Obsidian artefacts and land-use
The rocky road: the selection and transport of Admiralties obsidian to
Lapita communities
Glenn Summerhayes
Abstract
This paper builds upon the previous work of Ambrose,
Kennedy and Fredericksen on the movement of Admiralty
Island obsidian by focussing on the obsidian found in sites
with Lapita pottery located outside the Admiralty group of
islands in the Bismarck Archipelago, Papua New Guinea.
The results offer a new perspective in modelling the
mechanisms of obsidian exchange and the nature of the
societies that extracted and moved the obsidian. The model
proposed to explain the Lapita period distribution of
Admiralties obsidian goes some way to filling the gaps
identified by White in 1996.
Introduction
Over the last thirty years major advances have been
made in our understanding of the nature of obsidian
exchange within Papua New Guinea. J. Peter White has
been a leading player in this field, from his excavation of
obsidian at Batari and Kafiavana in the New Guinea
Highlands (White 1972) to his involvement in sourcing
obsidian at the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology
Organisation (ANSTO), Lucas Heights. His 1996 article
‘Rocks in the head’ was a major contribution to this field,
inviting us to rethink the explanatory models used to
account for obsidian distribution in the region. It is hoped
that this article will fill some of the gaps identified by
White’s earlier work.
Background
Admiralty Islands’ obsidian has a long history of
exploitation. The islands are part of Manus Province in the
Bismarck Archipelago of Papua New Guinea. Its obsidian
was first used on Manus in the terminal Pleistocene
(Fredericksen 1997a, 1997b), but is first found outside the
Admiralty region only in the late 2nd millennium BC in
association with Lapita ceramics. To the west, it has now
been identified on Borneo (Service 1996) and the north
coast of New Guinea at Biak, Wom and Moem (Ambrose
1978:330). Within the Bismarck Archipelago, it occurs in
Lapita contexts in New Britain and the Mussau Islands
(Green 1987; Kirch et al. 1991; Summerhayes et al. 1993),
and in various contexts on New Ireland at sites such as
Lossu, Panakiwuk, Balof and Muliama (Ambrose 1978;
Marshall and Allen 1991; White et al. 1991), as well as on
the nearby islands of Tabar, Masahet (off Lihir), Tanga and
Anir (Ambrose 1978). Further south, it is reported from
North Solomons (Ambrose and Duerden 1982; Spriggs
1991; Wickler 2001), southeast Solomons (Green 1987),
and Vanuatu (Ambrose 1976). Fredericksen (1997a)
provides a more complete review.
Department of Archaeology and Natural History, Research School of
Pacific and Asian Studies, and Centre for Archaeological Research,
Australian National University, Canberra, ACT 0200, Australia.
E-mail: [email protected]
Australian Archaeology, Number 57, 2003
Two important observations arose out of these early
analyses. Firstly, in most assemblages there was a shift over
time from mainly West New Britain obsidian to Admiralty
obsidian, with Admiralty obsidian numerically dominant in
the later assemblages of Anir, Eloaua, Lossu, Balof and
Buka (Ambrose and Duerden 1982:84). Changes in the
nature of Lapita obsidian exchange were recognised
initially by Ambrose (1978:330), who identified an increase
in Admiralty obsidian in the Eloaua Lapita material
excavated by Egloff, from 68% in the earlier material to
85% in the later assemblage. Secondly, of the two
Admiralty Island source areas (Fig. 1), obsidian from Lou
Island was the dominant source represented outside the
Admiralties; in contrast, obsidian from the small island of
Pam Lin provided little and has been written off as
‘unimportant for external trade’ (Fredericksen 1997b:72).
This was in contrast to local consumption in the
Admiralties, where Pam Lin obsidian was used more
commonly than Lou Island sources (Fredericksen 1997a,
1997b).
The sourcing of Admiralty obsidian in some sites,
however, often did not go down to the level of specific
sources or sub-sources (Fredericksen 1997a:180; Allen in
press). This contrasts with New Britain, where extensive
sampling of obsidian outcrops (Torrence et al. 1992;
Fullagar et al. 1991), combined with advances in the
analysis of obsidian using PIXE-PIGME (Summerhayes
and Hotchkis 1992, Summerhayes et al. 1998), allowed the
definition of five specific obsidian source areas within New
Britain (Kutau/Bao, Gulu, Hamilton, Baki/Garala, Mopir).
Over the last 12 years, over 1500 archaeological samples
have been traced back to these sub-sources using PIXEPIGME.
The results of this massive sourcing program, together
with new archaeological excavations, have allowed insights
into the socio-economic nature of obsidian exchange over a
20,000 year period (Summerhayes and Allen 1993;
Torrence et al. 1996; Torrence and Summerhayes 1997;
Summerhayes et al. 1998; Araho et al. 2002; Summerhayes
in press a and b). This recent research has also refined the
chronology of Lapita settlements, and has allowed closer
attention to the changing proportions of obsidian from the
New Britain and Admiralty sources (see Summerhayes in
press a). This confirms the increasing importance of
Admiralty Island obsidian in the eastern Bismarck
Archipelago after the initial spread of the Lapita Cultural
Complex.
It is now time to focus on the archaeological
distribution of Admiralty obsidian outside the Admiralty
Islands, particularly the distribution of obsidian from
specific sources, in modelling the nature of interaction and
exchange among the Lapita communities of the region. This
paper first introduces the Admiralty obsidian source areas
and the results of PIXE-PIGME analyses of archaeological
finds outside the Admiralty Islands. This is followed by a
review of various explanations to account for source
135
The rocky road
MANUS IS.
Father’s Water
Peli Louson
Mt Hahie
Pamwak
Kohin
Umrei
Umleang
RAMBUTYO IS.
Emsin
LOU IS.
Sasi
PAM LIN
Paemasa
Mouk
BALUAN IS.
Figure 1
Map of the Admiralty Islands.
selection and what it tells about economic or social
mechanisms for exchange.
Source areas
Obsidian naturally occurs at four major areas within
the Admiralty Islands (Fig. 1). As it will be argued that
access to sources provides the key to obsidian selection,
some detail on each of the sources is provided.
1) Mt Hahie, Manus Island obsidian is not found outside the
Southwest Bay area. (Kennedy et al. 1991; Kennedy 1997;
cf. Bird et al. 1988).
2) Lou Island, located 25 km south of Manus Island, is
about 12 km long and up to 6 km wide. It is of volcanic
origin, with, five of its twelve volcanoes formed in the last
2000 years (Ambrose et al. 1981; Ambrose and Duerden
1982:85). Two major volcanic events at ~2100 and ~1650
BP affected human settlements and covered obsidian
sources. Several obsidian sources have been located on
Lou, including Umrei and Wekwok, where shafts to extract
obsidian are found. At Umleang, Ambrose located 25
shafts, some up to 17 m deep (Ambrose et al. 1981:7). Use
of these shafts was probably limited to the last 200 years
(Ambrose et al. 1981:13; Fullagar and Torrence 1991).
Permanent habitation was probably not possible on Lou
prior to the introduction of agriculture.
3) Tuluman Island, lying just south of Lou, was formed in
1954 and its obsidian is not relevant here.
4) Pam Lin and Pam Mandian are two small islands located
just over 6 km south of Lou Island. On Pam Lin, which is
just 500 m wide, obsidian occurs 2 m above sea level and is
thus easily accessible. Ambrose et al. (1981) noted that
obsidian from Pam Mandian was of poor quality.
Through extensive sampling and chemical analysis
using PIXE/PIGME, Ambrose and his colleagues (Ambrose
et al. 1981; Ambrose and Duerden 1982) identified the
136
20 kms
chemical signatures of the Admiralty Islands’ sources. The
late Roger Bird, who pioneered the sourcing program with
Ambrose, provided the original source data, which were
subsequently refined by improved machine conditions for
the PIXE/PIGME analyses (Summerhayes et al. 1998).
Obsidian from Umrei and Wekwok on Lou Island can be
clearly separated from each other and from the nearby Pam
Lin obsidian.
Apart from PIXE-PIGME, one other chemical
technique using a JEOL scanning electron microscope with
an EDAX attachment has been used for quantifiable
analysis (Fredericksen 1997b). The chemical data thus
generated allow the subdivision of the major source areas.
Density analysis has also been used to separate and
subdivide source areas, but with less success as overlaps
between the major sources lead to problems in source
attribution of archaeological specimens (Torrence and
Victor 1995; White and Harris 1997; Allen in press).
Results
Table 1 lists PIXE-PIGME source data on Admiralty
obsidian found outside the Admiralty region in stratified
contexts in New Ireland, Mussau, East New Britain and
north coast New Guinea (Fig. 2 gives the location of sites).
The Table shows the percentage of obsidian by count
allocated to the New Britain and Admiralty source regions,
and then the percentage identified to individual sources in
the Admiralties. The results come from several published
and unpublished studies. The Lossu, Lasigi, Balof and
Panakiwuk data are from various analyses by Ambrose and
Bird in conjunction with the Lapita Homeland Project. The
Duke of York Islands’ results come from White and Harris
(1997). For Watom Island, J. Specht (pers. comm.) provided
the SAD data, and the results for SAC and SDI are taken
from Green and Anson (2000) and Anson (2000). The north
Australian Archaeology, Number 57, 2003
Summerhayes
Table 1
Distribution (%) of obsidian by sources and periods as indicated by PIXE-PIGME. The total for the major source
regions in Watom SAD does not add up to 100% as some pieces could not be allocated.
coast New Guinea data for Tumleo Island are taken from
Terrell and Welsch (1997). The Tumleo material came from
surface collections and excavations undertaken in 1996 as
part of research directed by Terrell and myself. Finally, the
Anir results for Kamgot, Balbalankin and Feni Mission are
from my own work.
Four sets of assemblages show changes in the
frequency of Admiralty obsidian over time: Anir, Duke of
Yorks, Watom and Mussau. Quantitative data for the
Mussau finds are not listed due to difficulty in clarifying the
percentages of obsidian from different sources, as a
consequence of problems correlating the results of density
analysis with the PIXE-PIGME data (Allen in press). Data
for Buka and Nissan in North Solomons also are not
presented in as they derive from density analysis.
Regional patterns
Early Lapita: 3300 - 3000/2900 BP
Admiralty obsidian was never dominant in
assemblages of this age. In sites close to the Willaumez
Peninsula sources, Admiralty obsidian is very rarely found
(Summerhayes in press a). In the Arawe assemblages, only
one piece in Adwe (FOH) and another in Paligmete (FNY)
were identified as being from Umrei. Although Umrei is the
dominant obsidian moving out of the Admiralties, Pam Lin
obsidian is also found in sites slightly further away from
Willaumez Peninsula. One piece was identified in SEE
Australian Archaeology, Number 57, 2003
layer II in the Duke of Yorks (White and Harris 1997:98).
The Kamgot site (ERA) in the Anir group, which is
equidistant to both sources, has 20% of obsidian from the
Admiralties; of this, 67% came from Umrei and 25% from
Pam Lin. Closer to the Admiralty sources, both Pam Lin
and Umrei are represented at Talepakemalai (ECA) (Allen
in press) where about half of the obsidian is attributed to
Admiralty sources (Kirch et al. 1991).
Middle Lapita: 2900 - 2700/2600 BP
Like the previous period, Admiralty obsidian is rare in
sites close to the west New Britain sources. Only one piece
of Admiralty obsidian, from Umrei, was identified in the
Apalo (FOJ) site, Arawe Islands. In assemblages located to
the east and north of the New Britain source regions,
Admiralty obsidian replaced Kutau/Bao as the major
source. This probably corresponds to a shift from a
‘colonising phase’ when populations were more mobile, to
one where they were more sedentary (Summerhayes in
press b). The proportions of obsidian from New Britain and
the Admiralties in these assemblages are best explained by
proximity to the source areas. This can be seen in the
Mussau Islands, on New Ireland’s offshore islands (e.g.
Anir), and on Watom and the Duke of Yorks off the eastern
tip of New Britain as well. In the Mussau assemblages, the
change is more marked than elsewhere. In the earlier levels
of Talepakemalai (ECA), there were roughly equal amounts
137
The rocky road
MUSSAU
ADMIRALTY IS
Panakiwuk
Balof
Tabar
Eloaua
Lihir
Tumleo
Lossu
Lasigi
Moem Peninsula
Tanga
Watom
NEW GUINEA
Willaumez
Peninsula
Muliama
Anir
Duke of Yorks
NEW BRITAIN
Arawe Islands
Figure 2
text.
Map of the Bismarck Archipelago and north coast New Guinea showing the location of sites mentioned in the
of Willaumez Peninsula and Admiralty obsidian, but in the
later levels Admiralty sources dominate. Again, both Pam
Lin and Umrei obsidian occur, but the proportions are
difficult to discern, though Allen (in press) hints that Pam
Lin obsidian may have increased. Further south at
Balbalankin and Malekolon, Admiralty obsidian,
particularly Umrei, also dramatically increased compared to
the earlier assemblage at Kamgot (ERA). A similar trend is
seen in the Duke of York assemblages. Unfortunately, from
the sole Watom site of this period, SDI zone C4, only two
pieces of obsidian were found: one from Mopir, the other
from Umrei (Anson 2000:108). On Buka, obsidian from the
Lapita site of DJQ (Kessa Plantation) is mostly from
Admiralty sources (Wickler 2001:178).
The increase in Admiralty obsidian in New Ireland and
the eastern tip of New Britain represents an increase in the
movement of Umrei obsidian, while Pam Lin is a secondary
source. This contrasts with the Mussau islands, where Pam
Lin is the dominant source represented (Allen in press).
Late Lapita: ca 2600 - ca 2200 BP
During this period, West New Britain obsidian
increased in the assemblages on Anir (Feni Mission ERG),
Duke of Yorks (SDP layer II), and Watom (SAC C2, SDI
C3, SAD). The Admiralty obsidian present in these
assemblages shows variations between the sub-sources. At
ERG, Pam Lin increases to 45% of the Admiralty obsidian.
Umrei, on the other hand, still makes up the majority of
Admiralty obsidian in SDP layer II and on Watom. In SDP
layer II, Umrei makes up 83% of the Admiralty obsidian
while Pam Lin represents only 17% (White and Harris
1997). In SAC C2, Umrei makes up 65% of the Admiralty
obsidian, Wekwok reaches a high of 27%, and only 3% is
attributed to Pam Lin (Green and Anson 2000:67). In SDI
C3, only five pieces of obsidian were recovered, two of
which are from Admiralty sources, one each from Umrei
and Pam Lin (Anson 2000:108). In SAD, Umrei makes up
96% of the Admiralty obsidian, with 4% identified to
Wekwok and none to Pam Lin. The proportions at SAD are
similar to those of other levels from this phase, supporting
Specht’s (2002:41) belief that this assemblage ‘probably
138
400 kms
represents a Lapita expression contemporary with that of
zone C2 at SAC and the lower levels of SDI.’ In the North
Solomons, the one site allocated to this period, the DAF
surface site on Sohano Island, has mostly Lou Island
obsidian (Wickler 2001:179).
Sites equidistant to both source regions have an
increase in West New Britain obsidian. In contrast the
proportions of the individual Admiralty sources remain the
same, with Umrei dominating, except at ERG where Pam
Lin and Umrei are found in equal quantities. Wekwok
obsidian appears at SAD on Watom, and Allen notes that
one Wekwok piece was found in ECB in the Mussau group
(Allen in press).
Post Lapita: ca 2200 - 1300 BP
New Britain obsidian still dominates the East New
Britain (Watom SDI C2 and C1) and Duke of York (SDP
layer I) assemblages. The small amount of Admiralty
obsidian is mostly from Umrei. Admiralty obsidian,
however, dominates the assemblages at Lossu (EAA),
Lasigi (ELS and ELT) and Balof (EAB) in central and
northern New Ireland, where Umrei is the main Admiralty
source represented (Table 1). On the north coast of New
Guinea, only Admiralty obsidian was used during the
Sumalo Period (ca.1300 BP) on Tumleo Island (Terrell and
Welsch 1997:561). Here, Pam Lin (42%) is almost as
common as Umrei (50%), while only a small amount of
Wekwok (8%) is present.
During this period, Umrei is still the dominant
Admiralty source to the east, with Pam Lin either absent or
rare. To the west, Pam Lin obsidian is found in much higher
proportions than Umrei. The proportion from Wekwok
increases in both eastern and western assemblages.
Admiralty Islands’ use of obsidian
By comparing these regional distributions with the
local distribution of obsidian within the Admiralty Islands,
contrasting patterns emerge that are important for
modelling exchange patterns. There are, however, several
problems in identifying obsidian consumption patterns
within the Admiralties. Firstly, there are only six relevant
Australian Archaeology, Number 57, 2003
Summerhayes
excavated sites: Ahus, Pamwak (GOD), Father’s Water
(GAC), Mouk (GLT), Kohin (GDN), and Paemasa (GFR).
The last three have dentate-stamped Lapita pottery
(Kennedy 1981, 1982, 1983; McEldowney and Ballard
1991). Secondly, the lack of fine chronological resolution
for the last 3500 years inhibits the placement of sites into
discrete time periods (Fredericksen 1997a:382).
Despite these limitations, two major points can be
made. Firstly, Pam Lin was more commonly used within the
Admiralties than further east and south (Fredericksen
1997a). At Mouk, Kohin and Pamwak, Pam Lin obsidian
makes up 50%, 39% and 38.5% respectively (Fredericksen
1997a:382). In Father’s Water, on the other hand, it is only
7%, and only 8% in the Ahus site which dates to the last
2000 years. Fredericksen (1997a:382) suggests a scenario
where several intra-regional distribution routes were
operating, with the Lou sources utilised by communities in
the eastern part of Manus Island, and the Pam Lin source by
communities in the western part.
Secondly, this pattern of source use has a long history.
In the terminal Pleistocene, obsidian from an unknown Lou
Island source (‘source X’) was used at Pamwak, with Pam
Lin obsidian appearing in the early Holocene. By the
middle Holocene, Pam Lin replaced source X as the main
supplier to Pamwak, and Wekwok obsidian first appeared
there (Fredericksen 1997b:72). Two dates for this transition
are 6280 ± 250 (ANU 7122) and 7940 ± 90 BP (ANU 8239)
(Fredericksen 1997b:72). This transition underlies a midden
layer with a dense concentration of obsidian that suggests a
change in economic strategies, with much greater use of
obsidian from Pam Lin (Fredericksen 1997b:71). Lou
Island obsidian occasionally occurs in early Holocene
contexts, but the first significant amounts appear only in the
top levels. These levels, unfortunately, cannot be dated
accurately, though Fredericksen (1997b:71) narrows the
time of the increase in Lou only to the period after the
introduction of Pam Lin and before the use of a post-2000
BP style of pottery (Fredericksen 1997:72).
Pam Lin was also the dominant source represented at
the other unequivocally pre-Lapita site, Peli Louson. Here,
obsidian was found in mid-Holocene contexts (Kennedy
1983), with the majority sourced to Pam Lin and the rest to
Lou (Fredericksen 1997a:379). Thus, the exploitation of
Pam Lin obsidian in the mid-Holocene is a continuation of
the selection and use of this obsidian in the early Holocene.
In the late Holocene, there was no major change in
behaviour associated with extracting obsidian for
consumption within the Admiralties, though admittedly the
archaeological evidence currently available is slight.
Outside the Admiralty Islands, Umrei obsidian was selected
for distribution eastwards in the Early Lapita period at 3300
BP, and by 1300 BP obsidian from Umrei and Pam Lin was
being selected and transported westwards to northern New
Guinea in equal proportions.
Obsidian will probably be recovered from older contexts
on the north coast of New Guinea, where Lapita pottery, albeit
only two sherds, is reported (Swadling 1990; Terrell and
Welsch 1997). To the east of the Admiralties, the distribution
of Lapita pottery is closely associated with obsidian
movement, and the same can be expected to the west.
Interestingly, the proportion of Admiralties and New Britain
obsidian from surface scatters on Ali Island off the north coast
of New Guinea, where one dentate stamped sherd was found,
is identical to that from the Middle Lapita phase on Anir.
Australian Archaeology, Number 57, 2003
Evidence for earlier contact between north coast New
Guinea and Manus comes from the introduction into Manus
of cuscus (Spilocuscus kraemeri), bandicoot (Echymipera
kalubu), and Canarium indicum nuts at ca 13,000 BP
(Kennedy 2002:20; Specht in press). These introductions
occurred about the same time that obsidian was extracted
and distributed to mainland Manus. Earlier use of obsidian
from Mt Hahie in southwest Manus is also a possibility,
although evidence from stratigraphic contexts is currently
lacking.
In summary, while the selection and distribution of
obsidian within the Admiralties continued unchanged after
3300 BP, the selection and distribution of obsidian for
places to the east beyond the Admiralties was different. In
modelling these patterns of obsidian selection and dispersal,
three aspects will be discussed below: volcanic events,
social/economic models, and the role of Lapita
communities in obsidian distribution.
Factors affecting the selection and distribution of
resources
Volcanic events?
The nature of volcanic events in the archaeological
record, in particular their effect on the extraction and
distribution of obsidian, have been well documented for
West New Britain (Torrence et al. 2000; Torrence 2002). In
the Admiralties, volcanic disruptions seem to have had less
impact on the extraction and distribution of obsidian in the
late fourth and third millennium BP. As Ambrose and
Duerden (1982:85) noted, the ‘chronology of volcanic
events will therefore be important in any attempt to define
prehistoric exploitation of this resource.’ A major eruption
on Lou Island ~2100 BP buried the Sasi (GDY) site under
5 m of ash, and the other at ~1650 BP covered the Emsin
Site (GEB) with 3 m of ash (Ambrose et al. 1981; Ambrose
and Duerden 1982:85; Ambrose 1991). With such depths of
ash, it is understandable why shafts were needed to extract
obsidian from the Lou sources. Despite these disruptions,
however, the Umrei source apparently did not go out of
production, and there are no hiccups in its temporal
distribution. Umrei obsidian is present in archaeological
assemblages of the Early to Late Lapita periods, and in
those of the post-Lapita period.
Volcanic activity might have influenced which
obsidian reached Pamwak before 3500 BP, when Pam Lin
obsidian was preferred over that from the closer Lou Island
sources. Why was Lou Island obsidian not chosen?
Inaccessibility? Was it available? It is certain from the
amount of volcanism evident that Lou Island would have
looked very different in the past (Ambrose 2002:68). Pam
Lin, on the other hand, has obsidian flows at beach level
that could have been more accessible and easier to work
than those on Lou.
Social or economic models
Studies of obsidian extraction and distribution from the
West New Britain sources suggest that social factors played
a role in the regulation of obsidian leaving that area
(Torrence et al. 1996; Torrence and Summerhayes 1997;
Araho et al. 2002). One source area, Kutau/Bao, was
strongly preferred over Baki and Gulu, even though the
latter were of equal quality and accessibility. This was not
the case in the Admiralties, where both Pam Lin and Umrei
were selected and distributed, albeit in unequal quantities.
139
The rocky road
The proportion of different Admiralty sources reaching
archaeological sites outside the source region is important
here. The selection of Umrei as the primary source and Pam
Lin as the secondary one in the movement of obsidian fits a
pattern of closeness to the source in being a determining
factor in the selection of obsidian. It is similar to the
distribution of obsidian from West New Britain in the
Pleistocene, when mostly Mopir obsidian, and only a small
amount from Willaumez Peninsula, was distributed to New
Ireland in the east (Summerhayes and Allen 1993).
Modelling the social nature of obsidian distribution
using the New Britain sources was based on technological
analyses of assemblages found at the sources (Torrence
1992) and away from them (Sheppard 1992, 1993; Halsey
1995), as well as an argument that obsidian was a prestige
good (Summerhayes in press a for discussion). Torrence et
al (1996:220) argued that acquisition of obsidian from the
West New Britain sources was a result of embedded
procurement, where ‘materials were collected in the course
of carrying out other activities.’ Such ‘other’ activities do
not apply on Lou or Pam Lin. If people travelled to these
two islands, it would have been to collect obsidian or to
obtain it from inhabitants from Lou, Pam Lin being too
small for long-term occupation. Thus, in contrast to the
New Britain sources, the consumption of obsidian from Lou
would be expected to reflect distance from the raw material
source (Torrence et al. 1996:220).
Unfortunately, no obsidian production sites of Lapita
age are known in the Admiralty source areas. The first
available workshop evidence is from the post-Lapita Sasi
site, which has produced hundreds of blades and flakes. The
later Emsin workshop, on Lou Island, produced triangular
points that were exported to other parts of Manus (Antcliff
1988; Kennedy 1997; Fredericksen 2000), and further
afield to New Ireland (Lossu) and North Solomons. The
obsidian of all exported points is sourced to Umrei.
Information on obsidian technology from
archaeological contexts in the Admiralties is also limited.
The available descriptions suggest that pre-Lapita
production was of a non-economising form, while in later
periods production was directed more towards provision of
single flakes that equate with an economising technology.
Pamwak yielded over 23,000 pieces of obsidian from 7.5
m3 of deposit (Fredericksen 1997b:69). Formal tools made
‘from a flake [of pitchstone] that is secondarily flaked on
only one surface to produce a discoid without any cortex’
are found only in the early Holocene levels (Ambrose
2002:69). The later obsidian found with pottery is described
as ‘simple obsidian flakes’ (Ambrose 2002:69). At Peli
Louson, the obsidian from the lower, pre-pottery levels was
described as ‘including large flakes and nodules,’ whereas
the pottery levels contained a ‘few small flakes of obsidian’
(Kennedy 1983:116). At Father’s Water, obsidian was
‘abundant in the upper two layers’, with only eight flakes in
layer 3 (Kennedy 1983:116, 118).
Technological information from outside Manus is a
little more useful. Where Admiralty Island obsidian is
found, the indications are that it was heavily reduced. For
Mussau, Allen (in press) notes that artefacts were ‘for the
most part small, simple flakes with little purposeful retouch
but occasional use wear.’ At the Anir sites, there is little
difference in technology from Early to Late Lapita, with the
obsidian from all sources being very small flakes (SweteKelly 2001; Summerhayes in press b).
140
In the Duke of Yorks, White and Harris (1997:104)
noted that obsidian pieces from the dominating source are
usually heavier than those from the lesser used source, and
suggested that ‘material from a currently important source
is more lavishly used – or less re-used.’ For Admiralty
obsidian, this refers to the Middle Lapita assemblage of
SDP layer III and the Late Lapita assemblage of SDP Layer
II. Despite this, White and Harris (1997:104) report that the
technology was unremarkable, made up of flakes and chips
of less than 2 g. Hanslip (2001) also noted this trend in other
sites such as SAD at Watom, Balof (EAB2), Lasigi (ELT)
and at some sites on Buka and Nissan. Such comparisons
are, as Hanslip (2001:74) noted, limited and not conclusive.
The bottom line is that, unlike the West New Britain
Kutau/Bao obsidian found in the colonising phase in both
the Reef/Santa Cruz and Arawes assemblages, the
Admiralty obsidian and later Kutau/Bao obsidian is minute
in size and indicative of an economising behaviour. At
excavated sites where Admiralty obsidian dominates, the
mean weights of pieces (< 0.6 g) are very small (Specht
2002: Tables 2 and 4).
The point is that prior to the distribution of Emsin
points from Lou Island, the obsidian distributed beyond the
Admiralties is dominated by small flakes, with no cores or
lumps of obsidian known in these archaeological contexts.
This may seem to fit a ‘down the line’ economising model
for distribution from a source. But ‘down the line’ from
where, and to where? There is no evidence of a distancedecay pattern working here, where, as obsidian moves away
from the source, it is reduced in size as the commodity gets
rarer. The assemblages from Father’s Water, the Mussau
sites and Kamgot all consist of small flakes.
Role of Lapita
Obsidian artefacts from the closest major Lapita sites,
in the Mussau group, suggest that users did not obtain it by
direct access as the material reaching these sites consists of
small, heavily reduced flakes. It is possible that there is a
yet-to-be-found Lapita site in the eastern islands of the
Admiralties which obtained obsidian and subsequently
distributed it further east, although there is currently no
evidence for this. Another possibility is that the distribution
of obsidian to Lapita communities outside the Admiralty
Islands was undertaken and regulated by Admiralty
Islanders themselves. This option has appeal for three
reasons.
Firstly, there is very little evidence of Lapita presence
in the Admiralties. Three handfuls of dentate pottery stand
in contrast to the tens of thousands of sherds found in the
major Lapita assemblages of Mussau, Kamgot and the
Arawes. Also, if Manus Island fits the same pattern as the
main islands of New Britain and New Ireland, then it will
not have major early Lapita settlements as these are
generally found on offshore islands. Ambrose (1991:103)
made this point a decade ago, suggesting that the poor
representation of Lapita is ‘probably related to the general
observation that major Lapita sites occur as newly
established outposts, away from areas of pre-existing
settlement, and usually on small islands acquiring some
defensive quality from their isolation.’ The few dentate
stamped sherds on the main island of Manus are more likely
due to exchange than settlement.
Secondly, Kennedy’s (2002) innovative paper using
Blust’s linguistic work is important here. There is evidence
Australian Archaeology, Number 57, 2003
Summerhayes
to suggest that Manus was not part of the speech
community that spread with Lapita across the Pacific,
suggesting ‘strong local tradition.’ Kennedy raises the
possibility that settlements which made and used Lapita
pottery within a Lapita social context might not occur on
Manus, and the Lapita pottery found there might have been
imported as trade goods.
Lastly, Fredericksen’s (1997a:382) suggestion that
intra-regional distribution routes were operating, with
perhaps the Lou source in the eastern part of Manus Island
and Pam Lin more towards the west, has appeal in that local
Manus groups were obtaining obsidian and then
exchanging flakes to the Lapita communities to the east. In
this scenario, Lapita communities in the Mussau group
tapped into an existing obsidian network operating from the
eastern Admiralties, where the amount of obsidian from
Lou or Pam Lin was based on distance to the source. The
expanded distribution of Admiralty obsidian eastwards to
Lapita communities on Mussau by 3300 BP would have
been fuelled by Lapita demand. Any subsequent increase in
obsidian, such as the increase in Umrei obsidian in the
Middle Lapita period, could thus be explained as an
increase in consumer demand (Summerhayes in press b).
Conclusions
The dearth of data on human occupation for the mid to
late Holocene in the Admiralty Islands should not stop
archaeologists from modelling the nature of exchange and
the social or economic processes working within and
between communities that inhabited the region in
prehistory. By focussing on the consumption of obsidian in
archaeological contexts outside the Admiralty area, and
then comparing the results with the distribution of obsidian
within the region, it is possible to set out possible scenarios
to account for the distribution of obsidian as well as the
limitations of the data. Identifying the selection of obsidian
primarily from Umrei, and to a lesser degree from Pam Lin,
and its export as small flakes to Lapita settlements in the
east, allows us to make comparisons and identify
differences from the selection, extraction and distribution of
New Britain obsidian to Lapita communities, and to
develop models to account for these differences. The social
models used successfully to account for the distribution of
New Britain obsidians cannot explain the selection and
distribution of obsidian from the Admiralties to Lapita
communities. The model put forward here is that Lapita
occupation was minimal in the Admiralty region, and that
obsidian from pre-existing exchange networks were used to
supply the demands of Lapita communities further east.
Acknowledgments
I thank Peter White for his continued help over the last
26 years. My appreciation goes also to Wal Ambrose and
Jean Kennedy for their pioneering work on Manus, and to
Clayton Fredericksen for his sourcing work on Pamwak.
My special thanks go to the late Roger Bird of ANSTO
who, with Wal, made the PIXE-PIGME sourcing possible. I
thank the Australian Institute of Nuclear Science and
Engineering for grants to enable the characterisation
studies. Many people in ANSTO, as well as Roger Bird,
helped over the 20 years that I have conducted research
there, including Peter Duerden, David Cohen, A. Katsaros,
Nadia Shahgholi, Graham Bailey, Mike Hotchkis and Phil
Johnson. I thank them all. Thanks also to Jim Specht for the
Australian Archaeology, Number 57, 2003
SAD results, Baiva Ivuyo who helped excavate the Tumleo
site, and John Terrell, my co-archaeological organiser on
the north coast of New Guinea. Lastly, thanks to Wal
Ambrose, Jim Specht, Matthew Leavesley and two referees
for comments on the paper, and to Roger Green for setting
me straight on the results from SAC.
References
Allen, M. in press Three millennia of obsidian importation in the Mussau
Islands. In P.V. Kirch (ed.) Lapita and its Transformations in Near
Oceania. Berkeley: Archaeological Research Facility, University of
California.
Ambrose, W. 1976 Obsidian and its prehistoric distribution in Melanesia.
In N. Barnard (ed.) Ancient Chinese Bronzes and Southeast Asian
Metal and other Archaeological Artefacts, pp. 351-378. Melbourne:
National Gallery of Victoria.
Ambrose, W. 1978 The loneliness of the long distance trader in Melanesia.
Mankind 11:326-333.
Ambrose, W. 1991 Lapita or not Lapita: The case of the Manus pots. In
J. Allen and C. Gosden (eds) Report of the Lapita Homeland Project,
pp. 103-112. Canberra: Department of Prehistory, Research School
of Pacific Studies, Australian National University. Occasional Papers
in Prehistory 20.
Ambrose, W. 2002 From very old to new; obsidian artefacts in the
Admiralty Islands. In C. Kaufmann, C. Kocher Schmid and S.
Ohnemus (eds) Admiralty Islands: Art from the South Seas, pp.6772. Zurich: Museum Rietberg.
Ambrose, W. and Duerden, P. 1982 PIXE analysis in the distribution and
chronology of obsidian use in the Admiralty Islands. In W. Ambrose
and P. Duerden (eds) Archaeometry: An Australasian Perspective,
pp.83-89. Canberra: Department of Prehistory, Research School of
Pacific Studies, Australian National University.
Ambrose, W., Bird, J.R., and Duerden, P. 1981 The impermanence of
obsidian sources in Melanesia. In F. Leach and J. Davidson (eds)
Archaeological Studies of Pacific Stone Resources, pp.1-19. Oxford:
British Archaeological Reports. International Series 104.
Anson, D. 2000 Excavations at Vunavaung (SDI), Rakival Village,
Watom Island, Papua New Guinea. New Zealand Journal of
Archaeology 20 (1998):95-118.
Antcliff, P. 1988 Obsidian Points from Emsin (GEB), Lou Island.
Unpublished BA (Hons) thesis, Australian National University,
Canberra.
Araho, N., Torrence, R. and White, J.P. 2002 Valuable and useful: MidHolocene stemmed obsidian artefacts from West New Britain, Papua
New Guinea. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 68:61-81.
Bird, J.R., Ambrose, W., Shahgoli, H. and Kannemeyer, C. 1988
Melanesian obsidian. In J.R. Prescott (ed.) Archaeometry:
Australasian Studies, pp.107-114, Adelaide: Department of Physical
and Mathematical Sciences, University of Adelaide.
Fredericksen, C. 1997a The maritime distribution of Bismarck
Archipelago obsidian and island Melanesian prehistory. Journal of
the Polynesian Society 106:375-393.
Fredericksen, C. 1997b Changes in Admiralty Islands obsidian source
use: The view from Pamwak. Archaeology in Oceania 32:68-73.
Fredericksen, C. 2000 Points of discussion. Obsidian blade technology in
the Admiralty Islands, 2100 to 50BP. Bulletin of the Indo-Pacific
Prehistory Association 20:93-106.
Fullagar, R. and Torrence, R. 1991 Obsidian exploitation at Umleang,
Lou Island. In J. Allen and C. Gosden (eds) Report of the Lapita
Homeland Project, pp.113-143. Canberra: Department of Prehistory,
Research School of Pacific Studies, Australian National University.
Occasional Papers in Prehistory 20.
Fullagar, R., Summerhayes, G.R., Ivuyo, B. and Specht, J. 1991 Obsidian
sources at Mopir, West New Britain Province, Papua New Guinea,
Archaeology in Oceania 26:110-114.
Green, R.C. 1987 Obsidian results from the Lapita sites of the Reef/Santa
Cruz Islands. In W.R. Ambrose and J.M.J. Mummery (eds)
Archaeometry: Further Australasian Studies, pp.239-249. Canberra:
Department of Prehistory, Research School of Pacific Studies,
Australian National University. Occasional Papers in Prehistory 14.
Green, R.C. and Anson, D. 2000 Excavations at Kainapirina (SAC),
Watom Island, Papua New Guinea. New Zealand Journal of
Archaeology 20 (1998):29-94.
141
The rocky road
Halsey, A. 1995 Obsidian Resource Maximisation: A Comparison of Two
Lapita Assemblages. Unpublished BA (Hons) thesis, La Trobe
University, Bundoora.
Hanslip, M. 2001 Expedient Technologies? Obsidian Artefacts in Island
Melanesia. Unpublished PhD thesis, Australian National University,
Canberra.
Kennedy, J. 1981 Lapita colonisation of the Admiralty Islands? Science
213:757-759.
Kennedy, J. 1982 Archaeology in the Admiralty Islands: Some
excursions. Bulletin of the Indo-Pacific Association 3:22-35.
Kennedy, J. 1983 On the prehistory of Western Melanesia: The
significance of new data from the Admiralties. Australian
Archaeology 16:115-122.
Kennedy, J. 1997 The loneliness of an obsidian source in southwest
Manus. Archaeology in Oceania 32:85-96.
Kennedy, J. 2002 Manus from the beginning: An archaeological
overview. In C. Kaufmann, C. Kocher Schmid and S. Ohnemus (eds)
Admiralty Islands: Art from the South Seas, pp.17-28. Zurich:
Museum Rietberg.
Kennedy, J., Wadra, F., Akon, U., Busasa, R., Papah, J. and Piamnok, M.
1991 Site survey of southwest Manus: A preliminary report.
Archaeology in Oceania 26:114-118.
Kirch, P.V., Hunt, T.L, Weisler, M., Butler, V. and Allen, M.S. 1991
Mussau Islands prehistory: Results of the 1985-86 excavations. In J.
Allen and C. Gosden (eds) Report of the Lapita Homeland Project,
pp.144-163. Canberra: Department of Prehistory, Research School of
Pacific Studies, Australian National University. Occasional Papers in
Prehistory 20.
Marshall, B. and Allen, J. 1991 Excavations at Panakiwuk Cave, New
Ireland. In J. Allen and C. Gosden (eds) Report of the Lapita
Homeland Project, pp.59-91. Canberra: Department of Prehistory,
Research School of Pacific Studies, Australian National University.
Occasional Papers in Prehistory 20.
McEldowney, H. and Ballard, C. 1991 The Mouk site: Manus as paradox
or parable in reconstructing the Lapita Cultural Complex. In J. Allen
and C. Gosden (eds) Report of the Lapita Homeland Project, pp.92102. Canberra: Department of Prehistory, Research School of Pacific
Studies, Australian National University. Occasional Papers in
Prehistory 20.
Service, R.F. 1996 Rock chemistry traces ancient traders. Science
274:2012-2013.
Sheppard, P.J. 1992 A report on the flaked lithic assemblage from three
Southeast Solomons Lapita Sites. In J-C. Galipaud (ed.) Poterie
Lapita et Peuplement, pp.145-154. Noumea: ORSTOM.
Sheppard, P.J. 1993 Lapita lithics: Trade/exchange and technology. A
view from the Reefs/Santa Cruz. Archaeology in Oceania 28:121137.
Specht, J. 2002 Obsidian, colonising and exchange. In S. Bedford, C.
Sand and D. Burley (eds) Fifty years in the Field. Essays in Honour
and Celebration of Richard Shutler Jr’s Archaeological Career,
pp.37-49. Auckland: New Zealand Archaeological Association.
Monograph 25.
Specht, J. in press Revisiting the Bismarcks: Some alternative views. In
A. Pawley, R. Attenborough, J. Golson and R. Hide (eds) Papuan
Pasts: Studies in the Cultural, Linguistic and Biological History of
the Papuan Speaking Peoples.
Spriggs, M. 1991 Nissan, the island in the middle. Summary report on
excavations at the north end of the Solomons and south end of the
Bismarcks. In J. Allen and C. Gosden (eds) Report of the Lapita
Homeland Project, pp.222-243. Canberra: Department of Prehistory,
Research School of Pacific Studies, Australian National University.
Occasional Papers in Prehistory 20.
Summerhayes, G.R. in press a The nature of prehistoric obsidian
importation to Anir and the development of a 3000 year old regional
picture of obsidian exchange within the Bismarck Archipelago,
Papua New Guinea. Records of the Australian Museum, Supplement
29.
Summerhayes, G.R. in press b Modelling differences between Lapita
obsidian and pottery distribution patterns in the Bismarck
Archipelago, Papua New Guinea. In C. Sand (ed.) Proceedings of the
Lapita Conference, Noumea, August 2002.
Summerhayes, G.R. and Allen, J. 1993 The transport of Mopir obsidian
to late Pleistocene New Ireland. Archaeology in Oceania 28:145-149.
Summerhayes, G.R. and Hotchkis, M. 1992 Recent advances in
142
Melanesian obsidian sourcing: results of the 1990 and 1991
PIXE/PIGME analyses. In J-C. Galipaud (ed.) Poterie Lapita et
Peuplement, pp.127-134. Noumea: ORSTOM.
Summerhayes, G.R., Bird, R., Fullagar, R., Gosden, C., Specht, J. and
Torrence, R. 1998 Application of PIXE-PIGME to archaeological
analysis of changing patterns of obsidian use in West New Britain,
Papua New Guinea. In M.S. Shackley (ed.) Archaeological Obsidian
Studies: Method and Theory, pp.129-158. New York: Plenum Press.
Summerhayes, G.R., Gosden, C., Fullagar, R., Specht, J., Torrence, R.,
Bird, R., Shahgholi, N. and Katsaros, A. 1993 West New Britain
obsidian: Production and consumption patterns. In B. Fankhauser
and J.R. Bird (eds) Archaeometry: Current Australasian Research,
pp.57-68. Canberra: Department of Prehistory, Research School of
Pacific Studies, Australian National University. Occasional Papers in
Prehistory 22.
Swadling, P. 1990 Sepik prehistory. In N. Lutkehaus, C. Kaufmann, W.E.
Mitchell, D. Newton, L. Osmundsen and M. Schuster (eds) Sepik
Heritage: Tradition and Change in Papua New Guinea, pp.71-86.
Bathurst: Crawford House Press.
Swete-Kelly, M.C. 2001 Lapita Lithics: An Analysis of Obsidian
Acquisition, Utilisation and Discard on the Anir Islands.
Unpublished BA (Hons) thesis, Australian National University,
Canberra.
Terrell, J.E. and Welsch, R.L. 1997 Lapita and the temporal geography of
prehistory. Antiquity 71:548-572.
Torrence, R. 1992 What is Lapita about obsidian? A view from the
Talasea sources. In J-C. Galipaud (ed.) Poterie Lapita et Peuplement,
pp.111-126. Noumea: ORSTOM.
Torrence, R. 2002 What makes a disaster? A long-term view of volcanic
eruptions and human responses in Papua New Guinea. In R. Torrence
and J. Gratton (eds) Natural Disasters and Cultural Change, pp.292312. London: Routledge.
Torrence, R. and Summerhayes, G.R. 1997 Sociality and the short
distance trader: Intra-regional obsidian exchange in the Willaumez
Peninsula region, Papua New Guinea. Archaeology in Oceania
32:74-84.
Torrence, R. and Victor, K.L. 1995 The relativity of density. Archaeology
in Oceania 30:121-131.
Torrence, R., Pavlides, C., Jackson, P., and Webb, J. 2000 Volcanic
disasters and cultural discontinuities in Holocene time, in West New
Britain, Papua New Guinea. In W.J. McGuire, D.R. Griffiths, P.L.
Hancock and I.S. Stewart (eds) The Archaeology of Geological
Catastrophes, pp.225-244. London: The Geological Society. Special
Publication 171.
Torrence, R. Specht, J., Fullagar, R. and Bird, R. 1992 From Pleistocene
to present: Obsidian sources in West New Britain, Papua New
Guinea. Records of the Australian Museum, Supplement 15:83-98.
Torrence, R., Specht, J., Fullagar, R. and Summerhayes, G.R. 1996 Which
obsidian is worth it? A view from the West New Britain sources. In
J. Davidson, G. Irwin, F. Leach, A. Pawley and D. Brown (eds)
Oceanic Culture History: Essays in Honour of Roger Green, pp.211224. Auckland: New Zealand Journal of Archaeology.
White, J.P. 1972 Ol Tubuna: Archaeological Excavations in the Eastern
Central Highlands, Papua New Guinea. Canberra: Department of
Prehistory, Research School of Pacific Studies, Australian National
University. Terra Australis 2.
White, J.P. 1996 Rocks in the head: Thinking about the distribution of
obsidian in Near Oceania. In J. Davidson, G. Irwin, F. Leach, A.
Pawley and D. Brown (eds) Oceanic Culture History: Essays in
Honour of Roger Green, pp.199-209. Auckland: New Zealand
Journal of Archaeology.
White, J.P. and Harris, M.N. 1997 Changing sources: Early Lapita period
obsidian in the Bismarck Archipelago. Archaeology in Oceania
32:97-107.
White, J.P., Flannery, T.F., O’Brien, R., Hancock, R.V. and Pavlish, L.
1991 The Balof shelters, New Ireland. In J. Allen and C. Gosden
(eds) Report of the Lapita Homeland Project, pp.46-58. Canberra:
Department of Prehistory, Research School of Pacific Studies,
Australian National University. Occasional Papers in Prehistory 20.
Wickler, S. 2001 The Prehistory of Buka: A Stepping Stone Island in the
North Solomons. Canberra: Department of Archaeology and Natural
History, and the Centre of Archaeology, Australian National
University. Terra Australis 16.
University. Terra Australis 16.
Australian Archaeology, Number 57, 2003