Patterns of Lapita exploration and colonization

beyond the known World 3000 years ago: 02 Going Lapita exploration and colonization of Remote Oceania Stuart Bedford

Introduction

to human behaviour including exploration and colonization strategies, impacts on naïve flora and fauna, adaptations, and cultural and societal transformations.

The Lapita archaeological horizon, identified more than 40 years ago, has revealed over many decades a remarkable story of human exploration and colonization across a vast region of the Pacific. Interpretations of the phenomenon have substantially changed as increasingly focused research has been undertaken across the entire Lapita distribution, now identified from New Guinea to Tonga (Fig. 1a). Lapita apparently first appears abruptly in Island New Guinea and then populations move rapidly east. Beyond the main Solomons chain people moved into a region that had never previously been colonised by humans, from a region known as Near Oceania and across a boundary into another region known as Remote Oceania (Kirch 2000, Sand and Bedford 2010). This relatively recent colonization, dating from c. 3000 years ago, of pristine environments, spread across thousands of kilometres of ocean, provides a rare opportunity to investigate a range of globally pertinent research questions related

More than 250 Lapita sites have been identified over the last 50 years, from the Bismarcks to Tonga. But despite decades of research focus, Lapita studies have and continue to be hampered by a number of key aspects. These include the often poorly preserved nature of many of the sites that are generally shallow and mixed (Green 1979, Specht 1985); the very limited sampling of most sites with few involving large area excavations; and finally a lack of detailed publication (see Bedford and Sand 2007: 6 and associated references). More recently, at a number of sites and different regions this situation has begun to change, and substantial new information has emerged which is in turn transforming our understanding of Lapita. One of these key regions is the archipelago of Vanuatu, an archipelago that is strategically located in the southwest Pacific, southeast of the Solomons, 25

Going beyond the known World 3000 years ago

Figure 1. (a) Southwest Pacific showing Lapita distribution and (b) Vanuatu Lapita sites.

26

Stuart Bedford

north of New Caledonia and west of Fiji and Polynesia. Its locale and north-south alignment of islands was particularly important in terms of facilitating and sustaining the initial Lapita settlement of Remote Oceania, and continuing contacts with Near Oceania (Bedford and Spriggs 2008, Bedford and Spriggs in press). Several extremely well-preserved sites from Vanuatu have substantially contributed to the clarification of a number of contentious and not so contentious debates relating to Lapita, both at a local and wider regional level. This paper touches on aspects of Lapita origins, distribution, colonization and subsistence strategies, perceived gaps and postulated pauses, chronological timeframes and cultural transformation.

Southeast Asian one” (2010: 101). Searching for and identifying specific origins and or homelands of any group is bound to be a fraught and, perhaps as in the case of Lapita, is likely to be an inconclusive exercise; we are dealing with populations that spread across thousands of kilometres of ocean, over a period spanning hundreds of years, and across very different landscapes that were both previously inhabited in the west and pristine in the east. The challenges of a search for origins were highlighted by the Lapita Homeland Project of the 1980s, the results of which ultimately demonstrated that while Lapita in the archaeological record can be said to be broadly homogeneous, it was never a static, rigidly governed phylogenic or cultural entity with centralised rules governing exploration, settlement, material culture or inter-group relations (Allen and Gosden 1996). All archaeological signs indicate there was a substantial and abrupt migratory input into the Bismarcks, but these people themselves were passing through regions that were already populated and like all migrations they were being influenced and transformed as they moved, as has been argued for the situation throughout Island Southeast Asia (Spriggs 2012). Homelands and origins are an equally challenging concept for the Remote Oceanic region. While the Bismarcks region might be correctly labelled the ancestral ‘homeland’ and maybe even the direct ‘homeland’ for some of these colonizing groups, as there is no evidence that there is input from any other region, once people move into Remote Oceania, they became highly mobile, exploring and colonizing and interacting at a whole series of regionally based levels and different directions over several generations with continuing input from the west.

Lapita Origins and Homelands There is now no question that Lapita settlement in Vanuatu and the rest of Remote Oceania was associated with initial colonization and that those colonizers came from further west. However, the question and concept of Lapita origins or of a Lapita Homeland remains contentious. It is a broader question that, like much else related to Lapita, has been debated for decades. The early primary paradigm relating to Lapita origins, which developed through the 1970s and 1980s, largely pitted the idea of Lapita being an indigenous development in the Bismarcks, against a new, and wholly migratory culture that installed itself in the region (see Summerhayes 2010 for discussion). All sides have now moved to positions that essentially overlap, recognising there was likely to have been a fluid exchange of people, ideas and objects, much in the vein of Green’s earlier Triple I model of Intrusion, Integration and Innovation (Green 2000). As Summerhayes has suggested “Lapita society was as much a Melanesian phenomenon as a 27


Patterns of Lapita exploration and colonization

In a more recent stab at Lapita origins it has been proposed that the Mariana Islands were where Lapita populations originated, although not necessarily exclusively. It is argued that the simpler and possibly earlier dentate-stamped pottery found in the Marianas became much more elaborated both in terms of vessel forms and decoration once people arrived in the Bismarcks due to the fact that they encountered pre-existing populations (Carson et al. 2013). However, the earliest Lapita sites yet identified in the Bismarcks all demonstrate similar, highly complex decoration and a wide range of vessel forms (Summerhayes 2000, Summerhayes et al. 2010) suggesting it arrives in the region already in such form and elaboration. There is as yet no evidence of a developmental sequence from simpler to more complex. This same aspect also very much weakens arguments for in situ Bismarcks development of the distinctive Lapita decoration. In the 1970s a pause in the area of the postulated Lapita Homeland was seen as a requirement, as it was generally thought the intricate dentate-stamping decorative system had developed in the Bismarcks. This was related to the fact that at that time in Island Southeast Asia, only plain red slipped pottery had been found that dated to a similar period. A pause in the Bismarcks to facilitate the development of the distinctive dentate-stamped technique and design system is now no longer a prerequisite, as earlier and simpler dentate-stamped designs have been found in substantial quantity in the northern Philippines (Carson et al. 2013, Hung 2005, Hung 2008). Earlier ideas that tattooing was somehow related to the development and appearance of dentatestamping in the Bismarcks have also been convincingly challenged more recently (Ambrose 2012).

Long ago it was identified that there was a broad clinal west to east spread of Lapita across the southwest Pacific (Green 1979). Two very different models were developed at the time to explain how this spread was facilitated. One argued essentially for a ‘wave-of-advance’ form of expansion where populations moved relatively slowly across the region establishing communities and gardens. Once populations began to increase further colonization of new uninhabited landscapes was undertaken. Another argued that populations moved rapidly through the landscape sustaining their movement by targeting zones with rich marine resources which in turn were rapidly depleted (strandloopers), encouraging populations to move again in search of other similar resource zones (Groube 1971). Now many decades later with a greatly increased number of sites having been excavated, a much more refined chronology, and more specialized analyses being undertaken, these overarching influential models have been increasingly challenged (see Sheppard 2011 for discussion). There is certainly evidence for persistent migration eastwards from the Bismarck archipelago but strategies varied substantially as people encountered radically different island biogeographies, distances between island groups, and human inhabited landscapes (Near Oceania) vs non inhabited (Remote Oceania). Aspects of both the ‘wave-of-advance’ and the ‘strandlooper’ models can be seen in different areas of the Lapita distribution. They are often seen as opposing models, but Lapita exploration and colonization strategies were almost certainly comprised of elements of both. Identifying the varying aspects of this rapid migratory process in the archaeological record, is the real challenge. 28

Stuart Bedford

The rate of colonization across Remote Oceania to Tonga is so rapid that it was simply not possible to have populated all islands before arriving there (Sheppard 2011: 804). There was, not surprisingly, a priority for choosing prime sites or ‘sweet spots’, focussing on easily accessible coastlines with extensive easily procured marine resources. In some areas abundant marine resources were also found in association with permanent water sources and rich soils, which encouraged and facilitated the establishment of long-term settlement. Not all islands had such favorable environmental combinations, some were very marginal, small in size and or relatively isolated, difficult to access and with limited marine or terrestrial resources. In Vanuatu there is evidence of a general wave-of-advance form of colonization from north to south, but gaps can be seen and predicted where islands, or more marginal areas of islands, were by-passed or leap-frogged during the Lapita period. There are sites that appear to have acted as central locations with more substantial settlements and indications of continuing habitation for hundreds or even thousands of years; other sites were more ephemeral, and were visited for a short period before resources were depleted, or in some cases substantial landscape change had occurred, and the resident population was forced to quickly move on. Initial Lapita colonization of the Bismarcks through to Vanuatu and New Caledonia would have been relatively straightforward. This is a zone where islands were largely intervisible, and were occupied by resident populations as far as the end of the Solomons chain, a major advantage that would have facilitated rapid expansion eastwards (Felgate 2007). The resident populations were also a key factor in sustaining such rapid colonization and exploration into uninhabited Remote Oceania.

Once settlements had been established across this region and further east, the indications are that there was a high level of interconnection for at least a brief period. This would mean that later generations and arrivals, which may have colonised undiscovered or less favourable islands, could have come from almost any direction. In two regions of the Lapita distribution, there have been arguments for evidence of a leap-frogging colonization strategy of a truly spectacular nature. They stand out as being very different from what happened in other regions. One of those is the main Solomons chain (Sheppard 2011, Sheppard and Walter 2006), while the other is the initial settlement of Tonga (Burley and Dickinson 2001, Burley and Dickinson 2010). In the case of the Solomons, the argument is that early Lapita colonizers based in the Bismarcks and across to Buka Island completely by-passed the main Solomon Islands on their way to the Reefs Santa Cruz. It is a very detailed argument drawing on a broad range of data, but it relies heavily on the fact that as yet no Early Lapita sites have been found across this region. This gap, however, remains contentious, and it is hard to really see why this string of large and small islands, stretched across 1000km, would have been the only archipelago in the entire region to be leap-frogged during this early phase of exploration and colonization. Much more targeted research, such as that carried out in the Western Province, is yet required in the Solomons. The Tongan case is equally spectacular, although the distance of leapfrogging involved has been modified following further research (Burley and Dickinson 2001, 2010). Very distinctive exotic tan paste sherds have been found during a number of excavations at Tonga’s founding settlement site, Nukeleka. Petrographic parallels were initially identified in the Reefs Santa Cruz 29


and suggestions were made that it was from this region some 2300km away, rather than through intermediate settlements in Fiji or Vanuatu, that Tonga’s first settlers were derived (Burley and Dickinson 2001). More exotic sherds were recovered during extensive excavations in 2007 and further detailed analyses were undertaken confirming both their exotic nature but also the complexity of defining definitive origins. There is a possibility that, based on geological grounds and petrographic comparison, they may have derived from a number of regions including northern Vanuatu, or regions further west but also possibly Western Fiji. What the authors do conclude is that Lapita settlement of the Pacific is far from simple and that nothing should be assumed (Burley and Dickinson 2010).

idea that Lapita was only one of a number of distinctive pottery-bearing colonizing groups distributed across the Pacific (see Bedford and Clark 2001 for discussion). Fast-forward to today and it has now been very firmly established that Lapita is associated with the first appearance of pottery in the southwest Pacific, and the first colonizing groups on islands beyond the main Solomons chain to as far east as Samoa and Tonga. The earlier perceived gaps that appeared to be present both within and in some cases across entire island groups, have also become increasingly few. The Vanuatu archipelago is in many respects a snapshot of the historical pattern of Lapita research that can be found across its wider distribution. At the same time the Vanuatu case provides a salutary example of the difficulties of establishing a robust record across an archipelago made up of even relatively small islands (Bedford 2006: 11-29). Lapita was not found in Vanuatu until the mid and late-1960s, when pottery was found at sites through surface survey on islands in the centre (Efate) and north (Malo) (Hébert 1965, Hedrick and Shutler 1969). Further surveys were carried out in the 1960s and 1970s on islands both in the north and south and after extensive excavations in the southern part of the group, it was claimed that this whole area was aceramic, and that there was no evidence of Lapita or any other pottery styles in the archaeological record (Shutler and Shutler 1968). The idea that there were competing colonizing groups, signified by the identification of different ceramic styles, was also canvassed from the 1960s (Garanger 1972) and remained an influential paradigm into the 1990s (Galipaud 1996, Gorecki 1992). The discovery of a single dentate-stamped sherd recovered from a site on Erromango in 1983, extended southward the Lapita distribution

Lapita Distribution and Site Location Lapita distribution Despite the fact that the distinctive dentatestamped Lapita sherds first appeared in publication more than 100 years ago, and had been found across much of its distribution by the very early part of twentieth century (New Britain, Tonga and New Caledonia), it was not until 1950 that connections across the region, evidenced by the distinctively decorated pottery, were made (Avias 1950). From a paltry six sites in the 1950s, the number of identified sites exponentially rocketed through the 1980s and 1990s and onwards to today where the total is now getting closer to 300, rather than the estimated 230 in 2007 (Bedford and Sand 2007: 8-9). Throughout the same period of accumulating site records there also appeared to be a series of perceived gaps in Lapita distribution that were often attributed to either intentional avoidance of an area, or the 30

Stuart Bedford

in Vanuatu, and confirmed that pottery was indeed a component of the material culture repertoire of the southern region (Spriggs 1984). From the late 1990s and into the 2000s there have been a greatly increased number of Lapita sites identified throughout the archipelago. Chronological clarification and confirmation of the primacy of Lapita in Vanuatu was also established at this time. The discovery of many new sites came about due to a number of targeted programs that incorporated a much greater awareness of geomorphological processes across all islands (Bedford and Galipaud 2010, Bedford and Spriggs 2008, Bedford and Spriggs in press). Most of these latter sites were found through testpitting programs, rather than surface surveys, undertaken in zones considered favorable to seafaring colonizing groups. Serendipitous events also led to the discovery of two significant Lapita sites, that of Teouma on Efate through earthworks associated with development and Shokgraon on Santo through extreme weather conditions (Fig. 1b).

the discovery of 3000 year old sites of limited size very difficult. It is increasingly clear that perceived gaps in Lapita distribution in other regions, has as much to do with similar geomorphological and post-depositional complexities as those found in the case of Aneityum. Added to these factors are other more fundamental aspects such as the fact that even today there are many areas of the Pacific where only limited or even complete absence of archaeological research has been undertaken, a focus on excavating cave sites rather than open sites, and a tendency to rely on surface survey rather than subsurface testing in the search for Lapita (Clark and Bedford 2008). The recent discovery of Lapita sites on the south coast of New Guinea, where it was long thought to be absent, is another case in point. These sites, found in association with a multi-billion dollar gas pipeline project, have dramatically shifted the extent of Lapita distribution further to the southwest (David et al. 2011). Following the initial confirmation of its existence and location on the south coast, more Lapita sites have now been located much further west along this coast (Skelly et al. 2014). These finds, in combination with the discoveries of pottery possibly dating to ca 2500 BP in the Torres Strait, brings the Lapita spread, or at least its immediate descendants, into Australian territory (McNiven et al. 2006). Recent pottery finds elsewhere within Australian territory, on Lizard Island on the northeast Queensland coast, are providing further tentative support to such connections (Tochilin et al. 2012).

The most recent Lapita site to be identified in Vanuatu is that located on a backbeach at Anelcauhat on Aneityum Island found in 2012 (Bedford and Spriggs in press). Aneityum is an island of only 160km2 and one that has a long history of archaeological research, where extensive excavations and survey began from as early as 1964 (Shutler and Shutler 1968) and continued right through to the 1970s (Groube 1975) and into the early 1980s (Spriggs 1984). While the presence of Lapita on Aneityum has long been predicted (Spriggs 1984) its absence in the record for so many decades highlights the challenging nature of archaeological research, even on small islands like Aneityum, where complex geomorphology and associated post-depositional processes, mixed in some cases with predetermined assumptions, make

Further east there remains a Lapita gap across much of the main Solomons chain. Some argue that this represents a real gap and that Lapita colonizers leapfrogged this region (Sheppard 2011, Sheppard and Walter 2006). The gap is said to be confirmed through 31


project ultimately dealt largely with sites that dated to the later part of the archaeological sequence of the archipelago. The small number of sites that returned plainware ceramics and were dated to c. 2000 BP, were all deeply buried. It is striking to note that, apart from the Lapita Mulifanua site, found through foreshore dredging and further investigations in the area of the previously reported Vailele plainware pottery site, where two sites (the original VA-1 and SU-VA-4) returned plain ceramics dating to c. 2000BP, there were only two other sites discovered with pottery that dated to a similar period. At both of these latter sites the initial focus of investigations in the Falefa Valley were early historic villages identified by Samoan informants, but in both cases deeper sondages were excavated and pottery deposits dating to c. 2000 BP were discovered. These pottery bearing sites are located on an extensive alluvial plain, some two (SU-SA-3) and six (SU-LE-12) kilometres respectively from the current foreshore. The serendipitous nature of the discovery of these two pottery bearing sites, suggests there may be many more in the same valley and other similar settings that date to the same period and potentially somewhat earlier, as originally argued by Green and Davidson (1974: 280). This has been further emphasized by the very recent work of the Institute of Archaeology of New Caledonia and the Pacific (IANCP) and the Center for Samoan Studies of the National University of Samoa. On the small island of Manono a single deep testpit was excavated near the coast in an area thought to be favorable to coastal settlement. Plain pottery and other midden material dating to between 1900 and 2200 BP were discovered from a depth of 210cm in a layer sealed by 80 cms of sterile sand, and 130cm of later occupation deposits (Sand et al. 2014).

good archaeological coverage of the whole archipelago, although how comprehensive this coverage really is remains contentious (see Sheppard 2011 Comments). On Guadalcanal for example, an island of more than 5000 km2, no Lapita or other pottery sites have yet been recorded, but archaeological research thus far undertaken on this island must be categorized as only preliminary. Excavation on this large island essentially comprises three inland cave sites, and a single open site. Only one of the cave sites covered the pre-Lapita to Lapita periods, while the other sites dated to the last 2000 years or less (Roe 1992, Sheppard and Walter 2006). Many other islands in the group have similarly limited levels of archaeological investigation. The only other major gap in the Lapita distribution is that found at its eastern most extension across the islands of both Samoa and the territory of American Samoa, where there has been to date only one Lapita site found. Again some see this as a real gap or at least representative of much diluted numbers of Lapita colonizing groups (Cochrane, Rieth, and Dickinson 2013, Rieth, Morrison, and Addison 2008), but for Samoa at least there are other explanations. One of the primary reasons for the lack of Lapita sites in Samoa is that the islands are subsiding and or tilting (Dickinson and Green 1998), and many Lapita sites that would have been on the coastal fringe are now submerged. While sub-marine archaeology is unlikely to be happening in the near future, it seems obvious that there is still high potential for further Lapita sites, or at least those sites that date to the first millennium of occupation, to be found in Samoa when extensive subsurface testing is undertaken. This had already been demonstrated and discussed in the 1960s, during the most ambitious research program to date in Samoa (Green and Davidson 1969, 1974: 280). This 32

Stuart Bedford

overwhelmingly the pattern across the entire Lapita distribution, although the presence of pre-existing populations in the wider Near Oceania region is likely to have influenced both settlement pattern, and the possible distribution of exotic highly prized decorated pottery. There is evidence for dentate-stamped Lapita pottery being found some distance from the coast in the Bismarcks, as in the case of the Willaumez Peninsula, but this might simply represent evidence of ephemeral wider landscape use or trade in exotic items rather than any indication of focused settlement (Specht and Torrence 2007). The quantity of dentate-stamped pottery found at more than 1km from the sea is small, 9 sherds from three sites (Specht and Torrence 2007). In the case of Garua Island, with an entire land area of only 9 km2, all sites where between 10 to more than 50 sherds were found, were located less than 500 meters from the sea. All sherds, including a number of single find spots further inland, are less than 1km from the sea (Torrence and Stevenson 2000). Stilt houses in the inter-tidal zone appear to be a feature in Near Oceania, identified in both the Bismarcks and the western Solomons, but perhaps this is not surprising, considering it was a landscape that had been populated prior to Lapita settlement. More limited choice of location and other factors such as community security are likely to have influenced the selection of sites for settlement. This is in total contrast to Remote Oceania where there is no evidence of intertidal stilt housing.

For American Samoa a series of early plainware sites dating to the early part of the first millennium BP have been identified, but as yet there have been no dentate-stamped Lapita sherds recovered. Certainly the islands of American Samoa generally comprise much less attractive environments for settlement, with limited coastal flats backed by step-sided weathered hills, and where many of these flats may not have even developed until 2500 BP (Rieth, Morrison, and Addison 2008). For primary colonizers who have the luxury of a range of choices for settlement, these islands may initially not have been as attractive as those further west. Bearing in mind that dentatestamping is thought to have disappeared throughout the Tongan archipelago after a maximum of 100 years (Burley, Weisler, and Zhao 2012), if the pottery in American Samoa follows the same pattern, then it would seem that settlement is established on these islands after dentate-stamping. The lack or very small numbers of extinct faunal remains found in any of the sites in American Samoa, however, is a cautionary note suggesting there may be earlier sites or earlier components of identified sites yet to be found.

Lapita site location Lapita site location in Vanuatu is unquestionably coastally orientated. There are now some 20 sites that have been found from Mota Lava in the Banks islands in the north to Vanuatu’s southern-most inhabited island, Aneityum in the south (Fig. 1b). Whilst almost all of the sites identified across the Vanuatu archipelago are now both some distance from the sea, in some cases 100s of meters, and many meters above current sea level (Fig. 2), this is easily explained, as almost the whole Vanuatu archipelago is uplifting at various rates due to tectonic activity. Coastal orientation for the establishment of settlements is also

While the definition of what constitutes a large or small island might be problematic (Specht 2007), and as in the case of some archipelagos relatively small islands were all that were available, it is now clear that in Vanuatu island size was not an influencing factor in terms of choosing a location for establishing founding and later settlements. 33


Figure 2. Location of Lapita site at Port Olry, northeast Santo Island, northern Vanuatu.

Lapita sites both foundational and later are found on the full range of islands sizes throughout the archipelago. The earliest Lapita site found thus far in Vanuatu is that of Makué on the island of Aore (Galipaud 2010). It is one of the smaller islands of Vanuatu but at 60 km2 it can hardly be described as an islet and it is adjacent to Santo, Vanuatu’s largest island. Nearby is Malo, where founding Lapita sites were first identified in the 1960s is 180km2. On Santo (3900 km2) itself, three Lapita sites have been identified, one early (Galipaud 2010) and two later sites (Bedford and Spriggs 2008). Efate Island, where the founding Teouma Lapita settlement is located, is 915km2. Erromango, just south of Efate, where a founding and a later Lapita site are found is 900 km2. It is overwhelmingly a range of other factors such as, accessible sheltered canoe landings, fresh water, and abundant

natural resources such as those found on wide fringing reefs or lagoons, that appear to have been most influential in terms of the selection of settlement sites. How does this pattern compare with other archipelagos in Remote Oceania? In the case of New Caledonia, Lapita site location there parallels that of Vanuatu. All are coastal and are found both on small islands and very large islands; this includes both early and late sites on the Grand Terre itself, which at 16,372 km2 is by far the largest island in Remote Oceania where Lapita is found (Sand 2010). Similarly in Tonga, Lapita sites are coastal and on all island sizes, from the foundational site of Nukuleka located on a sand cay on the coast of Tongatapu (260km2), Tonga’s largest island, to a whole series of later sites found on some islands that are less than 1km2 (Burley 2007, Burley and Dickinson 2001). In Samoa, the single 34

Stuart Bedford

known Lapita site is located on the submerged coastline of Upolu, the archipelagos’ second largest island (1125km2). Similarly in the Southeast Solomons, Lapita sites are found on a range of island sizes from Nendö (505.5km2) the largest, to small islands of less than 5km2 (Ngangaua) in the Reef Islands.

to take precedence and dominate discussions of site chronology with often limited assessment of the materials recovered and in the case of pottery the processes and rates of cultural transmission and transformation. As the number of Lapita site discoveries increased rapidly through the 1980s and into the 2000s, a vastly increased number of radiocarbon dates were generated but at the same time a whole raft of analytical hurdles and a growing awareness of the intricacies of radiocarbon dating were identified. These include at a minimum the potential of inbuilt age of various samples, habitat and dietary preferences that affect various species, and flat sections of the calibration curve at key periods for Lapita (Bronk Ramsey 2008, Petchey et al. 2014).

Current evidence in Near Oceania, and more specifically the Bismarcks, indicates that there has been a greater number of Lapita sites located on smaller islands, especially those less than 1km2, than on larger ones, although the largest island in the region does have some 20 sites recorded (Specht 2007). Some have argued there is a sampling gap in this region (Specht 2007). It should also be emphasized that across the full distribution of Lapita sites, in the vast majority of cases when Lapita groups occupied small islands, they were adjacent to large islands (Clark and Bedford 2008).

Summary revisions of Lapita chronologies have been a regular feature over many decades where a whole series of previous dates have been rejected once they have been subjected to a range of chronometric hygiene tests. There has been continued refinement of sampling and processing of samples and the dates for both the duration of Lapita across its distribution and the length of any pause in the Bismarcks has been radically reduced (Bedford and Sand 2007, Specht 2007). Long gone are the ideas, once generally accepted, that dentate-stamping persisted for 1000 years in some areas and there was a 400 year pause in the Bismarcks before populations moved further east, although in a more recent paper, where dates take precedence over all else, the pause is rekindled. In this paper, which highlights the uncertain reliability of dates for the Bismarcks more than anything else, a pause in the region of a single site (Talepakemalai) is the favored scenario (Denham, Ramsey, and Specht 2012). However, the detailed analyses and comparison of vessel forms and decorative motifs from the earliest sites across the

The chronology of Lapita and its transformations Radiometric dating One gets only a hint of the excitement and perhaps shock that Edward Gifford experienced from his diary entry when the first radiocarbon dates were returned in 1954 for the layers that contained the distinctively decorated (Lapita) pottery he found at Koné in New Caledonia (Sand and Kirch 2002: 159). The early dates for Lapita ultimately transformed the research agenda for Pacific archaeology where the radiocarbon dating of sites became a standard and necessary procedure as it did the world over. Pottery seriation and motif analysis and comparison, also provided pioneering frameworks (Green 1979) relating to Lapita distribution and chronology, but radiocarbon results tended 35


Bismarcks (Summerhayes 2000, Summerhayes 2007, Summerhayes 2010) which demonstrate high degrees of similarity, indicating rapid introduction across the entire region, seem not to have been given due consideration. As noted, earlier evidence in Island Southeast Asia for dentate-stamping as a technique along with a range of putative Lapita motif forms, lime infill and or painting (Carson et al. 2013; Hung 2005, 2008), all negate the need to argue for pauses in the Bismarcks for this decorative suite to have developed.

in the case of Lapita sites even when the finest radiometric definition is established it can still substantially overextend the occupation periods of various sites and the chronology of associated pottery sequences. While it might seem unnecessary to state the obvious, it should be emphasized that whatever dating techniques are used they must be assessed in relation to the full range of archaeological and other information available from any site or sites.

Ceramic comparison and seriation

Recent publications are likely to again radically change perceptions of Lapita chronology (Burley, Weisler, and Zhao 2012, Nunn and Petchey 2013, Petchey et al. 2014) if considered alongside other archaeological aspects, particularly the pottery. For the Tongan archipelago, U/TH dates on coral abraders from the Nukeleka site, the founding Lapita settlement in Tonga and the only site in that archipelago that has a component of Middle Lapita style (following Summerhayes [2000] terminology) pottery, suggest that settlement there began around 2838±8 BP. In a reassessment of the suite of radiocarbon dates from the Bourewa Lapita site and radiocarbon dates from the earliest sites in Fiji, Nunn and Petchey (2013) argue for the earliest settlement of Fiji being around 2900-2800 BP. Direct dating of Lapita burials at Teouma along with a whole range of other materials again suggests that settlement at this site began sometime around 3000-2900 BP and no earlier (Petchey et al. 2014). What these more recent chronological revisions are further reinforcing is what a number of researchers have argued for in the past, that Lapita populations “exploded out of the Bismarcks, and in a radiocarbon instant, occupied most of its ultimate range” (Sheppard 2010:107). The vagaries and limitations of radiocarbon dating are now more fully understood, and

The earliest archaeological evidence that alerted archaeologists to connections across the Pacific in relation to Lapita was the distinctive dentate-stamped pottery. It remains a significant and increasingly robust data set with much larger collections and an increasing number of sites being identified and made available for assessment. When Green first carried out his detailed summaries of Lapita design motifs in the 1970s he identified regionally distinct suites of motifs, named Western and Eastern-styles, that he suggested were influenced by both temporal and spatial aspects (Green 1979). A distinctive Far Western-style, thought only to be found in the Bismarcks, was soon added (Anson 1986). The idea that Lapita Provinces (Far Western, Western, Eastern and Southern) was perhaps a better way of conceptualizing Lapita was also subsequently proposed (Kirch 1997, Sand 2000). Now more commonly accepted are the chronologically orientated terms, Early, Middle and Late Lapita styles (Summerhayes 2000), that demonstrate increasing regional diversification over time and particularly during the Late Lapita phase. What most of these proposed models have often assumed is that dentate-stamping lasted for many hundreds of years across its distribution, that there was a significant pause in the 36

Stuart Bedford

Bismarcks and that it took hundreds of years for Lapita to reach the eastern extremities of its distribution. But a revision of dates for Remote Oceania and a perusal of more recently identified design motifs and vessel forms from a range of different sites, indicate that Lapita is without doubt associated with a rapid migratory process out of the Bismarcks across to Tonga. Even without radiocarbon dates and in some cases despite them, the distinctive Lapita dentate-stamped and incised pottery, with its uniform decoration and design system and distinctive vessel forms are indicative of such a rapid movement.

the same in almost all aspects (Summerhayes 2000, 2007, 2010). This sort of evidence is not at all indicative of communities who are not familiar with pottery and adopting it over many generations. The earliest pottery, with the most complex design motifs and the widest range of vessel forms, found at a number of sites across a number of islands, is indicative of populations who are very familiar with pottery production, have a uniform range of vessel forms, and coded design motifs which had symbolic meaning. Most of the pottery is produced locally. This same pattern is very rapidly transferred further east, as evidenced by a range of elements of the Early Lapita-style seen in sites in the Reefs Santa Cruz and Vanuatu (Fig. 3) (Bedford and Galipaud 2010, Bedford and Spriggs in press, Noury and Galipaud 2011). Data related to the recovery of Talasea obsidian in Remote Oceania demonstrate similar patterns. It is only found in any quantity in the earliest colonizing sites in

The earliest sites in the Bismarcks were long ago seen as the earlier and most complex phase of the ceramic tradition, the Early Lapita style. Summerhayes in a series of publications where he compared motifs, vessel form and production strategies, has argued that the pottery from a number of these early sites from West New Britain and other early sites across the Bismarcks is largely

Figure 3. Early Lapita (stand) sherd from the Makué site, Aore island, Northern Vanuatu (photo: Jean-Christophe Galipaud).

37


Figure 4. A range of Late Lapita style vessels from Malakula (a-e) and Teouma, Efate (f), Vanuatu (Drawings by Siri Seoule). All are dentate-stamped except 4d.

38

Stuart Bedford

The symbolic nature and meaning of the elaborate dentate-stamped motifs became diluted with increasing distance and time, as did the importance of associated ceremonies that were performed during the colonizing phase that involved the use of the ceremonial pottery. This is dramatically demonstrated for example when comparing mortuary activity at the Teouma cemetery site with Late or immediately post-Lapita period burials in Vanuatu. At Teouma the burials are lengthy multi-stage rituals that involve the placement of elaborately decorated vessels into grave features. In Late and PostLapita periods the burial ceremonies are radically shortened and there is generally no longer any association with pottery (Bedford et al. 2011a, Bedford et al. 2010). The end of dentate-stamping is a key chronological and cultural marker that firmly marks the end of the Lapita Cultural Complex in Vanuatu and elsewhere.

Remote Oceania where there are also elements of the Early Lapita style (Reepmeyer et al. 2010). Middle Lapita is found right across the Lapita distribution, emphasising a high level of interconnectedness that may, however, last only for a very short period. That there is only a single site with Middle Lapita style, right on the margins in Tonga, is strong evidence for this very short duration. During the same period homologous incised vessels can also be seen right across the entire distribution (Spriggs and Bedford 2013). If there was any great length of time represented at any of these sites the pottery would be expected to show much greater stylistic difference. The Late Lapita style is characterized by increasing divergence and locally distinctive decoration and vessel forms (Fig. 4) (Bedford and Galipaud 2010, Burley 2007, Burley and Dickinson 2004, Clark 2010, David et al. 2011, Sand, Bolé, and Ouetcho 2011). But while there is evidence for both divergence between and across archipelagos, there remains some level of continued interconnectedness across the Lapita region. The appearance of such a widespread decorative technique such as shell impression and motifs such as simple zigzag (Fig. 4a) are both indicators of this in the Late Lapita period.

The well-established, immediately PostLapita pottery sequences found across the Lapita region further highlight increasing regional diversification across islands and archipelagos. Vanuatu is a striking case where it has been shown that immediately after the dentate-phase, pottery sequences in the north, south and centre of the archipelago diverge significantly (Bedford 2006). The same can be seen in New Caledonia, with divergence across the Grand Terre between the north and the south and again with the Loyalties (Sand, Bolé, and Ouetcho 2011). Again in Fiji, post dentate-stamped pottery transforms into the very distinctive Navatu phase pottery across the entire archipelago, whereas in Tonga and Samoa the pottery becomes a plainware, and then ultimately disappears altogether after a millennium.

Transformation In terms of the transformation of Lapita pottery then, and it can be argued along with Lapita society in general, it is clear there is change occurring during the Lapita period itself both across space and time. This should not be a surprise considering, as has been outlined, the very different biogeographical situations that were encountered across the Lapita distribution at different time periods. Island size and proximity would have been significant influencing factors in terms of levels of such transformations. 39


Lapita subsistence

(Steadman, Pregill, and Burley 2002) and to a lesser extent in New Caledonia, where there is abundant collections of shellfish (Sand 2010) but also more limited detailed reporting of the faunal record. Similarly in the Reefs Santa Cruz and Fiji, shellfish at Lapita sites is generally abundant but the faunal remains are generally poorly preserved, as the sites are often very mixed. Worthy and Clark (2009: 233) have argued that there are as yet “few wellstratified, carefully excavated and adequately radiocarbon dated Lapita sites in Fiji”.

Despite our understanding of Lapita subsistence having radically changed since the early debates of the 1970s, the competing scenarios of whether Lapita populations were primarily horticulturalists, transporting with them a whole range of plants and animals (transported landscapes) or whether they were primarily non-horticultural societies islandhopping across the ocean (strandloopers), still have considerable influence. Generally, however, researchers are now much more aware of the potential diversity in terms of both geophysical landscapes and subsistence behavior that was found and was practised across the Lapita distribution at different time periods (Burley 2012, Kirch 2010, Sand and Bedford 2010). Lapita colonizers beyond the main Solomons chain had to rely initially solely on local flora and fauna upon first arrival. Even if the full suite of nut and fruit trees and root crops had been transported, some considerable period of time would have to have elapsed, between the initial preparation and planting of gardens and final crop harvesting. This was not a strategy as such, rather it was a necessary adaptation to pristine uninhabited landscapes, the success of which was significantly ameliorated by the abundance of indigenous fauna. We must expect in the earliest layers of all colonizing Lapita sites in Remote Oceania a large quantity, size and array of shellfish and faunal remains. Size and variety of shellfish soon diminish and sometimes some extirpation of species is in evidence (Bedford 2006, Swadling 1986). Similarly with the faunal record, the wide range of species diminishes and extinctions are in evidence. All of these characteristics have been clearly identified in Lapita sites in Vanuatu (Bedford 2006, White et al. 2010, Worthy et al. in press) and Tonga

This same mixing and poor preservation has also influenced the reporting of domestic animal bones across the Lapita distribution, although there may also have been social and environmental constraints that played their part in facilitating or limiting the introduction of such a high maintenance species as the pig during the colonizing phase (Clark et al. 2013). This appears to have been the case in New Caledonia and Tonga. However, in Vanuatu at least the transported landscape scenario, comprising both domesticated animals and plants appears to fit the pattern across the archipelago. Bones of both the pig and chicken are numerous in Lapita sites in the north of Vanuatu down to the central island of Efate and definitive, although more limited, evidence has been found in the south (Bedford 2006). At the Teouma site alone 5335 pig bones have been identified in both Lapita and immediately post-Lapita layers. Two species of rat (exulans and praetor) have also been identified (Hawkins 2015). The introduction of domesticated plants during the Lapita period in Vanuatu at a number of sites has been verified through the analysis of plant microfossil remains from soil samples and dental calculus providing direct evidence for yam, taro and banana (Horrocks and Bedford 2005, Horrocks, Bedford, and Spriggs 2009, Horrocks et al. 2014). Isotopic analyses 40

Stuart Bedford

of skeletal remains are also contributing to our understanding of Lapita diet and how it changed over time. Not surprisingly the results indicate a high marine component for colonizing communities that becomes more terrestrially orientated with later generations (Kinaston et al. 2014).

demonstrative. Some 1915 tortoise bones have been identified from the Teouma site, where the animals appear to have been procured both locally and from further afield, and all are associated with the earliest occupation at the site (Hawkins 2015). Its identification has now also been confirmed at a number of Lapita sites on Malakula and Santo (White et al. 2010). Prior to excavations at Teouma there had been no hint of tortoises in Vanuatu, none had been identified in disturbed or later Lapita sites and there had been no evidence at any of the immediately Post-Lapita sites excavated throughout the archipelago. The list of other extinct species prior to excavations at Teouma was also limited. The importance of finding sites of earliest arrival for identifying extinct species is crucial. Of course it was not just the extinction of a range of animal species that was associated with human arrival across Remote Oceania but broader landscape change in general. The clearance of primary forest during the creation of garden areas impacted on terrestrial fauna and soil stability, and a range of introduced species, including insects, rats, pigs and chickens contributed to the initial and long-term impact on the environment.

Environmental impact There was without doubt, a devastating impact on fauna across the islands of the Pacific during initial human colonization. The same long-identified dramatic impacts that initial human colonization had on a range of New Zealand fauna is now emerging from a number of Lapita sites across Remote Oceania, particularly from Tonga and more recently Vanuatu. It has taken some time and to date the majority of reported Lapita sites do not mention extinct faunal remains. This is hardly surprising in Near Oceania where vulnerable species had long disappeared during the Pleistocene, but in Remote Oceania there are other influential factors. These include such aspects as poor faunal preservation in heavily disturbed sites, limited areas of excavation of sites, and the fact that sites may also date to the later phase of a Lapita occupation. Well-preserved sites associated with first arrival in a particular area are those that can be expected to return rich faunal remains including a substantial component of extinct species. This has been dramatically illustrated at a number of Lapita sites in Vanuatu, most notably the Teouma site. At Teouma there is abundant evidence of a range of species being driven to extinction within the first few generations, including tortoise, land crocodile and a range of bird species amongst an excavated collection of 49,207 bones that at this stage exclude analysis of the fishbone (Hawkins 2015, Worthy et al. in press). The example of the tortoise is perhaps the most

Discussion and Conclusion After many decades of Lapita focused research we have begun to move beyond the influential pioneering paradigms of the 1970s that were based on very preliminary depauperate data sets that were analyzed with the limited range of analytical techniques available at the time. Lapita was never a monolithic cultural entity, or biological population, it was changing rapidly over time, even within and certainly between single generations and particularly so when rapid expansion into Remote Oceania was underway (Best 2002). There remain 41


relatively short one even in Remote Oceania, where colonizing groups first appeared on the shores some 3000 years ago. Archaeologists have yet to really engage with the subsequent millennia when Pacific islanders developed their own distinctive culture and languages across the former Lapita domain.

major challenges to further unravelling the Lapita story, including in those areas of research that have seen major advances over the last decade or so. As highlighted by recent discoveries of Lapita on the south coast of New Guinea and reassessments of the timing of initial settlement, fundamental questions still remain in relation to key aspects such as chronology and distribution. Taphonomy is another key aspect that is so often ignored in assessment of Lapita sites. The faunal remains returned from the Teouma site in Vanuatu are spectacular both in number and range of species in comparison with most other reported Lapita sites. Similarly spectacular remains have been found on the small islands of Malakula in northern Vanuatu. The quantity and range of species recovered from these sites appears somewhat aberrant but without doubt it simply relates to excellent preservation conditions at these sites rather than any particular environmental or behavioral peculiarity. Preservation of faunal remains from the vast majority of reported sites is very poor and can relate to both postdepositional processes and the acidic nature of some soils. When assessing human impact on pristine environments and determining Lapita subsistence patterns, the state of a site’s preservation is a key component to be considered.

The Lapita phenomenon has intrigued and fascinated researchers and the wider public for generations and now indigenous Pacific islanders, as they have increasingly become instigators and collaborators in research programs, are embracing it as an important component in their multi-chaptered histories. Most importantly they are in turn providing a platform for the broader acceptance, awareness and appeal of archaeology for indigenous populations across the region (Bedford et al. 2011b, Sand 2003, Shing 2013). Lapita then is becoming increasingly a shared human story, encompassing a broad range of different meanings and connections for different communities, but it is without doubt one that tells of the resourcefulness, adaptation and resilience of these ancestral Pacific Islanders.

Acknowledgements Thanks go to Scarlett Chiu for the invitation and financial support to attend the International Conference on Cross-Regional Comparison of Ancient Migration and Exchange Patterns held at the Academia Sinica, Taipei. Discussion and feedback from participants and other colleagues has contributed to further refinement of this paper. Jean-Christophe Galipaud provided permission to reproduce Figure 3.

We should also be cautious about making persistent comparisons and direct connections with Lapita and the cultural and phenotypic landscape of the contemporary Pacific. The Lapita phenomenon was an extraordinarily important period and influential phase of Pacific history, but it was only a chapter and a

42

Stuart Bedford

References cited

Bedford, S., and M. Spriggs. 2008. Northern Vanuatu as a Pacific Crossroads: The Archaeology of Discovery, Interaction, and the Emergence of the “Ethnographic Present”. Asian Perspectives 47:95-120. —. in press. “The Archaeology of Vanuatu: 3000 Years of History across Islands of Ash and Coral,” in Oxford Handbook of Prehistoric Oceania. Edited by E. E. Cochrane and T. Hunt. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Bedford, S., M. Spriggs, H. Buckley, F. Valentin, R. Regenvanu, and M. Abong. 2010. “Un cimetière de premier peuplement: le site de Teouma, au sud d’Éfaté, au Vanuatu (A Cemetery of First Settlement: the Site of Teouma, South Efate, Vanuatu),” in Lapita: Ancêtres Océaniens. Edited by C. Sand and S. Bedford, pp. 141-161. Paris: Somogy Edition D’Art and Musée du quai Branly. Bedford, S., M. Spriggs, R. Regenvanu, and S. Yona. 2011b. “Olfala Histri Wea i Stap Andanit long Graon. Archaeological Training Workshops in Vanuatu: A Profile, the Benefits, Spin-offs and Extraordinary Discoveries,” in Working Together in Vanuatu: Research Histories, Collaborations, Projects and Reflections. Edited by J. Taylor and N. Thieberger, pp. 191-213. Canberra: ANU ePress. Best, S. B. 2002. Lapita: A View From The East. New Zealand Archaeological Association Monograph 24. Auckland: New Zealand Archaeological Association. Bronk Ramsey, C. 2008. Radiocarbon Dating: Revolutions in Understanding. Archaeometry 50:249-275. Burley, D. V. 2007. “In Search of Lapita and Polynesian Plainware Settlements in Vava’u, Kingdom of Tonga,” in Oceanic Explorations: Lapita and Western Pacific Settlement, Terra Australis 26. Edited by S. Bedford, C. Sand, and S. P. Connaughton, pp. 187-198. Canberra: Australian National University. —. 2012. Exploration as a Strategic Process in the Lapita Settlement of Fiji: The Implications of Vorovoro Island. Journal of Pacific Archaeology 3:22-34. Burley, D. V., and W. R. Dickinson. 2001. Origin and Significance of a Founding Settlement in Polynesia. Proceedings of The National Academy of Sciences 98:11829-11831. —. 2004. Late Lapita Occupation and Its Ceramic Assemblage at the Sigatoka Sand Dune site, Fiji, and Their Place in Oceanic Prehistory. Archaeology in Oceania 39:12-25.

Allen, J., and C. Gosden. 1996. “Spheres of Interaction and Integration: Modeling the Culture History of the Bismarck Archipelago,” in Oceanic Culture History: Essays in Honour of Roger Green. Edited by J. Davidson, G. Irwin, F. Leach, A. K. Pawley, and D. Brown, pp. 183-197. Dunedin: New Zealand Journal of Archaeology Special Publication. Ambrose, W. 2012. Oceanic Tattooing and the Implied Lapita Ceramic Connection. Journal of Pacific Archaeology 3:1-21. Anson, D. 1986. Lapita Pottery of the Bismarck Archipelago and Its Affinities. Archaeology in Oceania 21:157-165. Avias, J. 1950. Poteries Canaques et Poteries Prehistoriques en Nouvelle-Calédonie. Journal de la Société des Océanistes 6:111-140. Bedford, S. 2006. Pieces of the Vanuatu Puzzle: Archaeology of the North, South and Centre. Terra Australis 23. Canberra: Pandanus Books, Research School of Pacific and Asian Studies, Australian National University. Bedford, S., H. R. Buckley, F. Valentin, N. Tayles, and N. F. Longga. 2011a. Lapita Burials, a New Lapita Cemetery and Post-Lapita Burials from Malakula, Northern Vanuatu, Southwest Pacific. Journal of Pacific Archaeology 2:26-48. Bedford, S., and G. Clark. 2001. “The Rise and Rise of the Incised and Applied Relief Tradition: A Review and Reassessment,” in The Archaeology of Lapita Dispersal in Oceania: Papers from the Fourth Lapita Conference, June 2000, Canberra, Australia, Terra Australis 17. Edited by G. R. Clark, A. J. Anderson, and T. Vunidilo, pp. 61-74. Canberra: Pandanus Books. Research School of Pacific and Asian Studies, Australian National University. Bedford, S., and J.-C. Galipaud. 2010. “Chaînes d’îles: La présence Lapita dans le nord du Vanuatu (Chain of Islands: Lapita in the North of Vanuatu),” in Lapita: Ancêtres Océaniens. Edited by C. Sand and S. Bedford, pp. 122-137. Paris: Musee du quai Branly, Somogy Editions D’Art. Bedford, S., and C. Sand. 2007. “Lapita and Western Pacific Settlement: Progress, Prospects and Persistent Problems,” in Oceanic Explorations: Lapita and Western Pacific Settlement, Terra Australis 26. Edited by S. Bedford, C. Sand, and S. P. Connaughton, pp. 1-16. Canberra: Australian National University.

43


—. 2010. Among Polynesia’s First Pots. Journal of Archaeological Science 37:1020-1026. Burley, D. V., M. I. Weisler, and J.-X. Zhao. 2012. High Precision U/Th Dating of First Polynesian Settlement. PLoS ONE 7:e48769. Carson, M. T., H.-C. Hung, G. Summerhayes, and P. Bellwood. 2013. The Pottery Trail from Southeast Asia to Remote Oceania. The Journal of Island and Coastal Archaeology 8:17-36. Clark, G. 2010. “Horizons lointains: La dispersion Lapita aux îles Fidji et en Polynésie occidentale (The Remote Horizon: Lapita Dispersal in Fiji-West Polynesia),” in Lapita: Ancêtres Océaniens. Edited by C. Sand and S. Bedford, pp. 212-223. Paris: Musee du quai Branly, Somogy Editions D’Art. Clark, G., and S. Bedford. 2008. “Friction Zones in Lapita Colonisation,” in Islands of Inquiry: Colonisation, Seafaring and the Archaeology of Maritime Landscapes, Terra Australis 29. Edited by G. Clark, F. Leach, and S. O’Connor, pp. 59-73. Canberra: ANU ePress. Clark, G., F. Petchey, S. Hawkins, C. Reepmeyer, I. Smith, and W. B. Masse. 2013. Distribution and Extirpation of Pigs in Pacific Islands: A Case Study from Palau. Archaeology in Oceania 48:141-153. Cochrane, E. E., T. M. Rieth, and W. R. Dickinson. 2013. Plainware Ceramics from Sāmoa: Insights into Ceramic Chronology, Cultural Transmission, and Selection among Colonizing Populations. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 32:499-510. David, B., I. J. McNiven, T. Richards, S. P. Connaughton, M. Leavesley, B. Barker, and C. Rowe. 2011. Lapita Sites in the Central Province of Mainland Papua New Guinea. World Archaeology 43:576-593. Denham, T., C. B. Ramsey, and J. Specht. 2012. Dating the Appearance of Lapita Pottery in the Bismarck Archipelago and Its Dispersal to Remote Oceania. Archaeology in Oceania 47:39-46. Dickinson, W. R., and R. C. Green. 1998. Geoarchaeological Context of Holocene Subsidence at the Ferry Berth Lapita Site, Mulifanua, Upolu, Samoa. Geoarchaeology 13:239-263. Felgate, M. 2007. “Leap-Frogging or Limping? Recent Evidence from the Lapita Littoral Fringe, New Georgia, Solomon Islands,” in Oceanic Explorations: Lapita and Western Pacific Settlement, Terra Australis 26. Edited by S. Bedford, C. Sand, and S. P. Connaughton, pp. 123-140. Canberra: Australian National University.

Galipaud, J.-C. 1996. “Pottery and Potters of Vanuatu,” in Arts of Vanuatu. Edited by J. Bonnemaison, K. Huffman, C. Kaufmann, and D. T. Tryon, pp. 94-99. Bathurst: Crawford House Publishing. —. 2010. “Makué et Shokraon: peuplement initial et évolution des cultures dans le nord du Vanuatu (Makué and Shokraon: Earliest Arrivals and Cultural Transformations in Northern Vanuatu),” in Lapita: Ancêtres Océaniens. Edited by C. Sand and S. Bedford, pp. 138-139. Paris: Musee du quai Branly, Somogy Editions D’Art. Garanger, J. 1972. Archéologie des Nouvelle-Hébrides: Contribution à la Connaissance des îles du Centre (Archaeology of the New Hebrides). Publication de la Société des Océanistes 30. Paris: ORSTOM. Gorecki, P. 1992. “A Lapita Smoke Screen?,” in Poterie Lapita et Peuplement, Actes du Colloque LAPITA. Edited by J.-C. Galipaud, pp. 27-47. Nouméa: ORSTOM. Green, R. C. 1979. “Lapita,” in The Prehistory of Polynesia. Edited by J. D. Jennings, pp. 27-60. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. —. 2000. “Lapita and the Cultural Model for Intrusion, Integration and Innovation,” in Australian Archaeologist: Collected Papers in Honour of Jim Allen, Centre for Archaeological Research and Department of Archaeology and Natural History, the Australian National University, with the Department of Archaeology, La Trobe University. Edited by A. Anderson and T. Murray, pp. 372392. Canberra: Coombs Academic Publishing, Australian National University. Green, R. C., and J. M. Davidson. 1974. “Conclusion,” in Archaeology in Western Samoa, vol. 2, Bulletin of the Auckland Institute and Museum 7. Edited by R. C. Green and J. M. Davidson, pp. 278-282. Auckland: Auckland Institute and Museum —. Editors. 1969. Archaeology in Western Samoa. Vol. 1. Bulletin of the Auckland Institute and Museum 6. Auckland: Auckland Institute and Museum. Groube, L. M. 1971. Tonga, Lapita Pottery, and Polynesian Origins. The Journal of the Polynesian Society 80:278-316. Groube, L. M. 1975. Archaeological Research in Aneityum. South Pacific Bulletin 25:27-30. Hébert, B. 1965. Nouvelles Hébrides. Contribution à l’Étude Archeologique de l’Île Éfaté et des Îles Avoisantes. Études Mélanésiennes 18-20:71-98. Hawkins, S. 2015. Human Behavioural Ecology, Anthropogenic Impact and Subsistence Change at the Teouma Lapita Site, Central Vanuatu, 3100-2500

44

Stuart Bedford

BP. Unpublished PhD dissertation, The Australian National University. Hedrick, J. D., and M. Shutler. 1969. Preliminary Report on “Lapita Style” Pottery from Malo Island, Northern New Hebrides. The Journal of the Polynesian Society 78:262-265. Horrocks, M., and S. Bedford. 2005. Microfossil Analysis of Lapita Deposits in Vanuatu Reveals Introduced Araceae (aroids). Archaeology in Oceania 40:67-74. Horrocks, M., S. Bedford, and M. Spriggs. 2009. A Short Note on Banana (Musa) Phytoliths in Lapita, Immediately Post-Lapita and Modern Period Archaeological Deposits from Vanuatu. Journal of Archaeological Science 36:2048-2054. Horrocks, M., M. K. Nieuwoudt, R. Kinaston, H. Buckley, and S. Bedford. 2014. Microfossil and Fourier Transform InfraRed Analyses of Lapita and Post-Lapita Human Dental Calculus from Vanuatu, Southwest Pacific. Journal of the Royal Society of New Zealand 44:17-33. Hung, H.-C. 2005. Neolithic Interaction between Taiwan and Northern Luzon: The Pottery and Jade Evidences from the Cagayan Valley. 南島研究學報 [Journal of Austronesian Studies] 1:109-134. —. 2008. Migration and Cultural Interaction in Southern Coastal China, Taiwan and the Northern Philippines, 3000 BC to AD 100: The Early History of the Austronesianspeaking Populations. Unpublished PhD dissertation, The Australian National University. Kinaston, R., H. Buckley, F. Valentin, S. Bedford, M. Spriggs, S. Hawkins, and E. Herrscher. 2014. Lapita Diet in Remote Oceania: New Stable Isotope Evidence from the 3000-Year-Old Teouma Site, Efate Island, Vanuatu. PLoS ONE 9:1-18. Kirch, P. V. 1997. The Lapita Peoples: Ancestors of the Oceanic World. The Peoples of South-East Asia and the Pacific. Cambridge: Blackwell Publishers. —. 2000. On the Road of the Winds: An Archaeological History of the Pacific Islands before European Contact. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press. —. 2010. “Entre récif et jardin: L’écologie et l’économie de subsistance Lapita (Between Garden and Reef: Lapita Ecology and Subsistence),” in Lapita: Ancêtres Océaniens. Edited by C. Sand and S. Bedford, pp. 252-267. Paris: Musee du quai Branly, Somogy Editions D’Art.

McNiven, I. J., W. R. Dickinson, B. David, M. Weisler, F. Von Gnielinski, M. Carter, and U. Zoppi. 2006. Mask Cave: Red-Slipped Pottery and the Australian-Papuan Settlement of Zenadh Kes (Torres Strait). Archaeology in Oceania 41:49-81. Noury, A., and J.-C. Galipaud. 2011. Les Lapita, nomades du Pacifique. Marseille: IRD Orstom. Nunn, P. D., and F. Petchey. 2013. Bayesian Re-Evaluation of Lapita Settlement in Fiji: Radiocarbon Analysis of the Lapita Occupation at Bourewa and Nearby Sites on the Rove Peninsula, Viti Levu Island. Journal of Pacific Archaeology 4:21-34. Petchey, F., M. Spriggs, S. Bedford, F. Valentin, and H. Buckley. 2014. Radiocarbon Dating of Burials from the Teouma Lapita Cemetery, Efate, Vanuatu. Journal of Archaeological Science 50:227-242. Reepmeyer, C., M. Spriggs, S. Bedford, and W. Ambrose. 2010. Provenance and Technology of Lithic Artifacts from the Teouma Lapita Site, Vanuatu. Asian Perspectives 49:205-225. Rieth, T. M., A. E. Morrison, and D. J. Addison. 2008. The Temporal and Spatial Patterning of the Initial Settlement of Sāmoa. Journal of Island and Coastal Archaeology 3:214-239. Roe, D. 1992. “Investigations into the Prehistory of the Central Solomons: Some Old and Some New Data from Northwest Guadalcanal,” in Poterie Lapita et Peuplement, Actes du Colloque LAPITA. Edited by J.-C. Galipaud, pp. 91-101. Nouméa: ORSTOM. Sand, C. 2000. The Specificities of the ‘Southern Lapita Province’: The New Caledonian Case. Archaeology in Oceania 35:20-33. —. 2003. “Introduction to the Conference: Commemorating the First Excavation at Lapita,” in Pacific Archaeology: Assessments and Prospects (Proceedings of the International Conference for the 50th Anniversary of the First Lapita Excavation, Koné-Nouméa 2002), Les Cahiers de l`Archéologie en Nouvelle-Calédonie 15. Edited by C. Sand, pp. 1-10. Nouméa, New Caledonia: Département Archéologie, Service des Musées et du Patrimoine de Nouvelle-Calédonie. —. 2010. Lapita Calédonien: Archéologie d’un premier peuplement insulaire océanien. Collection travaux et documents océanistes 2. Paris: Société des Océanistes. Sand, C., D. Baret, J. Bolé, and A.-J. Ouetcho. 2014. Manono Archaeology Project Field Report 2013. Nouméa: Rapport de mission de l’Institut d’archéologie de la Nouvelle-Calédonie et du Pacifique.

45


Sand, C., and S. Bedford. 2010. “Introduction: Lapita, icône archéologique du premier peuplement austronésien du Pacifique Sud-Ouest (Introduction: Lapita, Archaeological Signature of the First Austronesian Settlement of the Southwest Pacific),” in Lapita: Ancêtres Océaniens. Edited by C. Sand and S. Bedford, pp. 14-27. Paris: Musee du quai Branly, Somogy Editions D’Art. Sand, C., J. Bolé, and A. Ouetcho. 2011. A Revision of New Caledonia’s Ceramic Sequence. Journal of Pacific Archaeology 2:56-68. Sand, C., and P. V. Kirch. 2002. L’expédition archéologique d’Edward W. Gifford et Richard Shutler Jr. en Nouvelle-Calédonie au cours de l’année 1952 (Edward W. Gifford and Richard Shutler Jr’s Archaeological Expedition to New Caledonia in 1952). Les Cahiers de l’Archéologie en Nouvelle-Calédonie 13. Nouméa: Département Archéologie, Service des Musées et du Patrimoine de Nouvelle-Calédonie. Sheppard, P. J. 2010. “Dans le Grand Océan : l’arrivée des Lapita en Océanie lointaine (Into the Great Ocean: Lapita Movement Into Remote Oceania),” in Lapita: Ancêtres Océaniens. Edited by C. Sand and S. Bedford, pp. 105-117. Paris: Somogy Edition D’Art and Musée du quai Branly. —. 2011. Lapita Colonization across the Near/ Remote Oceania Boundary. Current Anthropology 52:799-840. Sheppard, P. J., and R. Walter. 2006. A Revised Model of Solomon Islands Culture History. The Journal of the Polynesian Society 115:47-76. Shing, R. 2013. “Spreading the Word: Archaeological Awareness and the Wider Public in Vanuatu,” in Pacific Archaeology: Documenting the Past 50,000 Years. Papers from the 2011 Lapita Pacific Archaeology Conference, University of Otago Studies in Archaeology 25. Edited by G. R. Summerhayes and H. Buckley, pp. 189-198. Dunedin: University of Otago. Shutler, R., Jr., and M. E. Shutler. 1968. “Archaeological Excavations in Southern Melanesia,” in Prehistoric Culture in Oceania: A Symposium, 11th Pacific Science Congress of the Pacific Science Association, University of Tokyo, Japan. Edited by I. Yawata and Y. H. Sinoto, pp. 15-18. Honolulu: Bishop Museum Press.

Skelly, R., B. David, F. Petchey, and M. Leavesley. 2014. Tracking Ancient Beach-Lines Inland: 2600-Year-Old Dentate-Stamped Ceramics at Hopo, Vailala River Region, Papua New Guinea. Antiquity 88:470-487. Specht, J. 1985. Crabs as Disturbance Factors in Tropical Archaeological Sites. Australian Archaeology 21:11-18. —. 2007. “Small Islands in the Big Picture: The Formative Period of Lapita in the Bismarck Archipelago,” in Oceanic Explorations: Lapita and Western Pacific Settlement, Terra Australis 26. Edited by S. Bedford, C. Sand, and S. P. Connaughton, pp. 51-70. Canberra: Australian National University. Specht, J., and R. Torrence. 2007. “Lapita All Over: Land-Use on the Willaumez Peninsula, Papua New Guinea,” in Oceanic Explorations: Lapita and Western Pacific Settlement, Terra Australis 26. Edited by S. Bedford, C. Sand, and S. P. Connaughton, pp. 71-96. Canberra: Australian National University. Spriggs, M. 1984. The Lapita Cultural Complex: Origins, Distribution, Contemporaries and Successors. The Journal of Pacific History 19:202-223. —. 2012. “Is the Neolithic Spread in Island Southeast Asia Really as Confusing as the Archaeologists (and Some Linguists) Make it Seem,” in Crossing Borders: Selected Papers from the 13th International Conference of the European Association of Southeast Asian Archaeologists, vol. 1. Edited by M. L. TjoaBonatz, A. Reinecke, and D. Bonatz, pp. 109-121. Singapore: NUS Press. Spriggs, M., and S. Bedford. 2013. “Is there an Incised Lapita Phase after Dentate-stamped Pottery Ends? Data from Teouma, Efate Island, Vanuatu,” in Pacific Archaeology: Documenting the Past 50,000 Years, University of Otago Studies in Archaeology 25. Edited by G. R. Summerhayes and H. Buckley, pp. 148-156. Dunedin: University of Otago. Steadman, D. W., G. K. Pregill, and D. V. Burley. 2002. Rapid Prehistoric Extinction of Iguanas and Birds in Polynesia. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 99:3673-3677. Summerhayes, G. R. 2000. Lapita Interaction. Terra Australis 15. Canberra: Pandanus Books. Research School of Pacific and Asian Studies, Australian National University.

46

Stuart Bedford

—. 2007. “The Rise and Transformations of Lapita in the Bismarck Archipelago,” in From Southeast Asia to the Pacific: Archaeological Perspectives on the Austronesian Expansion and the Lapita Cultural Complex, vol. 141-184, Serial of Archaeological Studies. Edited by S. Chiu and C. Sand. Taipei: Center for Archaeological Studies, Research Center for Humanities and Social Sciences, Academia Sinica. —. 2010. “L’émergence de l’ensemble culturel Lapita dans l’archipel de Bismarck (The Emergence of Lapita in the Bismarck Archipelago),” in Lapita: Ancêtres Océaniens. Edited by C. Sand and S. Bedford, pp. 92-101. Paris: Musee du quai Branly, Somogy Editions D’Art. Summerhayes, G. R., E. Matisoo-Smith, H. Mandui, J. Allen, J. Specht, N. Hogg, and S. McPherson. 2010. Tamuarawai (EQS): An Early Lapita Site on Emirau, New Ireland, PNG. Journal of Pacific Archaeology 1:62-75. Swadling, P. 1986. “Lapita Shellfishing: Evidence from Sites in the Reef Santa Cruz Group, Southeast Solomon Islands,” in Traditional Fishing in the Pacific, Pacific Anthropological Records 37. Edited by A. Andersan, pp. 137-148. Honolulu: Department of Anthropology, B. P. Bishop Museum.

Tochilin, C., W. R. Dickinson, M. W. Felgate, M. Pecha, P. Sheppard, F. H. Damon, S. Bickler, and G. E. Gehrels. 2012. Sourcing Temper Sands in Ancient Ceramics with U-Pb Ages of Detrital Zircons: A Southwest Pacific Test Case. Journal of Archaeological Science 39:2583-2591. Torrence, R., and C. Stevenson. 2000. “Beyond the Beach: Changing Lapita Landscapes on Garua Island, Papua New Guinea,” in Australian Archaeologist: Collected Papers in Honour of Jim Allen. Edited by A. Anderson and T. Murray, pp. 324-345. Canberra: Coombs Academic Press, Australian National University. White, A. W., T. H. Worthy, S. Hawkins, S. Bedford, and M. Spriggs. 2010. Megafaunal Meiolaniid Horned Turtles Survived until Early Human Settlement in Vanuatu, Southwest Pacific. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 107:15512-15516. Worthy, T., S. Hawkins, S. Bedford, and M. Spriggs. in press. “The Avifauna from the Teouma Lapita Site, Efate Island, Vanuatu, Including a New Genus and Species of Megapode,” Pacific Science. Worthy, T. H., and G. Clark. 2009. “Bird, Mammal and Reptile Remains,” in The Early Prehistory of Fiji, Terra Australis 31. Edited by G. Clark and A. Anderson, pp. 231-258. Canberra: ANU ePress.

47