Enter the email address you signed up with and we'll email you a reset link. Need an account? Click here to sign up. Download Free PDF. Lapita Culture Pottery.
Clifford C Richey. A short summary of this paper. Download Download PDF. Translate PDF. Case closed! Clearly from a purely archaeological perspective we must be looking at earlier periods within the spatial extent of Lapita, as what we are examining is change in the archaeological record over time. This may or may not correlate with biology or long-term cultural ancestry which is poten- tially marked by language.
Ultimately we may be able to establish linkages or hypotheses from the record into these other areas, but the archaeological question must focus on establishing historical lineages and examining variation over time in cultural coherence and continuity see also Spriggs Perhaps the biggest problem we have with this approach is the poor visibility of the archaeological record in the mid-Holocene. As Specht this volume points out, the record in many areas of the Bismarcks is often poor in this time period.
Only in a few rockshelters do we have any earlier record stratified below Lapita, and such records are generally impoverished. Most of our comparative record comes from the Late Pleistocene and early Holocene, where it shows evidence of obsidian use and transport and potential developments in food production through translocated species and the exploitation of potential plant domesticates Specht Only in West New Britain do we have any systematic effort, through the work of Torrence, Specht and colleagues Torrence , to build up a detailed Holocene record for a region where work is facilitated by tephra chronology.
However the available record is poor and the limited variation in the recovered lithic assemblages makes it difficult to measure change from the mid to Late Holocene. Only a few formally distinctive worked stone items of material culture are available to work with.
Whether stemmed tools cease to be made shortly prior to the appearance of Lapita is still debated, although they appear to fall out of the record in that time range. They together with stylistically distinctive stone mortars, which are mostly from surface contexts, are presently the best candidates for markers of the mid-Holocene record in the area of the earliest Lapita record Torrence and Swadling To the southeast of the Bismarcks there is no Late Pleistocene record to work with, although the evident mobility of Bismarck hunter-gatherers suggests it should be present as does the linguistic record Dunn et al.
Similar problems exist in the early and mid—Holocene, and it is only in the mid-Holocene that we see the first very limited evidence of an archaeological record on Guadalcanal see Walter and Sheppard this volume. In fact Vataluma Posovi rockshelter on Guadalcanal is one of the few places where we have a record which crosses into the Lapita time period Roe , yet the recovered material culture gives little basis for studying change or continuity in the record.
Study of the record indicates Lapita is the initial colonising tradition, although the near invisibility of the mid-Holocene record in the Bismarcks provides a cautionary note. Sheppard and Walter have proposed that Remote Oceania was settled directly in a leap-frog movement from the Bismarcks see also Sheppard and Walter this volume , in which case comparison should be made with archaeological records in that region.
In practice such comparisons using the ceramic record have been regularly conducted. However the probability of a leap-frog settlement raises the issue of whether there was one source or many within the Bismarcks.
Perhaps such questions will require finer-grained ceramic analysis and sourcing studies than have been routinely conducted. Thanks to the recent Teouma burial finds see Bedford et al. Given the apparent diversity and geographical specificity of modern genetic data from the Bismarcks Friedlaender et al. Although as Hunley et al. The role of founder effects may have significant importance in understanding the archaeological, linguistic and biological records of Remote Oceania.
One area where founder effect may be seen, and a useful bridge built from the archaeological record to other domains in Remote Oceania, is in language. In Remote Oceania there is a simple association between the archaeological and linguistic records.
Although Blust discounts the possibility of the Lapita tradition being shared across these language families in Near Oceania, sharing of cultural traditions in this manner is common in Near Oceania.
A good example is the sharing of the head-hunting, shrine and shell valuable complex, which sits at the core of cultural life in the Western Solomons, across AN and NAN speaking groups see Thomas; Walter and Sheppard this volume.
At least in linguistic terms this appears to be a case of strong AN influence on NAN neighbours in the context of head-hunting. Our study of the archaeology of this region shows that it is very difficult to differentiate the AN and NAN records in the absence of prior knowledge of linguistic differences Sheppard and Walter , Sheppard, Walter and Roga in press. In general terms study of more recent periods may provide us with the ability to investigate, in data rich contexts, hypotheses of potential interest for explaining the Lapita phenomenon.
For example, as noted above in the Western Solomons, it is perhaps only in very recent periods that we can control for linguistic or biological heritage and see if we can discriminate NAN from AN archaeological records.
From this we may also gain an appreciation of what is or is not a useful archaeological question. Study of the record across the Late Holocene allows us to make a number of observations which reflect back onto Lapita. These include the date of the disappearance of decorated ceramics and then finally, in most areas, the complete disappearance of ceramics.
The extent to which these events are contemporaneous or the sequence of ceramic simplification may similarly shed light on the mechanism or forces which developed and maintained the elaborate Lapita ceramic system.
Contemporaneity or close similarity in this process suggests an underlying common dynamic. Why does the ceramic record end in some areas and not in others? Can we see any similarities in the areas where it ends or transforms?
Looking at the broader record, can we see systematic decline in cultural coherence as measured by the complete set of material culture and archaeologically observable behaviour? Or do we see new drivers pushing change in some aspects of the record and not in others?
Such questions inform not only on new conditions, but reflect on prior states during the Lapita time period see also Spriggs Unfortunately, as with the pre-Lapita record, we generally have a poor understanding in most areas, of the period immediately following Lapita.
As Spriggs noted a decade ago, the disappearance of pottery greatly reduces archaeological visibility in many areas. As with the pre-Lapita period, the work on West New Britain by Torrence, Specht and colleagues helps to build up a continuous sequence Specht and Torrence and the publication of later sequences from Watom provides coverage across the Late Lapita chronological boundary Anson In Vanuatu the work of Bedford and Spriggs has specifically focused on improving understanding of the post-Lapita period, with early work on the relationship of the Mangaasi ceramic style to Lapita Bedford , Bedford and Clark , Bedford and Spriggs The New Caledonia Sand , a, record continues to be built up with improved understanding of both the chronology of the end of dentate Lapita Sand and its relationship to the following ceramic sequences, as well as considerable focus on the comparative study of Lapita ceramic sequences Sand b, Sand The difficulty of doing this is demonstrated by the problems Clark and Murray had while trying to create useful data to look at decay in Lapita design systems within the region.
The quality of old data is a common complaint in the recent literature. Work in Samoa Dickinson and Green , Green , Rieth, Morrison, and Addison has recently targeted the evaluation of the extent of Lapita occupation and the role of geotectonics and sea level changes on the visibility of the record.
In addition Rieth and Hunt have reviewed the radiocarbon chronology of Samoa as a basic step in evaluation of change over time in that record. The situation in Tonga has improved dramatically over the last decade and it has, thanks to the systematic work by Dave Burley and his colleagues Burley and Connaughton , Burley and Dickinson , Dickinson and Burley , perhaps the best record available for looking at transformation from colonisation through the Polynesian Plainware period Burley , Connaughton Clark and Bedford, Such constellations exist.
Problems arise when these defined units take on an independent existence and inferences are casually made beyond what the record can support. In Pacific prehis- tory much debate has occurred over the relationship between the archaeological record, language and biology see Terrell this volume. In practice, of course, most archaeologists have a very good appreciation of the difficulties of inferring such relationships Green , and problems arise most often when colleagues in other disciplines look for cultures, ethnicities or peoples in our units.
We should clearly acknowledge that we have no archaeological basis for finding such things in our data and that in fact such goals do not provide useful archaeological questions. We will never know and linguists will never be able to tell us. On the other hand, there is no point in ignoring data or hypotheses from other disciplines on those occasions where we can make effective linkages.
The association between Lapita and AN in Remote Oceania would appear to be a case where a strong argument can be made, although we should not forget that NAN has apparently disappeared without much trace over a sizeable portion of Near Oceania. Even in the event that some early colonists did speak NAN Donohue and Denham they appear to have rapidly adopted an AN linguistic tradition. The question remains however of the extent to which our knowledge of this association in Remote Oceania alters our study of the archaeological record.
As I have noted in this introduction, modern approaches to culture history are predominately associated with evolutionary theory of various forms Kirch and Green , Shennan Although this is a diverse theoretical approach, at least some of these theorists suggest that core cultural structures create selection bias, which sees groups of traits preferentially transmitted over long periods.
I have suggested that this is recognition of the long-term coherence of features which old style culture historians defined as archaeological traditions. One area where evidence of such core structures or sets of related meanings might be found is in language.
Linguistics might provide hypotheses about core traditions of use to archaeologists in areas such as Remote Oceania, where we can control for linguistic heritage Kirch and Green Evolutionary theory and methods are no panacea, although modern approaches turn our attention from bounded categories to continuums and require systematic methodologies. Applying cladistics to poor datasets is not going to advance research and may blind us with science.
All archaeological advances require improvements in chronology and sampling, as well as better data analysis. Material culture studies require detailed knowledge of the relationships among variables and the factors underlying variation see Donohue, Wichmann and Albu , Dunn et al.
A survey of current literature suggests that such problems are widely recognised and are being addressed. There may of course be no answer to some problems; data in some areas may never be adequate — in which case we will need to revise our goals.
However, the creation of better data when used to investigate appropriate questions should see interesting developments in the field of Lapita archaeology; especially if we recognise that what comes before and after the constellation of features which we call Lapita, has an important role to play in the archaeological investigation of the Pacific. New Zealand Journal of Archaeology, 20 []: Bedford, S. Terra Australis Clark, The rise and rise of the incised and applied relief tradition: A review and reassessment.
Clark, A. Anderson and T. Canberra: Pandanus Books, pp. Spriggs, Asian Perspectives, Best, S. Labeka: The Prehistory of a Fijian Island. Unpublished Ph. Blust, R. Review of Lynch, Ross and Crowley Oceanic Linguistics, Remote Melanesia: One history or two? An addendum to Donohue and Denham.
Boyd, R. Durham, M. Mulder and P. Richerson, Are cultural phylogenies possible? Weingart, P. Richerson, S. Mitchell and S. London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers, pp.
Burley, D. Mid-sequence archaeology at the Sigatoka sand dunes with interpretive implications for Fijian and Oceanic culture history. Bedford, C. Sand and S. Connaughton, Radiocarbon, Dickinson, Origin and significance of a founding settlement in Polynesia. Clark, G. Bedford, Friction zones in Lapita colonisation. Clark, F. Leach and S. Murray, Decay characteristics of the Eastern Lapita design system. Archaeology in Oceania, Cochrane, E. Connaughton, S.
Can we dig it? Archaeology of ancestral Polynesian society in Tonga: A first look from Falevai. Dickinson, W. Burley, Geoarchaeology of Tonga: Geotectonic and geomorphic controls. Geoarchaeology, 22 2 : Geoarchaeology, 13 3 : Donohue, M. Wichmann and M. Albu, Typology, areality, and diffusion. Dunn, M. Foley, S. Levinson, G. Reesink and A. Statistical reasoning in the evaluation of typological diversity in Island Melanesia. Terrill, G.
Reesink, R. Foley and S. Levinson, Structural phylogenetics and the reconstruction of ancient language history. Science, Felgate, M. Friedlaender, J. Hodgson, S. McGrath, G. Stoltz, T. Schurr and A.
Merriwether, Friedlaender ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. Garling, S. Sand ed. Post-Lapita Evolutions or Revolutions? Green, R. A retrospective view of settlement pattern studies in Samoa.
Ladefoged and M. Graves eds , Pacific Landscapes: Archaeological Approaches. Los Osos: Easter Island Foundation, pp. The Lapita horizon and traditions - signature for one set of Oceanic migrations. Hunley, K. Dunn, E. Lindstrom, G. Reesink, A. Terrill, M. Healy, G. Koki, F. Friedlaender and J. Friedlaender, Genetic and linguistic coevolution in northern Island Melanesia. Plos Genetics, 4: e Kirch, P. Berkeley: University of California.
Green, History, phylogeny, and evolution in Polynesia. Current Anthropology, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Leach, F. Davidson, Lilley, I. Attenbrow and R. Records of the Australian Museum, Supplement Sydney: The Australian Museum, pp.
Lynch, J. Language change in Southern Melanesia: Linguistic aberrancy and genetic distance. Blench and M. London: Routledge, pp. Putting anthropology back together again: The ethnogenetic critique of cladistic theory.
American Anthropologist, Lyman, Cultural phylogenetic hypotheses in archaeology: Some fundamental issues. Mace, C. Holden and S. London: UCL Press, pp.
Pawley, A. Explaining the aberrant Austronesian langauges of Southeast Melanesia: years of debate. Journal of the Polynesian Society, Phillips, P. Willey, Method and theory in American archaeology: An operational basis for culture-historical integration. Rieth, T. Hunt, A radiocarbon chronology for Samoan prehistory. Journal of Archaeological Science, Morrison and D. Addison, The temporal and spatial patterning of the initial settlement of Samoa. Journal of Island and Coastal Archaeology, 3: Rodseth, L.
Distributive models of culture - A sapirian alternative to essentialism. Roe, D. Ross, M. Oceanic Linguistics, 46 2 : Sand, C. The chronology of Lapita ware in New Caledonia. Antiquity, Changes in non-ceramic artefacts during the prehistory of New Caledonia.
Evolutions in the Lapita cultural complex: A view from the southern Lapita province. Creations and transformations of prehistoric landscapes in New Caledonia, the southernmost Melanesian islands. Ladgefoged and M. Looking at the big motifs: A typology of the central band decorations of the Lapita ceramic tradition of New Caledonia Southern Melanesia and preliminary regional comparisons.
Shennan, S. Evolution in archaeology. Annual Review of Anthropology, Collard, Investigating processes of cultural evolution on the north coast of New Guinea with multivariate and cladistic analysis.
Sheppard, P. Walter, A revised model of Solomon Islands culture history. The sea is not land: Comments on the archaeology of islands in the Western Solomons. Connolly and M. Campbell eds , Comparative Island Archaeologies. Walter and K. Roga, in press. Friends, relatives, and enemies: The archaeology and history of interaction among Austronesian and NAN speakers in the Western Solomons.
Bowden and N. Shore, B. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Smith, A. An Archaeology of West Polynesian Prehistory. Canberra: Pandanus Books. Specht, J. Revisiting the Bismarcks: Some alternative views. Pawley, R. Attenborough, J. Golson and R. Pacific Linguistics Canberra: Australian National University, pp. Torrence, Kirch, P. Niuatoputapu: The Prehistory of a Polynesian Chiefdom.
Seattle: Burke Museum. Oxford: Blackwell. Hunt, eds. Archaeological Research Facility Contribution, No. Mead, S. Birks, H. Birks, and E. Shaw Polynesian Society Memoir, No. Wellington New Zealand : Polynesian Society. Meyer, O. Poulsen, J. Early Tongan Prehistory. Terra Australis, No. This thesis primarily focuses on understanding temporal and spatial changes in how shellfish were exploited throughout the antiquity of human occupation at Caution Bay, especially in relation to before, during and after contact with Lapita peoples.
Results have revealed significant changes in distribution, availability and exploitation of shellfish species over time. This is supported by the archaeological evidence with an intensification of shellfish resources and site use and extension of human predation pressures coinciding with the introduction of new material culture i.