OUTRIGGER AGES
Edwin Doran Jr. Texas A & M University
INTRODUCTION
For more than 60 years the double outrigger canoe has been considered by most authorities to
be the earliest craft used in the Pacific, although the sailing raft is sometimes suggested as a
predecessor. It is the purpose of this paper to refute the conventional wisdom and to suggest
that the double outrigger developed much later than the single outrigger canoe and double
canoe. The culture history of Oceania is more easily understood with this assumption.
In order to present the argument, a few moments must be spent on the dynamics of sailing,
because the way in which a boat is sailed may be as important as form in classifying boat
types. To progress to windward sailboats must sail a zig-zag course because none can sail
closer than about 45 degrees to the wind. Except for parts of the Indo-Pacific region, boats
change from “zig” to “zag” by a procedure called “tacking”, during which the bow swings
from the original course across the wind and over to the new course (another technique,
“wearing”, is irrelevant here). A fundamentally different procedure is used in Micronesia and
certain other areas. This technique, which will be called “shunting”, alternates ends of the
boat as the bow, requires major relocation of mast and sail, and results from the desirability
of keeping the outrigger float (or smaller hull of some double canoes) on the windward side.
1
In the entire area from Madagascar to Easter Island which is occupied by Austronesianspeaking people there are only three types of multi-hulled water craft as defined by hull form:
double canoes, single outrigger canoes, and double outrigger canoes (Fig. 1). 2
Double outrigger canoes are always tacked, but single outriggers and double canoes may be
either tacked or shunted. The five mathematically possible combinations of hull form and
tacking technique may be resolved into three basic cultural groups: Polynesian craft are either
double canoes or single outriggers, have some variant of the Oceanic sprit type of sail stepped
well forward of amidships, and are tacked head to wind. Micro- 131
FIGUR
E1
nesian craft are single outrigger canoes (with the exception of double canoes in Fiji and
vicinity) which use Oceanic lateen sails and shunt from course to course when going to
windward. Indonesian craft are double outriggers with rectangular lug sails which tack head
to wind. The craft of Melanesia are mostly single outriggers sailed by the shunting technique,
but using mat sails of the rectangular lug type. They are considered to be a transitional
mixture of Micronesian and Indonesian influences.
CONVENTIONAL WISDOM
The twentieth century discussion of the relative antiquity of double and single outrigger
canoes in a dozen papers and monographs can be - 132 reduced to manageable proportions
by presenting a chart (Fig. 2). Hornell's examination of the evidence convinced him that
Madagascar double outrigger canoes were older than single outriggers. 3 The judgement was
based on historical records indicating a decline in the numbers of double outriggers from
about 1600 to 1850 and on a typological transition between the two kinds of boats. He later
repeated the same arguments, 4 and, to my knowledge, no one has questioned them since.
However, the historical evidence is not compelling, and his typology is as convincing in
reverse as the way he presented it. On the Madagascar evidence alone either double or single
outriggers could be the older.
The modern argument for greater age of double outriggers in the Pacific continues a
hypothesis advanced by Friederici and earlier
FIGUR
E2
- 133
scholars. 5 In 1920 6 Haddon pursued the argument, basing his idea on an early record of
double outriggers at Boro Bodur (c. A.D. 800), the alleged peripheral location of double
outrigger “relicts” in the overall outrigger distribution, and on the inferior sailing quality of
double outriggers. In the same year, Hornell took the opposite position, that double outriggers
were of lesser age, on the basis of the central distribution of double outriggers and on their
superior seaworthiness. 7 He repeated the distributional argument in 1923, 8 then 13 years
later disproved allegations that double outriggers had been found in peripheral locations in
the Marquesas, Easter Island, and Palau. 9
Sometime between 1923 and 1938 Hornell abandoned his position and accepted that of
Haddon in their joint volume of 1938. 10 In his final magnum opus, Water Transport, he
again accepted Haddon's position that double outrigger canoes were older. 11 Finally Casson
12 simply repeats what has become the conventional wisdom of the last 35 years.
I shall attempt to prove that Hornell was correct in his 1920 and 1923 assertions of the lesser
age of double outriggers. The central distribution of double outriggers, historical knowledge
of culture thrusts, and recent archaeological evidence all point in this direction. The
demonstrated seaworthiness of double outrigger canoes aids in the argument.
DISTRIBUTION, THRUSTS, AND ARCHAEOLOGY
The distribution of canoe types in the Pacific c. 1750 is shown in Figure 3 (see App. 1 for
sources). Typical Polynesian craft are found to the east. All canoes from Palau and the
Marianas south-east to Fiji are typically Micronesian. To the west, in Indonesia, the
Philippines, and as far east as Torres Strait, are Indonesian craft.
Culture thrusts known from good evidence are shown by arrows. Indonesian movements to
the east along both the south and north coasts of New Guinea are known historically, 13 as is
the changeover to the Micronesian canoe type in New Caledonia, and the Ellice, Tokelau, and
Samoa Islands. 14 An earlier thrust from the New Hebrides north into Micronesia, thence
west in the Carolines is suggested strongly by linguistic evidence. 15 The long-postulated
movements to New Zealand, Hawaii, and Easter Island from somewhere in the SocietyMarquesas area are now more firmly fixed archaeologically by both radio-carbon dating and
similarities in culture complexes. 16
Other thrusts can be hypothesised on a more speculative basis. The
- 134
FIGUR
E3
use of shunting as a sailing technique in Aitutaki, Manihiki, and the Tuamotus 17 suggests
eastward movement of this idea, albeit in unsophisticated form. The single outrigger canoes
of Melanesia are all shunted from course to course using Micronesian technique but nearly all
have rectangular sails of probable Indonesian origin. 18 Double outriggers in Nissan and the
Louisiades and the complexly built mon canoe of the Solomons which is similar to boats of
the Moluccas also suggest transmission eastward of ideas from Indonesia. 19
A number of isolated boat types which are dissimilar to those around them are hypothesised
as relicts of former distributions. The double canoes of Mailu in south-east New Guinea 20
and the double canoe models of Nanusa 21 and Truk 22 are probably relicts, especially when
one notes that double canoes, presently or historically, are widely - 135 distributed in
India, Indo-China, and China. 23 The Oceanic lateen sails of the Trobriands and at least eight
occurrences of single outrigger canoes in Indonesia 24 also suggest a formerly much wider
distribution of the Micronesian type. This assertion alone may be weak but when one notes
the use of shunting in Ceylon by single outrigger canoes 25 and the suggested use of shunting
by Madagascar single outriggers 26 a more substantial hypothesis appears.
On the basis of distributions of types and with cautious use of the Age-Area hypothesis one
can suggest that the peripheral double canoes and single outriggers of Polynesia are the oldest
type. Somewhat less peripheral and therefore younger is the Micronesian type of shunting
single outrigger, not forgetting its analogues in Ceylon and Madagascar. Most central and
presumably the latest in time is the double outrigger of Indonesia. Its probable late extension
to Madagascar need not negate this assertion.
FIGUR
E4
- 136
When known and likely culture thrusts are added to the distributional picture, and when
atypical craft are hypothesised as relicts, a considerably firmer hypothesis of successive
culture waves eastward into the Pacific emerges. The east to west “backlash” in Micronesia
seems intermediate in age. Additional confirmation is derived from archaeological data of the
last 20 years.
For a number of Pacific Islands, the earliest known radiocarbon date of occupation is shown
in Figure 4 with a time profile from Indo-china to the Marquesas drawn beneath. (Sources
from which Fig. 4 was constructed are provided in Appendix 2). 27 A most interesting
development is the recognition of a pottery type, Lapita, which has been found in the last two
decades from New Britain to Fiji, with earliest dates everywhere about 1000 B.C. Obsidian
from the Talasea Peninsula of New Britain was traded at the same time east to the Santa Cruz
Islands. Close relationships between Lapita and Kalanay pottery in the Philippines and the
Sa-huynh pottery in Indo-China have been suggested though later challenged by Golson. 28
Lapita ware has been excavated from the 1000-500 B.C. level in Tonga. 29 and together with
undecorated ceramics from Samoa and the Marquesas it demonstrates an early and rapid push
eastward of pottery-using people, among whom the art was lost later in the more eastern
islands.
Upon the facts above I have overlaid a canoe hypothesis which fits all the evidence currently
known. Modern distributions are shown in solid tint along the 1800 line, and the one firm
prehistoric boat date, for double outriggers at Boro Bodur about A.D. 800, has been used to
sketch a time-longitude area for Indonesian craft. The dashed time-space lines outlining
Micronesian and Polynesian craft are only reasoned conjecture, but one point is clear.
Haddon's use in 1920 of the Boro Bodur date to argue for greater antiquity of double
outriggers is invalid. There was ample time for Polynesian and Micronesian craft to have
preceded double outriggers in South-east Asia and Indonesia.
The upward slant of all lines from older in west to younger in east seems unlikely to be
questioned because everyone, including Heyerdahl, agrees that most Oceanic traits came
from South-east Asia and must, therefore, have been earlier in South-east Asia. The
progressively slower rates of eastward movement, indicated by greater slant of lines, can be
explained tentatively by increasing cultural resistances through time. The earliest push, about
1000 or 1500 B.C., into presumably unoccupied parts of the Pacific, was surprisingly rapid.
Replacement of accustomed Polynesian craft by the faster Micronesian type occurred more
slowly. Double outriggers moved even more slowly, perhaps because of Buddhist or Moslem
traits that accompanied the boat type.
- 137
SEAWORTHINESS
Assertions by Haddon and Hornell about the seaworthiness of various canoe types appear to
be very largely just that—without evidence. Although Haddon's static descriptions are
excellent, he seems to have known very little about sailing. Hornell was more knowledgeable
about seamanship and the sailing characteristics of the boats he describes. The fact that the
latter originally thought double outrigger canoes were seaworthy and later changed his mind
is more likely a reflection of deference to Haddon than his real feeling on the matter.
To deal with a complex technological matter in brief space, I can do little beyond making my
own unequivocal assertion that double outrigger canoes are at least as seaworthy, if not more
so, than single outriggers and double canoes. Modern basnig in the Philippines, great 70- to
100-foot double outriggers, have been observed at sea proceeding quite comfortably in 12- to
15-foot waves. 30 Contrary to assertions about weakness, my personal sailing experience
with both modern trimarans and Philippine vintas indicates that the lee float does not break
off when it is submerged by waves. Although the static stability of all multi-hulled craft is
demonstrably similar, the dynamic stability of double outriggers is greater. The lee float
produces hydrodynamic lift, and, additionally, as the float submerges the capsizing rate is
slowed by several crucial seconds which permit corrective action to be taken. Finally, both
from historical documents and from my measurements of the two types, it can be stated that
double outriggers can be as fast as or faster than single outriggers. 31
CONCLUSION
On the basis of the arguments presented above, it is hypothesised that Polynesian craft are the
oldest in the Pacific, that Micronesian craft are younger, and that Indonesian double outrigger
craft are still younger. These age relationships fit logically into the widely accepted pattern of
successive culture waves, of people or traits or both, from west to east in the Pacific. The
relative boat chronology suggested here should be of assistance in future efforts to work out
details of Pacific culture history.
APPENDIX 1
SOURCES FOR FIGURE 3
The degree to which a map such as Figure 3 should be documented is a scholarly puzzle. To
cite each reference (for example 39 different pages in Hornell 1936, and 40 different pages in
Haddon 1937) is cumbersome and would add undesirable clutter to the map. On the other
hand, the reader should not be asked to accept a distribution on faith alone. This quandary is
solved here by listing the references from which the map was compiled. The author retains
the detailed list of citations and will supply - 138 it to any person desiring specific
documentation on any part of the distribution.









Sources:
Advanced Research Projects Agency 1962
Haddon 1920
Haddon 1937
Haddon and Hornell 1938
Hornell 1920c
Hornell 1936
Ling 1970
Suder 1930
APPENDIX 2
SOURCES FOR FIGURE 4












1. Golson 1968
2. Ambrose & Green 1972
3. Barbetti & Allen 1972
4. Howard 1967
5. Davidson et al, 1967
6. Green 1968
7. Sinoto 1968
8. Groube 1968
9. Suggs 1960
10. Green 1967
11. Hornell 1920c
12. Solheim 1964
REFERENCES


ADVANCED RESEARCH PROJECTS AGENCY, 1962. The Junk Blue Book: A
Handbook of Junks of South Vietnam. Washington, Department of Defense.
AMBROSE, W. R., and R. C. GREEN, 1972. “First Millennium B.C. Transport of
Obsidian from New Britain to the Solomon Islands.” Nature, 237:31.

BARBETTI, M., and H. ALLEN, 1972. “Prehistoric Man at Lake Mungo, Australia,
by 32,000 Years BP.” Nature, 240:46-8.

CASSON, Lionel, 1964. Illustrated History of Ships and Boats. Garden City N.Y.,
Doubleday.

DAVIDSON, J. M. et al, 1967. “Additional Radiocarbon Dates for Western
Polynesia.” Journal of the Polynesian Society, 76:223-30.
DORAN, Edwin Jr., 1972. “Wa, Vinta, and Trimaran.” Journal of the Polynesian
Society, 81:144-59.




GLADWIN, Thomas, 1970. East is a Big Bird. Cambridge, Harvard University Press.
GOLSON, Jack, 1968. “Archaeological Prospects for Melanesia”, in Yawata, & Y. H.
Sinoto (eds.), Prehistoric Culture in Oceania. Honolulu, Bishop Museum Press, pp.
3-14.
—— 1972. “Both Sides of the Wallace Line: New Guinea, Australia, Island
Melanesia and Asian Prehistory”, in N. Barnard (ed.), Early Chinese Art and Its
Possible Influence in the Pacific Basin. New York, International Arts Press, Vol. 3,
pp. 533-95.
- 139










GRACE, George W., 1964. “The Linguistic Evidence”, in K. C. Chang, G. W. Grace,
and W. G. Solheim II, “Movement of the Malayo-Polynesians: 1500 BC to AD 500.”
Current Anthropology, 5:361-8.
GREAT BRITAIN NAVAL INTELLIGENCE DIV., 1944. Netherlands East Indies,
Vol. II. Geographical Handbook Series, B. R. 518 A. London.
GREEN, R. C., 1967. “The Immediate Origins of the Polynesians”, in G. A.
Highland, et al (eds.), Polynesian Culture History. Honolulu Bishop Museum Special
Publication 56, pp. 215-40.
—— 1968. “West Polynesian Prehistory”, in I. Yawata, & Y. H. Sinoto (eds.),
Prehistoric Culture in Oceania. Honolulu, Bishop Museum Press, pp. 99-109.
GREEN, Roger and Marion KELLY (eds.), 1970. Studies in Oceanic Culture History,
Vol. 1. Pacific Anthropological Records No. 11. Honolulu, Bernice P. Bishop
Museum.
—— 1971. Studies in Oceanic Culture History, Vol. 2. Pacific Anthropological
Records No. 12. Honolulu, Bernice P. Bishop Museum.
GROUBE, Leslie M., 1968. “Research in New Zealand Prehistory since 1956”, in I.
Yawata, &. Y. H. Sinoto (eds.), Prehistoric Culture in Oceania. Honolulu, Bishop
Museum Press, pp. 141-49.
—— 1971. “Tonga, Lapita Pottery, and Polynesian Origins.” Journal of the
Polynesian Society, 80(3):278-316.
HADDON, A. C., 1920. “The Outriggers of Indonsian Canoes.” Journal of the Royal
Anthropological Institute, 50:69-134.
—— 1937. The Canoes of Melanesia, Queensland, and New Guinea, in A. C. Haddon
and James Hornell, Canoes of Oceania, Vol. 2. Honolulu, B.P. Bishop Museum
Special Publication 28.











HADDON, A. C. and James HORNELL, 1938. Definition of Terms, General Survey
and Conclusions in Haddon, A. C. and James Hornell, Canoes of Oceania Vol. 3,
Honolulu. B.P. Bishop Museum Special Publication 29.
HORNELL, James, 1920a. “Les Pirogues à Balancier de Madagascar et de l'Afrique
Orientale.” La Geographie, 34:1-23.
—— 1920b. “The Common Origin of the Outrigger Canoes of Madagascar and East
Africa.” Man, 20:233-7.
—— 1920c. “The Outrigger Canoes of Indonesia” Madras Fisheries Bulletin, 12:43114.
—— 1923. “The Origins and Ethnological Significance of Indian Boat Designs.”
Memoirs, Asiatic Society of Bengal, 7:139-256.
—— 1934. “Indonesian Influence on East African Culture.” Journal of the Royal
Anthropological Institute, 64:305-32.
—— 1936. The Canoes of Polynesia, Fiji, and Micronesia, in A. C. Haddon and
James Hornell, Canoes of Oceania, Vol. 1. Honolulu, B.P. Bishop Museum Special
Publication 27.
—— 1943. “The Fishing and Coastal Craft of Ceylon”. Mariners Mirror, 29:40-53.
—— 1946. Water Transport, Origins & Early Evolution. Cambridge University
Press. Reimpressed 1970 by David and Charles.
HOWARD, Alan, 1967. “Polynesian Origins and Migrations”, in G. A. Highland et al
(eds.), Polynesian Culture History. Honolulu, B.P. Bishop Museum Special
Publication 56, pp. 45-101.
LEWTHWAITE, Gordon R., 1967. “Geographic Knowledge of the Pacific Peoples”,
in Herman R. Friis (ed.), The Pacific Basin. American Geographical Society Special
Publication No. 38, pp. 57-86.
- 140

LING, Shung-sheng, 1970. A Study of the Raft, Outrigger, Double, and Deck Canoes
of Ancient China, The Pacific, and the Indian Oceans. Nankang, Taipei, Taiwan,
Institute of Ethnology, Academia Sinica, Monograph No. 16.

ROMMY, Capt. C., 1970. Personnal communication, May 4.

SINOTO, Yosihiko H., 1968. “Position of the Marquesas Islands in East Polynesian
Prehistory”, in Yawata, I. & Y. H. Sinoto (eds.), Prehistoric Culture in Oceania.
Honolulu, Bishop Museum Press, pp. 111-8.
SOLHEIM, Wilhem G. II, 1964. “Pottery and the Malayo-Polynesians”, in K. C.
Chang, G. W. Grace, and W. G. Solheim II, “Movement of the Malayo-Polynesians:
1500 BC to AD 500.” Current Anthropology, 5:360, 376-84.
SUDER, Dr. Hans, 1930. Vom Einbaum und Floss zum Schiff. Veröff. des Inst. für
Meereskunde, Neue Folge, B. Historisch-volkswirtschaftliche Reihe. Heft 7. Berlin,
E. S. Mittler u. Sohn.
SUGGS, Robert C., 1960. The Island Civilizations of Polynesia. New York, New
American Library.



1 See Gladwin 1970:96-118 for details and excellent photographs of this manoeuvre.
2 See Haddon 1920; Haddon 1937; Haddon and Hornell 1938; Hornell 1920a and 1920b;
and Hornell 1936 for the basic descriptions of these types.
3 Hornell 1920b:136-7.
4 Hornell 1934:320.
5 See Howard 1967 for an excellent summary of work on Polynesian origins, including
canoes.
6 Haddon 1920:122.
7 Hornell 1920c:104-11.
8 Hornell 1923:228.
9 Hornell 1936:30, 100, 437.
10 Haddon and Hornell 1938:19.
11 Hornell 1946:269.
12 Casson 1964:208.
13 Great Britain 1944:60-5; Lewthwaite 1967:58-9.
14 Haddon & Hornell 1938:41-2.
15 Grace 1964:367.
16 Sinoto 1968:116, 117.
17 Hornell 1936:86, 167, 187, 188.
18 Haddon 1937.
19 Haddon 1937:108, 117, 254.
20 Haddon 1937:231.
21 Haddon 1920:77.
22 Hornell 1936:410.
23 Suder 1930:75; Ling 1970:165.
24 Haddon 1920:78, 97, 98, 116; Hornell 1920c:77, 89.
25 Hornell 1943:42.
26 Hornell 1920a:10.
27 More recent findings supporting the chronological conclusions of Figure 4 are now
available in Green and Kelly 1970 and 1971. See particularly the articles by Bellwood, and
Sinoto (1970), and by Shutler, Garanger and Golson (1971).
28 Golson 1972.
29 Groube 1971.
30 Capt. Rommy 1970.
31 Doran 1972:154.