Professional Documents
Culture Documents
The First Settlement of Remote Oceania T
The First Settlement of Remote Oceania T
Introduction
The human settlement of the remote islands of Oceania beyond the Solomon Islands has
been a topic of enquiry since the eighteenth century. The modern mainstream view relates
' School of Archaeology and Anthropology, The Australian National University, Canberra ACT 0200, Australia
^ Department of Archaeology and Natural History, The Australian National University, Canberra ACT 0200,
Australia
' Micronesian Area Research Center, University of Guam, Mangilao, G U 96923, USA
•* School of Humanities, University of Hong Kong, Pokfulam Road, Hong Kong S.A. R., P R. China
' Archaeological Studies Program, University of the Philippines, Diliman, Quezon City 1101, Philippines
^ Archaeology Division, National Museum of the Philippines, Manila 1000, Philippines
^ School of Archaeology and Museology, Peking University, 5 Yiheyuan Road, Beijing 100871, P. R. China
* Author for correspondence (Email: hsiao-chun.hung@anu.edu.au)
Japan
Kilometres
New Guinea
0 500 1,000 A
Figure 1. Taiwan, the Philippines and the Marianas: I) Eluanbi & Kending; 2) Batanes Islands; 3) Nagsabaran (Cagayan
Valley); 4) Dimolit (east coast of Luzon).
910
Hsiao-chun Hung et al.
b 00 u
(N U U U
-0 03 U
03
B
abi
1 XI
Cali
e §S2 ,g5i O ri
a.
rvoir
u c
r
-l-l
-HI -HI
*^ o
u
ctl
c I I I
"S
COI
s
u g.
4
S "3 P3
alsl
ven tion
ears
-^ 00 ^^ 00
m
S e
ô
pot
rt O VA
n u I
(N
'3 2 I
-0 U £•
03
S -o
c 2¿ +1 -HI +1 -HI -HI
3 o o o o
Si, (N rr, o
00 O 00
t Riti
agei
00 (N
i (N
'w 'C
0 Cu tu
O. rt
-O E -a 5 S
V
B "EH o
Z E
u
|8J
ear lie:
I/O
S £•2
o s JS
O e —• rt
— — c ly) —
<; 'g
u ^ 3 — ^ ^'^ w —'
.feni
ing
J
GN
1 (N
0
>., CQ
mar
s 2
E 3 °
3
lel.
and
e
_û S
rei
911
The first settlement of Remote Oceania
u
PS
-0
1
u
Caliibrat
2 4
t-. os
a.
Ui
•p S"
t
B +1
u g
c
ari
a
COI
eu
nal
oa CA
o o
m
2 +1 +1
B S o o
u •^ - ^
B
O
U
y
y s:
o
(A
+1 +1
i
age (year
CO
_2 w
c
usi
g
ate rial
PO
Híí
B S
"S. E
1
Rei
1
iated for
tuive
ayer
ile,
3
s
cal
'a rt S 5
u c
o
2 *-* "5eu —
.-. . 3-
>Ji -o ü u >>Já
eu >
+1 Ü
u (N xr
(N xf ?
"S. t
(N 1 S
O 'o œ
c
O
-d 3
correi
3 CQ
C
ons are
nti
'S
serv
ô Si
u
s S
labl
refei
Site
912
Hsiao-chun Hung et al.
913
The first settlement of Remote Oceania
Chalan Pi Maug
Unai Chul
Asuncion ^
House of Taga
AGUIJAN
Agrihan^
Pagan^
Alamagang
Guguan^
Satigan^
Anatahan
Medlnilla ,
Hagatna
Tlpalao \
\ Laguas\
Mangilao Salpan
Upland Pago
Aguijan .
Kilometres
0 20 40
Guam^L
Kilometres
100 200
914
Hsiao-chun Hung et al.
Figure 3. Similar pottery decoration involving punctate/dentate and circle-stamping, in combination with incision, ftom: 1)
Nagsabaran, northern Philippines; 2) Achugao, Saipan, Mariana Islands; 3) Site 13 at Lapita, New Caledonia (2, courtesy
of Brian Butler, see Butler 1994; 3, courtesy of Christophe Sand, see Sand 1999: 46).
thus commencing before but overlapping with the earliest Marianas dates (Table 2 and see
supplementary information online).
Of the Cagayan Valley sites, Nagsabaran has been the most productive for defining the
pottery and other material culture of this period (Hung 2005, 2008; Tsang 2007; Piper
et al 2009a). It lies on the south bank of Zabaran Creek, which joins the Cagayan River
from the west, about 22km above its mouth on the north coast of Luzon. Excavations
at this 4.2ha site between 2000 and 2009 have revealed a lower alluvial silt deposit that
contains red-slipped pottery, trapezoidal-sectioned stone adzes (some stepped), baked clay
penannular earrings and two Taiwan jade bracelet fragments. The late Neolithic and Iron
Age layers above the silts are contained within a latge riverine shell midden. The radiocarbon
dates for the lower alluvial layer at Nagsabaran are rather mixed, since much of the alluvium
was clearly re-deposited from elsewhere in the site or its vicinity, and the layer was disturbed
by the digging of some very large postholes from the base of the coveting shell midden.
However, in Table 2 it can be seen that the dates in trenches PI and P7 maintain a reasonable
degree of stratigraphie order. The dating results support an overall range for the Cagayan
red-slipped, stamped and incised pottery between 2000 and 1000 BC.
Basically, the early period Marianas pottery resembles a sub-set of the mote diverse
Nagsabaran pottery. Decoration is also quite rare in Nagsabaran, on about one per cent
of sherds or less, and consists of punctate, circle-stamped and incised motifs, often with
915
The first settlement of Remote Oceania
Figure 4. Decorated pottery fiom the earliest layer at the House of Taga site in Tinian, excavated by Pellett and Spoehr 1961
(photograph courtesy of the Micronesian Area Research Center, University of Guam).
lime-infill. The Nagsabaran motifs, in which one or more rows of stamped circles lie parallel
to incised bands filled with comb-like punctate or dentate stamping (Figure 3, group 1), are
all extremely similar to those of the earliest Marianas Red, as well as to the zonal decoration
on some Lapita pottery from the Santa Cruz Islands (Figure 5, and see Spriggs 1990: 86)
and New Caledonia (Figure 3, group 3). The Nagsabaran pottery includes a greater variety
of vessel forms than occur in the Marianas: for instance, a vertical-walled bowl with a ring
foot, and the large sherds found at this site indicate that decoration sometimes covered most
of the exterior of the vessel.
Similar decorated red-slipped pottery occurs in other Cagayan Valley sites of the second
millennium BC, such as Magapit (Hung 2005, 2008). Circle-stamped pottery was also very
common between about 1300 BC and AD 1 in the Batanes Islands, between Luzon and
Taiwan, although punctate-stamping and the use of incision to define decorative zones do
9J6
Hsiao-chun Hung et al.
m \r\ o
-<}•
U u u u pau pau
?i ÍÍ D „ û 00 .^ u ? u PQ
( » I-^ CN
. o
8
Uó¿óóú o — CN .—
XT rsl
.— (N
—' u-^^2
^tNoai/~,eQpair\eQ pa M ^7 00
00 I I I
Q mO CN (N u^ CN V3
< , •< , t ^ < f ^ - H < ; . - J C ^ l 7 ^ < CO 0O
0
mm00 es 00
- _ 00 —'
CN O '^
.-H
O vr\
(N (N
BS
<N * ^ \O Ö (N
— 00 (N — .—
I I I I I
C C E CC
c c c c c c ^ 'J (U <u nj
qj i> "13 " ^ "^ "O " ^
E E E E E E E E E •E y JJ JJ ^
JJJJJJJ J
E' E' E' E' E" E' E" E' E" E" E'
00 —
• ' iN " ^ t/^ 00 00 ir\ rO ^ U^
I I .^ E* O CN
S s Ss
5 ^ ^ S
o
a.
o CN 0 0 1 ^ Nj-
o — (N (N (N .— — .-H (N
.-H - CN „
CN o o o o o O O O O O
- ^^ K 00
^ oo 00 00 00 t ^ « ^ rCi f^ cTj rTi rri 1^ t ^
00 00
"S fN (N (N (N
:= 2 X X X HX X
u tj u z o o
The first settlement of Remote Oceania
U
u
tion)
CQ
u u
(60
Q
U
m
2 13 CN o
GN
U 1 U
"?
Cal
c
CN CN
ro (N 00
c c c c
13 U u 1 L
G o o o o
_0
E EE E
Convent
GN i/^ o ^~' O O O
o o o o
+1 +1 +1 +1 +1 ^^J- rri «^ (N
M +1 +1
age()
- - 00 q q
oo o
y
«3 SN
I I I I I I I I I I I
..g a> U U
u
-0 3
en
-o
S u Ö Ö Ö g 5 > ^> i>i i>g i>.i i>j
0
•l I I I 1-2 J -2 = = = = =
a
e E E E E t ^ l - I c c c c c
ir\vr\^oq^f^^ u! d c: C C
CTN CN C N ^ \ ^"i ^ ^ ^H
g
1 ni
Q
•8
s
e
c
(S u
"fi "S, PDDDDDDD
J ZZZZZZ22
Tal
Hsiao-chun Hung et al.
Vi
Figure 5. A Lapita sherd fiom Nenumbo, Gawa, Santa Cruz isLinds (Melanesia), showing both the combination ofcircle-
and dentate-stamped zones, and also the cross-in-circle motif that occurs on one of the Nagsabaran sherds shown in Figure 4
(fiom Bellwood 1978: ßg. 9.12, courtesy of the late Roger Green).
not occur here (Bellwood & Dizon 2005). In Taiwan, fairly rare impressed pottery occurs
by about 1500 BC, including circle-stamping in the late Neolithic site of Yingpu in central
Taiwan (Tsang 2000: 70) and punctate-stamping in the Yuanshan assemblage at Dabenkeng
near Taipei (Chang 1969: pis. 82D & 84D). Taiwan, however, has no Neolithic pottery
with both circle- and punctate-stamping, even though it does have the oldest red-slipped
pottery in Island Southeast Asia, this being present in small quantities with incised and
cord-marked pottery in the oldest Neolithic sites (c 3000 BC), becoming dominant after
2200 BC in eastern and southern Taiwan (Hung 2005, 2008). Elsewhere in the Philippines,
the geographic range of the circle- and punctate-stamping represented in the Cagayan Valley
extended at least as far south as Masbate Island in the central Philippines, where similar
punctate-stamped pottery was reported by Solheim (1968).
Elsewhere in Island Southeast Asia, very small amounts of punctuate-stamped pottery
occur in parts of East Malaysia (Sabah) and eastern Indonesia, again in association with red-
slipped surfaces (Chia 2003; Chazine & Ferrie 2008; Peter Lape, Daud Tanudirjo, Truman
Simanjuntak and Anggraeni, pers. comms). But the available illustrated motifs are very small
and difficult to relate precisely to any on Luzon or the Marianas. Because of the importance
919
Tbe first settlement of Remote Oceania
of this pottery style in the Cagayan Valley, it is possible that substantial innovation in pottery
decoration might have taken place on Luzon itself.
From a purely geographical perspective, the north-east coast of Luzon rather than the
inland Cagayan Valley might have been the most likely source for Marianas settlement, but
so far the single known Neolithic site here is Dimolit (Peterson 1974a & b), on Palanan Bay.
This site contains plain red-slipped pottery similar to that reported from the Cagayan Valley
sites, but without any impressed decoration. The closest parallels for the earliest decorated
Marianas Red pottery so far are thus in the Cagayan Valley.
920
Hsiao-chun Hung et al.
recovered from the initial setdement period (Leach &c Davidson 2006; Amesbury 2008b), ~
and most of the occurrences of marlin and dolphinfish lack precise commencement dates. So
it is still unclear to what extent prehistoric Marianas fishermen caught these species between
1500 and 1000 BC. j -
The Eluanbi site in southern Taiwan, c. 2000 BC, has provided good evidence of a ^
contemporary specialised offshore fishing technology (Li 2002a), and a recent analysis a¿
(Campos & Piper 2009) throws surprising light on Neolithic seagoing capabilities in this c¿,
region. In total. Pit 4 in Eluanbi II produced 3581 fragments of bone, of which 2 5 7 3
were marine fish (71.85 per cent), 516 mammal (14.41 per cent), 3 0 3 marine turtle (8.46
per cent), and the rest unidentified. As in the Marianas sites, the fish bones suggest the
dominance of specialised offshore fishing for very large groupers (Serranidae), dolphinfish,
and other large pelagic carnivores such as marlin or sailfish. Dolphinfish bones, but so far
not marlin, also occur in two separate occupation layers at Savidug in the Batanes Islands,
dated to 1200 B C - A D 1, and then after A D 1000 (Campos 2009).
Fishing gear is rare in Marianas archaeological sites in the earliest period, 1500—1000
BC, but the few known pieces include fragments of simple one-piece rotating hooks made
oí Isognomon or rarely Turbo shell. Later contexts, mostly post-dating A D 1000, include the
same simple rotating hooks plus a range of V-shaped or L-shaped gorges, and c o m p o u n d
two-piece hooks and trolling lures (Thompson 1932; Spoehr 1957; Reinman 1970; Ray
1981). At one site in C u a m , several bone and shell points of trolling hooks were found
in layers post-dating A D 9 0 0 - 1 0 0 0 , but one possible nacreous shell lure shank was in a
layer pre-dating 500 B C (Dilli etal. 1998: 215). Simple shell one-piece rotating hooks and
possible trolling lures with rod-shaped and end-grooved stone shanks and bone points also
occur at Kending (Li 2002b: 69) and Eluanbi II in southern Taiwan, c. 2 0 0 0 B C (Li 1983),
together with gorges and net-sinkers (Li 1997, 2002a, 2002b: 58, 6 3 ; Tsang etal. 2006).
T h e trolling hook points found in both the Marianas and southern Taiwan are similar in
shape, even though the dates for the Marianas specimens are currently younger.
Archaeological fishing gear from the Cagayan Valley sites is limited in quantity, but two
fish gorges, straight rather than L-shaped, have been found in the upper shell midden {c.
500 BC) at Nagsabaran, made respectively of a pig lower canine and a dog upper canine
(Piper et al. 2009b). Both were split longitudinally and provided with a notch to secure the
line. A similar specimen dating to c. 500 B C made from a pig canine was recovered from
Anaro in the Batanes Islands.
In summary, it is clear that offshore trolling for large pelagic fish was carried out by at least
2000 B C in southern Taiwan, by 1200 BC in the Batanes Islands and perhaps by 500 B C in
the Marianas. We are not yet entitled to assume that this technology was carried by the first
settlers of the Marianas but, given the restricted occurrence in the western Pacific of this type
of fishing for large pelagic prey, and the associated equipment, even a secondary introduction
from the Taiwan-Luzon region to the Marianas would still be highly significant.
921
The first settlement of Remote Oceania
MARIANA ISLANDS
red-slipped circle- and
Limit of Neolithic red-slipped punctate-stamped pottery
circle- and punctate-stamped 1500-1400 BC
before 1500 BC
Lin:iit of Lapita settlement
in Near Ooeania
1350-1300 BC
_ Soiomoni
; Islands
Language groups
Fofmosan
Western Malayo-Polynesian
Oceanic
j I Non-Austronesian
Kilometres „
2.000 A
The major Austronesian linguistic subgroups and the early distributions of red-slipped and stamped pottery in the
Taiwan/Philippine region and the Marianas. Abo shown is the spread of Lapita pottery in Island Melanesia and western
Polynesia, so far without any definite antecedent in Island Southeast Asia, south of the PhiUppines.
Structure, within the larger Austronesian language family (Blust 2009) (Figure 6). WMP
languages are spoken in the Mariana and Palau Islands in western Micronesia, the
Philippines, Malaysia, much of Indonesia, coastal southern Vietnam, and as far west as
Madagascar. Their origins, together with those of all other extra-Formosan Austronesian
languages, can be sourced to a linguistic reconstruction, termed Proto-Malayo-Polynesian,
that underwent its initial period of diflFerentiation somewhere in northern Island Southeast
Asia. The Formosan languages of Taiwan are not Malayo-Polynesian, and trace back to deeper
separations in the overall Austronesian family tree. The major Malayo-Polynesian language
subgroup known as Oceanic, associated at its proto-language stage with Lapita settlement in
922
Hsiao-chun Hung et al.
the Bismarck Archipelago, was also a fairly early separation from Proto-Malayo-Polynesian
(Ross etal. 1998; Pawley 2002).
The WMP classification for Chamorro reflects a linguistic origin separate in geographical
terms from that of the Lapita-associated Oceanic grouping, and Chamorro and Proto- j ^
Oceanic share no unique subgrouping innovations. Chamorro reflects an origin directly ^
within Island Southeast Asia, not western Oceania. As a result, most linguists currently a¿
favour the Philippines as the most likely source for Chamorro and the inhabitants of the p¿
Marianas. Both Blust (2000) and Reid (2002) suggested the central or northern Philippines,
with Chamorro as a primary or at least very early split from Proto-Malayo-Polynesian.
Current research on Chamorro mtDNA indicates a rarity of the widespread Oceanic
mtDNA haplogroup B4, which is also differentiated in the Marianas from other Malayo-
Polynesian populations by a unique mutation at base 16114. Instead, most Chamorro
belong to haplogroup E lineages that occur widely in the Philippines and Indonesia (Vilar
etal. 2008; Tabbada etal. 2010).
Conclusion
The earliest Marianas Red pottery records the first human settlement in Remote Oceania,
between 1500 and 1400 BC, slightly pre-dating the earliest Lapita pottery in Near Oceania
at 1350-1300 BC (Summerhayes 2007, in press; Kirch 2010). Over 20 years ago, Spriggs
(1990: 20) emphasised Marianas Red as the smoking gun that required an insular Southeast
Asian origin for the first colonists of the remote Pacific Islands (see also Spriggs 2007: 113-
14). Civen the uncertain internal classification of WMP languages, we propose that the first
setders in the Mariana Islands, around 1500-1400 BC, shared an ease of communication
with other WMP communities in Island Southeast Asia, facilitating co-mingling of groups
and possible shifting of residence over long distances. According to this view, multiple related
groups potentially could have moved quickly in several directions at the same time.
A drift voyage at the mercy of dominant winds and currents would have been extremely
unlikely to reach the Marianas from any source area (Scott Fitzpatrick, pers. comm.; see also
Callaghan & Fitzpatrick 2008), so an intentional voyage of exploration is more probable.
Actual settlement required sufticient numbers of males and females, plus at least some
imported subsistence plants, even perhaps animals eaten en route, so it is likely that a
degree of planning was involved. While the first explorers to discover the Mariana Islands may
have possessed many cultural traits and skills shared commonly throughout a broad region,
the subsequent successful colonisation indicates strong similarities of pottery type and
language with the northern Philippines. As Rainbird (2003: 85) has also observed, such
a settlement of the Marianas from the Philippines 'would constitute the longest sea-crossing
undertaken by that time in human history. ' Therefore, the study of Chamorro origins is not
only an issue of Austronesian migration, but also a significant episode in the evolution of
human voyaging technology.
Acknowledgements
Thanks to Dt Btian Butler (Centet fot Atchaeological Investigations, Southern Illinois University, Carbondale)
for infotmation on Achugao pottery. We deeply appreciate Prof. Martin Carver's valuable suggestions for
923
The first settlement of Remote Oceania
improving this article. The October-November 2009 excavations at Nagsabaran were funded by the Chiang
Ching-kuo Foundation (Taipei) and the Australian Research Council, and authorised by the National Museum
of the Philippines. The research of Dr Philip Piper was partly funded by a grant from the Office of the Vice
Chancellor for Research and Development, University of the Philippines.
924
Hsiao-chun Hung et al.
- 2008. Migration and cultural interaction in southern PAWLEY, A. & M. PAWLEY. 1994. Early Austronesian
coastal China, Taiwan and the northern terms for canoe parts and seafaring, in A. Pawley &
Philippines, 3000 BC to AD 1. Unpublished PhD M. Ross (ed.) Austronesian terminologies: continuity
dissertation. The Australian National University. and change (Pacific Linguistics Series C 127):
KIRCH, P.V. 1995. The Lapita culture of western 329-61. Canberra: Department of Linguistics,
Melanesia in the context of Austronesian origins Research School of Pacific and Asian Studies, The
and dispers.ils, in P.J-K. Li, C.H. Tsang, Y.K. Australian National University. rt
Huang, D.A. Ho oí C.Y. Tseng (ed.) Austronesian PELLETT, M . & A. Sl>OEHR. 1961. Marianas
studies relating to Taiwan (Symposium series of the archaeolog)': report on an excavation on Tinian.
Institute of History and Philology, Academia Sinica
Journal of the Polynesia Society 70: 321-5.
3): 255—94. Taipei: Academia Sínica.
PETERSON, W . E . 1974a. Summary report of two
- 2000. On the road of the winds: an archaeological archaeological sites from northeastern Luzon.
history of the Paciftc islands before European contact. Archaeology and Physical Anthropology in Oceania 9:
Berkeley (CA): University of California Press. 26-35.
- 2010. Peopling of the Pacific: a holistic - 1974b. Anomalous archaeology sites of northern
anthropological perspective. Annual Review of Luzon and models of Southeast Asian prehistory.
Anthropology 39: 1.^1-48. Unpublished PhD dissertation. University of
LEACH, B.F. & J.M. DAVIDSON. 2006. Analysis of faunal Hawai'i.
material ftom an archaeological site complex at PIPER, P.J., H-C. HUNG, E Z . CAMPOS, P. BELLWOOD &
Mangilao, Guam (Technical report .38). Wellington: R. SANTIAGO. 2009a. A 4000 year-old introduction
Museum of New Zealand, Te Papa Tongarewa. of domestic pigs into the Philippine Archipelago:
Ll, K-C. 198.3. Report of archaeological investigations in implications for understanding routes of human
the 0-luan-pi Park at the southern tip of Taiwan. migration through Island Southeast Asia and
Taipei: Kending Scenic Area Administration, Wallacea. Antiquity 83: 687-95.
Ministry of Communications; Department of PIPER, P.J., EZ. CAMPOS & H-C. HUNG. 2009b. A
Anthropology, National Taiwan University; study of the animal bones recovered from pits 9 and
Council for Cultural Planning and Development, 10 at the site of Nagsabaran in northern Luzon,
Executive Yuan (in Chinese). Philippines. Hukay 14: 47-90.
Ll, K-T. 1997. Change and stability in the dietary PREGILL, G . K . & D.W. STEADMAN. 2009. The
system of a prehistoric coastal population in prehistory and biogeography of terrestrial
southern Taiwan. Unpublished PhD dissertation, vertebrates on Guam, Mariana Islands. Diversity
Arizona State University. and Distributions 15: 983-96.
- 2002a. Prehistoric marine fishing adaptation in RAINBIRD, P. 2003. The arcbaeobgy ofMicronesia.
southern Taiwan. Journal of East Asian Archaeology Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
3(1-2): 47-74. RAY, E.R. 1981. The material culture of prehistoric
- 2002b. Historical remains in Hengchun Peninsula. Tarague Beach, Guam. Unpublished MA
Kending: Kending National Park (in Chinese). dissertation, Arizona State University.
MOORE, D . R . 1983. Measuring change in Marianas REID, L.A. 2002. Morphosyntactic evidence for the
pottery: the sequence ot pottery production at position of Chamorro in the Austronesian language
Tarague, Guam. Unpublished MA dissertation. family, in R.S. Bauer (ed.) Collected papers on
University of Guam. Southeast Asian and Paciftc languages (Pacific
- 2002. Guams prehistoric pottery and its chronological Linguistics 530): 63-94. Canberra: Department of
sequence. Report prepared for the International Linguistics, Research School of Pacific and Asian
Archaeological Research Institute, Inc., Honolulu, Studies, The Australian National University.
and the Department of the Navy, Pacific Division, REIMER, P.J., M.G.L. BAILLIE, E. BARD, A. BAYLISS, J . W .
Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Pearl BECK,C.J.H. BERTRAND, P.G. BLACKWELL, C.E.
Harbor, HI, by Micronesian Archaeological BUCK, G . S . BURR, K . B . CUTLER, P.E. DAMON, R.L.
Research .Services, Guam. EDWARDS, R . G . FAIRBANKS, M . FRIEDRICH, T.P.
PAWLEY, A. 2002. The Austronesian dispersal: GUILDERNSON, A . G . H O G C , K.A. HUGHEN, B .
languages, technologies and people, in R Bellwood KROMER, G . MCCORMAC, S. MANNING, C . BRONK
& C. Renfrew (ed.) Examining the farming/language RAMSEY, R . W . REIMER, S. REMMELLE, J . R .
dispersal hypothesis (McDonald Institute SouTHON, M. STUIVER, S. TÁLAMO, EW. TAYI.OR,
J. VAN DER PLICHT, C . E . WEYHENMEYER. 2004.
monographs): 251-73. Cambridge: McDonald
Institute for Archaeological Research. IntCalO4 terrestrial radiocarbon age calibration,
0-26 cal kyr BP. Radiocarbon 46: 1029-1058.
925
The first settlement of Remote Oceania
REINMAN, F.M. 1970. Fishhook variability: implications STUIVER, M . & P.J. REIMER. 1993. Extended '''C data
for the history and distribution offishinggear in base and revised CALIB 3.0 '''C age calibration
Oceania, in R.C. Green & M. Kelly (ed.) Studies in program. Radiocarbon 35: 215—30.
Oceanic culture history: papers presented at
SUMMKRHAYES, G.R. 2007. The rise and
Wenner-Gen Symposium on Oceanic Culture History,
transformations of Lapita in the Bismarck
Sigatoka, Eiji, August 1969, Volume I (Pacific
Archipelago, in S. Chiu & C. Sand (ed.) Erom
Anthropological Records 11 ): 47-60. Honolulu
Southeast Asia to the Pacific: archaeological
(HI): Bernice P. Bishop Museum.
perspectives on the Austronesian expansion and the
Ross, M., A. PAWLEY & M. OSMOND. 1998. The lexicon Lapita cultural complex: Xl'i—ll. Taipei: Academia
of proto Oceanic: the culture and environment of Sinica.
ancestral Oceanic society. Volume 1: material culture - In press. Lapita interaction: an update, in M.Z. Gadu
(Pacific Linguistics series C 152). Canberra: Pacific & H.M. Lin (ed.) 2009 International Symposium of
Linguistics, Research School of Pacific and Asian Austronesian Studies. Taidong: National Museum of
Studies, The Australian National University. Prehistory.
SAND, C . 1999. Archéologie des origines: le lapita TABBADA, K.A., J. TREJAUT, J.H. Loo, Y.M. CHEN, M .
calédonien (Cahiers de l'archéologie en LIN, M . MIRAZÓN-LAHR, T . KIVISILD & M.C.A. DE
Nouvelle-Calédonia 10). Nouméa: Service des UNGRIA. 2010. Philippine mitochondrial DNA
Musées et du Patrimoine de Nouvelle-Calédonie. diversity: a populated viaduct between Taiwan and
SHUTLER, R.J.R. 1999. The relationship of red-slipped Indonesia? Molecular Biology and Evolution 27(1):
and lime-impressed pottery of the southern 21-31.
Philippines to that of Micronesia and the Lapita of
THIEL, B. 1987. Excavations at the Lal-Lo shell
Oceania, in J. C. Galipaud & I. Lilley (ed.) Le
middens, northeast Luzon, Philippines. Asian
Pacifique de 5000 à 2000 avant le présent:
Perspectives 27(1): 71-94.
suppléments à l'histoire d'une colonization: actes du
colloque Vanuatu, 31 juillet-6 août. 521-9. Paris: THOMPSON, L . M . \932. Archaeology of the Marianas
IRD. Islands (Bernice P. Bishop Museum. Bulletin 100).
Honolulu (HI): Bishop Museum.
SOLHEIM II, W.G. 1968. The Batungan cave sites,
Masbate, Philippines, in W.G. Solheim II (ed.) TSANG, C - H . 2000. The archaeology of Taiwan. Taipei:
Anthropology at the Eighth Pacific Science Congress of Council for Cultural Affairs, Executive Yuan.
the Pacific Science Association and the Eourth - 2007 Recent archaeological discoveries in Taiwan and
Ear-Eastern Prehistory Congress, Quezon City, northern Luzon: implications for Austronesian
Philippines, 1953 (Asian and Pacific Archaeology expansion, in S. Chiu & C. Sand (ed.) Erom
series 2). Honolulu (HI): Social Science Research Southeast Asia to the Pacific: archaeological
Institute, University of Hawai'i. perspectives on the Austronesian expansion and the
SPOEHR, A. 1957. Marianas prehistory: archaeological Lapita cultural complex: 75-103. Taipei: Academia
survey and excavations on Saipan, Tinian and Rota Sinica.
(Fieldiana: anthropology 48). Chicago (IL): TSANG, C - H . , K . T LI, & C.Y. CHU. 2006. Xian Min
Chicago Natural History Museum. Lvji ¡Footprints of the ancestors: archaeological
- 1973. Zamboanga and Sulu: an archaeological approach discoveries in Tainan science-based industrial park].
to ethnic diversity (Ethnology Monographs 1). Tainan: Tainan County Government (in Chinese).
Pittsburgh (PA): Department of Anthropology, ViLAR, M., D. LYNCH, C . CHAN, D . REIFF, R.M.
University of Pittsburgh. GARRUTO & J.K. LuM. 2008. Peopling of the
SPRIGGS, M . 1990. The changing face of Lapita: Marianas: an mtDNA perspective. Abstract from
transformation of a design, in M. Spriggs (ed.) the 33"' Annual Meeting of the Human Biology
Lapita design, form and composition: proceedings of Association held in Columbus, Ohio, April 9—10,
the Lapita Design Workshop, Canberra, Australia, 2008. American Journal of Human Biology 20: 237.
December 1988 (Occasional papers in prehistory WlCKI-ER, S. 2004. Modelling colonisation and
19): 83—122. Canberra: Department of Prehistory, migration in Micronesia from a zooarchaeological
Research School of Pacific Studies, The Australian perspective, in M. Mondini, S. Munoz & S.
National University. Wickler (ed.) Colonisation, migration and marginal
- 2007. The Neolithic and Austronesian expansion areas: a zooarchaeological approach (Proceedings of
within Island Southeast Asia and into the Pacific, in the 9 Conference of the International Council of
S. Chiu & C. Sand (ed.) Erom Southeast Asia to the Zooarchaeology, Durham, August 2002): 28-40.
Pacific: archaeological perspectives on the Austronesian Oxford: Oxbow.
expansion and the Lapita cultural complex-. 104-140.
Taipei: Academia Sinica.
926
Copyright of Antiquity is the property of Antiquity and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple
sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print,
download, or email articles for individual use.