The Journal of Island and Coastal Archaeology

ISSN: 1556-4894 (Print) 1556-1828 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/uica20

Late Holocene Human Expansion into Near and Remote : A Bayesian Model of the Chronologies of the and

Timothy M. Rieth & J. Stephen Athens

To cite this article: Timothy M. Rieth & J. Stephen Athens (2017): Late Holocene Human Expansion into Near and : A Bayesian Model of the Chronologies of the Mariana Islands and Bismarck Archipelago, The Journal of Island and Coastal Archaeology, DOI: 10.1080/15564894.2017.1331939 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15564894.2017.1331939

View supplementary material

Published online: 07 Jun 2017.

Submit your article to this journal

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=uica20

Download by: [66.66.217.214] Date: 07 June 2017, At: 09:52 The Journal of Island and Coastal Archaeology, 0:1–12, 2017 Copyright C Taylor & Francis Group, LLC ISSN: 1556-4894 print / 1556-1828 online DOI: 10.1080/15564894.2017.1331939

Late Holocene Human Expansion into Near and Remote Oceania: A Bayesian Model of the Chronologies of the Mariana Islands and Bismarck Archipelago

Timothy M. Rieth and J. Stephen Athens International Archaeological Research Institute, Inc., Honolulu, Hawaii, USA

ABSTRACT

Since the investigations of Spoehr in the 1950s, most researchers have accepted a date of ∼3500 BP/1500 BC for the initial human settle- ment of the Mariana Islands in the western Pacific. The relationship of this early expansion beyond Island , characterized by Lapita-like pottery, to the appearance of Lapita in , generally was either given little thought or largely ignored. The Lapita settlement of Near Oceania is almost universally regarded as the initial expansion of Austronesian speakers into the Pacific,

followed a few centuries later by a rapid migration to the east into Remote Oceania. More recently, however, radiocarbon evidence from several sites suggests that initial late Holocene expansion into the Pacific occurred in the Mariana Islands. This hypothesis needs critical evaluation. To this end, we created site- and region-level Bayesian calibration models. Results estimate that initial Lapita occupation of the Mussau Islands in the Bismarck Archipelago occurred between 3535 and 3234 cal BP (95% probability), which is 50–385 years (95% probability) earlier than the initial settlement of the Mariana Islands, dated to 3230–3085 cal BP (95% probability). Additionally, settlement of the Mariana Islands was either coeval or later (−66 to 254 years [95% probability]) than Lapita expansion out of Mussau into the greater Bismarck archipelago between 3397 and 3115 cal BP (95% probability). Radiocarbon datasets from these regions are hampered by problematic samples, and we anticipate that additional reliable radiocarbon dates will refine these estimates.

Keywords Bayesian calibration, Bismarck Archipelago, chronology, Lapita, Mariana Islands

Received 10 January 2017; accepted 15 May 2017. Address correspondence to Timothy M. Rieth, International Archaeological Research Institute, Inc., 2081 Young St., Honolulu, HI 96826, USA. E-mail: [email protected] Color versions of one or more figures in this article are available online at www.tandfonline.com/uica.

1 Timothy M. Rieth and J. Stephen Athens

INTRODUCTION in Oceania by migrants associated with the Lapita Cultural Complex (Kirch 2000:88– Settlement of the Mariana Islands ∼3500 cal 93, 2010), which is materially identified by BP has been posited as the first expansion of finely dentate-stamped pottery and an asso- Austronesian speakers beyond Island South- ciated suite of lithic and shell tools and shell east Asia (ISEA) during the late Holocene ornaments (see Specht et al. 2014 for an ar- (Carson 2014; Carson and Kurashina 2012; gument that material and cultural changes Hung et al. 2011). The Pre-Latte Period, as occurred variably across time and space in this earliest archaeological manifestation the archipelago and not as a single Lapita is called in the Mariana Islands, is recog- “package”). nized by its distinctive pottery tradition of While the broad outline of this expan- red-slipped, impressed, lime-infilled wares sion out of ISEA is not in dispute, the idea (Spoehr 1957:117–124), a tradition gener- that the Mariana Islands were settled be- ally associated with the well-known Lapita fore the Lapita settlement in the Bismarck ware of (Bellwood 1975:13; Car- Archipelago is a hypothesis that needs to be son et al. 2013). Spoehr’s (1957:66) original tested. We developed a series of Bayesian date on a large oyster shell from the Chalan calibration models using archaeological Piao site on for the Pre-Latte Period data1 to clarify temporal trends of late was 1527 ± 200 BC. Marine shell was also Holocene expansion and settlement in used to date the Pre-Latte component of the these islands, and address the question: Tarague site on , producing a roughly does initial human occupation of the Mar- similar determination of 3435 ± 70 BP iana Islands precede Lapita settlement of (Kurashina and Clayshulte 1983). While the Bismarck Archipelago? The robustness these dates have been long-recognized as and reliability of chronologies are then eval- problematic due to the metabolism of ocean uated, and we consider the use of various reservoir 14C-depleted carbon in variable plant materials and marine invertebrates quantities (Athens 1986:116; also Petchey for radiocarbon dating in this region (Allen 2009), two subsequent determinations and Huebert 2014;Petchey2009;Rieth on unidentified charcoal from reworked and Athens 2013). Methodological issues in shoreline sediments at the Achugao site on macro-scale chronological analyses such as Saipan (Butler 1994:22–23) seem to have this are also evaluated. enshrined the 3500 BP/1500 BC age as the approximate date for the onset of the Pre-Latte Period and the settlement of the METHODS Mariana Islands (e.g., Butler 1994; Russell 1998). Recent investigations carried out For the Mariana Islands, conventional by Carson and colleagues, noted above, radiocarbon ages (CRA) were collected purportedly solidifies this early chronology from the academic and cultural resource of initial Mariana Island settlement, but management (CRM) literature (Supple- with the added wrinkle of suggesting that mental Material: Table 1; supplemental the initial migratory thrust of Austronesians material available online). Measured radio- out of ISEA was to the Mariana Islands carbon ages lacking correction for isotopic and not to Near Oceania (see also Rainbird fractionation were excluded, as were 2004:85). This position has been challenged shell-derived ages unless locality-specific based on analyses of ceramic attributes and deltaR (R) values had been calculated. chronological data (Clark et al. 2010;Clark Research by Petchey et al. (2016)shows and Winter n.d.; Petchey et al. 2016;Winter that an archipelago-wide R value, even et al. 2012), as well as computer simula- if taxon-specific, cannot be developed for tion modeling of voyaging (Fitzpatrick and the Mariana Islands, due in part to a geo- Callaghan 2013; Montenegro et al. 2016). graphical variation in hardwater effect. Our Previously, the Bismarck Archipelago analysis uses locality- and taxon-specific R held priority as the initial area of settlement values for Anadara antiquata (218 ± 57

2 VOLUME 0 • ISSUE 0 • 2017 Human Expansion into Oceania: A Bayesian Model

14C years; pooled value) and marine inverte- commands (code provided as Supplemen- brate taxa that inhabit reef or open marine tal Material). All individual models have environments (23 ± 37 14C years) for Unai agreement indices above 60 (equivalent to Bapot, Saipan (Petchey et al. 2016), and A. the 5% level of a χ 2 test) and show good antiquata (−44 ± 41 14C years; pooled agreement between the radiocarbon dates value) for Ritidian, Guam (Carson 2010). and phasing. Individual dates with low For the Bismarcks, we relied on syn- agreement values were excluded if they thesespublishedbySpechtandGosden caused a model’s agreement value to fall (1997), Spriggs (2003), Specht (2007), and below 60. The combined multi-sequence Denham et al. (2012), although in lim- model has an agreement index below 60. ited cases the primary references were re- However, the settlement estimates for each viewed. Radiocarbon determinations were region remain unchanged from the indi- obtained from unidentified and identified vidual modeled results, and therefore the plant charcoal, wood, and marine shell multi-sequence model estimates are consid- (Supplemental Material: Table 2). Denham ered valid. Modeled results are italicized to et al. (2012) had excluded marine shell distinguish them from unmodeled dates. dates because of questionable R values for the region; however, Petchey and Ulm (2012) have since published values for six tentative R for the Bismarcks SETTLEMENT OF THE MARIANA along with a new value for Mussau. Using ISLANDS their R values we have included calibrated shell-derived dates. The Mariana Islands are approximately Oxcal 4.2 was used for Bayesian model 2,400 km due east of the northern calibration (Bronk Ramsey 2009, 2013). Philippines and roughly 1,700 km north- Bayesian calibration allows estimates of the northwest of the Bismarck Archipelago. start, end, and duration of events, which Eight deposits in the archipelago have pro- visual inspection of calibrated dates and duced early assemblages and have associ- summed probabilities cannot provide with ated radiocarbon determinations (Figure 1). the same statistical rigor and certainty The number of determinations per site used (Bayliss et al. 2007). The Intcal13 calibra- in our calibration models ranges from 1 (Ri- tion curve was used for terrestrial samples tidian, Guam) to 33 (Unai Bapot, Saipan). with the Marine13 curve used for marine Two site deposits were considered for samples (Reimer et al. 2013). The Northern Guam.2 One determination obtained from Hemisphere curve (Intcal13) was used for an A. antiquata shell was included for the the Bismarck samples, following McCormac Ritidian site at the northern end of the et al. (2004:1088) since this region falls island. As a single age, it was simply cali- within the Intertropical Convergence Zone brated rather than calibrated in a Bayesian (ITCZ). model structure. At 95% probability, occu- Analysis was iterative. Single or multi- pation is estimated to have occurred 3501– phase calibration models (see Bronk Ram- 3196 cal BP with a 68% probability range sey 2009) were created for the Mariana of 3435–3292 cal BP and 3283–3274 cal sites, with single phase models created BP. Six determinations from unidentified for the Mussau Islands and the Bismarck charcoal from Mangilao were included in Archipelago excluding Mussau. The individ- a multi-phase calibration model based on ual models for the Mariana Islands, Mussau, site stratigraphy (Levels 10–13 of Layer IIIg, and greater Bismarcks were then combined the basal cultural deposit). The oldest and in an overlapping, multi-sequence model youngest determinations for level 12 were to allow estimation of the differences in flagged during the initial model iteration as settlement dates. The models used Oxcal’s having low agreement values and were re- Sequence, Phase, Boundary, and Difference moved, thus leaving the six determinations.

THE JOURNAL OF ISLAND AND COASTAL ARCHAEOLOGY 3 Timothy M. Rieth and J. Stephen Athens

Figure 1. Locations of early archaeological deposits in the Mariana Islands included in this study.

Initial occupation at Mangilao occurred of Taga, two unidentified charcoal samples some time during 3631–3148 cal BP (95% included in a single phase model provide probability) or more likely 3410–3207 cal an estimate for initial occupation sometime BP (68% probability). between 3943 and 3225 cal BP (95% prob- The and Unai Chulu ability) or more likely 3443–3246 cal BP were included for . For the House (68% probability). Thirteen determinations

4 VOLUME 0 • ISSUE 0 • 2017 Human Expansion into Oceania: A Bayesian Model

from Unai Chulu were included in a multi- sample size and has the most precise esti- phase model based on excavation units and mates: sometime within a ∼150 year span at site stratigraphy. Initial occupation is esti- 95% probability or ∼80 years at 68% proba- mated to have occurred sometime between bility. In contrast, Chalan Piao and Achugao 3522 and 3215 cal BP (95% probabil- are modeled on 2 and 5 dates, respectively, ity) or likely 3406–3246 cal BP (68% resulting in 95% probability estimates of probability). 1,500–2,700 years. Second, potential inbuilt Achugao, Chalan Piao, and Unai Bapot age for unidentified charcoal may be affect- were included for Saipan. For Achugao, five ing results to varying degrees. Inbuilt age ages from unidentified charcoal were in- of decades to more than a century must be cluded in a single phase model, which es- considered for all assemblages. However, a timates initial occupation sometime during large enough sample size should allow de- 4894–3383 cal BP (95% probability) or tection of anomalously old ages (e.g., resid- likely 4085–3513 cal BP (68% probabil- ual dating samples) as Petchey et al. (2016) ity). Two unidentified charcoal dates for demonstrate for Unai Bapot. Third, Achugao Chalan Piao result in an even broader occu- and Chalan Piao have other problems in pation estimate of 5833–3175 cal BP (95% the form of large error values and poorly probability) or likely 4117–3226 cal BP provenienced (aggregated) dating samples, (68% probability). respectively. Unai Bapot offers the best chronol- ogy for the archipelago. Thirty-four ages reported by Petchey et al. (2016)from unidentified charcoal, identified short-lived LAPITA SETTLEMENT OF THE BISMARCK plant charcoal, an extirpated rail (Galliral- ARCHIPELAGO lus cf. philippensis), Anadara sp. shell, and other marine invertebrates were organized The Bismarck Archipelago is off the north- in a two-phase model based on stratigraphy. east coast of , consisting of Determinations obtained by other investi- large, volcanically active New Britain, New gators were excluded because they could Ireland, the Mussau Islands, the Manus not be correlated with the site stratigraphy Islands, and hundreds of smaller islands and presented by Petchey et al. (2016).3 Initial island groups. Humans initially occupied occupation is estimated to have occurred many areas of the archipelago during the sometime between 3224 and 3083 cal BP Pleistocene (Torrence et al. 2004). Figure 3 (95% probability) or likely 3208–3090 cal displays the locations of 23 Lapita sites in BP (68% probability). Our model struc- the Bismarck Archipelago and Nissan Island ture follows Petchey et al. (2016)and,as (sites are listed by the National Museum and expected, our results are indistinguishable Art Gallery of Papua New Guinea three or from their estimate (3200–3080 cal BP, four letter code). 68% probability). The Mussau Group has been recog- With the exception of Unai Bapot, the nized as having the earliest Lapita sites in initial settlement estimates for the Mariana the Bismarcks, designated ECA and ECB Island sites (Figure 2) are problematic for on Eloaua (Kirch 2001). This assessment at least three reasons. First, sample size is is supported by Denham et al.’s (2012) affecting the results. Simulation modeling Bayesian analysis, which is based on char- conducted by one of us (TMR, along with coal and wood-derived radiocarbon deter- D. Hamilton [Scottish Universities Environ- minations. We included charcoal and wood mental Research Centre]) indicates that for ages along with marine shell determinations the portion of the calibration curve rele- from Kirch’s (2001)excavations,aswellas vant to the settlement of the Mariana Islands two determinations obtained more recently and Bismarcks, ∼40 radiocarbon determi- by Summerhayes et al. (2010)fromEmi- nations are required to obtain sub-century rau. These ages (n = 26) were calibrated in precision. Unai Bapot comes close to this a single-phase model for the island group.

THE JOURNAL OF ISLAND AND COASTAL ARCHAEOLOGY 5 Timothy M. Rieth and J. Stephen Athens

Figure 2. Settlement estimates for Guam, Tinian, and Saipan.

Shell dates were calibrated using Petchey 38 ± 14, 40 ± 19, 273 ± 216, and and Ulm’s (2012) Rof−293 ± 92. Our 314 ± 74, depending on the site locations. results indicate Lapita occupation began A cursory assessment of both models sug- sometime during 3535–3234 (95% proba- gests that separate settlement events were bility) or likely 3453–3283 (68% probabil- dated: one which occurred sometime dur- ity) (Figure 4). At 68%, our results are es- ing 4018–3694 cal BP (95% probability) sentially the same as Denham et al.’s favored based on charcoal-derived determinations estimate (3470–3250 cal BP, 68.2% prob- and another, which post-dates the first by ability), while our 95% probability results centuries, between 3510 and 3094 cal BP remove over 100 years from their estimate (95% probability) based on shell-derived (3590–3110 cal BP, 95.4% probability). determinations. However, this certainly is We initially ran a single phase model not the case since this pattern is corre- that included charcoal and marine shell lated with sample material. Rather, there are dates for the remaining Lapita sites in the three primary factors that may be at work. Bismarcks, but most of the shell-derived One, charcoal determinations with large er- dates were identified as having low agree- ror values (170 or 190 years) are skewing ment values. Therefore, we separated the the model results to the left (older side samples by material—charcoal or marine of the probability curve). Two, the char- shell—and ran two single phase models. Ma- coal model may be skewed by inbuilt age rine shell determinations were calibrated in some of the unidentified charcoal sam- using Petchey and Ulm’s (2012) Rof ples. Or, three, the R values for the region

6 VOLUME 0 • ISSUE 0 • 2017 Human Expansion into Oceania: A Bayesian Model

Figure 3. Locations of early Lapita deposits in the Bismarck Archipelago. are incorrect and thus skew the results to between the nutshell and marine shell esti- the right (younger side of the probability mates supports the accuracy of Petchey and curve). Ulm’s (2012) R values. To test factor one, we ran the char- Our results indicate that Lapita set- coal model again after removing three de- tlement of Mussau probably preceded ex- terminations with error values of 170 or pansion into other parts of the Bismarck 190 years. The settlement date estimate re- Archipelago, though contemporaneous set- mained statistically the same. To test factor tlement cannot be discounted (−80 to two we ran the charcoal model with only 334 years [95% probability], or 29– dates from nutshells. The initial occupa- 234 years [68% probability]). It is impor- tion estimate generated from the short-lived tant to note that the Mussau estimate, un- nutshell dates is statistically indistinguish- like the greater-Bismarck estimate, includes able from the marine shell-derived estimate. a number of determinations obtained from When these datasets are combined, initial unidentified charcoal. Based on our evalua- Lapita occupation is estimated to have oc- tion of the greater-Bismarck suite, it is likely curred sometime between 3397 and 3115 that some of the Mussau charcoal dates in- (95% probability) or likely 3304–3177 clude a degree of inbuilt age that is affect- (68% probability) (see Figure 4). With re- ing the results. The sample size for each gards to factor three—errors in the R area is moderate (n = 26 for each model) values—we cannot evaluate this possibil- though future reliable dates should improve ity directly now. However, the concordance the precision of the settlement estimates.

THE JOURNAL OF ISLAND AND COASTAL ARCHAEOLOGY 7 Timothy M. Rieth and J. Stephen Athens

Figure 4. Settlement estimates for the Mussau Islands and greater Bismarck Archipelago.

DISCUSSION: SEQUENTIAL OR may have succeeded it by centuries (−66

CONTEMPORANEOUS POPULATION to 254 years [95% probability]). How- EXPANSION IN THE WESTERN PACIFIC? ever, colonization of the Mariana Islands does represent initial dispersal into Remote Our results do not support the contention Oceania, as noted by previous researchers that the initial occupation of the Mariana (Carson 2014;Hungetal.2011;Petchey Islands preceded Lapita settlement of the et al. 2016; see also Sheppard et al. 2015). Bismarck Archipelago. Colonization of the It is equivocal whether robust and re- Mariana Islands occurred approximately liable chronologies have been established 50–385 years (95% probability)after for these regions. Unai Bapot is a well-dated Lapita appearance in Mussau. However, this site deposit, assuredly one of the best in finding is based on Unai Bapot—which the western Pacific. This only highlights is well-dated, contains early ceramics and the poor state of chronology building for other artifacts, and extirpated avifauna— the rest of the Mariana Islands. At a macro being representative of earliest settlement scale, the Mariana dataset has to contend in the archipelago. Our results indicate with a majority of dates from unidentified that Lapita settlement of Mussau occurred charcoal, samples from problematic prove- sometime between 3535 and 3234 cal BP niences, potential residual dating samples, (95% probability), with contemporaneous and the need for the development of lo- or centuries-later (−80 to 334 years [95% calized R values. Re-dating key sites may probability]) expansion into the greater Bis- be possible using curated samples, which marck area between 3397and 3115 cal BP for certain sites such as Chalan Piao and (95% probability)(Figure 5). Settlement Achugao may be the only option since the of the Mariana Islands between 3230 and deposits have been largely destroyed by 3085 cal BP (95% probability) may have development. been contemporaneous with this expansion The Mussau and greater Bismarck into the greater Bismarck Archipelago, or it Archipelago datasets are somewhat better,

8 VOLUME 0 • ISSUE 0 • 2017 Human Expansion into Oceania: A Bayesian Model

Figure 5. Estimated settlement dates for the Bismarck Archipelago and Mariana Islands. particularly due to the suite of nutshell to the Mariana Islands from the Philippines, dates and improved R estimates. The Mar- but show that between the months of July iana issues are just as pertinent for the Bis- and October there was a modest probabil- marcks. As with the Mariana Islands, an in- ity for successful voyages originating from creased number of dates from short-lived the south (, New Guinea, and materials reliably associated with human ac- the Bismarck Archipelago). Montenegro tivity will improve the precision and accu- et al. (2016), using several other modeling racy of the colonization estimates. parameters (ENSO events, shortest-hop tra- While it is possible that the initial jectories), show that successful downwind settlers of the Mariana Islands could have and directed voyages can occur to western come from the Bismarck region, pottery via Palau and Yap from the differences with Lapita suggest it is more southern Philippines and Maluku Islands likely they came directly from ISEA (Clark during ENSO conditions, and from New and Winter n.d.). An origination point(s) Guinea and the Bismarcks during La Niña in the Bismarcks, coastal New Guinea, or conditions. the Maluku Islands is supported by sea- These studies, of course, do not address faring simulation models (Fitzpatrick and the issue of chronology that is the subject Callaghan 2013; Montenegro et al. 2016; of this paper, but they do concur that an also Winter et al. 2012). Interestingly, these origin for initial Mariana Islands settlement models provide no support for either down- from the northern Philippines is unlikely wind (drift) or directed (planned) voyages as posited by Hung et al. (2011). Further,

THE JOURNAL OF ISLAND AND COASTAL ARCHAEOLOGY 9 Timothy M. Rieth and J. Stephen Athens

contra Hung et al. (2011) and Carson et al. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS (2013), even the best candidate site for demonstrating a Philippine connection An earlier version of this article was pre- through its pottery, Nagsabaran, located sented at the 2016 Society for American in the northern Philippines, shows con- Archaeology meeting in a session chaired siderable significant differences with early by Robert Dinapoli and Thomas Leppard. Pre-Latte Period pottery (Clark and Winter Geoff Clark, Tom Dye, Jennifer Huebert, in press;Winteretal.2012). Similarly, the Fiona Petchey, and Jim Specht provided pottery evidence does not support a disper- helpful comments on a draft of the article, sal of early Austronesians from the Mariana while Derek Hamilton and Tony Krus Islands to either Near or Remote Oceania. graciously answered questions about the It is apparent that the period ∼3500– Bayesian modeling. Lastly, we would like 3000 cal BP was one of dynamic population to thank Tony and Victor Thompson for movement in the western Pacific (Kirch inviting us to submit this article. 2010), with continued expansion into Re- mote Oceania in the following centuries (Sheppard et al. 2015). Movement by multiple human groups from numerous END NOTES locations within a relatively short time period, and across the large ISEA/western 1. We do not consider paleoenvironmental evi- Pacific region, may be explicable through a dence for initial Mariana Islands colonization general population-level mechanism, such at or slightly prior to 3500 BP (Athens et al. as the agriculturally fueled demographic 2004;AthensandWard1995, 2004) due to expansion argued by Bellwood (2011), or the qualitatively different kind of data used selection associated with changes in cli- in such studies. They suggest a human pres- mate and maritime technology as argued by ence going back to the mid- or late fourth mil-

Cochrane (in press). A reliable chronology lennium BP; however, experience in Hawai‘i is essential for distinguishing between these has shown the need for caution when mak- and other possibilities. ing fine-resolution dating inferences based on Chronological modeling for the west- bulk sediment samples obtained from coastal ern Pacific needs to be improved with ad- brackish or saltwater environments as in the ditional quality dating samples. We suggest Mariana Islands (Athens et al. 2014:152). that archaeologists exercise greater care in 2. The single determination on “marine shells, sample selection, choosing short-lived sam- primarily limpets” (Kurashina and Clayshulte ples confidently associated with human ac- 1983:118) from Tarague was not considered tivity, while controlling for residual sam- due to uncertainties about the proper R ples, and date more high-quality samples value for this location. from individual sites. Further research is 3. Inclusion of Carson’s (2008) A. antiquata- also needed to accurately determine lo- derived ages from his basal cultural stra- calized R values throughout regions of tum (Layer IV-A) in our Layer VII model interest. This work has been ongoing in phase did not produce a significantly dif- Hawai‘i and central for the last ferent settlement estimate. Carson’s oldest several decades, with the result that settle- determination (Beta-216616, 3710 ± 50 BP) ment dates are often determined to be later had a poor agreement value. than previously thought (e.g., Athens et al. 2014;Dye2015; Rieth and Cochrane 2017; Wilmshurst et al. 2008). A similar reevalu- REFERENCES ation is already underway in the Mariana Islands and Near Oceania, and we antici- Allen, M. S. and J. M. Huebert. 2014. Short-lived pate a slightly later chronology for Lapita ex- plant materials, long-lived trees, and Polyne- pansion to the Bismarck Archipelago when sian 14C dating: Considerations for 14Csam- probability estimates for dating in these re- ple selection and documentation. Radiocar- gions are narrowed. bon 56(1):257–276.

10 VOLUME 0 • ISSUE 0 • 2017 Human Expansion into Oceania: A Bayesian Model

Athens, J. S. 1986. Archaeological Investigations Carson, M. T. and H. Kurashina. 2012. Re- at Tarague Beach, Guam. Report prepared envisioning long-distance Oceanic migration: for Base Civil Engineering, 43D Strategic Wing, Early dates in the Mariana Islands. World Ar- Andersen Air Force Base (available at Interna- chaeology 44(3):409–435. tional Archaeological Research Institute, Inc., Clark, G., F.Petchey, O. Witner, M. Carson, and P. Honolulu). O’Day. 2010. New radiocarbon dates from the Athens, J. S., M. F. Dega, and J. V. Ward. Bapot-1 site in Saipan and Neolithic dispersal 2004. Austronesian colonization of the Mar- by stratified diffusion. Journal of Pacific Ar- iana Islands: The palaeoenvironmental evi- chaeology 1(1):21–35. dence. Indo-Pacific Prehistory Association Clark, G. and O. Winter. In press. The ceramic Bulletin 24(2):21–30. trail: Evaluating the Marianas and Lapita West Athens, J. S., T. M. Rieth, and T. S. Dye. Pacific connection. In Lapita Colonisation of 2014. A paleoenvironmental and archaeolog- the Western Pacific (S. Bedford and M. Spriggs, ical model-based age estimate for the col- eds.). Canberra: ANU E Press. onization of Hawai‘i. American Antiquity Cochrane, E. E. In review. The evolution of mi- 79(1):144–155. gration: The case of Lapita in the southwest Pa- Athens, J. S. and J. V. Ward. 1995. Paleoenvi- cific. Journal of Archaeological Method and ronment of the Orote Peninsula, Guam. Mi- Theory. cronesica 28(1):51–76. Denham, T., C. Bronk Ramsey, and J. Specht. Athens, J. S. and J. V. Ward. 2004. Holocene vege- 2012. Dating the appearance of Lapita pottery tation, savanna origins and human settlement in the Bismarck Archipelago and its dispersal of Guam. Records of the Australian Museum, to Remote Oceania. Archaeology in Oceania Supplement 29:15–30. 47:39–46. Bayliss, A., C. Bronk Ramsey, J. van der Plicht, Dye, T. S. 2015. Dating human dispersal in Re- and A. Whittle. 2007. Bradshaw and Bayes: mote Oceania: A Bayesian view from Hawai‘i. towards a timetable for the Neolithic. Cam- World Archaeology 47(4):661–676. bridge Archaeological Journal 17(1):1–28. Fitzpatrick, S. M. and R. T. Callaghan. 2013. Bellwood, P. 1975. The prehistory of Oceania. Estimating trajectories of colonisation to the

Current Anthropology 16(1):9–28. Mariana Islands, western Pacific. Antiquity Bellwood, P. 2011. Holocene population history 87:840–853. in the Pacific region as a model for worldwide Hung, H., M. T. Carson, P. Bellwood, F. Z. Cam- food producer dispersals. Current Anthropol- pos, P. J. Piper, E. Dizon, M. J. L. A. Bolunia, M. ogy 52(S4):S363–S3678. Oxenham, and Z. Chi. 2011. The first settle- Bronk Ramsey, C. 2009. Bayesian analysis of ment of Remote Oceania: The Philippines to radiocarbon dates. Radiocarbon 51(1):337– the Marianas. Antiquity 85(329):909–926. 360. Kirch, P. V. 2000. On the Road of the Winds: An Bronk Ramsey, C. 2013. Oxcal 4.2. http://c14. Archaeological History of the Pacific Islands arch.ox.ac.uk/oxcal. before European Contact. Berkeley: Univer- Butler, B. M. 1994. Early prehistoric settlement sity of California Press. in the Mariana Islands: New evidence from Kirch, P. V. (ed.). 2001. Lapita and its Trans- Saipan. Man and Culture in Oceania 10:15– formations in Near Oceania: Archaeological 38. Investigations in the Mussau Islands, Papua Carson, M. T. 2008. Refining earliest settlement New Guinea, 1985-88. Berkeley: Contribu- in Remote Oceania: Renewed archaeological tions of the Archaeological Research Facility, investigation at Unai Bapot, Saipan. Journal of Number 59. Island and Coastal Archaeology 3:115–139. Kirch, P. V. 2010. Peopling of the Pacific: A holis- Carson, M. T. 2010. Radiocarbon chronology tic anthropological perspective. Annual Re- with marine reservoir correction for the Ri- view of Anthropology 39:131–148. tidian archaeological site, northern Guam. Ra- Kurashina, H. and R. N. Clayshulte. 1983. Site diocarbon 52(4):1627–38. formation processes and cultural sequence at Carson, M. T. 2014. First Settlement of Remote Tarague, Guam. Indo-Pacific Prehistory Asso- Oceania: Earliest Sites in the Mariana Is- ciation Bulletin 4:114–122. lands.NewYork:Springer. McCormac, F. G., A. G. Hogg, P. G. Blackwell, C. Carson, M. T., H.-C. Hung, G. Summerhayes, E. Buck, T. F.G. Higham, and P.J. Reimer. 2004. and P. Bellwood. 2013. The pottery trail from SHCal04 southern hemisphere calibration 0- Southeast Asia to Remote Oceania. Journal of 11.0 cal kyr BP. Radiocarbon 46(3):1087– Island and Coastal Archaeology 8:17–36. 1092.

THE JOURNAL OF ISLAND AND COASTAL ARCHAEOLOGY 11 Timothy M. Rieth and J. Stephen Athens

Montenegro, Á., R. T. Callaghan, and S. M. Fitz- nia. Journal of Pacific Archaeology 6(1):26– patrick. 2016. Using seafaring simulations and 36. shortest-hop trajectories to model the prehis- Specht, J. 2007. Small islands in the big picture: toric colonization of Remote Oceania. Pro- The formative period of Lapita in the Bismarck ceedings of the National Academy of Sciences Archipelago. In Oceanic Explorations: Lapita 113(45):12685–12690. and Western Pacific Settlement (S. Bedford, C. Petchey, F. 2009. Dating marine shell in Ocea- Sand, and S. P.Connaughton, eds.):51–70. Can- nia: Issues and prospects. In New Directions berra: ANU E Press. in Archaeological Science (A. Fairbairn and Specht, J., T. Denham, J. Goff, and J. E. Terrell. S. O’Connor, eds.):157–172. Canberra: ANU E 2014. Deconstructing the Lapita Cultural Com- Press. plex in the Bismarck Archipelago. Journal of Petchey,F.,G.Clark,O.Winter,P.O’Day,and Archaeological Research 22(2):89–140. M. Litster. 2016. Colonisation of Remote Ocea- Specht, J. and C. Gosden. 1997. Dating Lapita nia: New dates for the Bapot-1 site in the pottery in the Bismarck Archipelago, Papua Mariana Islands. Archaeology in Oceania. New Guinea. Asian Perspectives 36(2):175– doi:10.1002/arco.5108. 194. Petchey, F. and S. Ulm. 2012. Marine reservoir Spoehr, A. 1957. Marianas Prehistory: Archae- variation in the Bismarck region: An evalua- ological Survey and Excavations on Saipan, tion of spatial and temporal change in R Tinian and (Fieldiana: Anthropology and R over the last 3000 years. Radiocarbon 48). Chicago: Chicago Natural History Mu- 54(1):45–58. seum. Rainbird, P. 2004. The Archaeology of Microne- Spriggs, M. 2003. Chronology of the Neolithic sia. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. transition in Island Southeast Asia and the Reimer, P. J., E. Bard, A. Bayliss, J. W. western Pacific: A view from 2003. The Re- Beck, P. G. Blackwell, C. Bronk Ramsey, view of Archaeology 24(2):57–80. C. E. Buck, et al. 2013. IntCal13 and Ma- Summerhayes, G. R., E. Matisoo-Smith, H. Man- rine13 radiocarbon age calibration curves 0– dui, J. Allen, J. Specht, N. Hogg, and S. McPher- 50,000 years cal BP. Radiocarbon 55(4): son. 2010. Tamuarawai (EQS): An early Lapita

1869–1887. site on Emirau, , PNG. Journal of Rieth, T. and J. S. Athens. 2013. Suggested best Pacific Archaeology 1(1):62–75. practices for the application of radiocarbon Torrence, R., V. Neall, T. Doelman, E. Rhodes, dating to Hawaiian archaeology. Hawaiian Ar- C. McKee, H. Davies, R. Bonetti, et al. 2004. chaeology 13:3–29. Pleistocene colonization of the Bismarck Rieth, T. and E. Cochrane. 2017. The chronol- Archipelago: New evidence from West New ogy of colonization in Remote Oceania. In The Britain. Archaeology in Oceania 39(3):101– Oxford Handbook of Prehistoric Oceania (E. 130. Cochrane and T. Hunt, eds.). Oxford: Oxford Wilmshurst, J. M., A. J. Anderson, T. F.G. Higham, University Press. and T. H. Worthy. 2008. Dating the late prehis- Russell, S. 1998. TiemponIManmofo’Na:An- toric dispersal of Polynesians to New Zealand cient Chamorro Culture and History of the using the commensal Pacific rat. Proceed- . Micronesian Ar- ings of the National Academy of Sciences chaeological Survey Report No. 32. Saipan: 105(22):7676–7680. Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Is- Winter, O., G. Clark, A. Anderson, and A. Lin- lands, Division of Historic Preservation. dahl. 2012. Austronesian sailing to the north- Sheppard, P. J., S. Chiu, and R. Walter. 2015. Re- ern Marianas, a comment on Hung et al. An- dating Lapita movement into Remote Ocea- tiquity 86:898–914.

12 VOLUME 0 • ISSUE 0 • 2017