What I can't figure out is why scholars would think it was Polynesians who left the bones? The assumption there is ridiculous, especially when pottery at the site is in a local style.

As far as I can tell this leaves everything about where it was before as to Pre-Columbian contact, considering how mystifyingly controversial the whole sweet potato issue is.

The DNA results are rathe definitive and it would not be unusual for voyagers to take along food and certainly whatever provisions they could carry if a long vayage was planned. If the presence of these potential visitors was relatively brief or if they adapted to local lifeways, the lack of Polynesian pottery would not be unusual. In contrat, it is interesting that I recall archeologists discovered amazing pottery links between Japan's Jomon Culture (c.3000-2500 BC) and the introduction of pottery into Ecuador by an apparent Japanese connection and published 40 years ago. We need to rethink the capabilities and inventiveness of people. The first humans to Australia reached that island continent in some numbers perhaps 35,000 years ago, certainly via a sea route. All of this is fascinating and recalls the marvelous advenures of Thor Heyerdahl, that peripatetic wanderer of Kon Tiki fame and the Ra expedition. Perhaps we should re-read Heyerdahl. I also seem to recall reading that on one of his voyages to tne New World, Columbus noted seeing a very large, and crowded native vessel that crossed his path and was heading north and east towards Florida. Perhaps it is also time to take another look at the my favorite "relic," reposited in the Smithsonian, the Kensington Rune Stone, found in Minnesota as well as the supposed voyages of Prince Madoc of Wales almost a century befor Columbus.