Download THE INITIAL SETTLEMENT OF REMOTE OCEANIA: THE

The Initial Settlement of Remote Oceania: The Evidence from Physical Anthropology
THE INITIAL SETTLEMENT OF REMOTE OCEANIA:
THE EVIDENCE FROM PHYSICAL ANTHROPOLOGY
reviews of the physical anthropology of the Pacific include those by Allbrook
(1974), Howells (1973, 1979, 1997), and Howells and Schwidetzky (1981).
Michael Pietrusewsky·
Abstract
This review examines the evidence from physical anthropology for
testing some of the current archaeologicalliinguistic models that
attempt to explain the initial settlement of Remote Oceania. The
evidence surveyed includes some of the earliest studies in
anthropology that compiled data on the living (anthropometry,
somatology, and classical genetic marker data) and the recently
living (museum cranial collections) inhabitants of Oceania. Also
examined in this review are the earliest human skeletal remains from
the Pacific, some associated with the Lapita Cultural Complex,
molecular genetic evidence including ancient DNA, and the evidence
from multivariate analyses of cranial measurements.
The physical and biological characteristics of the indigenous
inhabitants of Oceania and the Pacific have long attracted the attention of both
casual observers and those trained in the field of physical anthropology. This
review focuses on studies in physical anthropology that attempt to understand
the relationships and origins of the people who inhabit this island world. The
evidence from physical/biological anthropology includes observations on the
living as well as the dead. Traditional measurements (anthropometry) and non­
metric observations (anthroposcopy) recorded in the living were later
supplemented with genetic, dermatoglyphic, and physiological data. More
recently, studies of molecular genetic data (e.g., mitochondrial DNA, Y
chromosome) of Pacific peoples have taken center stage. For skeletal remains,
physical anthropologists have available to them an array of measurements and
non-metric features that can be recorded in teeth, skulls and skeletons of o'nce
living people. Some of the earliest human skeletal remains in Remote Oceania
are those associated with the Lapita Cultural Complex. Retrieval of aDNA
from these and other skeletal remains from the Pacific have attracted attention
in recent years as well.
After surveying some of the earliest descriptions of the inhabitants of
the Pacific, studies that use biological data, especially recent multivariate
analyses of cranial measurements, are summarized to address the current
models that attempt to explain the initial settlement of Remote Oceania. Earlier
Department of Anthropology University of Hawai. 2424 Maile Way, Saunders
Hall 346, Honolulu, Hawaii 96822. USA. <[email protected]>
Oceanic prehistory and models for the initial peopling of remote
Oceania
Two great human colonization events continue to influence discussions
of the prehistory, people, and cultures of Oceania (Thomas 1999). Human
colonization of Sahul and the neighboring islands of Near Oceania, beginning
at least 40,000 years ago, represent the first major settlement event (Kirch
1997). A second colonization event, beginning approximately 3,500 years ago,
is linked with the development and spread of the Lapita Cultural Complex and
Austronesian languages (Green 1979; Kirch 1997; Pawley 1999, 2002). The
descendants of this later human diaspora ultimately occupied the previously
uninhabited regions of Remote Oceania north, east and south of the boundary
between near and remote Oceania (Green 1991a, 1997). The majority of
evidence from physical anthropolo'gy, historical linguistics and archaeology
suggests that the ancestors of both of these colonizations are primarily of
Asiatic origin, but the timing and pattern of the initial peopling of Remote
Oceania continues to spark controversy.
Currently, there are several major sets of models, based largely on
historical linguistic and archaeological evidence, that attempt to explain the
initial settlement of Remote Oceania. These models generally focus on the
origins of the Lapita Cultural Complex, the coincident dispersal of
Austronesian languages of the central Pacific region (proto-Oceanic
languages), and events that are mainly seen as having origins in Near Oceania.
The following discussion is based on a recent summary of these models (Green
2003; Matisoo-Smith and Robbins 2004).
•
"Express Train to Polynesia" (ETP) model (Bellwood 1978; Blust 1984­
85; Diamond 1988, 2001; Pawley and Ross 1993) focuses on a relatively
rapid initial dispersal of people and culture from Southeast Asia, probably
Taiwan or neighboring mainland China (according to historical linguistic
evidence), first to Near Oceania and then to Remote Oceania. Strict
interpretation of this model allows for little or no contact with indigenous
populations along the way. This model does not address later admixture
between Austronesians and the indigenous non-Austronesian peoples of
geographical Melanesia (see Hurles et al. 2003).
•
"Bismarck Archipelago (Melanesian) Indigenous Inhabitants" (BAIl)
model in its extreme view (originally referred to as the Indigenous
Melanesian Origins model) argues for the indigenous development of the
Lapita Cultural Complex in Near Oceania with no input from Southeast
Asia (Allen 1984; White et al. 1988).
320
321
Pietrusewsky, M. 2006 The initial settlement of remote Oceania: the evidence from physical anthropology. In T. Simanjuntak, I.H.E. Pojoh and M. Hisyam (eds.)
Austronesian Diaspora and the Ethnogenesis of People in Indonesian Archipelago. Proceedings ofthe International Symposium, pp. 320-347. Jakarta, Indonesia:
Indonesian Institute of Sciences, LIPI Press.
The Initial Settlement 01 Remote Oceania: The Evidence from Physical Anthropology
•
"Slow Boat to (Melanesia) the Bismarcks" (SBB) model suggests that
there was substantial interaction between Austronesians and the indigenous
(non-Austronesian Papuan) speakers within a "voyaging corridor" that
stretches from eastern Indonesia to the Bismarck and Solomon Islands
(Irwin 1992) approximately 6,000 to 3,500 BP followed by a relatively
rapid expansion out into Remote Oceania at approximately 3, I00 BP. This
model is primarily supported by molecular genetic data especially the
paternally transmitted Y chromosome (Kayser et al. 2000; Oppenheimer
and Richards 200 I a, 200 Ib; Richards et al. 1998).
•
"The Voyaging Corridor/Entangled Bank Triple I" (VC Triple-I) is an
extension of the SSB models that stresses a combination of processes
allowing for the intrusion of new people and ideas along with integration
with the indigenous inhabitants of Near Oceania (Melanesia), as well as the
innovation of new and unique elements in this region (Green 1991 b;
Terrell and Welch 1997; Terrell et at. 200 I).
•
The Mobile Founding Migrant (MFM) category of models identified by
Green (2003) is the only set of models to focus on the Lapita settlement of
Remote Oceania itself, a process that is described as being both rapid and
unstable. This group of models derives from the 'Colonizer' (Green 1994)
and similar models.
First impressions
Some of the first descriptions (e.g. Forster 1996 [1778]) of the
indigenous inhabitants of Oceania were those crafted by the early explorers,
naturalists, missionaries, traders, and other visitors in the Pacific. Early on
there was considerable speculation about the relationships and origins of these
indigenous peoples especially those of Remote Oceania like those found in the
journals of Captain Cook (Beaglehole 1967, 1968, 1969). Some of the first
recorded· observations that document the similarities among the far-flung
Polynesians are also found in Captain Cook's journals.
Among the earliest studies in physical anthropology of the Pacific
were analyses of skulls and other human skeletal remains located in museums,
collections that were made during early ethnographic expeditions to the Pacific
(e.g. Allen 1898; Davis 1867; Flower 1879; Quatrefages and Hamy 1882;
Turner 1884-6; Wagner 1937). Following these earliest publications in
physical anthropology studies of the living inhabitants of the region resulted in
fairly extensive compilations of anthropometric and somatological data on
Pacific Islanders (e.g. Shapiro 1930, 1942; Shapiro and Buck 1936; Sullivan
1923a 1923b).
322
The Initial Settlement 01 Remote Oceania: The Evidence from Physical Anthropology
As was typical of the time, these early, often very industrious, efforts
in physical anthropology were frozen in what has since become known as the
typological paradigm, a theory that emphasized individuals rather than
populations. The people of Australia and Melanesia were classified routinely as
"Australoids" and those of Polynesia and Micronesia as 'Mongoloids' (Coon
1965). Typological classifications were used to explain the patterns of
biological variation among Pacific Islanders as the products of successive
waves of new immigrants who entered the region carrying physical features
representative of their ancestral groups. New combinations of traits found
among the living were explained as the result of mixing of these racial types
(e.g. Dixon 1920; Sullivan 1924). These first attempts to understand the
biological variability of Pacific Islanders resulted in copious amounts of
descriptive information but little else. With the advent of sounder theoretical
foundations that emphasized the study of populations rather than individuals,
newer mathematical approaches, and the availability of computers, the
assessments of past biological relationships and the origins of Pacific peoples
are on much firmer footing than was the case a century ago.
Anthropometrylsomatology
W.W. Howells' principal components analysis of seven anthropo­
metric variables (e.g. stature, head length and breadth etc.) recorded in 15\
Pacific samples provided a simplified but informative picture of the biological
variability present in Oceania (Howells 1970, 1979; Howells and Schwidetzky
1981). The three major branches identified in this analysis included an
Australian branch, a highly varied Melanesian branch, and a Polynesian
branch. Micronesians were generally found to align with Melanesians.
Unfortunately, comparable data for populations living in Indonesia and East
and Southeast Asia were not included making it difficult to test archaeological
and linguistic models for the peopling of Remote Oceania. However, the
clustering of.!ill Australian and a few Melanesian samples in one major group
and all Polynesian, Fijian, and some Polynesian Outliers into another group,
suggest separate origins for these two contrasting Oceanic groups.
Somatological features (e.g. skin color, hair form, nose form, facial profile etc.)
display similarly contrasting states in Polynesians and Melanesians, which
again reflect past affiliations (Howells 1979, 1997; Howells and Schwidetzky
1981).
Polynesian phenotype
Although differences exist, the biological variation observed in
Polynesians has been described as relatively homogeneous, an observation that
has led to the recognition of a Polynesian phenotype (Houghton 1996; Howells
323
The Initial Settlement of Remote Oceania: The Evidence from Physical Anthropology
1973, 1979; Howells and Schwidetzky 1981; Marshall and Snow 1956;
Shapiro and Buck 1936). A similar observation cannot be made for the
inhabitants living within the geographical boundaries of Melanesia and
Micronesia.
The tall stature, robust bodies, and other distinctive features of
Polynesian skulls, teeth, and skeletons have been interpreted by Houghton as
adaptations to the cold ocean environment, the consequence of long periods of
ocean voyaging, living on small islands, and sea-related activities such as
voyaging and fishing (Houghton 1990, 1991); though others (e.g. Van Dijk
1991) disagree. However, there is considerable agreement among physical
anthropologists that the distinctive phenotype observed in Polynesians could
not have arisen from any population inhabiting Melanesia.
Genetic evidence: classic genetic marker data,
chromosome, nuclear DNA, and RAT DNA
mtDNA, Y­
Stochastic processes (genetic drift) and the effects of migration (gene
flow) during and following the initial settlement of Remote Oceania have
rendered earlier blood group genetic studies almost meaningless for
deciphering the population history of the Pacific (Simmons 1965). While
analyses that utilized classic genetic marker systems generally agreed on an
Asian homeland for the people of Remote Oceania, there was much less
agreement on the patterns of settlement and the timing of these events in the
early history of the Pacific.
Studies of the human leukocyie antigen (HLA) system provide much
better evidence for past events in the Pacif)c than those based on classic blood
group genetic polymorphisms. Studies of the HLA in the Pacific by
Serjeantson (1985, 1989) indicate that the ancestors of the Polynesians moved
along the north coast of New Guinea rather than through Micronesia before
arriving in western Polynesia. Australian, non-Austronesian Melanesian, and
island Melanesian samples form a separate cluster.
Work with hemoglobin and globin gene variants in the Pacific have
provided new opportunities for tracing past human population movements (Hill
et al. 1989; Oppenheimer 1998). For example, to account for the dominant u­
globin gene deletion found in Polynesians, Austronesian speakers of the
Bismarck Archipelago, and island Melanesia, Oppenheimer and Richards
(2003:292) have suggested that the ancestors of the Polynesians may have
traveled to Remote Oceania via islands 3500 years ago in the voyaging
corridor around or off the north coast of New Guinea such as in the Bismarck
Archipelago. A Gm blood haplotype found primarily in Austronesian speakers,
one that apparently confers some resistance to malaria, also has implications
324
The Initial Settlement 01 Remote Oceania: The Evidence from Physical Anthropology
for tracing Austronesian-speaking population movements in the Pacific (Clark
and Kelly 1993).
Initial work with the maternally inherited DNA from the mitochondria
(mtDNA) seemed to support the Express Train to Polynesian model (Gibbons
200 I). Non-Asian mitochondrial lineages have been identified in people
occupying Remote Oceania, including lineages that can be traced to Near
Oceania, but other lineages, notably the ('Polynesian motif), may have
originated in eastern Indonesia (Wallacea) (Richards et al. 1998).
Studies of the paternally inherited Y-chromosome in Pacific
populations suggest a "Melanesian" or Eastern Indonesian origin rather than
southeast China or Taiwan for the predominant lineage found in Remote
Oceania, prompting early workers to purpose the Slow Boat to the Bismarcks
model (Kayser et al. 2000; Hurles et al. 2002). However, these researchers and
others (Hage and Marck 2003) also identified a number of Island Southeast
Asian-derived lineages in both Near and Remote Oceania which may suggest a
different settlement pattern or differential gene flow between males and
females in the founding groups than that suggested by the mtDNA evidence
(Matisoo-Smith and Robins 2004). Analyses of biparentally inherited genetic
(short tandem repeat) loci show similar results (Lum et al. 2002).
Studies of rat mtDNA (Matisoo-Smith and Robins 2004) also point to
Island Southeast Asia, in particular the Wallacea region, as the likely
"homeland" of the people and culture who would ultimately go on to account
for the initial settlement of Remote Oceania.
Overall, studies of both mtDNA (human and rat) and Y chromosome
variation in the Pacific have reached very similar conclusions regarding the
initial settlement of Remote Oceania. First, the initial inhabitants of Remote
Oceania share a common origin in a region that extends from Island Southeast
Asia (notably southern Wallacea or Sulawesi, Halmahera, Lesser Sunda
Islands, Maluku and Timor) to the Bismarck Archipelago and North Coastal
New Guinea. Second, Evidence from maternally, paternally, and biparentally
inherited molecular genetic markers point to admixture between Austronesian
migrants and the indigenous groups that they encountered during their initial
movements across near Oceania. Third, central Micronesia and Polynesia have
distinct and separate settlement histories that include a significant amount of
post-settlement gene flow (Hurles et al. 2002; Lum and Cann 2000). Finally,
differences between mtDNA and V-chromosome diversity in the Pacific have
been interpreted as possibly representing differential settlement or different
patterns of gene flow between males and females in the founding populations
of Remote Oceania (Hage and Marck 2003; Matisoo-Smith and Robins 2004).
We now tum our attention to human skeletal remains from the Pacific.
325
The Initial Settlement of Remote Oceania: The Evidence from Physical Anthropology
Lapita skeletons and ancient DNA studies
The human skeletal remains found in association with the Lapita
Cultural Complex are an obvious source of infonnation regarding the
biological antecedents of the inhabitants of Remote Oceania (Green 1989,
1994, 1997; Houghton 1980, 1989; Pietrusewsky 1989a, 1989b, 1990c, 1996;
van Dijk 1993).
Unfortunately, there are very few human remains associated with the
Lapita Cultural Complex. Not counting recent discoveries such as the 13
headless burials found at the Teouma site, Efate Island in central Vanuatu
(Bedford and Spriggs n.d.), the number of Lapita sites containing human
skeletal remains still stands at only eight (Table I). Two of these sites are
located in Near Oceania while the rest are found in Remote Oceania. With the
exception of Watom (East New Britain) the remains from these sites represent
portions of only one or two individuals. The Lapita-associated remains are very
incomplete and poorly preserved; there are only two partially restored skulls
available for comparisons. The most complete bone from the skull is the
mandible.
A further complicating matter of using the Lapita skeletal material to
represent the ancestors of the Polynesians is that most of these skeletons are
from the tenninal phases (ca. 2500 BP) of the Lapita Cultural Complex
(3600-2500 BP) while others post-date it.
Several of the dental and skeletal features (e.g. tall stature, rocker jaws,
flattened upper femoral shafts, oval-shaped fovea etc.) observed in the
skeletons associated with Lapita pottery have also been documented in modern
Polynesians, but none of the traits can be considered derived in the sense that
they are exclusive to the inhabitants of Remote Oceania. Several of the traits
(e.g. small tooth size, broad mandible, and lack of strongly marked muscle
attachments) in these skeletons appear to have no analogue anywhere in the
Pacific.
Multivariate analyses using the Lapita skeletons have been attempted
(e.g. Pietrusewsky 1985, 1989a, 1989b). The Lapita mandibles invariably
occupy isolated positions in these representations but otherwise no consistent
pattern of relationship emerges. This is not surprising given the number of
variables used and the extremely small sample sizes. Given the condition and
relatively late dates for many of these specimens, it is not surprising that many
of the skeletons associated with the Lapita Cultural Complex resemble the
current inhabitants of eastern Melanesia (Pietrusewsky 2001; Pietrusewsky et
al. 1998). Many more specimens, including earlier dated specimens and more
complete specimens are needed before more definitive statements about the
biological relationships can be made.
326
The Initial Settlement of Remote Oceania: The Evidence from Physical Anthropology
The results of studies of ancient human mtDNA in prehistoric samples
from archeological sites in the Pacific, including some that are associated with
the Lapita Cultural Complex, have been interpreted by Hagelberg and Clegg
(1993) as indicating a Melane5ian origin for modern Polynesians in contrast to
a Southeast Asian origin suggested by molecular genetic studies of the living
(Melton et al. 1995; Redd et al. 1995; Richards et al. 1998).
Biodistance studies
Before the advent of studies of both classic and molecular genetic data,
studies in physical anthropology concentrated on metric and non-metric
variation in living and the skeletons of once living people. Studies of dental,
cranial, and skeletal variation (morphology) continue to attract interest in the
discipline.
Determining relatedness between human groups has been at the core of
studies in physical anthropology since its inception. Because of the underlying
genetic basis for dental and skeletal variation, this category of biological
variation continues to yield important information about the biological history
of human groups and their relationship to other human groups (Larsen 2002).
Today, the measurement of relatedness or divergence between groups based on
the analysis of skeletal and dental traits is commonly referred to as biological
distance or "biodistance" studies. The basic underlying assumption of this
approach is that groups that are found to share skeletal and dental features are
more closely related than those groups not sharing the same attributes. The
results of such studies show good agreement with genetic, historic, and
linguistic reconstructions of population relationships and history.
The rationale for the continued use of measurements in physical
anthropology is grounded on the following: the precision and repeatability of
measurements and measurement data; the conservative nature of metric
variation; the direct link with the past this category of data provides; that
metric variation is at least in part genetically detennined; and most importantly
from a statistical and mathematical point of view, metric data are extremely
amenable to multivariate statistical analysis. Similar arguments have been
made for the use of non-metric variation in physical anthropology (e. g. Scott
and Turner 1997).
The statistical procedures of choice in biodistance analysis identify
patterns of variation within and between groups by the simultaneous
consideration of multiple traits. so-called multivariate statistical procedures.
Multivariate statistical procedures comprise a famiiy of related mathematical
procedures that allow the simultaneous analysis of multiple variables (i.e.
cranial measurements) recorded in individuals from one or more groups
(Pietrusewsky 2000). Generally, the variables must be random and interrelated
327
The Initial Settlement of Remote Oceania: The Evidence from Physical Anthropology
The Initial Settlement of Remote Oceania: The Evidence from Physical Anthropology
with one another such that their different effects cannot be interpreted
individually in a meaningful manner. Measurements, because they are
continuous variables, are ideally suited for this kind of statistical treatment. Of
the multivariate statistical techniques used to analyze metric, or continuous,
data discriminant function analysis, principal components, and Mahalanobis
distance are best known (Pietrusewsky 2000). Comparable methods, although
not as sophisticated as those used to analyze measurement data, are available
for the analysis of non-metric data.
Dental studies
Dental studies of Oceanic peoples have focused on both metric and
non-metric dental traits. Early studies of Pacific teeth were sporadic and
focused on some of the more obvious variation in dental cusp patterns such as
shovel-shaped incisors (e.g. Leigh 1929; Chappel 1927; Reisenfeld 1956).
Later studies of dental metric variation in the Pacific by Brace and
colleagues (e.g. Brace and Hinton 1981; Brace et ai. 1990, 1991) indicated that
Australian Aborigines and Melanesians possessed some of the largest teeth
recorded in modern humans while Polynesians and other peoples of Oceania
have some of the smallest teeth. This tooth size variation was interpreted as the
result of two basic migrations, an early (pre-agricultural) migration that was
responsible for bringing big-toothed people to New Guinea, Australia, and the
adjoining regions of western Pacific and a later intrusion of smaller toothed
people that coincides with the dispersal of Austronesian languages and the
settlement of more Remote Oceania.
Studies of dental nonmetric variation in the Pacific and Asia have
centered on the identification of contrasting dental complexes. According to
Turner (1989, I990a, 1990b) the dental nonmetric traits of Southeast Asians,
Polynesians and Micronesians represent the 'Sundadont' dental pattern while
East Asians belong to the 'Sinodont' dental complex. Australian Aboriginals
and Melanesians do not fit either category but are closest to the Sundadonts
suggesting that both have derived from a common (proto-Sundadont) ancestor
in Southeast Asia (Scott and Turner 1997; Turner 1992). Further studies of
dental variation by Hanihara (1992a, 1992b, 1993b) indicated a Southeast
Asian origin for the inhabitants of Remote Oceania.
Cranial studies and multivariate statistical procedures
There have been numerous studies that apply multivariate statistics to
measurements recorded in Pacific crania (e.g. Brace and Hunt 1990; Brace et
ai. 1990, 1991; Howells 1989, 1990; Hanihara 1992b, 1993a; Katayama 1994;
Stefan and Chapman 2003; Tagaya and Katayama 1988; Pietrusewsky 1977,
328
1984, I990a, 1990b, 1995, 1996, 1997, 2000, 2005). The majority of these
studies that use cranial measurements have identified similarities between
Polynesian and Micronesian cranial series that, together, are well differentiated
from Melanesian and Australian cranial series. These same studies have
identified Polynesians as being biologically relatively homogeneous compared
to Melanesians and Australians.
Multivariate analysis of a restricted number of cranio-facial
measurements has led Brace and Tracer (1992) and Brace et al. (1990, 1991) to
identify a general Jomon-Pacific grouping that Brace has interpreted as
evidence for a homeland in Japan for Polynesian and other Pacific Islanders.
This grouping has not been observed in any other studies that apply
multivariate statistical procedures to cranial measurements (Howells 1989,
1990; Hanihara 1993a; Pietrusewsky 1984, 1992a, 1992b, 1994, 1995, 1997
etc.). Similarly, studies of dental nonmetric traits fall to support a connection
between Jomon and Polynesians (Hanihara 1993b; Turner 1989, 1990a I990b).
MUltivariate analyses of cranial measurements: two examples
The major purpose of discriminant function analysis is to maximize
differences between two groups, which is mathematically achieved by
producing a new set of variables from the original measurements that are
referred to as discriminant functions or canonical variates (Dillon and
Goldstein 1984). The new variables have the important property of no longer
being correlated with one another. Typically, the first few functions, or
canonical variates, account for the majority of the variation among groups. A
visualization of intergroup relationships is obtained by plotting the group
means, or centroids, for the first few canonical variates. The computer
program, BMDP-7M (Dixon 1990) was use to perform stepwise discriminant
function analyses in the examples presented.
Mahalanobis D2 , or the sum of squared differences, provides a single
quantitative measure of dissimilarity (distance) between individual groups
using many variables while taking into account the intercorrelation between the
variables (Mahalanobis 1936). Applying various cI ustering algorithms such as
the average linkage within group clustering algorithm, or Unweighted Pair
Group Method Algorithm- UPGMA, to Mahalanobis' distances results allows
the construction of diagrams of relationship, or dendrograms. The computer
program, NTSYS-pc (Rohlf 1993), was used to generate the dendrograms in
the examples to be discussed.
Two separate analyses, one that uses 13 male cranial series from
Polynesia and North America, and a second larger analysis that uses 63 male
series from the Pacific, Australia, and East/Southeast Asia. are presented to
329
The Initial Settlement of Remote Oceania: The Evidence from Physical Anthropology
The Initial Settlement of Remote Oceania: The Evidence from Physical Anthropology
demonstrate the relationships of Pacific Islanders and to evaluate the major
models that attempt to explain the initial settlement of Remote Oceania.
The diagram of relationship that results from applying the UPGMA
Algorithm to Mahalanobis' distances is shown in Figure 2. In this diagram, the
three of the four Native American cranial series occupy an isolated cluster well
removed from one containing the Polynesian and Fijian series. Again, The
Eskimo series occupies the most peripheral position. There is separation
between western and central and eastern Polynesian series in this diagram.
First analysis (13 male groups, 29 cranial measurements)
In the first analysis, stepwise discriminant function analysis and
Mahalanobis' generalized distance are applied to 29 cranial measurements
recorded in 592 male crania representing nine Polynesian and four Native
American groups (Pietrusewsky and Ikehara-Quebral 200 I). The Native
American groups incude Arikara (South Dakota), Santa Cruz (California),
Peru, and Greenlandic Eskimo. Cranial measurements recorded in these Native
American series are from Howells (1989). Pietrusewsky recorded all remaining
measurements.
Figure I represents the plot of 13 male Polynesian and Native
American group means on the first three canonical variates that results from
discriminant function analysis. Although differentiation between the central
and eastern Polynesians series is evident, the Polynesian and Fijian series form
a cohesive cluster far removed from North and South American cranial series
included in this analysis. The Eskimo sample occupies the most isolated
position in this representation.
TONGA·SAMOA
1
Prll
0
-r
~
'c
Marquesas
Society Is.
Tuamotu
New Zealand
-1
0
c
~ ·2
.·,~~t
'V
....
.. t·
c
0
~"O'2'
ZE"'LANO~
CHATHAM IS!
NEW
t'
'i
II
I
I
I
I
I
'
Eskimo
"."~
I
Figure 2. Diagram of relationship based on a cluster analysis (UPGMA) of
Mahalanobis distances using 29 cranial measurements recorded in 13
male Polynesian and Native American groups (Pietrusewsky and
Ikehara-Quebral 2001).
.
~
"
~/~
I
Fiji - - - - - - - -
Arlkara
II'SOClnV IS
I
Chatham Is.
Santa Cruz
MAACU.ESASTU.....OTU, RAP... WI
M
13
Rapa Nui
Peru
11
ARIKARA
2
Hawaii
HAWAII
2
.~
r
Tonga-Samoa
.'V
!'/..
~..:
......
.
~
~ -.jOO{,OO\6 \
c~~o~\ce;
6><?
Figure 1. Plot of 13 male Polynesian and Native American cranial series on the first
three canonical variates using 29 cranial measurements (Pietrusewsky and
Ikehara-QuebraI20()I). .
330
Second analysis: 63 male groups and 27 cranial measurements
In this second analysis, multivariate statistical procedures are applied
to a total of 2,805 male crania representing 63 separate series (Pietrusewsky
2005). The cranial series represent modem and near modem indigenous
inhabitants of Remote Oceania, Near Oceania, Australia, island and mainland
Southeast Asia, and North and East Asia.
When 63 group means are plotted on the first two canonical variates,
three separate clusters are apparent (Figure 3). Cranial series from Australia,
331
The Initial Setllement of Remote Oceania: The Evidence from Physical Anthropology
The Initial Settlement of Remote Oceania: The Evidence from Physical Anthropology
Tasmania, New Guinea, and geographical Melanesia form a separate group.
The Polynesian cranial series and those from Guam and the Marshall-Kirbati
Islands of Micronesia form a second constellation. The cranial series from
East, North, and Southeast Asia form a final grouping. The Polynesian series
are closest to the Asian division.
The diagram of relationship that results from applying a cluster
analysis of Mahalanobis' distances is given in Figure 4. Two major divisions
are evident in this diagram. The first includes all Asian and the Polynesian
cranial series. A second division includes Australian, Tasmanian, New Guinea
and the Melanesian cranial series, exclusively.
4
3
N
<l>
+oJ
"
2
I
,
~
Ct:l
(J
'c
0
c:
Ct:l
u
1
"
SOCO
,
Ct:l
"i::
TU....
°OGAM
,
0 F
/
ORAP
HAW
0
OCtfT
0
G>:~lj)
0
,~iP"':
0
.I ,.-_" -_.- _-...
MSK
/"
"­
.,/!/ NO-
° OLOV
....--/
'-:OCAR
SMl.
(ACR
BUR J~.. \ \..
tO~:AJITOli
\
0
0
...... ~::;:.'\
' ', ' .
0
1THI
81Kt9 SEJ'OTX
QV~
H~
-3
/ /
oTAS
o
WA
I
-3
I
-2
I
I
° SCR
I
I
I
-1
0
,
2
3
Canonical Variate 1
t
C_L"'"
PhlliPPflltI
,
f
'Jlliln..,."
Boc..... lf.~
'I::~:~
I
r:=: :==I----------,
K'f'.~"'•
ttll;~~:1
/
,..-~_./
==:J--,
}uvo
SULW~-: ------,
o05AS,
QLOO NT
\
0
OMRB .
N~,
....---
-2
Il<c"".
0PlJR
°
!'
I
f
I
I ~,Of,"'
\,
'
°
° ATV
....
\
0
NIR Q>SOL
=========::J"===1
======]-----1
~
s....nul'1'­
fU
'i>HL A
ooLSN \.,
FLVO
"ORo.o
°et>VTIII
60R
I "
ftAN,.,
cP0JA~ SUM
I " ODAW
-1 s·tiAO""
'UiU;=":(;~
C..l 1a''''"' tl
\
NZ
0
\~
Il.po """
G.",I"J"
lJItVqu...., 1~
:
TOGO
"
0
"
GUA
sui.."-.
MAN
'. \
OMAQ
:::':':'-";7"
/
~=
Tllf19ll·S...""
,.'--'"
/",'
,/
i
K~t*.J
.J
n.,.)k.yu is,
"'Nt'4
I
I
Sr'W9l£li
~iDl~"
4
"'''''''lI
p .,
r:tdJJlil:
~io:
.. 'Y J'lL«11oI
i(f.)flY
J"II'......
.I
:======. .
..J'
~
AIlIi!
I
~~~
..~."'l......
MailJCC.U,
Figure 3. Plot of 63 group means on the first two canonical variates resulting from the
application of stepwise discriminant function analysis (Pietrusewsky 2005).
i}:ak
;-.."I:tf1\oln
[Explanation of the Abbreviations Used in this Figure: ADR = Admiralty Is.; AIN = Ainu;
ATY = Atayal, Taiwan; BAC = Bachuc Village, Vietnam; BIK = Biak Is.; BaR = Borneo;
BUR = Burma (Myanmar); CAR = Caroline Is.; CHD = Chengdu; CHT = Chatham Is.;
CML= Cambodia/Laos; DAW = Dawson Strait Is.; DTX = D'Entrecasteaux Is.; FIJ = Fiji;
FLY = Fly R.; GAM = Gambier Is.; GUA = Guam; HAl = Hainan Island; HAN =
Hangzhou; HAW = Hawaii; HK = Hong Kong; JAV = Java; KAN = Kanto Japanese; KOR
= Korea; KYU = Kyushu Japanese; LOY = Loyalty Is.; LSN = Lesser Sundas Is.; MAN =
Manchuria; MaG = Mongolia; MRB = Murray R. Basin, Australia; MRQ = Marquesas Is.;
MSK= Marshall/Kiribati; NAJ = Nanjing; NBR = New Britain; NCL = New Caledonia;
NIR = New Ireland; NSW = New South Wales, Australia; NT = Northern Territory,
Australia; NZ = New Zealand; PHL = Philippines; PUR = Purari Delta, Papua New Guinea;
QLD = Queensland, Australia; RAP = Rapa Nui (Easter Is.); RYU = Ryukyu Islands; SAS
= Swanport; South Australia; SCR = Santa Cruz Is.; SEP = Sepik R., Papua New Guinea;
SHA = Shanghai; SLW = Sulawesi; SML = S. Moluccas Is.; SOC = Society Is.; SOL =
Solomon Is.; SUL = Sulu Arch.; SUM = Sumatra; TAJ = Taiwan Chinese; TAS =
Tasmania; THI = Thailand; TOG = Tonga-Samoa; TOH = Tohoku Japanese; TUA =
Tuamotu Archipelago; VAN = Vanual1.!; VTN = Vietnam; WA = Western Australia].
332
~
fl~
.~
!\
,
~;0~~'-:~~
l\L...... "". j(,II:a..-.1tI
"""",. R
"Yt-
L .....tA'\l ..Iil.i. f,<i,
U..,,,
I
<;·, 0,;1
====:::Jt---,
-----.J---I
V<Jno.I.Y.U
~1·,\'IIJ~~IU~ ~
::"'lnt. .11~rtI1
,,·~,.iR.,
1..
1'ii!'N~,..I.OO\".iJ
'''I
--J
::-::-::====}-I
---ll
(iY H
..'lJJI"1 C;""t..'t
An'~U"oIl:, i.,
I
.....,.,"'''' R
1\;, "1/
\Ol.l:f,
Wi•• ')
()J"('~~
N h..-fIl:Ui.,--J
W Au~lra")
~~=~
I
t
I
Figure 4. Dendrogram showing the relationship of 63 male groups resulting from
cluster analysis (UPGMA) of Mahalanobis' distances (Pietrusewsky 2005).
333
The Initial Selllement of Remote Oceania: The Evideoce from Physical Mthropology
With the exception of New Zealand, which clusters with the Southern
Moluccas, the Polynesian series and one from Guam, occupy a separate branch
within a greater Asian division. As was demonstrated in the discriminant
function results, all the cranial series from Australia and Melanesia, and two
from Micronesian separate out into a separate grouping well removed from the
group that contains the Polynesian, East Asian, and Southeast Asian series.
Discussin of multivariate craniometric analyses
Multivariate craniometric analyses continue to indicate the presence of
two major divisions representing the inhabitants of Oceania and East/Southeast
Asia. One of these divisions contains all the cranial series from Australia,
Tasmania, New Guinea, and geographical Melanesia. The other includes all the
cranial series from eastern Asia, Southeast Asia, and Polynesia. This division is
most consistent with two Pacific colonization events.
The Polynesian series' occupation of a separate branch within the
greater East/Southeast Asian division in these craniometric results that is well
removed from the Melanesian-Australian division is more consistent with
models that posit an ancestral homeland in western, particularly island,
Southeast Asia rather than those that argue for an indigenous development in
Melanesia. While the evidence from cranial measurements does not fit any of
the current proposed models entirely there is agreement with models (e.g. the
SSB and VC Triple -I) that suggest an ancestral homeland in Wallacea.
Craniometric analyses like those reported in this review (e.g., Pietrusewsky
2005) support a close connection between several of the Polynesian cranial
series and those from island Southeast Asia, notable the Lesser Sunda Islands,
Sulawesi, and the southern Moluccas. Unlike the evidence from molecular
genetics and archaeology, the craniometric evidence does not support
admixture with the indigenous inhabitants of this region of the Pacific. The
craniometric results provide little support for a homeland in Taiwan or adjacent
regions of mainland China as suggested by the ETP model although the strong
differentiation between Polynesian cranial series and cranial series from within
Melanesia suggests that the process was relatively rapid. The Micronesian
cranial series are variable, with some (e.g., Guam and Marshall-Kiribati)
showing affinities with Polynesians and others (e.g. Caroline Islands) revealing
influence with Melanesia. Certainly, none of the evidence from biological
anthropology supports an Amerindian origin for the inhabitants of Remote
Oceania nor is there support for an Ainu-Polynesian connection as championed
by Brace and his colleagues.
The Initial Settlement of Remote Oceania: The Evidence from Physical Mthropology
Conclusions
Multiple lines of evidence from physical anthropology indicate a
dichotomy between Australians-Melanesians and Polynesians. The recognition
of a 'Polynesian phenotype' strengthens this dichotomy. Nowhere is this
distinction more apparent than in the results of multivariate craniometric
analyses like those summarized in this review. The dental, cranial, and most of
the molecular genetic evidence, further indicate that the first inhabitants of
Remote Oceania share common origins somewhere in island Southeast Asia.
While the dental and cranial evidence provides no support for an origin
within geographical Melanesia for the ancestors of Polynesians, researchers
who have utilized moleCUlar genetic evidence have identified a possible origin
in a region extending from southern Wallacea (Sulawesi, Lesser Sunda Islands,
Maluku and Timor) to the Bismarck Archipelago and north coast of New
Guinea. The craniometric evidence is more exclusive in identifying southern
Wallacea as a possible ancestral source for the initial inhabitants of Remote
Oceania. Unlike the molecular genetic evidence, the craniometric results
provide only limited support for admixture between the early Austronesian
speaking dispersing groups and those (non-Austronesian speaking) groups they
encountered during and after the initial settlement of Remote Oceania.
Until many better preserved and complete specimens of the earliest
Lapita-associated skeletons in near and remote Oceania become available their
role in interpreting the initial settlement of Remote Oceania will be of limited
value.
Acknowledgements
My thanks to Georgia Lee and the Easter Island Foundation (Los Osos,
California) for permission to reproduce the illustrations that originally
appeared in Pietrusewsky and Ikehara-Quebral (2001) in Figures I and 2 of
this paper. I further wish to acknowledge the permission of RoutledgeCurzon
(London) to reproduce the illustrations in Figures 3 and 4 that originally
appeared in Pietrusewsky (2005). I am extremely grateful to Dr. Michele
Toomay Douglas for her comments and suggestions on previous drafts of this
paper.
References
Allbrook, A. 1974. The human biology of the western Pacific. Yearbook of
Physical Anthropology 18:202-245.
Allen, H. 1898. A study of Hawaiian skulls. Wagner Free Institute ofScience
ofPhiladelphia Transactions 5: I-55
334
335
The Initial Settlement of Remote Oceania: The Evidence from Physical fvlthropology
The Initial Settlement of Remote Oceania: The Evidence from Physical Anthropology
Allen, J. 1984. In search of the Lapita Homeland. Journal of Pacific History
19: 186-20 I.
Chappel, H. G. 1927. Jaws and teeth of ancient Hawaiians. Memoirs of the B.
Beaglehole, J. C. (ed.). 1967. The Journals of Captain James Cook on his
Clark, J. and K. Kelly. 1993. Human genetics, palaeoenvironments and
malaria: relationships and implications for the settlement of Oceania.
Voyages of Discovery. The Voyage of the Resolution and Discovery,
1776-1780. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press for Kakluyt
Society.
P. Bishop Museum 9:249-268.
American Anthropologist 95:612-30.
Coon, C. S. 1965. The Living Races ofMan. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.
Beaglehole, J. C. (ed.). 1968. The Journals of Captain James Cook on his
Voyages of Discovery. The Voyage of the Endeavor, 1768-1771.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press for Kakluyt Society.
Beaglehole, J. C. (ed.). 1969. The Journals of Captain James Cook on his
Voyages of Discovery. The Voyage of the Resolution and Adventure.
1772-1775. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press for Kakluyt
Society.
Bedford, S. and M. Spriggs n.d.
<hnp://www.pacificbiological.org.au/projectsIPBF_04_l/pbf_04_I.htm>
Bellwood, P. 1978. Man's Conquest ofthe Pacific. Auckland: Collins.
Best, S. 1977. Archaeological investigations on Lakeba, Lau Group, Fiji. New
Zealand Archaeological Association Newsletter 20:28-38.
Blust, R. 1984-85. The Austronesian homeland: a linguistic perspective. Asian
Perspectives 26:45-678.
Davidson, J., E. Hinds, S. Holdaway, and F. Leach. 1990. The Lapita site of
Natunuku, Fiji. New Zealand Journal ofArchaeology 12:121-55.
Davidson, J. M. and B. F. Leach. 1993. The chronology of the Natunuku site,
Fiji. New Zealand Journal ofArchaeology 15:99-105.
Davis, J. B. 1867. Thesaurus Craniorum. Catalogue of the Skulls of the
Various Races of Man in the Collection ofJoseph B. Davis. London:
Taylor and Francis.
Dedane, S. and E. Kasarherou. 1988. La sepulture du site WKO-OI3B. Kone. In
Fouj/les de Sauvetage en Nouvelle-CalMonie -1988, pp.2-5.
Noumea: Office CaIedonien des Cultures et Service des Musees et du
Patrimoine de Nouvelle-Caledonie,
Dixon, R. B. 1920. A new theory of Polynesian origins. Proceedings of the
American Philosophical Society 59:261-267.
Diamond, 1. 1988. Express train to Polynesia. Nature 336:307-308.
Brace, C. L., M. C. Brace, Y. Dodo, W. R. Leonard, L. Yongyi, S.
Sangvichien, S, Xiangqing, and Z. Zhang. 1990. Micronesians, Asians,
Thais and relations: A craniofacial and odontometric perspective.
Micronesica Supplement 2:247-269.
Diamond, J. 200 I. Reply to Slow boat to Melanesia? Nature 410: 167.
Dillon, W. R. and M. Goldstein. 1984. Multivariate Analysis Methods and
Applications. New York: Wiley.
Brace, C. L. and R. J. Hinton. 1981. Oceanic tooth-size variation as a reflection
of biological and cultural mixing. Current Anthropology 22:549-569.
Dixon, W. 1. 1990. BMDP Statistical Software Manual. Manual. Vols. I and 2.
Berkeley: University of California Press.
Brace, C. L. and K. D. Hunt. 1990. A nonracial perspective on human
variation: (A)ustralia to (Z)uni. American Journal of Physical
Anthropology 82:341-360.
Flower, W. H. 1879. Catalogue of the Specimens Illustrating the Osteology and
Dentition of Vertebrated Animals, Recent and Extinct, Contained in
the Museum of the Royal College of Surgeons of England. Part I. Man:
Homo Sapiens. London: The Museum of the Royal College of
Surgeons of England.
Brace, C. L. and D. P. Tracer 1992. Craniofacial continuity and change: A
comparison of late Pleistocene and recent Europe and Asia. In
T.Akazawa, K. Aoki, and T. Kimura (eds.), The Evolution and
Dispersal ofModern Humans in Asia, pp.439--471. Tokyo: Hokusen­
Sha.
Brace, C. L., D. P. Tracer, and K. D. Hunt. 1991. Human craniofacial form and
the evidence for the peopling of the Pacific. Indo-Pacific Prehistory
Association Bulletin 11;247-269.
336
Forster, J. R. 1996 [1778]. Observations Made During a Voyage Round the
World. N. Thomas, H. Guest, and M. Dettelbach (eds.). Honolulu:
University of Hawaii Press.
Gibbons, A. 2001. The Peopling of the Pacific. Science 291: 1735-1737.
Green, R. C. 1979. Lapita. In J. Jennings (ed.), The Prehistory of Polynesia,
pp.27-60. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.
337
The Initial Settlement of Remote Oceania: The Evidence from Physical Anthropology
The Initial Settlement of Remote Oceania: The Evidence from Physical Anthropology
Green, R. C. 1989. Lapita people: an introductory context for skeletal materials
associated with pottery of this cultural complex. Records of the
Australian Museum 41 :207-213.
Member of the Asian and Pacific Populations, pp.119-137.
International Symposium, No.4. Kyoto: International Research Center
for Japanese Studies.
Green, R. C. 1991 a. Near and Remote Oceania -disestablishing "Melanesia" in
culture history. In A. Pawley (ed.), Man and a Half. Essays in Pacific
Anthropology and Ethnobiology in Honour ofRalph Bulmer, pp.491­
502. Auckland: The Polynesian Society.
Hanihara, T. 1993a. Craniofacial features of Southeast Asians and Jomonese: a
reconsideration of their microevolution since the Late Pleistocene.
Anthropological Science 101 :25~6.
Green, R. C. 1991b. The Lapita Cultural Complex: Current evidence and
proposed models. In P. Bellwood (ed.), Indo-Pacific Prehistory 1990,
Volume 2, pp.295-305. Canberra and Jakarta: Bulletin of the Indo­
Pacific Prehistory Association.
Green R. C. 1994. Change over time: Recent advances in dating human
colonisation of the Pacific basin area. In D. G. Sutton (ed.) , The
Origins of the First New Zealanders, pp.19-51. Auckland: Auckland
University Press.
Green, R. C. 1997. Linguistic, biological and cultural origins of the initial
inhabitants of Remote Oceania. New Zealand Journal of Archaeology
17[1995]:5-27.
Green, R. C. 2003. The Lapita horizon and traditions-signature for one set of
oceanic migrations In C. Sand (ed.), Pacific Archaeology: Assessments
and Prospects. Proceedings of the International Conference for the 50'"
Anniversary of the first Lapita Excavation (July 1952), Kone-Noumea
2002. Noumea: Le Cahiers de I' Archeologie en Nouvelle-Caledonie,
Vol. 15, pp.95-120.
Green, R. C. and D. Anson. 1987. The Lapita site of Watom: New evidence
from excavations in 1985. Man and Culture in Oceania [Special Issue]
3:121-31.
Hage, P. and J. Marck. 2003. Matrilineality and the Melanesian origin of
Polynesian Y Chromosomes. Current Anthropology 44:S 121-S 127.
Hagel berg, E. and J. B. Clegg. 1993. Genetic polymorphisms in prehistoric
Pacific Islanders determined by analysis of ancient bone DNA.
Proceedings Royal Society of London B Biological Science 252: 163­
170.
Hanihara, T. I992a. Biological relationships among Southeast Asians,
Jomonese, and the Pacific populations as viewed from dental
characters: The basic populations in east Asia. Journal
Anthropological Society ofNippon 11:53-67.
Hanihara, T. 1993 b. Dental affinities among Polynesian and circum-Polynesian
populations. Nichibunken Japan Review 4:59-82.
Hill, A. V. S., D. F. O'Shaughnessy, and J. B. Clegg. 1989. Haemoglobin and
globin gene variants in the Pacific. In A. V. S. Hill and S. W.
Serjeantson (eds.), The Colonisation of the Pacific: A Genetic Trail,
pp.246-285. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Houghton, P. 1980. The First New Zealanders. Auckland: Hodder and
Stoughton.
Houghton, P. 1989. Lapita-associated human material from Lakeba, Fiji.
Records ofthe Australian Museum 41 :327-329.
Houghton, P. 1990. The adaptive significance of Polynesian body form. Annals
ofHuman Biology 17: 19-32.
Houghton, P. 199 I. The early human biology of the Pacific; some
considerations. Journal ofthe Polynesian Society 100: 167-196.
Houghton, P. 1996. People of the Great Ocean. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Howells, W. W. 1970. Anthropometric grouping analysis of Pacific peoples.
Archaeology and Physical Anthropology in Oceania 5: 192-217.
Howells, W. W. 1973. The Pacific Islanders. New York: Scribner.
Howells, W. W. 1979. Physical anthropology. In J. D. Jennings (ed.), The
Prehistory of Polynesia, pp.271-285. Canberra: The Australian
National University.
Howells, W. W. 1989. Skull Shapes and the Map. Craniometric Analyses in the
Dispersion of Modern Homo. Papers of the Peabody Museum of
Archaeology and Ethnology, 79. Cambridge: Harvard University
Press.
Howells, W. W. 1990. Micronesia to Macromongolia. Micro-Polynesian
populations with special reference to the Pacific peoples. Micronesica
Supplement 2:363-372.
Hanihara, T. 1992b. Dental and'cranial evidence on the affinities of the east
Asian and Pacific populations. In K. Hanihara (ed.), Japanese as a
338
339
The Initial Settlement of Remote Oceania: The Evidence from Physical Anthropology
The Initial Settlement of Remote Oceania: The Evidence from Physical Anthropology
Howells, W. W. 1997. Oceania. In F. Spencer (ed.), History of Physical
Anthropology, Vol. 2: M-Z, pp.762-775 .. New York: Garland
Publishing, Inc
Lum, J. K. and R. L. Cann. 2000. MtDNA lineage analyses: origins and
migrations of Micronesians and Polynesians. American Journal of
Howells W. W. and I. Schwidetzky. 1981. Oceania. In I. Schwidetzky (ed.),
Rassengeschichte der Menschheit, pp.115-166. Asia I: Japan,
Indonesien,Ozeanien.
Lum, J. K., L. B. Jorde, and W. Schiefenhovel. 2002. Affinities among
Melanesians, Micronesians and Polynesians: A ne.utral, biparental
genetic perspective. Human Biology 74:413--430.
Hurles, M., E. Matisoo-Smith, R. D. Gray, and D. Penny. 2003. Untangling
Oceanic settlement: the edge of the knowable. Trends in Ecology and
Mahalanobis, P. C. 1936. On the generalized distance in statistics. The
National Institute ofScience (India) 12:49-55.
Evolution 18:531-540.
Hurles, M. E., J. Nicholson, E. Bosch, C. Renfrew, B. C. Sykes, and M.A.
Jobling 2002. Y Chromosomal evidence for the origins of Oceanic­
speaking peoples. Genetics 160:289-303.
Irwin, G. 1992. The Prehistoric Exploration and Colonisation of the Pacific.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Katayama, K. 1994. Biological affinity between Southern Cook Islanders and
New Zealand Maori: Implications for the settlement of New Zealand.
In D. G. Sutton (ed.), The Origins of the First New Zealanders,
pp.230-242. Auckland: Auckland University Press.
Kayser, M. S., S. Brauer, G. Weiss, P. A. Underhill, L. Roewer, W.
Schiefenhovel, and M. Stoneking. 2000. Melanesian origin of
Polynesian Y chromosomes. Current Biology 10:1237-1246.
Kirch, P. V. 1997. The Lapita Peoples: Ancestors of the Oceanic World.
Oxford: Blackwell Scientific.
Kirch, P. V., D. R. Swindler and C. G. Turner II. 1989. Human skeletal
remains and dental remains from Lapita sites 1600-500 B.C. in the
Mussau Islands, Melanesia. American Journal of Physical
Anthropology 79:63-76.
Kumar, R., K. Katayama, and P. D. Nunn. 2004. Implications of the discovery
of a 2900-year old skeleton at Naitabale, Moturiki Island, Central Fiji
Southwest Pacific. Paper presented at the Sixth International
Conference on Easter Islands and the Pacific. September 21-25,
2004. Vifta del Mar, Chile. (Abstract)
Larsen, C. S. 2002. Bioarchaeology. Interpreting Behavior from the Human
Skeleton. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Leigh, R. W. 1929. Dental Morphology and Pathology of Prehistoric Guam. B.
P. Bishop Museum Memoirs 11 :258-273.
340
Physical Anthropology 113:151-168.
Marshall D. S. and C. E. Snow. 1956. An evaluation of Polynesian craniology.
American Journal ofPhysical Anthropology 14:405--427.
Matisoo-Smith, E. and J. H. Robins. 2004. Origins and dispersals of Pacific
peoples: Evidence from mtDNA phylogenies of the Pacific rat.
Proceeding ofthe National Academy ofScience 101(24):9167-9172
Melton, T., R. Peterson, A. J. Redd, N. Saha, A. S. M. Sofro, 1. Martinson, and
M. Stoneking. 1995. Polynesian genetic affinities with Southeast Asian
populations as identified by mtDNA analysis. American Journal of
Human Genetics 57:403--414.
Oppenheimer, S. J. 1998. Eden in the East: the Drowned Continent of
Southeast Asia. London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson.
Oppenheimer S. J. and M. Richards. 200 Ia. Polynesian Origins: Slow boat to
Melanesia? Nature 41O:16Cr-167
Oppenheimer, S. J. and M. Richards. 200 I b. Fast trains, slow boats, and the
ancestry of the Polynesian Islanders. Science Progress 84 (3): 157­
181
Oppenheimer, S. J. and M. Richards. 2003. Polynesians: devolved Taiwanese
rice farmers or Wallacean maritime traders with fishing, foraging and
horticultural skills? In P. Bellwood and C. Renfrew (eds.), Examining
pp.287-297.
the
Farming/Language Dispersal Hypothesis,
Cambridge: McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research.
Pawley, A. 1999. Language. In M. Rapaport (ed.), The Pacific Islands
Environment and Society, pp.181-194. Honolulu: The Bess Press.
Pawley, A. 2002. The Austronesian dispersal: languages, technologies and
people. In P. Bellwood and C. Renfrew (eds.), Examining the
Farming/Language Dispersal Hypothesis, pp.251-273. Cambridge:
McDonald Institute of Archaeological Research.
Pawley, A. K. and M. Ross. 1993. Austronesian historical linguistics and
culture history. Annual Review ofAnthropology 22:425-59.
341
The Initial Settlement of Remote Oceania: The EVidence from Physical Mthropol09Y
The Initial Settlement of Remote Oceania: The Evidence from Physical Mthropology
Petchey, F. and R. Green. 2005. Use of three isotopes to calibrate human bone
radiocarbon determinations from Kainapirina (SAC), Watom Island,
Papua New Guinea. Radiocarbon 47(2):1-12.
Pietrusewsky, M. 1995. Taiwan Aboriginals, Asians and Pacific Islanders: A
multivariate investigation of skulls. In J-k. P Li, Coho Tsang, Y ok.
Huang, and D-a. Ho (eds.), Austronesian Studies Relating to Taiwan,
pp.295-351. Taipei: Institute of History and Philology, Academia
Sinica, Taiwan.
Pietrusewsky, M. 1977. Etude des relations entre les populations du pacifique
par les methodes d'analyse multivariee appliquees aux variations
craniennes. L 'Anthropologie 81 (I ):67-97.
Pietrusewsky, M. 1984. Metric and Non-Metric Cranial Variation in Australia
Aboriginal Populations Compared with Populations from the Pacific
and Asia. Occasional Papers in Human Biology. No.3. Canberra:
Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies.
Pietrusewsky, M. 1985. The earliest Lapita skeleton from the Pacific: A
multivariate analysis of a mandible fragment from Natunuku, Fiji.
Journal ofthe Polynesian Society 94:389--414.
Pietrusewsky, M. 1989a. A study of skeletal and dental remains from Watom
Island and comparisons with other Lapita people. Records of the
Australian Museum 41 :235-292.
Pietrusewsky, M. 1989b. A Lapita-associated skeleton from Natunuku, Fiji.
Records ofthe Australian Museum 41 :297-325.
Pietrusewsky, M. I990a. Craniofacial variation in Australasian and Pacific
populations. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 82:319­
340.
Pietrusewsky, M. 1990b. Craniometric variation in Micronesia and the Pacific:
A multivariate study. Micronesica Supplement 2:373--402.
Pietrusewsky, M. 1990c. Lapita-associated skeletons from Watom Island
Papua New Guinea and the origin of the Polynesians. Asian
Perspectives 28:83-89.
Pietrusewsky, M. 1992a. Japan, Asia and the Pacific: A multivariate
craniometric investigation. In K. Hanihara (ed.), Japanese as a
Member of the Asian and Pacific Populations: International
Symposium. No.4, pp.9-52. Kyoto: International Research Center for
Japanese Studies.
Pietrusewsky, M. I992b. Modern and near-modern populations of Asia and the
Pacific: a multivariate craniometric interpretation. In T. Akazawa, K.
Aoki, and T. Kimura (eds.), The Evolution and Dispersal of Modern
Humans in Asia, pp.5~ I-558. Tokyo: Hokusen-sha Publishing Co..
Pietrusewsky,
M.
1994.
Pacific-Asian relationships:
A
physical
anthropological perspective. Oceanic Linguistics 33:407--429.
342
Pietrusewsky, M. 1996. The physical anthropology of Polynesia: A review of
some cranial and skeletal studies. In 1. M. Davidson, G. Irwin, B. F.
Leach, and D. Brown (eds.), Oceanic Culture History: Essays in
Honour of Roger Green, pp.343-353. Wellington: New Zealand
Journal of Archaeology Special Publication.
Pietrusewsky, M. 1997. The people of Ban Chiang: An early bronze-age site in
northeast Thailand. Bulletin of the Indo-Pacific Prehistory Association
16:119-148.
Pietrusewsky, M. 2000. Metric Analysis of Skeletal Remains: Methods and
Applications. In M. A. Katzenberg and S. R. Saunders (eds.),
Biological Anthropology of the Human Skeleton, pp.375--415. New
York: Wiley-Liss.
Pietrusewsky, M. 2001. Comment on Terrell, J. E., K. M. Kelly, and R.
Rainbird 200 I. Forgone Conclusions? In search of "Papuans" and
"Austronesians". Current Anthropology 42( I): 116-117.
Pietrusewsky, M. 2005. The Physical Anthropology of the Pacific, East Asia,
and Southeast Asia: A Multivariate Craniometric Analysis. In L.
Sagart, R. Blench and A. Sanchez-Mazas (eds.), The Peopling of East
Asia: Putting Together Archaeology, Linguistics, and GenetiCS,
pp.20 1-229. London: RoutiedgeCurzon.
Pietrusewsky, M, J-C. Galipaud, and F. Leach. 1998. A skeleton from the
Lapita site at Kone, Foue Peninsula, New Caledonia. New Zealand
Journal ofArchaeology 18 (1996):25-74
Pietrusewsky, M., T. Hunt, and R. Ikehara-Quebral. I997a. A Lapita­
associated skeleton from Waya Island, Fiji Islands. Micronesica
30(2):355-388.
Pietrusewsky, M., T. Hunt, and R. Ikehara-Quebral. I997b. A new Lapita­
associated skeleton from Fiji. Journal of the Polynesian Society
106(3):284-295.
Pietrusewsky, M. and R. Ikehara-Quebral. 2001. Multivariate comparisons of
Rapa Nui (Easter Island), Polynesian, and Circum-Polynesian crania.
In C. M. Stevenson, G. Lee, and F. 1. Morin (eds.), Pacific 2000.
Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Easter Island and
the Pacific, pp.457--494. Los Osos, CA: Easter Island Foundation.
343
The Initial Settlement of Remote Oceania: The Evidence from Physical Anthropology
The Initial Settlement of Remote Oceania: The Evidence from Physical Anthropology
Poulsen, J. 1987. Early Tongan Prehistory. The Lapita Period on Tongatapu
and its Relationships. 2 vols. Terra Australis 12. Canberra: Department
of Prehistory, Research School of Pacific Studies. Australian National
University.
Simmons, R. T. 1965. The blood group genetics of Easter Islanders
(Pascuense) and other Polynesians. In T. Heyerdahl and E. N. Ferdon
(eds.), Reports of the Norwegian Archaeological Expedition lO Easter
Island and the East Pacific, Vol. 2. Misc., pp.333-343. Papers. Santa
Fe: School of American Research Museum.
Quatrefages, A. de and E. T. Hamy. 1882. Crania Ethnica: Les Cranes des
Races Humaines. Paris: Bailliere.
Redd A. J., N. Takezaki, S. T. Sherry, S. T. McGarvey, A. S. M. Sofro, and M.
Stoneking. 1995. Evolutionary history of the COll/tRNALys intergenic
9-base-pair deletion in human mitochondrial DNAs from the Pacific.
Molecular Biology and Evolution 12:604--{j 15
Reisenfeld, A. 1956. Shovel-shaped incisors and a few other dental features
among the native peoples of the Pacific. American Journal ofPhysical
Anthropology 14:505-524
Richards, M., S. Oppenheimer, and B. Sykes. 1998. mtDNA suggests
Polynesian origins in eastern Indonesia. American Journal of Human
Genetics 63:1234-1236.
Rohlf, F. 1. 1993. NTSYS-pc. Numerical Taxonomy and Multivariate Analysis
System. Version 1.80. Setauket. New York: Exeter Software.
Scott, G. R. and C. G. Turner II. 1997. The anthropology of modern human
teeth. Dental morphology and its variation in recent human
populations. Cambridge Studies in Biological Anthropology.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Serjeantson, S. W. 1985. Migration and admixture in the Pacific: insights
provided by human leucocyte antigens. In R. L. Kirk and E. Szathmary
(eds.), Out of Asia; Peopling the Americas and the Pacific, pp.133­
146. Canberra: Journal of Pacific History.
Serjeantson, S. W. 1989. HLA antigens. In A.V. S. Hill and S. W. Serjeantson
(eds.), The Colonization of the Pacific. A Genetic Trail, pp.286-294.
Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Shapiro H. L. 1930. The Physical Characters of the Society Islanders. Memoirs
B. P. Bishop Museum 9. No.4
Shapiro H. L. 1942. The anthropometry of Pukapuka. Anthropological Papers
of the American Museum ofNatural History 38: 141-169.
Shapiro H. L. and P. H. Buck. 1936. The physical characters of the Cook
Islanders. Memoirs of the B. P. Bishop Museum 12. No. I
Specht,1. 1968. Preliminary report of excavations on Watom Island. Journal of
the Polynesian Society 77: 117-34.
Spennemann; D. H. R. 1987. Appendix 9. Reanalysis of the human remains at
TO.l. In . 1. Poulsen, Early Tongan Prehistory. The Lapita Period on
Tongatapu and its Relationships. Vol. I. Terra Australis 12. Canberra:
Department of Prehistory, Research School of Pacific Studies,
Australian National University.
Stefan V. H. and P. M. Chapman. 2003. Cranial variation in the Marquesas
Islands. American Journal ofPhysical Anthropology 121 :319-331.
Sullivan, L. R. 1923a. Marquesan Somatology with Comparative Notes on
Samoa and Tonga. Memoirs of the Bernice P. Bishop Museum
92:141-249.
Sullivan, L. R. 1923b. Observations on Hawaiian Somatology. Memoirs of the
Bernice P. Bishop Museum 94:269-342.
Sullivan, L. R. 1924. Race types in Polynesia. American Anthropologist
26:22-26.
Tagaya, A. and K. Katayama. 1988. Biological affinity of Mangaians in the
Cook Islands, Polynesia, as viewed from the measurements of male
crania. In K. Katayama and A. Tagaya (eds.), People of the Cook
Islands-Past and Present, pp.115-142. Cook Islands Library and
Museum Society Bulletin 5. Raotonga: Cook Islands Library and
Museum.
Terrell, J. E. and R. L. Welch 1997. Lapita and the temporal geography of
prehistory. Antiquity 71 :548-572.
Terrell, J. E., K. M. Kelly, and P. Rainbird 2001. Foregone conclusions? In
search of 'Papuans' and 'Austronesians'. Current Anthropology
42:97-107,118-124.
Thomas, F. 1999. The Precontact Period. In M. Rapaport (ed.), The Pacific
Islands Environment and Society, pp.121-133. Honolulu: The Bess
Press.
Shaw, E. 1975. The decorative system of Natunuku, Fiji. In S.M. Mead, L.
Birks, H. Birks and E. Shaw (eds.), The Lapita Pottery Style ofFiji and
Its Associations, pp.44-55. Wellington: The Polynesian Society.
Turner, C. G. II 1989. Teeth and prehistory in Asia. Scientific American
262:88-96.
344
345
The Initial Settlement of Remote Oceania: The Evidence from Physical Mthropology
The Initial Settlement of Remote Oceania: The Evidence from Physical Mthropology
Turner, C. G. II 1990a. Major features of sundadonty and sinodonty, including
suggestions about East Asia microevolution, population history, and
Late Pleistocene relationships with Australian aboriginals. American
Journal ofPhysical Anthropology 82:295-317.
Table 1. Human skeletal remains associated with the Lapita Cultural Complex
Site
Location
Reber-Rakival
SAC site,
Watom Is.
Eastern New
Britam
Eloaua. Mussau.
Emananus (4
sites)
SI. Mathias
Group, New
Ireland
Natunuku
(VLl/I)
Viti Levu, Fiji
Van Dijk, N. 1991. The Hansel and Gretel Syndrome: A critique of
Houghton's cold adaptation hypothesis and an alternative model. New
Zealand Journal ofArchaeology 13:65-89.
Y2-25
Yalobi Village.
Waya Is, FIJi
Van Dijk, N. 1993. The Evolution of the Polynesian Phenotype: An Analysis
of Skeletal Remains from Tongatapu, Tonga. Unpublished M.A. thesis,
Department of Anthropology, University of Auckland.
Lakeba
Lau Group, Fiji
To-I, Burial AK
Tongatapu,
Tonga
WKO-013A
Kone, New
Caledonia
Valentin, F. and C. Sand. 2000. Archeologie des morts. Etudes
anthropologiques de squelettes prehistoriques de Nouvelle-Caledonie.
Noumea: Les Cahiers de I' Archeologie en Nouvelle-Caledonie II.
WKO-013B
Kone, New
Caledonia
Valentin, F. and C. Sand. 2001. Inhumations prehistorique en Nouvelle­
Caledonie, Journal de la Societe des Oceanistes 113:135-149.
WKO-OI3C
Kone, New
Caledonia
Wagner, K. 1937. The Craniology of the Oceanic Races. Skrifter utgitt av det
Norske Videnskaps-Akademi i Oslo. I. Mat.-Naturv. Klasse. No.2.
Teouma
Elate Is. central
Vanuatu
White, J. P., J. Allen, and J. Specht. 1988. Peopling the Pacific: The Lapita
Homeland Project. Australian Natural History 22:41 0--416.
Naitabale
Turner, C. G. II I990b. Origin and affinity of the people of Guam: A dental
anthropological assessment. Micronesica Supplement 2:403-416.
Turner C G 11 1992. Microevolution of East Asian and European populations: a
dental perspective. In: T. Akazawa, K. Aoki, and T. Kimura (eds.), The
Evolution and Dispersal of Modern Humans in Asia, ppAI5-438.
Tokyo: Honkusen-Sha Pub. Co.
Turner, W. 1884-6. The Comparative Osteology ofRaces ofMan Voyage ofthe
MS. Challenger. Edinburgh: Great Britain Challenger Office.
Valentin, F. 2003. Human skeletal remains from the site of Lapita at Kone
(New Caledonia): mortuary and biological features in Pacific
archaeology: Assessments and prospects. In C. Sand (ed.), Proceedings
of the International Conference for the 50 th Anniversary of the first
Lapita Excavation (July 1952), Kone-Noumea 2002. Noumea: Les
Cahiers de I' Archeologie en Nouvelle-Caledonie, Vol. 15, pp.285­
293.
Motunki Is,
central Fiji
Completeness of
Skeletal Remains
Partial remains of
eight adults (6
male, 2 female);
no complete
crania.
Very incomplete
skeletal and dental
remains of several
individuals (no
MNI detennined).
A partially
complete skeleton
of an adult male.
A relatively
complete and well
preserved skeleton
of a 40-50 yr. old
male.
The incomplete
remains of at least
two individuals.
Partially complete
skeleton of a 30-35
year old male and
portions of a
second male (30­
35 years old)
individual.
A substantially
complete and well
preserved skeleton
(missing skull) of
a 13-15 yr. old
juvenile.
Substantially
complete skeleton
of a. 35-45 year
old female.
A partially
complete skeleton
of a 30-40 year old
male
Approximately 13
skeletons missmg
skulls.
Skeleton of B 50­
60 year old
female.
Date
(in vears)
0-5OOBC
circa 1600
-SOOBC
circa AD
200
References
Specht \968; Green
and Anson \987;
Pietrusewsky 1989a;
Petehey and Green
2005
Kirch et al. 1989
circa 2700
BP
Davidson et at. 1990;
Davidson and Leach
1993; Pietrusewsky
1985, 1989b; Shaw
1975
Pietrusewsky et al
1997a; 1997b
circa 500
BC
Best 1977; Houghton
1989
Late
Eastern
Lapita Age
Poulsen 1987;
Spennemann 1987
circa 1000
AD
Valentin and Sand
2000, 200 I; Valentin
2003
0- 500 BC
Dedane and
Kasamerou 1988;
Pietrusewsky et at.
1998
Valentin and Sand
2000,200 I; Valentin
2003
circa 2800
BP
3200-3000
BP
2900 cal yr
BP
Bedford and Spnggs
n.d.
Kumar et at. 2004
I Radiocarbon determinations on human bone from Burials I and 3 from the SAC site (Petchey and
Green 2005)
346
347