation,it maybe usefulto-summarize the correlation,
factor
analysis,and triadicmethodsusedin this paper.The stepswhichfollow
couldbe appliedto as manyas so culturesin any culturalareaof interest
in the world.It is alsopossiblethatfutureinvestigators
maywish to pool
archeological,linguistic,anthropometric,and ethnographic rating char-
acteristics
into a singleanalysis,althoughseparateanalysesfrom different
data baseswould be more heuristic.The methodological steps can be
summarized as follows:
(I) A set of ratingcharacteristics
is chosenfor the culturesunderstudy
 IOI
RELATIONSHIPS
POLYNESIAN

whicharepresentin between2 andn-2 cultures(n standsfor the total

number of cultures understudy).
(2) The presence of a ratingcharacteristic is indicatedby a '4I" and
the aSsence of the ratingcharacteristic is indicated by a "o."
(3) Thestandard deviations forcachcultureareexamined to be certain
thattheydo notvarygreatly.
(4) The culturesareintercorrelated.
(5) The principal components whoseeigenvalues are I or greaterare
extracted.
(6) A varimaxrotationis performed for thoseprincipal components
whoseeigenvalues are I or greater.
(7) Correlations amongcultureswhichloadon the samefactorare
examined to determine settlement patterns withinfactors.
(8) Correlations betweencultures on different factors(twoat a time)
areexamined tO determine cultures whichserved asd;dusion pointsbetween
culturalgroups orwhichreceived migrants frommorethana singleculture.
(g) The mostprobable directions of cultural contact are determined
hyexamination of correlationsbetween triadsof particular interest.These
triadsmaybe indicated bythefindings whichemergefromsteps7 and8.
(I0) To checkthe viability of the contactpatternwhichhasemerged}
thenumber of contacts a givenculturehashadis compared withthesize
ofitsmultiple correlation.
(II) Contacthypotheses maybe compared with available radiocarbon
datesandwith contacthypotheses whichemergefromfactorand cor-
relationanalysisof otherformsolfanthropological data.
NOTE
I.I wish to expressmy appreciationto the lateEmilHeerman,who providedassistance
during initial phasesof this research.VernonWilliams,RobertNeale, and Robert
Liebertprovidedvaluablemethodological and editorialsuggestions.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Ayres,W. S. Ig7I. Radiocarbon Datesfrom EasterIsland.Journalof the Polynesian
Society80:497-504.
Barrow,T. I967. MaterialEvidenceof the BirdManConceptin Polynesia.Polynesian
CultureHistory,ed. G. A. Highlandet al., pp. I9I-2II. Honolulu.
Barry,H.> and L. M. Paxson. I97I. Infancyand Early Childhd: Cross-Cultural
Codes2. EthnologyI0: 466-508.
Bayard,D. r. I06. The CulturalRelationshipsof the PolynesianOutliers.Un-
publishedM.A.dissertation, Universitycf Hawaii.
Benfer,R. A. I972. FactorAnalysisas NumericalInduction:How to Judgea Book
by ItsCover.AmericanAnthropologist 74: 53s554.
Biggs,B. I9e. The PastTwentyYearsin PolynesianLinguistics. PolynesianCulture
History, ed. G. A. Highlandet al., pp.303-32I. Honolulu.
Buck,P. H. I964. Vikingsof the Pacific.Chicago.
Churchill, W. I9I I. The Polynesian Wanderings. Carnegie Institution of Washing-
ton,Publication I34.
Dixon, W. J. I*. BMD: Biomedical Computer ProgramsSeries Supplement.pp
90-I03. Berkeley.
Driver H. E. and K. F. Schuessler.I957. FactorAnalysisof Ethnographic Data.
AmericanAnthropologist sg: 655-%I.
 I02 ETHNOLOGY

Dyen,I. I965. A Lexicostatistical

Classification
of the Austronesian
Languages.Inter-
nationalJournalof AmericanLinguistics,MonographI9. IndianaUniversity
Publicationsin AnthropologyandLinguistics.
Elbert, S. H. I953. InternalRelationshipsof PolynesianLanguagesand Dialects.
SouthwesternJournalof Anthropology9: I47-I73.
Emory,K. P. I962, AdditionalRadiocarin Dates From Hawaii and ie Society
Islands.Journalof thePolynesian
Society7I: I05-I06.
I963. East PolynesianRelationships:
SettlementPatternand Time Involved
as Indicatedby Vocabulary Agreements.Journalof the PolynesianSociety72:
78-I00.
I968. EastPolynesianRelationships as RevealedThroughAdzes.Prehistoric
Culturein Oceania,ed. I. Yawataand Y. H. Sinoto,pp. IsI-Ig6.Honolulu
I972. Easter Island'sPositionin the Pre-history of Polynesia.Journalof
thePolynesianSociety8I: 57-69.
Firth,R I963, We, tThe TikopiaBoston.
Fornander,A I969. An Accountof the PolynesianRace:Its Originand Migrations.
Reprinted. Rutland.
Fruchter,B. I957. Introduction to FactorAnalysis.Princeton.
Green,R. C. I967. The ImmediateOriginsof the Polynesians.PolynesianCulture
History,ed. G. A. Highlandet 1., pp.2I5-240. Honolulu.
I97I. The Chronologyand Age of Sitesd SouthPoint,Hawaii.Archaeology
andPhysicalAnthropology in Oceania6: I70-I76.
I972. Revisionof the Tongan Sequence.Journalof the PolynesianSociety
8I: 79-86.
Groube,L. M. I968. Researchin New ZealandPrehistorySince I956. Prehistoric
Culturein Oceania,ed. I. Yawataand Y. H. Sinoto,pp. I4I-I49. Honolulu.
I97I. Tonga,LapitaPotteryandPolynesianOrigins.Journalof the Polynesian
Society80: 278-3I6.
Harmon,H. H. I968. ModernFactorAnalysis.Chicago.
Heyerdahl,T. Ig68. The PrehistoricCultureof EasterIsland.Prehistoric Culturein
Oceania,ed. I. Yawataand Y. H. Sinotoapp. I33-I40. Honolulu.
Highland,G. A. et al., (eds.). I967. PolynesianCultureHistory.BishopMuseum
SpecialPublication 56.Honolulu.
Kaiser,H. F. I960. The Apptlication of ElectronicComputersto FactorAnalysis.
Educational andPsychological Measurements 20: I4I-I5I.
Marshall,D., and E. Giles. I968. PolynesianRelationships:New Cranial and
LinguisticIndicators.UnpublishedManuscript,Universityo£ Illinois.
Marshall,D. S., and C. E. Snow. I956, PolynesianCraniology. AmericanJournalof
PhysicalAnthropology I4: 405-427
Murdock,G. P. I967. Ethnographic Atlas:A Summary.Ethnology6: I09-236.
Murdock,G. P., and C. Provost. I973. Factorsin the Divisionof Laborby Sex: A
CrossCulturalAnalysis.EthnologyI2: 203-225.
Oliver,D. L. I96I. The PacificIslands.New York.
Pawley,A. I966. PolynesianLanguages:A SubgroupingBasedon SharedInnova-
tionsin Morphology. Journalof the PolynesianSociety75: 3>64.
I967. The Relationships of PolynesianOutlierLanguages.Journalof the
Polynesian Society76:25>296.
Poulsen,J. I968. Archaeological Excavationson Tongatapu.PrehistoricCulturein
Oceaniaed.I. YawataandY. H. Sinoto,pp.85<2.Honolulu.
Sawyer,J., and R. A. Levine. I966. CulturalDimensions:A FactorAnalysisof the
World EthnographicSample.AmericanAnthropologist68: 708-73I.
Sharp,A. Igs7. AncientVoyagersin thePacific.London.
Ig6g. PrehistoricVoyagersand ModernExperimenters. Oceania39: 23r-233.
SinotosY. I968. Positionof the Marquesas. Islandsin East PolynesianPrehistory.
PrehistoricCulturein Oceania,ed. I. Yawataand Y. H. Sisoto, pp. III-II8.
Honolulu.
 POLYNESIAN I03
RELATIONSHIPS
SUggS,
R. C. I96I. Archaeology Islands,FrenchPolynesia.
of Nuku Hiva,Marquesas
AnthropologyPapersof the AmericanMuseumof NaturalHistory49, Part I,
I-203.
Thurstone,L. L., and J. W. Degan. I95I. A FactorialStudyof the SupremeCourt.
Psychometric LaboratoryReportNo. 64, Universityof Chicago.
Walker,H. M., and J. Lev. I953. StatisticalInference.New York.
Williamson,R. W. T924. The Social and Poliiical Systemsof CentralPolynesia.
Cambridge.
Yawata,I., and Y. H. Sinoto.(eds.). I968. PrehistoricCulturein Oceania:A Sym-
posium.Honolulu.