Specialised Production of Early‐Lapita Pottery: A Skill Analysis of Pottery from the Island of Emirau Nicholas W.S. Hogg A thesis submitted for the degree of Master of Arts at the University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand November 2011 Abstract This thesis presents the results of a skill analysis augmented by a decorative analysis and temper analysis, conducted upon Lapita pottery from the Early period site of Tamuarawai (EQS), Emirau Island, Papua New Guinea. Lapita pottery is an essential component of the Lapita Cultural Complex and an important source of information through which the lives of the Lapita peoples can be better understood. Research into the production of pottery during the Early-Lapita period (3300- 3000/2900 B.P) initially argued for such pottery to be the result of a “specialised production strategy;” of which two “types” were defined “Specialised Regional Production” by Kirch (1988, 1990, 1997) and Hunt (1988, 1989) and “Mobile Specialised Production” by Summerhayes (2000a, 2000c, 2001, 2010). However, later research challenged this interpretation, arguing instead that specialised production was not occurring. This research utilises a skill analysis, a technique which studies the level of skill invested into pottery production, in combination with a decorative analysis and temper analysis, to identify whether a specialised production strategy was employed to produce the Early-Lapita pottery assemblage of EQS and if so, what “type” of specialised production was occurring. It is argued that the results of these analyses indicate that the EQS assemblage was produced via a specialised production strategy and that this indicates that specialised pottery production was occurring during the Early-Lapita period. The “type” of specialised production employed is argued to be similar to that of “Specialised Regional Production”, whereby whole vessels or potting materials were being moved to the Island of Emirau. It is further argued that the “type” of specialised production employed to produce the EQS assemblage was specifically designed to function in an island environment with minimal resources for pottery production. Finally, the technique of skill analysis has never been employed upon a Lapita assemblage before and therefore can be considered experimental in nature. Due to this a thorough review and critique was completed in regards to the techniques effectiveness for the identification of specialised production. It is argued that the technique was successful in indentifying specialised production and “types” of specialised production but that it also had a few limitations. Keywords: Lapita, Ceramics, Pottery, Specialisation, Skill Analysis, Papua New Guinea. II Acknowledgements I would like to thank Professor Glenn Summerhayes for his guidance and support throughout the process of completing this master’s research and for providing the opportunity to participate in fieldwork in Papua New Guinea on two separate occasions. The experience and knowledge I gained from this fieldwork and the subsequent research that followed was priceless and has provided me with a fantastic foundation for the future. Thanks for everything Glenn. I would also like to thank Professor Richard Walter for his support and guidance during the later stages of my research and for the amount of time and energy he put into helping me work the “kinks” out of my research. Thanks Richard, your support has been invaluable. The fieldwork I participated in was made possible by the leadership and funding provided by Professor Glenn Summerhayes, once again, thank you. I would also like to thank the team which was involved in the fieldwork on the Island of Emirau; Dr Jim Specht, Emeritus Professor Jim Allen, Professor Lisa Matisoo-Smith, Herman Mandui, Jim Ridges, Dr Matthew Leavesley, Anne Ford, Matt Hennessey, Kelly Amanga and Kenneth Vito Thomas, and the National Museum and Art Gallery of Papua New Guinea for their support during this time. Finally to the people of Emirau Island, thank you for your generosity and kindness. Many thanks to Dr S. Budden for sending over a copy of her PhD thesis and Dr Peter White for sending over a Geological Map of Papua New Guinea. I would like to thank the staff and students of the 2008-2011 Department of Anthropology and Archaeology at the University of Otago. I would especially like to thank Les O’Neill, Phil Latham, Catherine Waite, Marj Blair, Bronwyn Craig, Heather Sadler, Anne Ford and James Robinson for all of their help and support and my fellow students Andy Brown, Emma Clifford, Ben Teele and Peter Petchey. Finally, Dr Dimitri Anson thanks for all of the stimulating discussions. To the Lords of 136 Albany Street, Matt Sagar, Stefan Walker, Jayden Lawrence, Tom Davey, Tim Burrell, Liam Heath, Rowan Thomason, and Chris Brienesse, you guys are absolute legends. Thanks guys. To Jean Spinks, Peter Mitchell, Hamish Williams, Jo Lander, Matt Hennessey and Rebekah Hooper. Thanks for the ton of support you guys have given me over the years. Thanks again. To Elaine, thanks for your immense help and support over the last year and a half. I couldn’t have done it without you. To Mum, Dad, Chris, Alex and Rexi, there really is no possible way I can thank you enough for everything you have done in the years I have been undertaking this research. You really are the best. III Contents Abstract ............................................................................................................................................... II Acknowledgements ........................................................................................................................... III Contents ............................................................................................................................................. IV List of Figures .................................................................................................................................... IX List of Tables ...................................................................................................................................... XI CHAPTER ONE: Introduction, Research Problem & Archaeological Questions .......... 1 1.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................ 1 1.2 Research Problem ................................................................................................................... 2 1.3 Aims & Archaeological Questions .......................................................................................... 3 1.4 Study Material ........................................................................................................................ 3 1.5 Research Domain .................................................................................................................... 4 1.5.1 Specialised production – Definition and explanation ......................................................................... 4 1.5.2 Skill analysis and the identification of specialised production ............................................................ 5 1.6 Organisation of Thesis ............................................................................................................ 6 CHAPTER TWO: Lapita Archaeology, Locality & Site Description ............................................... 7 2.1 Introduction ......................................................................................................................................... 7 2.2 The Lapita Cultural Complex – An Overview ................................................................................. 7 2.2.1 What is Lapita? – Initial definition and overview ................................................................................ 7 2.2.2 Provinces VS Periods: The classification of the Lapita Cultural Complex ............................................ 9 2.2.3 Early‐Lapita settlements ................................................................................................................... 12 2.3 Lapita Ceramics ................................................................................................................................. 14 2.3.1 Preparation of materials ................................................................................................................... 14 2.3.2 Construction ...................................................................................................................................... 15 2.3.3 Firing ................................................................................................................................................. 16 2.3.4 The Lapita design system and motifs ................................................................................................ 17 2.3.5 Vessel forms and functions ............................................................................................................... 19 2.4 Site Description ................................................................................................................................. 21 2.4.1 The St. Matthias Group ..................................................................................................................... 22 2.4.2 Emirau Island ..................................................................................................................................... 22 2.4.3 Dating and chronology .....................................................................................................................