BOOK REVIEWS Prehistoric Settlement of the Pacific. Ward Goodenough, ed. Transactions of the American Philosophical Society Held at Philadelphia for Promoting Useful Knowledge Vol. 86, Pt. 5. Philadelphia: American Philosophical Society. 169 pp.; figures, references, index. Reviewed by ATHoLL ANDERSON, Australian National University The papers in this volume are from two tions. On the matter of why these popula­ small symposia on the settlement of the tions should have eventually expanded Pacific, evidently built around a distin­ southward, Chong and Goodenough reject guished lecture by Ben Finney, from which Bellwood's agricultural-demographic hy­ the main article stems. Delivered in 1993, pothesis in favor of an argument about but updated for publication, they are state­ luxury trade. Interesting as this is, however, of-the-art surveys of several of the central and complemented as it is by Pamela themes of Pacific colonization, although in Swadling's recent study, Plumes from Para­ a slightly unexpected combination. There dise (1996, Papua New Guinea National are three papers that deal primarily with Museum), it is difficult to see why Aus­ colonization prehistory in the Pacific: tronesians would expand so far and so fast, Finney's review of island discovery in the with so little sign of the return of pro­ light of experimental voyaging, Jim Allen ducts. Other archaeological examples of on Quaternary settlement of the western expansion in this manner, for example the Pacific and its significance for understand­ eastern Vikings (Rus) , are replete with ing the Lapita phenomenon, and Pat Kirch material evidence in both directions, de­ on the nature of Lapita culture and its spite much of the trade being in perishable distribution. The other articles focus on goods (in the case of the Rus, slaves, silk, the origins and relationships of the Aus­ honey, wax, and so forth). An expanding tronesian language phyla in various ways: Austronesian trading system is a fair propo­ Robert Blust on the cultural inventory of sition, but it remains far from demonstrated early Austronesians, Kwang-Chih Chang by the archaeological evidence. and Ward Goodenough on the archaeology Blust's first paper is a brief and some­ of southeast China and the origins of Aus­ what casual argument for cultural devolu­ tronesian cultures, and Blust again on the tion as Austronesians advanced south and more distant relationships of Austronesian east. It asserts the advantages of compara­ languages in continental Asia. tive linguistics over archaeology for recon­ Taking the latter group first, the Chang structing the cultural inventory of early and Goodenough paper is a data-rich and Austronesian speakers, but it needs to be lucid review of the likely archaeological balanced by the counterargument from correlates in south China and Taiwan of archaeological evidence of innovation in the proto-Austronesian speaking popula- material culture and settlement patterns. Blust's second paper, which looks again at Schimdt's "Austric" and Benedict's Asiall Perspectives, Vol. 37, No.2, © 1998 by University of "Austro-Tai" hypotheses, is situated more Hawai'j Press. 3°2 ASIAN PERSPECTIVES remotely from Pacific prehistory, but it In his paper, Finney reviews the accom­ is a thoughtful analysis of where Proto­ plishments of his project in experimental Austronesian languages evolved-the mid­ archaeology, particularly in the construc­ dle Yangtse valley-as well as their rela­ tion and voyaging of the Hokule 'a. These tionships with other languages of southeast are so extraordinary and have provided Asia that spread down the major river val­ such an impetus to the renewed analysis of leys from a broadly common source. Oceanic voyaging, including by Geoff Turning to the Pacific papers in this Irwin and others, that they need no enco­ volume, Allen reviews his argument for a mium here. In writing about the project, largely indigenous origin of Lapita culture however, Finney does rather gild the lily in western Melanesia. The tide is moving here and there. I doubt very much that against an emphatic statement of this opin­ there is an authentic Maori tradition (that ion, as Allen recognizes, but it does not hurt is, of probable pre-European origin) that to be reminded that much of the content states that the passage from the Cooks or of Lapita culture could have multiple ori­ Tahiti to New Zealand should be started in gins or could have been significantly rear­ early spring. The argument that Nainoa ranged during an Asian sojourn in Island Thompson navigates in a traditional way Melanesia. Clearly many incomers also but for his inability to rid himself of the remained behind. It is worth noting that concepts of miles and degrees is highly du­ the rates of natural increase of island colo­ bious too. From modern maps, Thompson nists can be extraordinarily high, up to 4 knows all about Pacific geography, the dis­ percent per annum, as on Pitcairn Island. position of all the islands, the directions Even at half that figure, a colonizing popu­ and strengths of the winds and currents, lation of 1000 would have exceeded and the sequences of weather systems and 100,000 in little more than two centuries, their likely effect on planned passages. The leaving ample scope both for continuing Hokule 'a team uses satellite images and rapid expansion eastward within the Lapita other meteorological data to plan its voy­ timescale as well as for extensive coloniza­ ages. It is doubtful indeed whether any tion of western Melanesia-the two pro­ prehistoric navigator ever had even a frac­ positions are not contradictory. tion of that background knowledge to go Kirch's paper is a fairly brief but masterly on. Experimental voyaging in the Pacific summary of the prevailing hypothesis of has contributed immensely to current ideas Lapita origins. In this, as in Pacific pre­ and needs no exaggerated estimation of the history generally, descriptive models, in verisimilitude of its procedures. this case Green's Triple I formulation, are All in all, this a worthwhile and stimu­ more prominent than testable explanations lating volume. It is up-to-date, written by about why things happened. I do not find scholars of undoubted standing, and neatly the trade argument entirely convincing, but unobtrusively edited by Goodenough. partly for reasons already alluded to, nor It points to both the achievements of Pa­ propositions about developing maritime cific prehistory in the modern era and the technology or preadaptation of agriculture. continuing areas of difficulty. It will be Why Lapita colonization breached the valued by students of Pacific prehistory as western boundary of remote Oceania, after well as their teachers and it is written suffi­ people had lived so long in such close ciently plainly to be accessible to the inter­ proximity to it, is a matter that eludes us yet. ested general reader. BOOK REVIEWS 3°3 Prehistory oj the Indo-Malaysian Archipelago. Peter Bellwood. Revised ed. Hono­ lulu: University of Hawai'i Press, 1997. 384 pp.; illustrations, maps, plates, bibli­ ography. Softcover. Reviewed by RICHARD SHUTLER JR., Simon Fraser University Since the first edition of Prehistory of the for mud volcanoes that create lahars (mud Indo-Malaysian Archipelago was published in flows), which mix sediments from different 1985, a significant amount of new research time periods, confusing the stratigraphy. has been reported in many of the areas Third, none of the fossil hominids found considered in this book. This information have a definitely known provenance (per­ provides new insights into the prehistory sonal communication, Geoffrey G. Pope, of the region over the past two million Dec. 4, 1997). I can personally vouch for years. At the same time, some of the the latter, as I have been to Peming twice recently reported data make long-standing and was shown a different location each disputes more controversial. Bellwood time where the Mojokerto skull is sup­ clearly states that the objective of this book posed to have been found. The dating of is to present "a multidisciplinary recon­ Homo erectus in Java is far from resolved. struction of the prehistory of the modern On page 45, Bellwood cites a claim for a nations of Indonesia and Malaysia as hominid mandible and possible stone tools viewed from the perspective of the whole dating to almost two million years at Southeast Asian and Australasian region." Longgupo Cave in Sichuan, China. Again, Chapter 1, "The Environmental Back­ there is a need for caution in accepting this ground: Present and Past," covers the in­ early claim for a hominid in east Asia. Pope fluence of climate, landforms, soils, sea (personal communication) expressed the levels, volcanoes, fauna, and flora over the opinion that the mandible is not of a past two million years. Since 1891, when hominid. It is clear that Bellwood fully Dubois discovered the first bones of Pithe­ understands the implications of the dating canthropus erectus on the Solo river at TriniI, of Homo erectus wherever it is found, when Java, the time of the first arrival of the first he sums up the dating problems saying, hominids in Java has never been clearly "There are big problems of chronology defined, and has remained extremely con­ concerning the radiation of Homo out of troversial. On page 30, Bellwood mentions Africa, and I see no easy resolution at the the recently reported 1.6 million year date moment" (p. 45). for the Pithecanthropus mandible C from In pages 47-49 Bellwood presents a Pucangan at Sangiran, and the argon date well-balanced discussion of the Pucangan of 1.8 million years for the Mojokerto and Kabul hominids of Java. While the skull from the Pucangan deposit at Peming, jury is still out on the exact age of the east Java. If these dates are correct, the Ngandong skeletal material because of entire story of Homo erectus in east Asia as stratigraphic problems, Bellwood sees it as we understand it today will have to be re­ dating somewhere between 40,000 and written.