'Ulukalala's Hawaiians could be the ancient rock art carvers

Foa Petroglyphs - David V. Burley, Professor Dept. of Archaeology, Simon Fraser University
Malo Sione for your response article in Matangi Tonga. We are in the process of writing an academic publication on the Foa site and your insights are ones that we respect and will have to assess as a possibility. I was aware of the Hawaiian on the Port au Prince, and I have to admit that it would be the most straight forward explanation for what otherwise seems an improbable connection given distances. The style and images of the Foa rock art, however, appear earlier, relating to the middle period of Hawaiian rock art, as it is defined. Tevita’s potential temporal association of the site with Loau is one that Shane and I also are aware of and will give consideration to in the paper. Hopefully the paper will provide the data people need to evaluate the site and its implications on their own terms. - David V. Burley, Professor, Dept. of Archaeology, Simon Fraser University

‘Ulukalala's Hawaiians Part II - Sione A. Mokofisi
I congratulate Dr. David Burley on his forthcoming academic paper on the Foa Petroglyphs (March 06, 2009). His archaeological works in the Tonga theatre are remarkable. I thank him for his contributions to our heritage.

My purpose in fielding this humble theory (“ ‘Ulukala’s Hawaiians could be the ancient rock art carvers,” March 4, 2009) is simple: The breadth of Dr. Burley’s qualitative (field work) research must consider all possibilities. Since carbon-dating was impossible to conduct on the Foa petroglyphs, Dr. Burley compared them to dated Hawaiian petroglyphs of similar characteristics, an acceptable practice in his field of work.

Early estimates linked the Foa petroglyphs to the period 1200 - 1500 A.D. Later Dr. Burley admitted to me the time line could be adjusted to 1400 - 1600 A.D., bringing ‘Ulukala’s Hawaiians closer by 200 years. My theory proposes that the age of the Foa petroglyphs cannot be dated accurately. Furthermore, 200 years allowed for the margin-of-error, considering often times scientists dealt with millions of years, makes ‘Ulukalala’s Hawaiians excellent candidates as the artists who left the carvings on the beach of Foa.

My fellow researchers at the Lo’au Research Society are also excited for Dr. Burley’s analysis which seems a proper fit with Tongan and other Polynesian oral traditions (including Hawaiian) of the ancient social and political reformer Lo’au. Oral history left a legacy of Lo’au in Tonga and Samoa. However, he was known as La’au in Hawai’i and elsewhere, according to Dr. Tevita Ka’ili of the Brigham Young University-Hawai’i Anthropological Studies, and Dr. Okusitino Mahina of the University of Auckland’s Anthropological Studies.

The viability of ‘Ulukalala’s Hawaiians (at least 3 to 5 men) taking an active part in the Foa artwork creation is based on the fact they were identified by written history to have actually lived on the island (John Martin, 1816). They may have married Tongan women, raised families, built a little Hawaiian community, and they would also observed certain Hawaiian traditions. Polynesians are homogeneous groups; they bring their own heritage to new lands.

I must confess I’m not trained in the Qualitative research method used by my colleagues. My field of studies is in International Business and I will employ the Quantitative research method using mathematical Regression Analysis.

But although these theories seem to be competing with each other, it is the objective of scientific studies to add them formatively to increase our knowledge of our ancestors’ migrations. - Sione A. Mokofisi, M.B.A. University of Phoenix - Utah, School of Advanced Studies