Earliest settlement in the Marianas--a response.

Hung, Hsiao-chun ; Carson, Mike T. ; Bellwood, Peter 等

Some initial corrections

Winter et al. refer to the colonisation of the northern Marianas at a latitude of 18 [degrees] N. It is well known that the earliest Marianas sites appeared in Guam, Tinian and Saipan (Russell 1998). Guam, the largest and southernmost of the Mariana Islands, is positioned at 13-14[degrees] N. Saipan, the northernmost of the earliest inhabited islands, is 15[degrees] N. Winter et al. also propose a date of 3400-3200 BP for the Unai Bapot site, but it is actually dated to 3500 BP (Carson 2005, 2008; Carson & Kurashina 2012). The earliest Marianas settlement is securely dated to 3500-3300 BP at two sites in Guam, a further two in Tinian, and three in Saipan (Craib 1993; Butler 1994; Carson 2005, 2008, 2010, 2011, 2012a; Spriggs 2007; Carson & Kurashina 2012).

Voyaging

The early colonisation of the Marianas must have been difficult from any point of departure, given their location more than 2000km from any contemporary populated area at 3500-3300 BP. The other far western Micronesian islands of Palau and Yap were settled evidently no earlier than 3100 BP (Intoh 1997; Liston 2005). Present-day and historical records of winds and currents are of some interest, but we would caution against using such data to adjudicate ancient migration routes. Such logic led Thor Heyerdahl more than 50 years ago to claim that Polynesia had been settled via the Americas. Surely Winter et al. do not intend to convince us that the Remote Oceanic islands were populated entirely by unmediated drifting at sea? To date, no preserved Neolithic canoes have been excavated in either the Marianas or the Philippines, and as such, ancient sailing conditions cannot be known.

Ceramics

While an exact node of origin may never be known, the earliest Marianas pottery resembles a sub-set of findings in the Philippines, with some localised modifications, as expected in a classic founder-effect scenario. The Philippines pottery is best documented at Nagsabaran (Tsang et al. 2002; Hung 2008) and Magapit (Aoyagi et al. 1993) in northern Luzon, but other examples occur in the central Philippines, in the Batungan Caves on Masbate Island (Solheim 1968; Hung 2008), so travel from here or the eastern Visayas is also quite likely. We cannot yet accept possible sources south of the Philippines, unless some convincing evidence can be presented.

The ceramic analysis by Winter et al. validates some of our own findings, but it is incomplete. The authors confirm thin-walled pottery made with local clays and fine beachsand tempers at Unai Bapot, already reported previously (Carson 2005, 2008). They discern coil-building versus paddle-beating, but these are parts of a continuous construction and finishing sequence (Rye 1981; Rice 1987). Winter et al. do not tell us the primary-forming techniques of Unai Bapot potters, nor do they tell us the secondary-forming and finishing techniques of Nagsabaran potters. Our wider research on the earliest Marianas pottery traces the full process of initial slab-building and coil-building, followed by paddle-beating and trimming. We further found diagnostic paddle-impression marks in both the early northern Philippines and Marianas pottery (Carson et al. 2012).

Prehistoric populations will not have followed only one method of pottery manufacture, regardless of raw materials and specific cultural knowledge of the potters concerned. Ethnographic and ethnoarchaeological studies show that more than one type of manufacturing method could exist among potters, even within a single community or settlement (Longacre 1991; Stark 1999; Stark et al. 2000). Given the expected technical variation in pottery manufacture, the cross-regional consistency in decorative system is most remarkable. In this regard, we maintain our view that the earliest Marianas pottery was related more closely to contemporary traditions in the northern and central Philippines than to anywhere else. Our new discoveries of decorated pottery from the House of Taga in Tinian are the most informative, based on the largest yet known excavation of an early-period Marianas site. The decorated potsherds demonstrate without any doubt a shared Philippines-Marianas design system. This core design system later developed into more elaborate Lapita decoration, as witnessed at Kamgot in the Bismarck Archipelago (Summerhayes 2000; Carson et al. 2012).

Winter et al. examined only 17 small potsherds from Nagsabaran and nine from Unai Bapot. This sample does not represent the variation at either site. The 17 Nagsabaran potsherds analysed by Winter et al. represent only one type, but at least three types are evident in the whole assemblage (Hung 2008). Meanwhile, we have examined 4879 potsherds from Unai Bapot (Carson 2005, 2008), 428 from Ritidian in Guam (Carson 2012a), and now more than 30 000 from the House of Taga in Tinian.

Linguistics

The Chamorro language of the Marianas descended from Proto Malayo-Polynesian ancestry, most likely in the Philippines (Blust 2009). Winter et al. omitted Blust's (2000: 107) in-depth discussion that "leaves only the Philippines--especially the Philippines north of Mindanao--as a likely source area for the migration that settled the Marianas some 3500 years ago or earlier". The authors also neglect Reid's (2002) dismantling of Zobel's (2002) hypothesis of a direct Formosan (Taiwanese) source of Chamorro. Reid (2002: 92) in fact stated "I conclude, therefore, that Chamorro is an Extra-Formosan language, but that it is a first-order branch of the family, separating from Proto Extra-Formosan, probably from the Northern Philippines, prior to the actual dispersal of the other branches of the family".

A closer reading of the linguistic evidence could assist Winter et al. in overcoming their sceptical opinion of Malayo-Polynesian sailing technology and skills. Pawley (2007: 27) confirms Proto Malayo-Polynesian (PMP) vocabulary for the outrigger canoe, outrigger float, canoe paddle, mast, the verb 'to sail', and other terms. Importantly, matching cognates occur in the Chamorro language (Topping et al. 1975). As Winter et al. noted, specific terms for standing rigging and double-hulled canoe appeared later in Oceanic languages. However, Pawley (2007: 27) stressed "in some cases we can infer that names for these items were present in PMP because their existence is logically implied by the presence of other terms". The bottom line is that early Marianas settlement occurred 3500-3300 BP in extreme isolation, and it required an incredible long-distance journey from any perspective.

Conclusions

Many of Winter et al.'s questions about Marianas archaeology are already answered in previous publications, and others will be addressed in forthcoming works (Carson & Kurashina 2012: Carson et al. 2012). A recent summary review of Marianas archaeology may also prove helpful (Carson 2012b). Our work never claimed a direct 'out-of-Taiwan' Austronesian migration to the Mariana Islands, but we presented archaeological data linking earliest Marianas pottery with traditions in the Philippines. The linguistic parallel points to Proto Malayo-Polynesian origins, most likely in the Philippines.

In their conclusion, Winter et al. quote John Craib (1999: 482) "Virtually anywhere between Taiwan and southern Indonesia will exhibit similar pottery designs". This statement is simply untrue, and the authors removed it from its full context. Craib (1999: 481-86) specifically discounted direct migrations from Taiwan, Yap, or Palau, but agreed that a Philippines source seemed most parsimonious, pending further research that has now been accomplished (Bellwood et al. 2011). As our work illustrates, the decorative system of earliest Marianas pottery 3500-3300 BP descends from a source best documented in the Philippines at least as early as 3800 BE Based on current available data, no other option for a Marianas homeland existed during this time range.

References

AOYAGI, Y., M. AGUILERA JR., H. OGAWA & K. TANAKA. 1993. Excavation of hill top site, Magapit shell midden in Lal-lo shell middens, northern Luzon, Philippines. Man and Culture in Oceania 9: 127-55.

BELLWOOD, P., G. NITIHAMINOTO, G. IRWIN, G. WALUYO & D. TANUDIRJO. 1998. 35,000 years of prehistory in the northern Moluccas, in G. Bartstra (ed.) Bird's Head approaches: 233-74. Rotterdam: Balkema.

BELLWOOD, P., G. CHAMBERS, M. ROSS & H.C. HUNG. 2011. Are 'cultures' inherited? Multidisciplinary perspectives on the origins and migrations of Austronesian-speaking peoples prior to 1000 BC, in B.W. Roberts & M. Vander Linden (ed.) Investigating archaeological cultures: material culture, variability, and transmission: 321-54. New York: Springer.

BLUST, R. 2000. Chamorro historical phonology. Oceanic Linguistics 39: 83-122.

--2009. The Austronesian languages. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics, Research School of Pacific and Asian Studies, The Australian National University.

BUTLER, B. 1994. Early prehistoric settlement in the Mariana Islands: new evidence from Saipan. Man and Culture in Oceania 10: 15-38.

CARSON, M.T. 2005. National Register of Historic Places nomination for the Unai Bapot Latte Site (Sp-1-0013) in Laulau, Saipan, Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands. Site nomination report. US National Register of Historic Places, Washington, D.C.

--2008. Refining earliest settlement in Remote Oceania: renewed archaeological investigation at Unai Bapot, Saipan. Journal of Island and Coastal Archaeology 3: 115-39.

--2010. Radiocarbon chronology with marine reservoir correction for the Ritidian archaeological site, northern Guam. Radiocarbon 52: 1627-38.

--2011. Palaeohabitat of first settlement sites 1500-1000 BC in Guam, Mariana Islands, western Pacific. Journal of Archaeological Science 38: 2207-21.

--2012a. Evolution of an Austronesian landscape: the Ritidian site in Guam. Journal of Austronesian Studies 3(1): 55-86.

--2012b. History of archaeological study in the Mariana Islands. Micronesica 42: 312-71.

CARSON, M.T. & H. KURASHINA. 2012. First settlement of Remote Oceania: earliest sites in the Mariana Islands. Manuscript in preparation.

CARSON, M.T., H.C. HUNG, G. SUMMERHAYES & P. BELLWOOD. 2012. On the trail of decorative pottery style from Southeast Asia to the Pacific. Journal of Island and Coastal Archaeology. Accepted manuscript.

CRAIB, J.L. 1993. Early occupation at Unai Chulu, Tinian, Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands. Bulletin of the Indo-Pacific Prehistory Association 13: 116-34.

--1999. Colonisation of the Mariana Islands: new evidence and implications for human movement in the western Pacific, in J.C. Galipaud & I. Lilley (ed.) Le pacifique de 5000 a 2000 avant le present. Supplements a l'histoire d'une colonisation: 477-85. Paris: Institut de Recherche pour le Developpement.

HUNG, H.C. 2008. Migration and cultural interaction in southern coastal China, Taiwan and the northern Philippines, 3000 BC to AD 100: the early history of the Austronesian-speaking populations. Unpublished PhD dissertation, The Australian National University.

HUNG, H., M.T. CARSON, P. BELLWOOD, F.Z. CAMPOS, P.J. PIPER, E. DIZON, M.J.L.A. BOLUNIA, M. OXENHAM & Z. CHI. 2011. The first settlement of Remote Oceania: the Philippines to the Marianas. Antiquity 85: 909-26.

INTOH, M. 1997. Human dispersals into Micronesia. Journal of Anthropological Science 105: 15-28.

LISTON, J. 2005. All assessment of radiocarbon dates from Palau, western Micronesia. Radiocarbon 47: 295-354.

LONGACRE, W.A. (ed.) 1991. Ceramic ethnoarchaeology. Tucson: University of Arizona Press.

PAWLEY, A.K. 2007. The origins of early Lapita culture: the testimony of historical linguistics, in S. Bedford, C. Sand & S.P. Connaughton (ed.) Oceanic explorations: Lapita and western Pacific settlement (Terra Australis 26): 17-49. Canberra: ANU E-Press.

REID, L. 2002. Morphosyntactic evidence for the position of Chamorro in the Austronesian language family, in R.S. Bauer (ed.) Collected papers on Southeast Asian and Pacific languages (Pacific Linguistics 530): 63-94. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.

RICE, P.M. 1987. Pottery analysis: a sourcebook. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

RUSSELL, S. 1998. Tiempon i mannofo'na: ancient Chamorro culture and history in the northern Mariana Islands (Micronesian Archaeological Survey Report 32). Saipan: Division of Historic Preservation, Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands.

RYE, O.S. 1981. Pottery technology: principles and reconstruction. Washington, D.C.: Taraxacum

SOLHEIM, W.G. 1968. The Batungan cave sites, Masbate, Philippines, in W.G. Solheim (ed.) Anthropology at the Eighth Pacific Science Congress of the Pacific Science Association and the Fourth Far-Eastern Prehistory Congress, Quezon City, Philippines, 1953 (Asian and Pacific Archaeology series 2): 20-62. Honolulu: Social Science Research Institute, University of Hawai'i.

SPRIGGS, M. 2007. The Neolithic and Austronesian expansion within Island Southeast Asia and into the Pacific, in S. Chiu & C. Sand (ed.) From Southeast Asia to the Pacific: archaeological perspectives on the Austronesian expansion and the Lapita cultural complex. 104-40. Taipei: Center for Archaeological Studies, Research Center for Humanities and Social Sciences, Academia Sinica.

STARK, M. 1999. Social dimensions of technical choice in Kalinga ceramic traditions, in E.S. Chilton (ed.) Material meanings: critical approaches to the interpretation of material culture: 24-43. Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press.

STARK, M.T., R.L. BISHOP & E. MIKSA. 2000. Ceramic technology and social boundaries: cultural practices in Kaligna clay selection and use. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 7: 295-331.

SUMMERHAYES, G. 2000. Recent archaeological investigations in the Bismarck Archipelago, Anir--New Ireland Province, Papua New Guinea. Bulletin of the Indo-Pacific Prehistory Association 19: 167-74.

TOPPING, D.M., P.M. OGO & B.C. DUNGCA. 1975. Chamorro-English dictionary. Honolulu: University of Hawai'i Press.

TSANG, C.H., R. SANTIAGO & H.C. HUNG. 2002. Report on archaeological exploration in northern Luzon, Philippines, 1996-2002. Taipei: Academia Sinica (in Chinese).

ZOBEL, E. 2002. The position of Chamorro and Palauan in the Austronesian family tree: evidence from verb morphosyntax, in F. Wouk & M. Ross (ed.) The history and typology of western Austronesian voice systems (Pacific Linguistics 530): 405-34. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.

Hsiao-chun Hung (1,2), Mike T. Carson (3) & Peter Bellwood (1)

(1) School of Archaeology and Anthropology, The Australian National University, Canberra, ACT 0200, Australia

(2) Department of Archaeology and Natural History, The Australian National University, Canberra, ACT 0200, Australia (Author for correspondence, email: Hsiao-chun.hung@anu.edu.au)

(3) Micronesian Area Research Centre, University of Guam, Mangilao, GU 96923, USA