On the road of the winds: an archaeological history of the Pacific islands before European contact 9780520928961, 9780520234611, 9780520223479

Table of contents :
Frontmatter
List of Maps (page ix)
List of Figures (page xi)
List of Tables (page xvii)
Preface (page xix)
Introduction (page 1)
CHAPTER 1 Discovering the Oceanic Past (page 12)
CHAPTER 2 The Pacific Islands as a Human Environment (page 42)
CHAPTER 3 Sahul and the Prehistory of "Old" Melanesia (page 63)
CHAPTER 4 Lapita and the Austronesian Expansion (page 85)
CHAPTER 5 The Prehistory of "New" Melanesia (page 117)
CHAPTER 6 Micronesia: In the "Sea of Little Lands" (page 165)
CHAPTER 7 Polynesia: Origins and Dispersals (page 207)
CHAPTER 8 The Polynesian Chiefdoms (page 246)
CHAPTER 9 Big Structures and Large Processes in Oceanic Prehistory (page 302)
Notes (page 327)
References (page 355)
Index (page 409)

Citation preview

On the Road of the Winds

¥ q . " =. 7% a= ah ‘. zs. “a ) ' > % : a #e k *, : #, 3 ‘ a -«tyee P . ; 63 ‘ 7 ¥ tm m4 me aad,; o% om e J Ps iy ~ Pd i q Wi P, . «4-w Psoh . ‘y tienda eed : a ‘ . 4 % - » a } —" “a cs . . 4 u ¢ a4 ‘ a a -—*;, ; ‘ ” ‘ . a: ot . a? ‘

“:ea ‘ : ‘i.>ie ey 4S .L +Aa—s eh aay i? | af AY ts * ae a , a, _ mt 4 a” % ¢ a: ee F % ,ry~ba > , -i :>hy“aNee

jill ¢ : * 5 ‘ ree . ‘ ¥ ¢ ; ny : ; +, . “ Are: * od .'bbe ae vi 1 a « i po a 4 . * N 4 " . wy .) a * * 4 ie ‘a ' ; ‘FM ” , . 2 2 ai € ‘ é, t * ,. a‘?-2et J™=i < a 7 . + .&; ad a ie ;; * ¥ Ss, “] r a > ‘ ea 3 x . tea Te 7 = +e pe Oe ; i Pit oi et aa . bi . ; i Pa kk Leal ‘~ a” Bes .? ;;x ee as ; qs ‘ . vee * _™ :‘és.ES P P o, , € 7 b7 :4re.Reaeagi7 ©ay

‘a‘.-.@ * a £ , ae + : 7 r 6 7 ¥ aPy ‘ ee ; 3* ai wer oe, “ ~ P ¥ * “4 4 oe -oi«. if— a _” is. , nfile. of -f | gd‘ “". =) r > © ‘_— 4 r * “ “os, ’ . : , ‘S '? * ; . a , 7 ° 7 7 > ° -* or = . 7 «? ~ 4 ,, ;4- Tse x : ; :a: ba 439As , cyao “ .a2 . J ra — eSs?¢og : . :ave ef aake ea.

haa 9S iss. §»ah Pia inn gard — A, ni—_— : ee * * sd - “ “bith. i ;a.ve» ayOMAT --4P«“ox “a6 ; me a...“hea »* er~r. “=ae Poetnet, —” - 1“ oo ~oe a'—Gnyo atBap E . waae pvta -_ . *@ \ te ww oe &: > a ewe 8 “ a ma, pS) a ~e ¢ . #8 ell : + a ° ve ee”aes ae ‘of? Si SeSy -- ow, oe ¥Mee . ‘hsyain iSit park. ee fh eeTT : co. ashae -Oe, ~ko - “\* iaeS es . ee ’*’: :— ‘Sa Ae Ae AS Sot RR pe 52Meee CO ee ee 7_= ee —"* 7. oe a me ile wy eS et-. 2 +Sebo ;7 ee,war éSS ,7 +ree A af ++ . “— 7 . + -™ he ~~, . a: @ 5 ee = : * . / sn OF —* ° P + : .. < Bar x phi eer. aks nag : ay - ~ Pk b dps hca™ ru a a> ont, ty, ate ‘>. 3 Nem ‘+‘

7be~rea in + Palate, y fe - . ,Oe. ywteem —~~ Ce ~~eta) Fr]4. P. — ve”), ~ ra> Pi.°7 4.7-2 isn °Sty my,..“eg ee ees >~.. a4: sPy 7SOY ae: 42oga,’°.ae aVr«—_ —e. ~ah,sty _eyeS ae ot : 4.4 P wy Fe. yh fA ok:~rede~ c¥ ” » ‘ 4~~. . ait “Aa! viet ey e . Sat . a7 .: é. a7> mo ~~ es a. , - oess aie “a es, . by . ee-i.: ¥. aqrowe tyyFae. ya —™ q a” »’ ;“ .° :2-%’ )i F- ;4yret aoe . / i.S ~S ~ a"*. 4ie »ne. ¥. t Ae -— a‘t-> he Ae ae Im—_ *,‘ffe, NE or em ~ ~.: ‘RS a ~~* -“>>? f-Se pyi+at = . ,Ne ¢=“to? Pad“Visfranap , - So ” aI‘Vv. @ “ \ee. Oeoe ‘: sy,7a>pete ws j “i seSer _~ oo oe ae Rane . S> **

Pz 7Pate Ogies J 4ns(an » * GR - dens 7 > . -_ a ie weSR 7) _ai!; >SCS MY,OTN - — : “ey7 Te > . Nas > a a> Lx NET Se-AGT ES ceane ana~e, i5 ia?ng ieur8hes Sehse ie‘Se OM asa Te ate eas a9ew, “pee i tgs, *, ri i.ae “2 fy .al 7 ria oa oe > >PSS =:ET tak -Naa -ety % fo"Pig Thatas Po _A ee ws afems a 7 ee : >. td 0+- OS Fd -bated al5+aa7m ay re 4ae y- “Shee tM 04;ar =:gee ”~* pe, - ENO +£ ~. :€,“ Ps F “aN . WS . Ink Av tere CO tas LP SPP rarer Sige See Rae? Hite ay ae be ioe ee SINS Fae Rape Seat pine ITAL ‘ aisle St Foe SaxitSamay gexRng eae5ag) thes Peaaae ee Sl BaeSah What re Phbh Pew PontsYar? se atthe tS eRe etn SARSas a2 . Nites hitch Ske RN SAR PR SaRU the on 2a,LR NixNS RenEe ee = ‘. “? y 4 4 \ : S$) _ 4 ¥ ; i“ . s. “) As th ante ‘ \. i. \ Lyy/ ws > a *s ‘ rat ae c y ; yj =, ‘ ~% So - -— i . “ Sad ‘

at5*L. “fERIE - ars a tay Prig Megat TR, Wi ayAIRC ees Se oe ie >aah 3 cir” a reae Leecare, ren —. : £4 ee “5 ‘ mo” SSeS:eee 3 RE Oe Vo tsa gee BS. cap tasa aS Se am, Tt, A ry Ee MT cates he ER a arptare yAye YP duewm Seah: a oe a. '; aPo Gl f eS) . Ade eeaee 7 OR, ae ie. ae L Pay, aGok, PJ, *sey Seen .RET ‘ee ; .SLe :“5etey 6eeA aay Nee) ty pSid Bar De ORE ey ENS baste PRE aan SAPaC~ Pikes hnA+ Ti St

i

Wind

Fe AN ARCHAEOLOGICAL HISTORY OF THE PACIFIC ISLANDS

titi BEFORE EUROPEAN CONTACT

-2...

om! Mek: Patrick Vinton Kirch

Ras Rise 2 ARM

eee ee

ear, Siete UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA PRESS =a eae Berkeley Los Angeles — London = . } ‘a a Sy:

pis ae oe

Frontispiece: Restored Moai (statue) on Rapa Nui, with

replicated obsidian and coral eyes (Photo by Thérése

Babineau. ) | University of California Press

Berkeley and Los Angeles, California

University of California Press, Ltd. | London, England First paperback printing 2002 © 2000 by Patrick Vinton Kirch Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Kirch, Patrick Vinton.

On the road of the winds: an archaeological history of , the Pacific Islands before European contact / Patrick

| Vinton Kirch. p. cm.

Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 978-0-520-23461-1 (pbk. : alk. paper)

1. Prehistoric peoples—Oceania. 2. Oceania— Antiquities. I. Title. GN871.K575 2000

995—dc21 99-36664 CIP

Printed and bound in Canada 10

10 9 8 7 6 5 4 The paper used in this publication meets the minimum : requirements of ANSI/NISO Z39.48-1992 (R 1997) (Permanence of Paper).

For

DOUGLAS E. YEN whose outstanding ethnobotanical researches continue to influence

interpretations of Pacific prebistory

The publisher gratefully acknowledges the

generous contribution to this book provided , by the Moore Family Foundation.

List of Maps / ix | | List of Figures / xi List of Tables / xvii

Preface / xix | , Introduction / 1 Defining Oceania / 4 + Linguistic, Human Biological, and Cultural Variation in Oceania /6 + About This Book / 10 + A Note on Dates and Time / 114

CHAPTER | Discovering the Oceanic Past / 12 Enlightenment Voyagers / 12 + Outposts of Empire: Missionaries, Colonists, and Academic Beginnings / 14 “The Problem of Polynesian Origins” / 20 + Te Rangi Hiroa and the “Micronesian Route" to Polynesia / 24 The Discovery of Time Depth and Culture Change / 27 - The Search for Polynesian Sequences / 29 Broadening Research Horizons / 32 + Beyond Polynesia: Archaeology in Melanesia and New Guinea / 36 Not an Ivory Tower: Public Archaeology in the Pacific /39 + Contemporary Approaches to Pacific

Prebistory / 40

CHAPTER 2. The Pacific Islands asa Human Environment / 42 Origins and Development of Pacific Islands / 44 + Types of Islands / 47 - Climatic Factors in the Pacific / 50 + Island Life and Biogeography /53 + The Microbiotic World and Human Populations / 56 -

, Island Ecosystems /57 + Human Impacts on Island Ecosystems / 59

CONTENTS . | CHAPTER 3. Sahul and the Prehistory of “Old” Melanesia / 63 The Pleistocene Geography of Sabul and Near Oceania / 65 + Initial Human Arrival in Sabul and Near Oceania / 67 + Pleistocene Voyaging in Near Oceania /68 + Near Oceania during the Pleistocene / 70 Cultural Innovations of the Early Holocene /78 + A Paradox and a Hypothesis / 83

CHAPTER 4. Lapita and the Austronesian Expansion / 85 The Human Landscape of Near Oceania at 2000-1500 B.C. / 86 + The Advent of Lapita / 88 Lapita Origins: The Austronesian Expansion / 94 + Lapita Dispersal into Remote Oceania / 93 Lapita in Linguistic and Biological Perspective / 98 + The Lapita Ceramic Series / 104 + Lapita Sites and Settlements / 106 + Lapita Subsistence Economies / 109 + Exchange among Lapita Communities / 112 Ancestral Oceanic Societies / 114 + Lapita: Transformations and Legacy / 115

CHAPTER 5 The Prehistory of “New” Melanesia / 117 Trading Societies of Papua and the Massim / 120 - The Late Holocene in Highland New Guinea / 124 The Bismarck Archipelago after Lapita / 126 - The Solomon Islands / 130 - Vanuatu / 135 + The Polynesian Outliers in Melanesia / 442 + Ethnogenesis in La Grande Terre / 147 + Fiji: An Archipelago “in Between” / 155 + Summary / 161

CHAPTER 6 Micronesia: In the “Sea of Little Lands" / 165 Colonization and Early Settlement in Micronesia / 167 + Cultural Sequences in Micronesia /175 + Tuvalu and the Polynesian Outliers in Micronesia /179 + Atoll Adaptations / 181 + Later Prebistory in Western

, Micronesia / 183 + Development of Sociopolitical Complexity in the Caroline High Islands / 194

CHAPTER 7. Polynesia: Origins and Dispersals / 207 Polynesian Origins / 208 + Polynesia as a Phyletic Unit / 244 + Ancestral Polynesia / 215 - Cultural Sequences in Western Polynesia / 219 + The Settlement of Eastern Polynesia / 230

CHAPTER 8 The Polynesian Chiefdoms / 246 Polynesian Chiefdoms: Ethnographic Background and Anthropological Significance / 248 + Sociopolitical

, Transformation in the Open Societies / 250 + The Emergence of Stratified Chiefdoms /283 + Summary / 3014 :

CHAPTER 9 Big Structures and Large Processes in Oceanic Prehistory / 302 Voyaging and the Human “Conquest” of the Pacific / 302 + History Written in the Present: Correlations between Language, Biology, and Culture / 305 + The Role of Demograpbic Change in Oceanic History / 307 Oceanic Populations on the Eve of European Contact / 314 + The Political Economy of Dynamic Landscapes / 343 + Intensification and Specialization in Island Economies / 317 + Transformations of Status and Power / 324 + On Comparison: A Closing Comment / 323

Notes / 327 |

, References / 355

Index / 409 |

viii ,

List of Maps

1. Oceania, showing the traditional cultural 8. Island Melanesia, excluding Fiji, showing the regions of Polynesia, Melanesia, and Micro- location of key archaeological sites 118

nesia 6 9. The Fiji archipelago, showing the location of

2. The distribution of the Austronesian and Non- key archaeological sites 156

Austronesian languages in Oceania 7 10. The islands of Micronesia 166 3. A tectonic map of the Pacific basin 45 11. The islands of Western Polynesia, showing 4. The dominant wind and current directions in the location of key archaeological sites 220

the Pacific Ocean 51 - 12. The central Eastern Polynesian archipelagoes 5. Approximate configuration of Sunda and and islands 253 Sahul during the Pleistocene 66 13. Easter Island (Rapa Nui), showing the loca6. Near Oceania, showing the distribution of tion of key archaeological sites 270 important Pleistocene and early Holocene 14. New Zealand, or Aotearoa, showing the loca-

archaeological sites 72 tion of key archaeological sites 276 | 7. The distribution of Lapita sites in Near and 15. The Hawaiian Islands, showing the location

Remote Oceania 96 of key archaeological sites 291

ix

BLANK PAGE |

List of Figures

1.1. Captain James Cook 23 1.9. Te Rangi Hiroa's theory of Polynesian ori1.2. “Geometrical Details of the Monuments gins, depicting the posited “Micronesian of Easter Island,” as recorded by the drafts- Route” of migrations 26 man of La Pérouse’s voyage around the 1.10. Professor Edward W. Gifford of the Univer-

world 15 sity of California and his graduate student 1.3. The Bernice Pauahi Bishop Museum, shown assistant Richard Shutler, Jr., assisted by not long after its founding in 1889 17 local workers, during their 1952 expedition 1.4. William T. Brigham, the founding director to New Caledonia 28 of Bishop Museum, with his staff about 1.11. Kenneth P. Emory and Yosihiko Sinoto

1901 18 excavating at the Pu'u Ali'i sand dune site,

1.5. Prehistoric artifacts found by Julius Von South Point, Hawai'i, in the early 1950s 30 Haast in association with moa bones in New 1.12. Statue 295 in the Rano Raraku Quarry, Rapa

Zealand 19 Nui, after the completion of excavations by 1.6. Bishop Museum ethnologist John F. G. the Norwegian Archaeological Expedition

Stokes and his wife on the dock at Rapa in 1956 31

Island in 1920 22 1.13. Robert C. Suggs cleaning a test excavation 1.7. Bishop Museum ethnologist Kenneth P. face at the Ha’atuatua dune site in the MarEmory in Haleakala Crater, Maui Island, quesas Islands in 1956 32

1920 23 1.14. Robert Sugegs's cultural sequence for the

1.8. Te Rangi Hiroa and Kenneth P. Emory of Marquesas Islands 33 the Bishop Museum at the investiture stone 1.15. Roger C. Green in the field in Western

of Hauvivi marae, Ra'iatea Island 24 Samoa, 1960s 34 xi

LIST OF FIGURES | 1.16. Map of a marae or temple complex in the 3.6. Excavations in progress at the Matenbek

‘Opunohu Valley, Mo’orea 35 site, New Ireland 75 1.17. Excavations in the deeply stratified Sina- 3.7. Stone tools from the Matenkupkum Rock-

pupu sand dune site on Tikopia Island 37 shelter on New Ireland 77 1.18. The Talepakemalai site in the Mussau 3.8. Archaeological section across a large drain-

Islands of Papua New Guinea 38 age ditch at the Kuk site 80 2.1. Dramatic sea cliffs along the windward 4.1. Carved anthropomorphic image, in por-

coast of Moloka'i 43 poise bone, from Talepakemalai 86

of islands 47 rrbiza 87

2.2. Examples of the principal geological types 4.2. The large aroid plant Alocasia macro-

2.3. Anuta Island in the southeastern Solo- 4.3. The dentate-stamped method of decoramons, one of the smaller high islands in the tion is characteristic of Lapita pottery 90

Pacific 48 4.4. The subgrouping or “family tree” for the

2.4. The high island of Niuatoputapu in the Austronesian languages 92 , northern Tongan group 49 4.5. Lapita '*C probability distributions for four 2.5. Stages in the development of an atoll, illus- major subregions of the Western Pacific 97

trated by block diagrams of various near- 4.6. The subgrouping of the Oceanic lan- ©

atolls and atolls 50 guages 99

2.6. Average rainfall distribution (in milli- 4.7. Pottery firing sequence observed by the

meters) over the Pacific Ocean 52 author in the Sigatoka Valley, Fiji 1074 2.7. Large tracts in the interior of Futuna Island 4.8. Varieties of Lapita vessel forms occurring in

in Western Polynesia are covered in pyro- early Lapita sites in New Caledonia 103

phytic Dicranopteris fernlands 55 4.9. A ceramic dish, decorated with dentate2.8. Summary pollen diagram for the TIR-1 stamped designs, from the Talepakemalai sediment core from Veitatei Valley, Man- site in the Mussau Islands 104

gaia Island 60 4.10. An anthropomorphic face design on pot2.9. Reconstruction of the extinct megapode sherds from the Talepakemalai site in the Sylviornis neocaledoniae and the extinct terres- Mussau Islands 105 trial crocodile Mekosuchus inexpectatus from 4.11. Excavating the two large, in situ vessels

New Caledonia 62 at the site of Lapita, at Koné, New Cale3.1. Waisted axes from the Huon Peninsula 64 donia 106 3.2. Fluctuating sea levels characterized the 4.12. Anaerobically preserved bases of wooden Pacific world during the late Pleistocene posts at the waterlogged Jalepakemalai site

and Holocene 67 in the Mussau Islands 107.

3.3. Archaeological excavation in progress in 4.13. Plan of the Nenumbo Lapita site in the the Pamwak rockshelter, Manus Island 69 Reef Islands, excavated by Roger Green 108

xii |

3.4. Kafiavana Rockshelter in the New Guinea 4.14. Fishhooks of Trochus shell from the Tale-

, Highlands, after excavation 73 pakemalai Lapita site 112 3.5. Stone tools from the Pleistocene occupa- 4.15. Carefully prepared sections of Conus shell, ,

tion levels at Kosipe, New Guinea High- with holes drilled for line attachment or

lands 74 suspension 114

LIST OF FIGURES

5.1. High-volume production of pottery for 5.21. Stacked walls of limestone boulders at the trade characterized many of the coastal ‘Hnakudotit fortification site on Maré, Loy-

societies of Papua in the proto-historic alty Islands 152

period 121 5.22. Flights of formerly irrigated taro terraces, 5.2. Potsherds from the Nebira 4 site 122 now covered in grasslands, at the Col de la 5.3. A pedestaled bowl from the Collingwood , Pirogue, New Caledonia 153

Bay region 123 5.23. Aerial photo of ancient yam cultivation

5.4. Excavations at the well-stratified Motupore mounds on an alluvial plain at Tiwaka, New

site, Papua New Guinea 124 Caledonia 153 5.5. Potsherds from the Epakapaka Rockshelter 5.24. Plan of house mounds at Tipalet in the

site (EKQ) in Mussau with incised and Bopope region of New Caledonia 154

punctate designs 128 5.25. A paddle-impressed pot from the Sigatoka 5.6. Terebra-shell adzes from post-Lapita sites in dune site, Fiji 157

the Mussau Islands 1430 5.26. Plan of a ring-ditch-fortified village at 5.7. Modern pottery vessel forms and pottery Lomolomo, in the Rewa Delta of Viti Levu,

motifs from Buka Island 132 Fiji 159

5.8. Stone-lined burial crypts at a ridgetop set- 5.27. Allen's model of changing exchange nettlement in the Ndughore Valley, Kolom- work configurations in the Papua region 163

bangara Island 133 6.1. The earliest ceramics from the Marianas 5.9. Plan of Dai village, Nendo Island 136 Islands include sherds with lime-filled 5.10. Potsherds from the Mangaasi site on Efate impressed designs 171

Island, Vanuatu 137 6.2. The seriation of major ceramic types in 5.11. The site of Mangaasi on Efate Island, Van- the Marianas Islands, as developed by

uatu, after the completion of excava- Spoehr 176

tions 138 6.3. The sequence of changes in shell fishhook 5.12. Plan of the Roy Mata burial site on Retoka types on Nukuoro atoll 180

Island 140 6.4. Excavation through the berm of a Cyrto-

5.13. The Roy Mata burial site 141 sperma cultivation pit on Maloelap, Marshall 5.14. A prehistoric irrigation canal on Aneityum Islands 182

Island, after excavation 142 6.5. A sailing canoe of the central Caroline 5.15. Tikopia, a volcanic cone with a central Islands, as drawn by the French artist

crater lake 144 Louis Choris 183

5.16. The cultural sequence of Tikopia 145 6.6. Profiles and plan of typical latte columns in 5.17. Turbo-shell fishhooks excavated from archae- the Marianas Islands 184 ological sites on Tikopia Island 146 , 6.7. The Tapony latte site on Guam, Marianas

5.18. Tikopia Tridacna- and Terebra-shell adzes from Islands 185 | the Sinapupu Phase 146 6.8. Plan of a typical latte site, with a linear 5.19. The cultural sequence of New Caledo- arrangement of latte foundations running

nia 149 , parallel to the coast 186

nia 151 site 187

5.20. The cultural sequence of New Caledo- 6.9. Reconstruction of the House of Taga latte

xiii |

LIST OF FIGURES

6.10. A terraced landscape at Airai, Babeldaob, 7.6. Artifacts from Ancestral Polynesian sites on

Palau 188 Niuatoputapu Island 217

6.11. Plan map of terraces inland of Ngchemian- 7.7. Perspective sketch of a Samoan star mound,

gel Bay, Palau 189 at Vaito omuli, Savai'i Island 223

6.12. An “owl” face stone sculpture at Ngerekl- 7.8. The massive Pulemelei Mound in Western

ngong, Ngeremlengui State, Palau 190 Samoa 224 © 6.13. The Bairulchau site on Babeldaob, with its 7.9. Perspective sketch of a walled fortification at

megalithic carvings 191 Uliamoa, Savai'i Island, Western Samoa 224 6.14. A Yapese stone “money” disc of aragonitic 7.10. Archaeological plan of the Mu’a site, Ton-

limestone in a village plaza 194 gatapu Island 225 | 6.15. An aerial view of part of the Nan Madol 7.11. The annual tribute presentations on the

site on Pohnpei 196 great plaza fronting the burial mounds of 6.16. Perspective view of the Nandauwas tomb the Tu'i Tonga, at Mura, in 1777 226 complex at Nan Madol, Pohnpei 197 7.12. Settlement pattern map of Niuatoputapu

6.17. Map of the Nan Madol site complex by Island 226 the early German ethnographer Paul Ham- 7.13. The Houmafakalele burial mound site on |

bruch 198 Niuatoputapu Island 227

6.18. View of the Nandauwas tomb complex 7.14. The ceremonial plaza (malae) of the late

from the adjacent canal 199 prehistoric village site at Loka, Alofi 6.19. Perspective rendering of the Sapwtakai site Island 228

in the Kiti District, Pohnpei 200 7.15. The Petania burial mound on ‘Uvea 6.20. A residential compound at Lelu, Kosrae, as Island 229 recorded during the early nineteenth- 7.16. Models of Polynesian dispersals proposed

century Russian visit of Littke 202 by Emory and Sinoto (1965) and Kirch 6.21. The construction sequence for the Lelu (1984a) 2314 site, as determined by Ross Cordy 203 7.17. Excavations at the sand dune site of Hane

6.22. Radiocarbon frequency distribution for on Ua Huka, Marquesas Islands 236

Kosrae Island 205 7.18. Early Eastern Polynesian fishhooks from 7.1. Excavations at the early Polynesian occu- the Marquesas Islands 237 pation level at Tavai, Futuna 209 7.19. Artifacts from the Tangatatau Rockshelter

7.2. Changes in pottery vessel forms from site on Mangaia Island 239 Early Eastern Lapita to Polynesian Plain 7.20. A Polynesian double-hulled canoe at sea

Ware 210 between Tonga and Samoa, as seen by the 7.3. The subgrouping of the Polynesian lan- Dutch voyagers Schouten and Le Maire in

guages 213 1616 240

7.4. A dendrogram of Polynesian biological 7.21. Geoff Irwin's model of survival sailing

populations, based on anthropometric strategy 240

analysis 214 7.22. Geoff Irwin's model of arcs of explora-

7.5. Excavation through a large earthen tion 242

Samoa 216 sea 243 ,

mound at Vailele, ‘Upolu Island, Western 7.23. The replicated voyaging canoe Hokule’a at

xiv

LIST OF FIGURES

8.1. The paramount chief of Hawai'i Island, 8.21. The largest moa birds towered over their Kalaniopu'u, arrives in Kealakekua Bay to Polynesian hunters 280 greet Captain James Cook in 1779 247 8.22. A probable population growth curve for

8.2. Settlement pattern map of the island of the Maori, as reconstructed by Janet

Mangaia 254 Davidson 280

8.3. The large Tangatatau Rockshelter in Vei- 8.23. A hilltop pa site in the Pouto region of

tatei District, Mangaia 256 ~ North Island, New Zealand 281 8.4. Diagram of ideological relationships in 8.24. Plan of a pa site in the Pouto region of

protohistoric Mangaian society 256 North Island, New Zealand 282 8.5. View of Ua Pou Island, Marquesas 258 8.25. A view of part of the Taputapuatea temple 8.6. Diagrammatic summary of the Marquesan (marae) complex on the island of Ra’iatea,

cultural sequence 259 seat of the Oro cult 285

8.7. Artist's reconstruction of the early Eastern 8.26. Plan of Site ScMo-103, a large round-ended Polynesian settlement at Ha‘atuatua Bay, © house in the ‘Opunohu Valley, Mo'orea 286

Nuku Hiva, based on the 1956-57 excava- 8.27. A stepped marae in the interior of the

tions of Robert Suggs 260 ‘Opunohu Valley, Mo’orea 287 8.8. The Hanamiai dune site on Tahuata Island 8.28. The Hawaiian cultural sequence 292

during excavation 261 8.29. The Halawa Dune site at the mouth of 8.9. The central ceremonial plaza on the Ta’‘a’oa Halawa Valley, Molokai 293 tobua site on Hiva Oa Island, Marquesas 262 8.30. Artifacts from the early Bellows sand dune

8.10. Plan map of the Vahangeku’a tobua site in site (O18) at Waimanalo, O'ahu Island 294 Taipivai Valley, Nuku Hiva, Marquesas 263 8.31. Hawaiian population growth as reflected in

8.11. A large anthropomorphic statue at Puamau, numbers of dated habitation sites 295

Hiva Oa Island, Marquesas 264 8.32. Radiocarbon date curves from Hawai'i 296 8.12. Marquesan dwelling platform of the Clas- 8.33. Archaeological plan of an irrigation system

sic Period 264 in the Anahulu Valley, O'ahu 297

8.13. Crude adzes made from fossilized Tridacna 8.34. A large fishpond on the southern shore of

shell, from late prehistoric sites of Hender- Moloka’i Island 298

son Island 266 8.35 Aerial view of a midsized temple (beiau) in 8.14. The fortified ridgetop village site of Mo- the abupua‘a of Kipapa, Kahikinui, Maui 299

rongo Uta, Rapa Island 268 9.1. Possible demographic scenarios on the 8.15. The restored abu of Tongariki, Rapa Nui 269 islands of Remote Oceania 310

, xv

8.16. The cultural sequence of Easter Island 271 9.2. The fern-covered hills of Mangaia Island 314 8.17. A kneeling statue during excavation at the 9.3. Irrigated taro pondfields of Tamarua Valley,

Rano Raraku quarry, Rapa Nui 272 Mangaia Island 318

8.18. Extremely fine stonework marks the facing 9.4. A katoanga or village feast in Sigave District,

of Ahu Vinapu on Rapa Nui 273 Futuna Island, in 1974 320

8.19. Mata‘a, obsidian spearheads from Rapa 9.5. A human sacrifice being offered to the god

Nui 274 Oro on a marae or temple in Tahiti, Society

8.20. Archaic-type artifacts from the earlier Islands, as drawn by John Webber, on Capphase of the New Zealand sequence 279 tain Cook's third voyage 324

BLANK PAGE

List of Tables

3.1. Pleistocene sites of Near Oceania 71 6.1. Selected archaeological sites in Micro3.2. Comparison of the modern faunas of New nesia 168 Guinea and New Britain 76 6.2. The Pohnpei culture-historical sequence 178 3.3. Selected sites of the early to mid-Holocene 7.1. Selected archaeological sites in Western

Period in lowland New Guinea and Near Polynesia 221 |

Oceania 81 7.2. Selected early Eastern Polynesian archaeo4.1. Selected Lapita sites in the Bismarck Archi- logical sites 234

pelago and Solomon Islands 89 8.1. Selected later prehistoric sites in Eastern 4.2. Selected Lapita and related ceramic sites in Polynesia 251

Remote Oceania 94 8.2. The prehistoric cultural sequence of the 5.1. Selected non-Lapita sites in Melanesia 119 southern Wairarapa Region, North Island, 5.2. The cultural sequences of Buka and Nissan New Zealand 278 Islands 1314

xvii

BLANK PAGE

Preface

Born and raised on one Pacific island, |have spent — ological, historical linguistic, ethnographic, and

three decades of my adult life exploring, living on, | human biological evidence concerning the studying, and seeking to understand a plethora. Oceanic past, assembled by scholars over more of others, especially the history and culture of | than two centuries. It is necessarily personal in their inhabitants. While my own ancestry is ulti- | the emphasis | accord particular times, places, and mately European, I sometimes feel that the Pacific | concepts. Despite my acceptance of the idea that is in my blood. This is, naturally, but a metaphor. __ history (or “prehistory”) is constructed rather than Yet the many years spent living and working with — reconstructed (as might have been said three

Pacific islanders, learning to speak more than decades ago, during the heyday of the “New one of their indigenous languages, and adapting § Archaeology”), | do not subscribe to the ultrarelamy behavior to fit their cultural canons have—I _ tivist stance of some late-twentieth-century social hope—engendered a certain empathy beyond that — scientists. Although each new generation of typically associated with dispassionate social sci- | archaeologists and prehistorians inevitably rewrites ence. This book is my attempt to distill a lifetime | the past in their own terms, | prefer to see this,

of study—and the insights gained through much "in Paul Veyne's (1984) words, as a process of tedious sifting of often minute strands of evidence “lengthening the questionnaire,” of constructing by myself and innumerable colleagues—into a = multiple, rather than single, historical plots. coherent whole, a synthesis for those whose curios- With each new generation the empirical base ity would take them on an intellectual voyage into | of archaeology advances, constraining what the

the Oceanic past. next generation of scholars may construct of Mine is but one of many constructions that — the past. Thus | agree with Ernst Mayr (1997:83) could be made from the formidable array of archae- | when he claims that science does advance, despite

xix

PREFACE | , false starts and wrong-minded diversions along assumptions about the very nature of the field, the way. Just as Mayr can rightly claim that our — what we think we know, the often-unstated yet

understanding of the cell in biology has truly subtle organizing categories by which we conprogressed since its first recognition by Robert — duct our research. In the end, the act of writing Hooke in 1667, so our knowledge of Pacific this book proved far more intellectually engaging archaeology and long-term history has without than at first | imagined it might be. question improved throughout the course of the I first participated in Pacific archaeological nineteenth and twentieth centuries. The many fieldwork thirty-five years ago, as part of a 1965 surveys and excavations of Pacific archaeological Bishop Museum team investigating rockshelter sites, enhanced by the patient laboratory analyses sites in Kona and Ka'u, Hawai'i, and | published of artifacts and other material traces, increasingly — my first professional article in 1970. When I came improve our ability to come to grips with the into the field as a young student in the mid- 1960s, human past of Oceania. That does not mean that Jack Golson, Roger Green, Doug Yen, and others our current knowledge and understanding consti- in Pacific archaeology were inspiring a renaistute “truth” in any absolute sense; it does mean that = sance in perspective and approach, as well as our models of what happened in the past are now moving beyond (while not dispensing with) quesa better approximation of that historical reality. tions of cultural origins and migrations. Their work Was there a “real past’? Yes, but we shall never | encompassed the then-new “settlement pattern” know it definitively, as it exists only as material | approach, questions of human ecological adaptatraces in the present. Thus for epistemology. tions, and problems of sociopolitical evolution in Peter Bellwood authored the last attempt at a _ island societies. Since then, | have been privileged

general synthesis of Oceanic prehistory two to participate in many key developments and decades ago: Man’ Conquest of the Pacific (1979). | advances in Pacific prehistory, such as those that Still useful as a guide to the literature and the — came out of the Southeast Solomons Culture Hisinterpretations of its time, Peter's book is long out —_‘ tory Program of the 1970s and the Lapita Homeof date, an encouraging sign of how our knowl- land Project of the 1980s. Fieldwork has taken me edge base has increased; it is long out of print as —_ across the breadth of the Pacific, from the Mussau

well. Despite the obvious need for a suitable — Islands of Papua New Guinea to Rapa Nui, with

replacement for his opus, | long refrained from stays between these geographic extremes in undertaking such a work myself. Once committed — Palau (Belau), Yap, Majuro, Arno, Kolombangara,

to the task, however, | found it both stimulating | Nendo, Vanikoro, Tikopia, Anuta, Futuna, Alofi, and challenging to grapple with the problems of | ‘Uvea, Niuatoputapu, Vava'u, Ofu, Olosega, Ta’'u, condensing such a broad field, one that has in Mangaia, and all of the main islands of Hawai'i recent decades grown by leaps and bounds. To — except Ni‘ihau. My research has encompassed compress within the covers of a 448-page book high islands and atolls, islands tropical and subthe panoply of archaeological and anthropologi- —_— tropical, ones large and small, and spanned the cal minutiae with which the scholar ordinarily classic ethnographic regions of Melanesia, Microconcerns himself is impossible. How to sort and _ nesia, and Polynesia. I trust it not untoward to prioritize? What is truly significant? And what can __ claim that this diversity of field experiences lends be eliminated? Asking these questions forced me _ me sufficient geographic and cultural background to confront more fundamental issues: underlying — with which to undertake the synthesis attempted

xx

PREFACE

here, incorporating as well the work of a great field, | had not thought of writing such a book many other field researchers. The comparative myself. Too many other high-priority projects approach has long been a cornerstone of anthro- — were always to the fore; the undertaking of a gen-

pology, and the opportunities to compare the _ eral synthesis seemed something that could wait archaeological records of so many diverse islands — for a more leisured time. William Woodcock, forhave been inspirational. Still, this book isas much — merly of Princeton University Press, convinced a synthesis of the work and insights of innumer- — me otherwise, and without his urging | would still able others, some of whom | have been privileged — be thinking of this as a far-off project. Still, it

to know as colleagues and friends, others only as — took four years before | was able to find the academic ancestors whom | have met through the appropriate time to concentrate on its writing.

legacy of their scholarship. A year-long fellowship (1997—98) at the CenOrganizing this book—structuring it into ter for Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences chapters and subheadings—was perhaps the most (CASBS), Palo Alto, provided invigorating freeagonizing part of writing. Early on, | experi- | dom from normal academic duties. | am grateful mented with less conventional schemes, with var- _ for the financial support provided by the National

ious topically organized outlines. In the end, | Science Foundation (Grant No. SBR-9601236), rejected these approaches in favor of an outline — which partially supported my fellowship at the

based partly on time and largely on space. Center, and to the University of California at Though more conventional in structure, this plan —_ Berkeley for the grant of a year's sabbatical leave.

in my view allows for better presentation of the _ I especially thank Neil Smelser, director of the , "facts" of prehistory as we currently conceive | CASBS, Robert Scott, associate director; and their them, enabling them to be more readily accessed |= wonderfully supportive staff. Librarians Joy Scott by students as well as other professionals seeking |= and Jean Michel cheerfully tracked down obscure an introduction to the long-term history of the — references and obtained rare volumes through Pacific. But | am fully cognizant that “facts” exist— interlibrary loans. Virginia MacDonald graciously or at least can be interpreted—only within the | word-processed my editorial corrections to sevcontext of theory, and | have tried to relate eral drafts. Susan Beach's delicious lunches helped archaeological evidence to contemporary theo- — too! And the stimulating intellectual atmosphere retical issues and debates wherever possible. My — generated by my fellow colleagues of the Center's final chapter is an attempt to canvass whatI see as Class of 1997-98 made the experience especially some of the grand themes in the prehistory of the | memorable. Pacific, issues that in the end transcend place and Several colleagues were generous enough to time, and go to the core of anthropology and his- | read and comment on one or more draft chapters.

tory at large. I especially thank Roger Green and Kent Lightfoot for reading the entire manuscript. Jim Allen, For more than twenty years I have taught Pacific Steve Athens, Chris Gosden, Laura Nader, Barry

archaeology and prehistory to undergraduates Rolett, Matthew Spriggs, and David Steadman and graduate students at the Universities of | commented on specific chapters. They have saved Hawai'i, Washington, and California at Berkeley. | me from making many errors, and | am most Admittedly frustrated by the lack of a suitable | appreciative of their collegial efforts. | also thank introductory text that covered the entire Pacific the following colleagues for graciously giving me xxi

PREFACE

permission to use their photographs or illustra- | book to Douglas E. Yen, who over three decades tions: Jim Allen, Wal Ambrose, Steve Athens, Janet = has been by turns mentor, co-fieldworker, and Davidson, John Flenley, José Garanger, Jack Gol- — colleague, as well as friend and confidant. We son, Roger Green, Geoff Irwin, Pat McCoy, Wil- have shared never-to-be-forgotten field experiliam Morgan, Barry Rolett, Christophe Sand, Yosi = ences in Makaha, Halawa, Kolombangara, Anuta, Sinoto, Jim Specht, Matt Spriggs, Robert Suggs, = Tikopia, and Kahikinui, as well as evenings at varJoanne Van Tilburg, Paul Wallin (for the Kon-Tiki | ious watering holes from Nanakuli to Honiara. Museum), Marshall Weisler, and Peter White. Doug's ceaseless adherence to the sound scientific At the University of California Press, Director _ principle of always being alert to the unsuspected Jim Clark and Executive Editor Doris Kretschmer alternative hypothesis has more than once been enthusiastically accepted my book manuscript — an inspiration. His influence on my generation of and made its production a high priority. | also —_—- Pacific archaeologists has been legion. thank Nicole Hayward for her superb design and

Peter Strupp for his meticulous copyediting. Patrick Vinton Kirch

It gives me distinct pleasure to dedicate this Palo Alto

xxii , | ,

Introducti Mine is the migrating bird

| winging afar over remote oceans, Ever pointing out the sea road of the Black-heron— the dark cloud in the sky of night.

| It is the road of the winds coursed by the Sea Kings to unknown lands! Polynesian voyaging chant (Stimson 1957:73)

SaMteea ae eee | , ee , Ly ghan tea ae ese en | te een ae ; os ; ne oem 1am . . Rec aee ee , , , , 4. | , eran a , no d eS eas ag . . . . . A agen :

Cara ee

i 2 In March 1896, an English gentle- of our guides was hushed, and conversation died

be ggeae aa ee man-adventurer by the name of F W. down to whispers” (1899:78). The immensity of ho ae

ee Christian arrived at a place called = the ancient town and its stonework, laced with AIS Moh ek oe ag ge Madolenihmw, on the southern coast = canals, overwhelmed him. “Above us we see a ee of Pohnpei Island in Micronesia. Hav- striking example of immensely solid Cyclopean ely ing spent some years in Samoa (where — stone-work frowning down upon the waterway, a

Ey he was a neighbor of Robert Louis mighty wall formed of basaltic prisms” (1899:79). ‘7 G9 Stevenson), Christian had heard from — Uncertain what to make of these vestiges of the that equally famous teller of South Sea tales, Louis “long, long ages,” Christian evoked comparisons Becke, that there existed on Pohnpei “an ancient — with “the semi-Indian ruins of Java, and the Cyclo-

island Venice shrouded in jungle.” Christian had = pean structures of Ake, and Chichen-Itza in now made his way to Nan Madol at Madolenihmw, — Yucatan” (1899:80). Almost a century later, archae-

which he was about to explore, map, and photo- __ ological excavations at Nan Madol would reveal graph, exposing its wonders to the Western world. — the gradual growth of this amazing site over nearly Relating his first visit to the Nan Madol ruins, — two thousand years, its megaliths telling a story of Christian wrote: “Passing the southern barricade of the in situ rise of an island civilization. stones, we turned into the ghostly labyrinth of this Nan Madol is but one of thousands of archaecity of the waters, and straight-away the merriment — ological sites dispersed across the Pacific islands,

|

INTRODUCTION

a priceless material record of the long-term his- | being answered. This book chronicles the efforts tory of their indigenous peoples and cultures. — of archaeologists to discover and understand the

, Although one of the largest and most dramatic = archaeological record of the Pacific islands, offersites, Nan Madol is not the most famous; the gar- ing a contemporary synthesis of what we have gantuan statues of Easter Island (Rapa Nui) would found. surely claim that distinction. They too testify to My title—On the Road of the Winds—is meant to the rise of another island civilization, which, over- | evoke more than just a single or simple metashooting its resource base and damaging its frag- | phor regarding the peoples of the far-flung Pacific ile ecology, descended into the darkness of social —_ islands and their remarkable history. Countless terror. Other Pacific archaeological sites, while | voyages “on the road of the winds” underwrote known primarily to scholars, are no less significant | the discovery and settlement of the myriad on the scale of world history. Kuk, a stratified suc- | Oceanic islands. Some were short, others of great cession of clay layers in the swampy floor of a —_ duration and hardship, most often made toward New Guinea Highlands valley—and the anti- the east, hence upwind along countless trackways thesis of an impressive stone construction like stretching away into the dawn. Ultimately, then, Nan Madol—has produced clues to some of the the origins of the Pacific islanders trace back to earliest horticultural activities anywhere in the — the west, to a period when cyclically rising and world, at about 7000 B.c. At Matemkupkum falling ice-age seas wrought great changes in the rockshelter on New Ireland, excavations yielded — coastal configurations of the Southeast Asian fishbones and shellfish dating back 35,000 years, | and Australian continents. As the dates for earliest some of the first evidence for exploitation of | human movements into this Australasian realm are coastal marine resources by modern Homo sapiens. pushed farther back in time, we approach another | Then too, one could invoke the small rectangular kind of dawn: the very appearance of early modtemples of neatly stacked stone surmounting the — ern humans (Homo sapiens sapiens) and their initial

rocky summit of Necker Island in the northwest expansion out of Africa, across the face of the Old Hawaiian chain, an island only 24 hectares in area World. Then too, my title invokes not just voyand lacking any soil to speak of, yet covered with = ages undertaken by Oceanic peoples themselves— archaeological vestiges of former Polynesian voy- — whether by raft, dugout, or double-hulled sailing agers, who came and went long before Europeans = canoe—but also another kind of voyage: the intel-

ever ventured into Pacific waters. lectual voyage of exploration and discovery of the These examples hint at the diversity and § Oceanic past, a past encoded not in written texts, richness of the Oceanic archaeological record,a but in potsherds and stone tools unearthed from legacy that has been thoroughly explored, stud- island middens, in the relationships among Pacific ied, and properly interpreted only in the second island languages, in the cultural and biological half of the twentieth century. In the process, — variation of hundreds of Oceanic societies and questions that scholars have posed and puzzled populations dispersed over one-third of the earth's over for two centuries and more—Where did the surface, from New Guinea to Easter Island, from Pacific islanders come from? How did they dis- | Hawai'i to New Zealand. Voyages both real and cover and settle the thousands of islands? Why = imagined—the voyages of history and intellectual did they build great constructions like Nan Madol, | voyages of the mind—are the concern of the chap-

, or carve the Easter Island statues?—are finally ters to follow. 2

INTRODUCTION

Like all other peoples, Pacific islanders possess logical anthropology. Such works usually fall under their own indigenous forms of history, accounts the rubric of "prehistory," a term some find increasof ancestors passed down through chants, songs, ingly problematic, implying some kind of vague and oral traditions.! These too speak of voyages, — yet fundamentally qualitative difference between many of epic proportions. There is, for example, | document-based history and a history in which the the saga of Rata, whose great double-hulled canoe, unwritten “text” consists of diachronically meanThe-Cloud-Overshadowing-the-Border, carried Rata and —_ingful variation and patterning in the world at

, his mother North Tahiti—after many harrowing large. Let us call it, then, an anthropological and adventures—back home to Great Vava'uin Upper archaeological history, and one in which such traHavaiki. The famous canoe Lomipeau transported — ditional disciplinary boundaries are consciously on her deck the massive hewn limestone slabs _—_ disregarded.*

with which to build Paepaeotelea (the tomb of Using an elegant metaphor of history as a ceaseTelea), from ‘Uvea Island to the Tongan chiefly — less progression of waves of different amplitude, capital of Mu’a. The voyages of “the tropic bird — French historian Fernand Braudel (1980) called the people” led by Koura, in the canoe Te-Buki-ni- longest of these the longue durée. This is the “long Benebene ("The-tip-of-a-coconut-leaf"), colonized run” of history, of deep time. It tracks the underthe atolls known today as Kiribati. Such indige- — lying rhythms of production, the fundamental nous traditions provide one source of knowledge structures of society, the seemingly imperceptible

regarding the Oceanic past, a valuable resource _ fitting of culture to nature, and the manipulafor the insights they provide into cultural motiva- _ tion of nature to reproduce culture. In writing his . tions. It is an insider's history. Western scholars | famous opus on another ocean, La Méditerranée, have long drawn upon the historical traditions | Braudel followed the lead of his mentor Marc Bloc of Pacific islanders, and indeed these offered pri- | by incorporating varied nondocumentary sources mary evidence for many late-nineteenth- andearly- of evidence, for the history of the longue durée is as twentieth-century syntheses.? But as the human — much inscribed in the very fabric of the land, and

sciences have matured in the twentieth century, — in the patterns of culture, as it is in the written | we have developed sophisticated methods for | word. Recently, many archaeologists and prehisextracting historical information from diverse — torians have come to view what they do as the. sources lying outside the boundaries of either — writing of such long-term histories, the unearthing traditional oral or written histories, sources that — of the longue durée. , open windows on the deep past of “the peoples The deep, strong currents of the longue durée are

without history.”% akin to the great transoceanic swells that sweep This book is a history (or “prehistory” in the — the Pacific Ocean from continent to continent. usual sense) based on such nontraditional “texts"—_ To take the measure of their wavelength requires an explicitly anthropological history that privi- | that we move beyond the constraints of a narrow leges the archaeological record of human material | documentary history, or even of a particularistic culture (using that term in the broadest sense to — archaeology. A holistic perspective is called for,

include aspects of culturally altered landscapes one that brings to bear the clues derived as much as well as artifacts per se). It is also a history that —_ from the study of synchronic linguistic, cultural, and

draws upon the collaborative evidence of histori- _ biological variation as from the direct, materialcal linguistics, comparative ethnography, and bio- __ ist, properly diachronic evidence of archaeology. 3

INTRODUCTION

In Chapter 1, when the intellectual history of | lectual movement we call the Enlightenment— Oceanic historical anthropology is reviewed, we — were amazed to find the myriad islands of the shall see that a great many naive assumptionslong | Great South Sea well populated by indigenous hindered scholars from appreciating the longue durée peoples, many (but not all) of whom spoke related of the Pacific islanders. Scholarly opinion held — languages. Moreover, these islanders were expert

that people had come only lately to the islands, sailors and navigators. Tupaia, a Tahitian priestthat their cultures were essentially changeless (and = navigator interviewed by Cook, named no less hence timeless), that nothing would be gained — than 130 islands for which he claimed to know from the tedious work of archaeological excava- sailing directions (relying on stars and other nattion in island soils. Such assumptions have now — ural phenomena) and relative distances.© Thus, been thoroughly overturned and debunked, and __ long before the Spanish and later the French and the Pacific islands have begun to take their right- | English, other peoples had explored the vastness ful place in the annals of world history. Their — of the Pacific, discovered virtually every single longue durée is a rich story, one that our narratives —_ one of its habitable islands, and founded success-

are only beginning to describe—fascinating in its | ful colonies on most. A few settlements did not own right, but also replete with plots and themes — endure, but most burgeoned into often substantial whose historical significance resonates beyond populations, marked by “aristocratic” (i.e., chiefly)

local place and specific time. social structures. These latter societies—of which This is where | would now take you, onavoy- = “Otaheite” was the sine qua non—intrigued and

age to the islands of history. | tantalized Enlightenment savants, including JeanJacques Rousseau and Denis Diderot, who mined

Defining Oceania the explorers journals for evidence to support their provocative theories of the human social

Vasco Nufiez de Balboa gazed out, in 1513, across — condition.

the Pacific Ocean; Ferdinand Magellan crossed By the 1830s, the period of great exploratory it in 1520-21. By the late sixteenth century the — voyages initiated by Cook, Bougainville, and othSpanish were annually sailing from Acapulco to — ers was coming to its conclusion. One of the last Manila and back to New Spain via the North — of the great naval commanders, the French voyPacific,? yet Europeans had little real knowledge ager Dumont d’Urville, in his “Notice sur les Iles of the Pacific or its thousands of islands until nearly = du Grand Océan" (1832), classified the peoples two centuries later, when the epic voyages of Cap- of the Pacific islands into three great groups. The tain James Cook (1768-80) definitively disproved _ first of these were the Polynesians (“many islands"),” the theory of a great Terra Australis, a southern _a generally light-skinned people spread over the continent. Cook for all intents and purposes cre- islands of the eastern Pacific, including Tahiti, ated the modern map of the Pacific. Moreover, he — Hawai'i, Easter Island, and New Zealand. In the and the gentlemen-naturalists who sailed with him = western Pacific north of the equator, Dumont (Joseph Banks, Sydney Parkinson, Daniel Carl — d'Urville defined another major group, the MicroSolander, Johann Reinhold Forster, and George — nesians (‘little islands”), many of whom occuForster) initiated serious ethnographic inquiry into —_ pied small atolls. His third group, whom he called the peoples and cultures of the Pacific islands. the Melanesians (“dark islands’), consisted of the These European explorers—part of the great intel- generally darker-skinned peoples inhabiting the 4

INTRODUCTION

large islands of New Guinea, the Solomons, Van- east Asia (the Indonesian and Philippine archipeluatu (then the New Hebrides), New Caledonia, = agoes in particular). In some usages (e.g., Oliver

and Fiji. 1989), Oceania includes Australia, although that

Although based on a superficial understand- —_is not the sense here. The exclusion of island ing of the Pacific islanders, Dumont d'Urville’s | Southeast Asia from Oceania, however, is another tripartite classification stuck. Indeed, these cate- curious consequence of academic history, for gories—Polynesians, Micronesians, Melanesians— = anthropological (as well as linguistic and historibecame so deeply entrenched in Western anthro- cal) scholarship in the Pacific islands and Southpological thought that it is difficult even now to east Asia has largely independent and separate

break out of the mold in which they entrap us traditions. This is unfortunate, for—as modern (Thomas 1989). Such labels provide handy geo- _ linguistic, comparative ethnographic, and archaegraphical referents, yet they mislead us greatly if | ological studies (e.g., Bellwood et al. 1995, Swadwe take them to be meaningful segments of cul- —— ling 1997b) show—there are close culturetural history. Only Polynesia has stood the tests of | historical relationships between the indigenous time and increased knowledge, as a category with peoples of island Southeast Asia and the Pacific. historical significance. Probably this is because the = Indeed, the great Austronesian language family Polynesians were defined by Dumont d'Urville — spans both regions. However, island Southeast as much by their linguistic similarities as by per- | Asia has had a more complex historical overlay of

ceived racial affinities. Hence, the Polynesians cultural influence from the Indian subcontinent, do form a meaningful unit for culture-historical | which is not shared with the islands east of the analysis, what we may call a robust “phyletic unit” © Moluccas in Eastern Indonesia, and this has partly

(see Chapter 7). influenced the separateness of geographically

On the other hand, the labels Micronesia and, — focused scholarly traditions. For the purposes of most particularly, Melanesia imply no such culture- —_ this book, | largely confine my scope to Oceania historical unity. Indeed, whether we are looking as traditionally defined (excluding Australia and at language, human biological variation, or culture, — island Southeast Asia), although at times it will the peoples of Melanesia defy categorization, and — be necessary to look beyond its borders in order they are among the most diverse and heteroge- _ to understand fully aspects of Oceanic history and neous to be found in any comparably sized geo- __ culture.

graphic space on earth. The historical processes Two other geographical terms require discusunderlying such great variety—which can only _ sion, for these are relatively new concepts, not yet be disentangled through the holistic methods of — familiar even to many anthropologists or histoanthropological history—will be exposed in the _ rians who work in Oceania. These are Near Oceania course of this book. Suffice it to say that when the — and Remote Oceania, originally proposed by Roger terms Melanesia or Micronesia are used in the fol- Green (1991a) in reaction against the historical lowing pages, the reference will be exclusively to sterility of the “Melanesia” concept. As seen in geographic regions, with no implied ethnolinguistic | Map 1, Near Oceania includes the large island of

uniformity. New Guinea, along with the Bismarck ArchipelDumont d’Urville’s three groups, taken to- ago, and the Solomon Islands as far eastward as gether, are generally understood to make up —_ San Cristobal and Santa Ana. This is not only the Oceania and usually exclude the islands of South- region of greatest biogeographic diversity within 5

= J|WAr OR eeaoO 2Se. HBA. LT oe Ss ~— DP COT oe .Po aiemer mM LIA =~Sep a rrr SNe sar as pore dSeS eo — oo i i .Peee ee — yo. f/f jabpal a . UU ee ssi OU ~~ =. se. LT. | | eee eeeeeSeeens oe |eee 0 .a Be 2 ec ra oe. fe i Ss Swan - ee OO re — ee aS | = ae R C ee Ae LAE 3 ees Sep Sie Re Gee ES See ee Rey, oe ee Sees Re ES Se ESSN ETRE SUNG ee

cf aSos oe fF -.etESE aCRO ep ark e— peo Ba —_ =. Po i Pee oe a. cen oeSoOP ieSEs ci i. ee |—— Oo AL ee as 0|.RO ee See Ee eee ee8 ee ee# ee+= ieor So ts=a.\ ene aes oeee ee ere Se co ees eee SSO ee aes eee ee oe SO ee —oe — A oe =. ——C oe ras —— ‘\ 30|Ne N: |.‘_:aoaelrroeSeon a — — — = = So a as . rr oe Ls Xt — oS ee Lee ee oe ee ed ee ee =e eee See ~~ — & oe fo ia eae al ce oe oe — = (oe So PSE aw, ee oe Se oe ce EB es ee OS EG Sees aes Pe gs a — oe eee eee eee ee — Seal ke : ceepeeeiiae a pee eee ee oe ee ee. a ef Cy 8 ~~ ee ee pee i Lopes ee

= ty) ve . O O on ~ ts } ao : ° : » om ~pri! f ob 2 }~-/: ia] o:2aews .a3 “Pe: 4 P Cc *) ¢ ? in = 2 »2Ye ifhs . nd 50A ris ie aoe O . “Dee om a S 3s:S, 1= =. we ? na= S ‘% \~ “ ome U ~] i ="_“+=z»% E | r z

ts | a | oa O {v | 1 ' —~ f 4 rie Fs ~ O0 .=ié 4 3 i s tr: ' wd Cc . S|:ie S ’ re. a op We: ¢ a | a sii ee | > Y "er \ 3S 4 a * O © | ERTS O eee = PALS 3 | } a : = 1 & > > ops Bae | ? Y * > ~ pasvent>ss : am | eB) ea) $ ~ asd ; 5

lL. ' ; O m: & a | Ss Ke = ies ‘ a) oo o a < ee: ck. ‘ “ex ‘ { 7: } ree | | : — a it ie be a econ ’ co a my = -_ as 5 a ; > . ~ : = z : : i sess iy = ; met S 2 § a z 2 7; ™ albatral = = Y ve : i 1 7S i $ FS i . ; . 2s oD = : 5 ; ’ > + | if 3 > ~~ LO 1 em ie a sp ¢ haha » 3 Oo 6

. re > 5

” | > , = he q !

—,Pe ’:if a: “ty 1ae Ak iaei,0’Se YW italia. >| 4 : ee Ss 2 2 Geheecee 3 ies | Ree “> te . ‘ ‘ P ‘ 4 oe Ss y: : Nee = P P ‘ ge , “ “, . i : }

4 ; : ‘

| . | a aD S > ' i :or4 Fe * ..*Lia ' ; onus = S 7 i “ ~ iy* S ; K | t ao Y ., “7beh 4 : . 1 Y @Q zrer ’ it‘“Li.I,‘a 2 ‘7*..4‘™ @ ZO

. -.Bs » cS ~ 3 .. _ es a "se ' ' » o YY oe he = b | *A soarers ve) . i Li ;:, >ie : » wi id] fs = tt ee ns +‘ ‘ :#; i ial, AY d7‘FOX,

i yt Cae

DISCOVERING THE OCEANIC PAST

proselytizing, commercial, and imperial designs. ed. [1916—20]) and authored a synthetic work, An The Société de Marie (French), London Mis- — Account of the Polynesian Race (1878). Based on his sionary Society, and American Board of Commis- own reading of Polynesian oral traditions, Forsioners for Foreign Missions (Boston) each had __ nander proposed an elaborate theory of Polynedispatched parties of missionaries to various (pri- sian origins: marily Polynesian) destinations in Oceania. These purveyors of the faith took a great interest in the I think the facts collected . . . will warrant the conlanguages, cultures, and traditions of the peoples clusion that the various branches of the family . . . they endeavored to convert. Some, like William are descended from a people that was agnate to, but Ellis (1830), wrote substantial ethnographic tracts. far older than, the Vedic family of the Arian race; Ellis'’s origin theory had the ancestral Polyne- that it entered India before these Vedic Arians; that sians migrating from Asia via the Bering Straits there it underwent a mixture with the Dravidian and down the western coast of North America, race, which .. . has permanently affected its comthereby avoiding the problem of how these peoples plexion; that there also . . . it became moulded to could “have made their way against constant the Cushite-Arabian civilization of that time, that, tradewinds prevailing within the tropics” (Ellis whether driven out of India by force, or voluntar-

| 1830, 11:48). ily leaving for colonizing purposes, it established | The missionaries established orthographies for itself in the Indian Archipelago at an early period, —— and spread itself from Sumatra to Timor and Luzon. indigenous languages, encouraging large numbers (4878159) of Polynesians to become literate. Some Polynesians—such as David Malo and Samuel Kamakau

in Hawai'i, Te Ariki Tara’‘are in Rarotonga, and From island Southeast Asia, Fornander traced Mamae in Mangaia—began to write down their — the Polynesian ancestors to Fiji, then to Samoa own indigenous oral traditions and histories. | and Tonga, and finally to the far-flung islands Kamakau's Ruling Chiefs of Hawaii (1961) remains a — of the eastern Pacific. Fornander's ideas carried

remarkable record of indigenous political history, great force in Polynesian studies, well into the regularly consulted by archaeologists (e.g.,Cordy early twentieth century. 1996) and historical ethnographers (e.g., Kirch Like Fornander, S. Percy Smith (1921) relied

and Sahlins 1992). heavily upon Polynesian oral traditions, primarily Missionaries were hardly the only Whites to —_ those of Rarotonga (Cook Islands) and Taranaki settle in the islands, as colonial outposts were | (New Zealand). Smith postulated an Indian home-

established in New Zealand, Tahiti, Fiji, and land for the Polynesians, and using genealogies elsewhere.? Among the colonial officials were Sir — he put unduly precise calendrical dates on events,

George Grey (who collected a wealth of Maori such as a migration from Java to Fiji and then oral traditions), Basil Thompson (who wrote the Lau Islands between A.D. O and 450 (1921: on both Fiji and Tonga), Abraham Fornander 158-59), associated with the names of ancient (a magistrate of the Hawaiian government), and chiefs such as Vai-takere and Tu-tarangi. S. Percy Smith (who recorded Rarotongan tradi- At the fin de siécle, as the fields of ethnology tions). Fornander compiled a monumental col- and anthropology were being formally defined lection of Hawaiian oral traditions (Fornander' in European and American universities, academic Collection of Hawaiian Antiquities and Folk-lore, Thrum, institutions also sprung up in leading Pacific cen-

16

DISCOVERING THE OCEANIC PAST

Sig [ee1.3- The Bernice Pauahi 28.) CEE 2 rr Sleyee Se FIGURE 2 =——r—eeSS. Yi BORN Qo. .» CAROLINE oem \ 3 aN 0X) fp a a \ .eb ; atau>- @ ~~? a. Farni \(°)Ne'ele.? . ’ rd "9 ad yaa 4 _ SBGILBERT ae : ay. 4 oe rey ‘oe cP - . r) aN ‘ee ré OR BOREL * TRISMARCK PHOENIX ©. \q

4 or |

* agp YOYINEASS” S SOLOMON = TLIC * \\ Marquesas ™“” oJ TAVA or LL ‘ ; asyMoa® e “8 *, ‘*. ° wy Zan = e S aaa ogveo Se 1 42S, g NEW ise = soe TT UA'MO TW HEBRIDES 2? Ae fo. + ~COOF a Se. 20 e NEW &. ° ° S TONGA ° “fe” ‘ weA \,oe ‘ 2d AUSTRALIA CALEDONIA” | AUSTRAL Hee cASTER 9 Norfolk Pauike “ Raps. Pitcairn 30 yo! ‘Lord Howe psfadec . ag°

a: NEW \ “7oy ZEALAND —

“0 TASMANIAY)

Af xChatham

soe __ 100° 10° 120° 130" 140° 130° 160" 170° 180" 170° 160° 130° 40° 190" 120 410° FIGURE 1.9 Te Rang) Hiroa’'s theory of Polynesian origins, depicting the posited “‘Micronesian route” of migrations. The dashed

lines indicate secondary migrations. (From Hiroa 1944.)

these problems, Hiroa had the Polynesians re- essential if his Micronesian route was to be acquire food plants and domestic animals from —_ upheld. the Melanesians in Fiji, via Samoa and Tonga: “I Vikings of the Sunrise was intended for a wide pub-

am not an ethnobotanist, but | feel that, though lic audience, whom Hiroa (publishing under his the Polynesians traveled into central Polynesia | English name Peter H. Buck) wished to win over by the Micronesian route, such important food — to the idea that the Polynesians were “Europlants as the breadfruit, banana, yam, and finer __ poids.” But he also laid out his theory in a dense taro were carried from Indonesia to New Guinea scholarly monograph on Cook Islands material and relayed by Melanesians to their eastern culture (1944; see also Hiroa 1945:12—13). There, outpost at Fiji... . The richer food plants which in a lengthy discussion, he rejected Handy’s reached Fiji had to be relayed to central Poly- “two-strata’ theory and advanced his own proponesia through volcanic islands. The first relaying sition that the diversity of Polynesian cultures had station in western Polynesia was provided by __ originated from a single “Early Polynesian” stock, Samoa or Tonga” (1938a:307—8). It was not a which had come into the Pacific from Indonesia parsimonious explanation, but for Hiroa it was — via Micronesia (Fig. 1.9). Like Burrows (1938), 26

DISCOVERING THE OCEANIC PAST

Hiroa realized that the subsequent differentiation As tropical Polynesia has yielded archaeologically of Polynesian cultures resulted from a variety of only the early phase of the local cultures which

internal cultural processes. were flourishing at the time of discovery, I decided | have dwelt at length on Te Rangi Hiroa both to look farther west for a succession of cultures. because he was the prominent authority on Poly- Fiji seemed a likely place, and moreover | reasoned nesia in the mid-twentieth century and because that it might show traces of early Polynesians, if

they had come via Fiji. Also, I reasoned that large his. work demonstrates how any scholar's socio. to islands rather than small ones would be likely

political context can influence the development produce a succession of cultural horizons; early colof his or her ideas. The "Micronesian route" the- onizers would presumably be attracted to large land ory—never well supported by empirical evi- — masses rather than to small ones. Hence Viti Levu, dence—would fall completely once stratigraphic of more than 4,000 square miles area, was selected.

archaeology and modern comparative linguistics (1951:189) were brought to bear on the problem after World War II.'® Relying almost exclusively on compar- Gifford explored Viti Levu for six months, dis-

ative ethnographic data—especially material | covering 38 sites and excavating two, Navatu and culture—Hiroa was nonetheless able to mount a = Vunda (see Chapter 5), both well stratified and convincing argument. His work marks the cul- containing a sequence of changing pottery styles. mination of the period of ethnographic domina- — Gifford was uncertain of the ages of these sites, tion of Pacific prehistory, with archaeology a but based on external stylistic comparisons he

mere bystander. !? thought the stratigraphically earlier materials might correlate with “the Bronze Age of southeastern

The Discovery of Time Depth Asia via Borneo and the Solomons’ (1951:237). and Culture Change

The modern period of Pacific archaeology was launched.

World War II focused unprecedented attention on Buoyed by his Fijian results, Gifford organized the Pacific, as thousands of American Gls fought a second Pacific archaeological expedition in 1952, their way through the jungles of Guadalcanal and this time to the large island of New Caledonia other exotic locales. Partly as a result of this height- (Gifford and Shutler 1956). Willard Libby's pathened interest in the Pacific, at war's end several — breaking method of radiocarbon dating had just regional anthropological programs were launched. — been developed, and Gifford seized the opporWhile Pacific anthropology in the first half of the tunity to date charcoal samples from his New twentieth century had been dominated by ethnog- Caledonian sites, as well as previously excavated

raphy, archaeology rapidly came into its own samples from Fiji. At a place called Lapita on New , soon after midcentury. Professor Edward W. Gif- Caledonia's west coast, Gifford and his student ford of the University of California, Berkeley, who —_ Richard Shutler, Jr. (Fig. 1.10) found a distinctive

as a young ethnologist had led the 1920 Bayard — kind of stamped pottery, which Gifford recogDominick Expedition to Tonga, decided in 1947 _ nized as nearly identical with the sherds that his to turn his hand to archaeology. Convinced by the = Bayard Dominick Expedition coworker McKern prevailing views of Hiroa and others that there — had found in Tonga in 1920. What truly astounded was no cultural stratification in Polynesia, Gifford | Gifford, however, was the age of the associated

chose to tackle Fiji: charcoal samples as dated by '*C: 2800 + 350 B.P.

, 27

DISCOVERING THE OCEANIC PAST .

te os Oe S48 CS ES | |Gi A Gs ue ee Ae | OE;Bie pe tl)FC in “Ge Ce Lo fee win, a TRE a Eg ee 7! ‘eee hg. : a -el&S bg: |ye > aes Spe. MU CS . e/ - a A ms Sgt a ae Po Me ee os ls ve _

FIGURE 1.10 Professor Edward VW. eye g 959” Gy a

Gifford (center left) ofthe Univer- EIGN, TMS Sica 7/7 a Le

cae 8. So OE el. te AOR oo | eee Pe WA ale

sity of California and his graduate FMM | Mee (Me fay, Been student assistant Richard Shutler, |: Ao, || ls mais Seem Hae: 5 74, Mm

. Terri“ Tr “ns CC

icenter right), assisted by loca Pie ee ee |r ABS Ch ie™ ty be? workers, during their 1952 expedi- Btaaaa?y = 2 0, (| iA S/T a iy, |

tion to New Caledonia. It was | a RY ay ee eg er a during this expedition that the site cote - {| = Ah lle — = |

of Lapita was discovered. (Photo a ee se on ag Jer

courtesy P/A.Hearst Museum of © «ics -RSA¢ . . . fe

Yet if the first signals of ecological and/or demo- — complex. ther terraces gave more recent ages, -

graphic stress—and consequent sociopolitical | within the last two or three centuries. The Paita response—arose on the makatea plateaus of the | data—if confirmed by future research—provide Loyalties, other kinds of intensification also soon —_ evidence that on La Grande Terre, as in Hawai'i, appeared on the main island. La Grande Terre has — Futuna, and elsewhere, intensive, canal-fed irri-

long been noted by ethnobotanists for several gation was a development of the middle to later

tal i ification? (i.e., th h f island linked both to d

kinds of landesque capital intensification>? (i.e., those phases of island sequences, linked both to demoresulting in permanent landscape transformations). | graphic pressures and to sociopolitical transfor-

“eri oat ions.-® Of | f anci

These include taro irrigation systems—the most mations. equal note are vast areas of ancient extensive in all of Oceania—as well as Dioscorea dryland terracing and mounding that mark for-

76 A ho has viewed ly i f “dry” cultivati

yam mound systems. nyone who has viewe merly intensive systems o ry” cultivation, the magnificently sculpted hillsides of the Col de focused primarily on Dioscorea yams. The New la Pirogue, with row upon row of descending ter- Caledonian dryland systems rival in scale and races for taro planting irrigated by a complex net- | complexity those of the New Guinea Highlands work of canals and ditches (Fig. 5.22), must be — (Fig. 5.23). At Tiwaka, a single dryland system impressed at the scale of landscape manipulation — includes more than 150 large mounds, totaling at

achieved by this preindustrial society. least 35 hectares. Mounds may be 1-3 meters Although much more work must be carried — high, 10 meters wide, and up to several hundred out, we are beginning to get some indications |= meters long. Unfortunately, these dryland sysof the prehistory of these impressive landscapes. tems have not yet been excavated or dated, and 152

F “NEW ” M E Li ANESIA

“ ee oy. son oes eefae £26 ye i 5. 5eee . - ..,oe oe oeoo RAE ee ee sae -reoe — :asa.aCl ee oe ee ; a ae so BGs CASES See —r— . — Lee Boe ee ae Ree Ue ee BS a _ = ES OSHS GRIU Pcs

3 oS os: Soe Ce Bee oe CO ae oe PCR RO ee ROU —

Ro ees See —— oeoo CCoe Ses So Aesoes Ss oes BS ese —LG eeeesoo BUSS ee Ss ts Se Lage sees eeGe 28eaCe Ce Po ee aeees — SOS os BS oeoo Sout

ie rh BSc: Oe Ns oe aoe ee eis e Se PSN oS 5S pePSs, : me SoASUS oF — —-—ae. i— OOS Oe oeSeS Se kkae—. . OU

AOS ecc: Brecon ie Sen cee ee ee Re aes Ce: ee es | — Ee Soe Oe Case Co Roe oo SENS ee ee ee eee 2 ee Se RUS Be Ren eee oN Bans ee eae See ss = eee: Ey BS Sei ie ee ae Se Bs CONES ee SNR ce Soe

Mee OHWeoea Se Oa—eecoeLOS ee ieeORS — ee ee oo. — Co Soeeeee ESoeoeSean BE.Ab _ Poe F Fa CU.ee ee ooesi oS ueee a Ne

; Bat 3 Pee, SEES EESBees SeeAe: NSeSRS eeecee SeSNe GENS es SoS Cee—i ae "BStas Bee38so Gas 2 SEUSS eaeSAGES So Les See _ . esee=eLO oe eS Se BE STRBe: es Ros >.

fe eee oe eeee So. oo SsSORENESS ee So eeee Oo wes . =.ESE NGS ie RS as Cee Sea S 2888 _ pes — SESS —Coe es aOS eee oo SeCe ee ae eG es oo . EOoe Sais Poti ciel Ul eR aES eeeGoe eo cee Seee CeSeer a -Pie Se“oes as 2| Bos Be OIee ESBGoo URE RIOR eae Ceae. es -— ROS ees ee SeeBE eeSS oo ens ee EPOAS aS ee Zi& Bs— a oe BG See Reo st oe LER IECS — Coe eee Ee HS ONS ee ee ee eee LS So oe ee 5 | aS eeha uae ee SCANS ES SSBA GSES SeasRIE Teee es ee se eS ee oe yexGs ES aN SoMa a— ENE SEONG oe . : Bere aRa: 2oe Lh Oe eee BSUS Ne aaeEES Pee ee EGS es see ee ee Sfa oo ae Se oe SNe pe 2esLa UN oe — ee ce eee IDees ee oe eeoeee y See Ee Po aSues —— Pa SS eeeS ase ee ees re eee 8S Nanos eee ee Bs eeROS HSS as — Ro EON Re oo ears iSee — SONS oe pos — Pe dee a — oe oe SO CC RSE NG es ae EROS. SRC fe ee rns Boe eee ol oes BESO S Ra a SE Se ee PEERS iS ee ENG ee es . AY Cl Lr Oe PES Aas Sa Rar . Be oe Co Bees . ee a oo . .

ee eeeioe ee Oe ees sath eS ee eS oF eeee ees SS a Ss oo RE Be Co oe. ES See escoe ESS: oe aes oeoe Coe Ce EaofLL | ee ee eeSie 2ee ee SU esoe Ces ee ee oes aeepy oe ae OS Pe ze oe ROE er ES UENO eS 2S oe EGOS SoS —ce ee Se Oe OSS poe ee ae So oe SEONG Se oe Pe es eS ee oo a FF ee ee ee PR Fe oe ee eo. eee as ES: AS oe SS ee Ce AS SE se ae GUE SDR — AS oo See =.oo ) ee oo ee ce ee oo Se oe : — ee Se oe ee ee eee Pee. Ce os Cl — oo ONE a Ae eS ee ee gee oe BEES — oe ae. oe oe ee se ees Se—a Co CeRage Le EE ee WO ee se Se SNe Ae ooeeSea ee Ges ee oe OS HOES ae NS ee NNSA ae ee Ne oo SS — es Sea ee eh Be-on pee iOSES .oe eee Ones Pee Ree aBO .ee eRe oo eS — ee -— eeee — — eae ee ee ee ee Co Nora OO oe es aeiHs es i. JEeESS PeSee See BR SS . Sen BA oe es ae geese ee.oe See oe a8 ee CC ea & oe eeeg SOEsSs fe eeey ee aPee Se Se Boe eee Spee. ee ee is Se SS ee ee ee CA US“SS ae a oe e eg -.. ol ae ee _ oe oe es ate foe Cee see Ee — ee ce 8 Oe a S 7 oe! eo ee . 2 Fe ee Ae 8 Oe es oe S So 2 Mi ee oe — oe ee aes — ee Ce a i 8 Se es So oe — ao Ce oe i— oe .eeoo aae aeee(oo se —eepar afaeegeeBoo am . eeYee - ee iea ot eeBee Os: oo ee, ee ee ff ae eo.— gee See eee ee aeoe .Cs. eGae See Ree oeSUL Bee ea See aa _ge oo oeee eeee sgt Ores Se oe. —Sis ee eee aeeS eeege oese ae“eo geoo eeeeaee re ee Ses a eS POs ae eS re See se Ras Sas

OOS ge Eee Bee oo ues So . ee Ne geOe icgeCOS oe See x é ep aRitts eae es ee awaBe aaes) SES ce he ee aeSerer SeSeacciieer eh osgaat eSee Be SOR: soe OR ae —aS eee eee ee — EOS ee 3ees eo meee es oe RSoe |. r—rs— ae — Pe eehates ad ioe ee SeeBy

PRR GES CO ee oe eee ee EES eee @ eee eye Be Bagh Eo eee ees 2a ee a ee ee oe. oe

ee ee yo ee _ fae, | _. | ye fF Ee eoaS Segoe aek ge 8— aeeeee = oo Stee gepe Seas ey eS aaeees iecsge . oo Rg OS oe eG : oe eee aes oe Soe eSee aeee ee Os oe ees “eeea OS eeeeee es aes Cel aoeeyee see ee Yew SE ee co aS . ees ee eeoo Seee oeee (ee oo a.fo ek, Se eS , as Fe BOs Cs oo ia cores Pee ee — See SR oo. Ss Se oe ec ee Pee be) | fooe -eeeseeae amg oe iooa.-_.aPRES .ie_ERORe se£ao” — ~~ = ee De _eeee.aei.es _ eeoo. soe ee) Eee ==—. ee CL “. ee ger PR eS Ue oo oe oe ee oo oe apa ..gs ge oo oeaeed So — foe CF (one ee ee oe oo ee fee — oe oo ee — se -_. sy ee egaSi. Lee —Po faoe oe aSoe ee 28 ee2oe — Oe

°.

eee ee ee— ee Sas Be oe ees Co BEES ee Beg eee eae Eo oe oe oe Be “ay8Be ae Sas ee Be es REBRU CG Se ae es eeee-—_— Se a_ aes oehles.~,... —eeeeo Pee aefeeeae eae geSs oS atRSS S Race eeeBe ee ee gsoe oe ee. ee Esseo eepeSe Oe oeoo BO ee. oe ee SeRepone oeHAN eee eR ee EES ES aes ee & SoSe eee PeeRi Oe fe RE BOSS oeOe: ReeSee, eeSENG ae Bee s eae —Se oe PMs eeUES see— Se,eee SEE -— iS ee weRee okpe ee ae Seoe Ses oo.5? ee pes asus oeee! — ouger Ne Regee Ek See aaa one iC u es Se ee eekeeoe RO: ee ee care SI Ses oe: DEERE aoe Seeae SePRUE. BONS re eeNG So ep TkBe ag ceeeeS —pee. Sh%reas ca

Hee ee oo Bae 0 a ISS BOs ae ee ae fee — fe ~~. eS See SS ne co: Ee. See ete ae a Fe Seas

Be eee a_fe Seee eekepe ee BS ee es‘eeeoe Rs peSSuae Bit ee Sage a ER ee.ese ponent eeCo aS Se - es =oe ee See Dies — Sate SN .SOUS om ed PRON ES eae ae RE eseeee ee eS ee _ aeaon -ee eeos — eS eeSs BS pee eS | eo ee ae a — oe oe eae ee ES ee — ee we ao Se SRO ok ce Oe Soe ee Se a Pe oa oe. eee ; ce eo tt — — ee . Co oe oe i. eee om oe LD ee Se fe . a o Se Po gee Bek Sy DS — oe Ces _a 4Ce .oo oeee_7aCeo oo oooo oswae “Gf . Sess >> — oo |oe 2oo Se ee oe oe.Oe Ss ee aee Se Goce . te eeERO os Ps ee ae ee2% ae — >Oe re — fF. eeeeeSea% aot ae ee Ke 2. . See Sas oo oe So ONES Be ee oe, i. af 2 Peesae BO ee REO CES ee eSEe ERE.oe oe oeZe Be Be me eee SoGse ee “See he meee 0ee AaaBee goog Bee S SUSE: ee oo Ce Po ae ago as Pc ee a oS SOG ee ee EO ee oe oS Suc ey a sea , ge oS ee ae -..ee RS Ss oe oe ee ee ee 8Boa KO — es oe Bue ce4 eS ee ee a—Co SS CoSoe ee of ae SS ere CeCe RG ee SOR aeCe. oe CS oe ns Cae CE ee RRS Se esowe eeee ce Rage is eeree 1 Bee — ee ee . — ee oe Es eo ce a ee oo oe oo . eos Bes — -—.. a ee SF Co Oe oo oe Ee Be ee. 3a Bae :S2ead Bee ee NE: vere oe Ras e a Oe ee ce ey Ce es Soe ORS es paket © Sent e TC ee Oe a -— me 2 Ce ae om oS eee I Qa pi ee Boe permite rT oo eS Oe = a . es oe C Be er — Eee oo Ce ee Cs aS — go fs ge a oe, cog oe oa = C eece oe ioe ee - DO SR SEX SENG See. oeSe—OC) RSoeReis SOE Bae ao Sk pa fee RS aS — SU — OO FOOTE ee oe ee ee So. ~ ae ous . 8Bee es on es BSE a..— Se —— SOS REO BENS ease SS oe eeore Eee Le a es Be Bs.2 Bee 2ait Tie eS aeeeeaBe Ee