Ahutoru, Maï, Hitihiti and especially Tupaia played an important role during the Europeans' stay in the Pacific. They were neither hostages taken by force, nor curious travelers roaming the world, but intermediaries, translators and smugglers. They provided a wealth of information on the social, cultural and political realities of Tahitian life. For example, Bougainville greatly modified his description of Tahiti after his " conversations " with Ahutoru, aboard La Boudeuse, and Cook learned from Maï of the existence of human sacrifices he had not witnessed. Tupaia, above all, was an invaluable interlocutor, thanks to his knowledge of Tahitian traditions and his mastery of navigation. The map on which he depicted dozens of islands is the fruit of an extraordinary meeting of knowledge, an attempt at hybridization between European cartographic conventions, based on the measurement and objectification of the world, and Polynesian knowledge, based on observation of the stars, but also of currents, reefs and birds, on narrative memorization of itineraries from island to island, on sensory landmarks. This hybridization was incomplete, however, and the map can also be read as the result of " misunderstanding " (David Turnbull). Last but not least, Tupaia was also a decisive player in the encounter between the English and the Maoris in New Zealand, thanks to the proximity of languages that enabled him to make himself understood. The Maoris recognized his authority as a high priest and admired his knowledge of Polynesian traditions.
These exchanges raise several questions. Firstly, what linguistic skills made these exchanges and conversations possible? Secondly, the exact nature of the role played by these Tahitian intermediaries. We discuss the merits of two terms, that of " fixeurs ", which designates local auxiliaries serving foreign soldiers or journalists, and which Zrinka Stahuljak has proposed to extend to other historical situations based on translation, and that of " go-betweens ", individuals circulating knowledge between different worlds, which has been taken up in the global history of science (Simon Schaffer et al.). In conclusion, we need to consider the current success of these intermediary figures, both historiographically and in terms of memory.
