Survey
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
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