HISTORICAL ECOLOGY AND COMMUNITY PATTERNING AT RAʻIĀTEA, SOCIETY ISLANDS, FRENCH POLYNESIA by JOHN T. O’CONNOR A DISSERTATION Presented to the Department of Anthropology and the Graduate School of the University of Oregon in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy June 2019 ii DISSERTATION APPROVAL PAGE Student: John T. O’Connor Title: Historical Ecology and Community Patterning at Raʻiātea, Society Islands, French Polynesia This dissertation has been accepted and approved in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Doctor of Philosophy degree in the Department of Anthropology by: Jon M. Erlandson Chairperson Scott M. Fitzpatrick Core Member Frances J. White Core Member Scott L. Pratt Institutional Representative and Janet Woodruff-Borden Vice Provost and Dean of the Graduate School Original approval signatures are on file with the University of Oregon Graduate School. Degree awarded June 2019 iii © 2019 John T. O’Connor iv DISSERTATION ABSTRACT John T. O’Connor Doctor of Philosophy Department of Anthropology June 2019 Title: Historical Ecology and Community Patterning at Raʻiātea, Society Islands, French Polynesia This dissertation project explores the timing and impacts of Polynesian colonization on the island of Raʻiātea in the Society Islands of French Polynesia. Raʻiātea, also known by the ancestral name Havaiʻi, is the largest island of the Leeward Group and a key location for understanding human settlement and the dispersal of voyaging populations among the islands of East Polynesia prior to European contact in the region. This project examines the position of Raʻiātea in the context of regional settlement with an analysis of East Polynesian cultural transmission networks, a contribution to the radiocarbon chronology of Raʻiātea, and an assessment of landscape change and ecological effects at the megalithic ceremonial center of Marae Tainuʻu on the west coast of the island. An analysis of morphological variability among 18 artifact fishhook assemblages from 17 East Polynesian islands supports Raʻiātea as a central node in regional cultural transmission networks, an outcome that fits well with other archaeological and linguistic models of dispersal and interaction. Excavations at Marae Tainuʻu exposed a deep history of Maʻōhi settlement existing beneath the surface of the extant megalithic structures. Subsurface architecture, artifacts, and faunal remains suggest culturally dictated patterns v of resource use and landscape modification at the marae complex. Radiocarbon dates reveal a record of human activity beginning as early as ~1520-1665 cal AD. The intellectual merit of this project lies in the advancement of knowledge regarding Society Islands archaeology, a relatively neglected area of study with implications for public policy, local resource protection, and furthering collective knowledge of Polynesia’s deep history. The broader impacts of this work include contributions to the assessment of how Polynesian peoples shaped their environment and how this relates to models of anthropogenic environmental change on oceanic islands. This dissertation includes previously published co-authored material. vi CURRICULUM VITAE NAME OF AUTHOR: John T. O’Connor GRADUATE AND UNDERGRADUATE SCHOOLS ATTENDED: University of Oregon, Eugene University of Hawaiʻi at Mānoa, Honolulu San Diego City College, San Diego DEGREES AWARDED: Doctor of Philosophy, Anthropology, 2019, University of Oregon Master of Arts, Anthropology, 2013, University of Hawaiʻi at Mānoa Bachelor of Arts, Anthropology, 2012, University of Hawaiʻi at Mānoa AREAS OF SPECIAL INTEREST: Island and Coastal Archaeology Archaeology of Oceania Historical Ecology California Archaeology Settlement Patterns and Cultural Transmission Evolutionary Theory Geographic Information Science Human Migrations Environmental Conservation Land-use Planning American Indian and Native Hawaiian Law Cultural Resource Law Traditional Ecological Knowledge Collections Management PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE: ECORP Consulting, Inc., 2018-present UO Department of Anthropology, 2016-present UO Robert D. Clark Honors College, 2017 UO Museum of Natural and Cultural History, 2016-17 International Archaeological Research Institute, Inc., 2012-16 UH Mānoa Kualoa Field School, 2013 UH Mānoa Undergraduate Research Opportunities Program, 2012-13 vii GRANTS, AWARDS, AND HONORS: PhD Research Support Grant, Edna English Trust for Archaeological Research, UO Museum of Natural and Cultural History ($1,000), 2018 National Science Foundation-Graduate Research Fellowship ($99,588), 2013-18 UO Department of Anthropology Travel Grant ($400), 2017 Cheryl L. Harper Memorial Fund Scholarship ($1,000), 2017 Director’s Research Award, UO Museum of Natural and Cultural History ($455), 2017 UO Center for Asian and Pacific Studies Small Professional Grant ($400), 2017 William Stout Scholarship ($3,000), 2016-17 UO General University Scholarship ($3,000), 2016-17 Mary Chambers Brockelbank Scholarship ($2,000), 2016-17 Museum Scholar Honoree, UO Museum of Natural and Cultural History, 2017 UO Center for Asian and Pacific Studies Small Professional Grant ($400), 2016 College of Arts and Sciences Dean’s Honoree, University of Oregon, 2014-16 UO Department of Anthropology Travel Grant ($800), 2015 Risa Palm Graduate Fellowship ($1,000), 2014-15 Graduate School Honoree, University of Oregon, 2015 Edna English Trust for Archaeological Research, UO Museum of Natural and Cultural History ($2,455), 2014 Sigma Xi Scientific Research Society induction, 2014 1st Place Poster Presentation, AAAS Pacific Division 95th Annual Meeting combined sections of Earth Sciences; Anthropology and Archaeology; Agriculture, Food, and Renewable Resources ($150), 2014 UO Department of Anthropology Travel Grant ($350), 2013 viii UH Mānoa Department of Anthropology Achievement Scholarship ($5,006), 2013 National Science Foundation-Research Experiences for Undergraduates ($1,000), 2012 Phi Beta Kappa Society induction, 2012 Highest Honors, University of Hawaiʻi at Mānoa Honors Program, 2012 Summa Cum Laude, University of Hawaiʻi at Mānoa, 2012 1st Place Social Sciences Poster, UH Mānoa Spring Symposium of Undergraduate Research and Creative Work, 2012 UH Mānoa Undergraduate Research Opportunities Council ($3,000), 2011 Best Social Sciences Oral Proposal, UH Mānoa Fall Forum of Undergraduate Research and Creative Work, 2011 Best Overall Poster Presentation, UH Mānoa Fall Forum of Undergraduate Research and Creative Work, 2011 Dean’s List, University of Hawaiʻi at Mānoa, 2010-2012 PUBLICATIONS: O’Connor, J. T., Cauchois, M. H., 2018. 2017 Archaeological Investigations at Tumaraʻa, Raʻiātea, Society Islands, French Polynesia: Raʻiātea Historical Ecology Project Report No. 2. Report prepared for Service de la Culture et du Patrimoine, Bureau Archéologie, Tahiti. O’Connor, J. T., White, F. J., Hunt T. L., 2017. Fishhook Variability and Cultural Transmission in East Polynesia. Archaeology in Oceania 52, 32-44. O’Connor, J. T., Cauchois, M. H., 2017. 2016 Archaeological Investigations at Tumaraʻa, Raʻiātea, Society Islands, French Polynesia: Raʻiātea Historical Ecology Project Report No. 1. Report prepared for Service de la Culture et du Patrimoine, Bureau Archéologie, Tahiti. Morrison, A. E., O’Connor, J. T., 2015. Settlement Pattern Studies in Polynesia: Past Projects, Current Progress, and Future Prospects. In: Cochrane, E., Hunt, T. (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Prehistoric Oceania. DOI: 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199925070.013.024 ix ACKNOWLEDGMENTS There are many people who have contributed to my educational journey and the completion of my degrees. This is an attempt to give credit to those from whom I have gained strength and insight. I will invariably omit some people from this recognition, but that omission is by no means purposeful. Acknowledgement is due first to my family. Rebecca, Elaine, Jane, and Johnny have never wavered in their support of my goals, even though this has meant long periods of time away from them and longer periods of time working when I wished we were together. Thank you for your patience with me. I thank my parents, Patrick O’Connor and Julie Braden, and everyone in the O’Connor, Braden, Trabert, and Watton clans for their support and encouragement over the years. I hope I have done well in your eyes. Thanks are due to my committee, without whom I would have had great difficulty navigating the changing seas of academia. Thank you to my advisor, Jon Erlandson, who has guided and supported me with great interest and compassion as I completed my PhD. His dedication to my goals will not be forgotten. Thank you to Scott Fitzpatrick who has brought great insight into the world of archaeological science and the ways that we can make a positive difference through research, teaching, and collaboration. Thank you to Frances White who served as a constant source of encouragement, guidance, and statistical thought during my time at the University of Oregon. And thank you to Scott Pratt for our work on indigenous philosophy and bringing people together for an important cause. To my prior advisors and committees…I thank Terry Hunt for his years of guidance, opening my mind and many doors in Polynesia and the world of archaeological research. Many thanks are due to Christian Peterson, Dick Gould, Carl Lipo, and Ethan Cochrane for their teaching and advice. Thank you to my first advisor, Stephen Bouscaren, who set me on this path and worked toward my advancement to the next level of academia. Special gratitude is due to Hinanui Cauchois, my de facto mentor in French Polynesia, without whom my fieldwork would not have been possible. In no particular order, sincere thanks to Brian Lane, Raquel Macario Lane, Damion Sailors, Amira Ainis, Madonna Moss, Leah Frazier, Lisa Clawson, Steve Frost, Bill Ayres, Beau DiNapoli, Sophie Miller, Matt Napolitano, Jessica Stone, Hannah x Wellman, Anna Sloan, Jaime Kennedy, Nick Jew, Todd Braje, Kristina Gill, Torben Rick, Greg Nelson, the University of Oregon Department of Anthropology, Pam Endzweig, Elizabeth Kallenbach, Roben Itchoak, Tom Connolly, the Museum of Natural and Cultural History, Glenn Morris, the Graduate Teaching Fellows Federation / American Federation of Teachers Local 3544, the University of Oregon Raʻiātea Field School students, Kirby Brown, Lani Teves, Brian Klopotek, Charlie Deitz, Ben Saunders, Larisa Devine, Dan Gavin, Melanie Konradi, Howie Arnett, Ty Tengan, Jim Bayman, the University of Hawaiʻi Department of Anthropology, Keao NeSmith, Randy and Victoria Wichman, Moana Lee, David Burney, Lida Pigott Burney, Nā Pali Coast ʻOhana, Melinda Allen, Dave Burley, Yosihiko Sinoto, Mara Mulrooney, Charmaine Wong, Steve Athens, Tim Reith, Alex Morrison, Rona Ikehara-Quebral, Chris and Darby Filimoehala, International Archaeological Research Institute, Inc. (IARII), John Dudgeon, Monica Tromp, Cameron and Lisa Ellsworth Johnson, Lisa Westwood, Margaret Bornyasz, Audrey Wheeler, ECORP Consulting, Nadav Goldschmied, Amato Evan, Didier Suarez, Evan Spencer, the Enigma crew, Jason Dorner, Azalia Merrell, Ronnie Shaw, Bhava Das, Matt Southwood, Erica Skadsen, Markus Wolff, the Croff family, Sam Bond’s Garage, the Twiggs crew, Tamara Maric, Tavana Cyril Tetuanui, Pitate Mama, Philippe Tupu, Belona Mou, Teddy Tehei, Hiriata Millaud, Francis Stein, the Service de la Culture et du Patrimoine, Bureau Archéologie, Tahiti, Jean-Yves Meyer and the Délégation à la Recherche de la Polynésie Française, the Service de l’Urbanisme Polynésie Française, Mssrs. Robert and Mahuta, Denis Pitomaki and Béa Tevaearai, Roʻonui DeBrum and students of the College - Lycée Anne-Marie Javouhey. Monetary support for this project has been provided by the University of Oregon Department of Anthropology, the University of Oregon Museum of Natural and Cultural History, the University of Oregon Center for Asian and Pacific Studies, the Cheryl L. Harper Memorial Fund Scholarship, the William Stout Scholarship, the Mary Chambers Brockelbank Scholarship, the Risa Palm Graduate Research Fellowship, the Edna English Trust for Archaeological Research, and the National Science Foundation Graduate Research Fellowship (Grant No. DGE-0829517). Any opinion, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation. xi For Rebecca, Elaine, Jane, and John xii TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter Page I. INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................... 1 Historical Ecology and Island Archaeology.......................................................... 4 Human Behavioral Ecology and Community Patterning ...................................... 7 Human Impacts in Polynesia ................................................................................. 8 Raʻiātea: Geography .............................................................................................. 9 Raʻiātea: Culture.................................................................................................... 12 Raʻiātea: Archaeology ........................................................................................... 14 Research Issues and Questions .............................................................................. 18 Cultural Transmission and Regional Community Patterning.......................... 19 Early Settlement and Radiocarbon Sampling.................................................. 19 Land Use and Settlement Patterns ................................................................... 20 Geomorphology and Paleoecology.................................................................. 21 Human Impacts................................................................................................ 22 Hypotheses and Expectations ................................................................................ 23 Hypothesis 1: Cultural Transmission .............................................................. 23 Hypothesis 2: Radiocarbon Dates.................................................................... 24 Hypothesis 3: Land Use................................................................................... 24 Hypothesis 4: Subsistence ............................................................................... 24 Field Methods and Data Collection ....................................................................... 25 Laboratory Methods .............................................................................................. 27 Research Schedule ................................................................................................. 29 xiii Chapter Page Intellectual Merit ................................................................................................... 30 Broader Impacts..................................................................................................... 31 II. RAʻIĀTEA IN CONTEXT: THE COLONIZATION OF OCEANIA................... 32 Sunda and Sahul .................................................................................................... 33 Holocene Dispersals and Maritime Voyaging....................................................... 43 Onward to the East ................................................................................................ 54 III. CULTURAL TRANSMISSION IN EAST POLYNESIA.................................... 56 Artifact Classification and Network Analysis ....................................................... 59 Classification and Statistical Methods................................................................... 63 Statistical Results................................................................................................... 73 Network Discussion............................................................................................... 74 Conclusion ............................................................................................................. 78 Bridge .................................................................................................................... 78 IV. ARCHAEOLOGICAL TESTING AT TUMARAʻA COMMUNE, RAʻIĀTEA ............................................................................................................ 80 Field Methods ........................................................................................................ 84 Laboratory Methods .............................................................................................. 85 2016 Survey and Auger Sampling......................................................................... 86 Tevaitoa ........................................................................................................... 87 Horea ............................................................................................................. 89 Tapute ............................................................................................................. 90 Punaeroa .......................................................................................................... 90 xiv Chapter Page 2016 Raʻiātea Excavations .................................................................................... 91 Tainuʻu Test Pit 1 ............................................................................................ 95 Tainuʻu Test Pit 2 ............................................................................................ 98 Tainuʻu Test Pit 3 ............................................................................................ 99 Tainuʻu Test Pit 4 ............................................................................................ 101 2017 Raʻiātea Excavations .................................................................................... 102 Domaine Dehors Test Pit 1.............................................................................. 103 Marae Tainuʻu 2017 ........................................................................................ 106 Marae Tainuʻu Test Pit 5 ................................................................................. 108 Marae Tainuʻu Test Pit 6 ................................................................................. 111 Marae Tainuʻu Test Pit 7 ................................................................................. 113 Stratigraphy and Landscape Change ..................................................................... 115 V. RADIOMETRIC TESTING AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL CHRONOLOGY ...... 121 Chronology and the Radiocarbon Method............................................................. 122 Date Calibration and Sample Choice..................................................................... 125 Radiocarbon Dating at Marae Tainuʻu .................................................................. 131 Tainuʻu in Chronological Context ......................................................................... 139 VI. ARTIFACTS AND ECOFACTS AT MARAE TAINUʻU................................... 143 Artifacts ................................................................................................................. 144 Lithic Artifacts................................................................................................. 147 Faunal Tools .................................................................................................... 151 Historic Materials ............................................................................................ 153 xv Chapter Page Ecofacts ................................................................................................................. 154 Terrestrial Vertebrates ..................................................................................... 156 Marine Vertebrates .......................................................................................... 158 Marine Invertebrates........................................................................................ 158 TP1Tainuu Representative Shellfish Sample Analysis ................................... 162 Land Snails ...................................................................................................... 170 Floral Remains................................................................................................. 173 Material Culture and Subsistence at Marae Tainuʻu ............................................. 175 VII. ARCHAEOLOGY AND MĀʻOHI LIEWAYS AT WESTERN RAʻIĀTEA..... 178 Raʻiātea in Polynesian History .............................................................................. 181 Archaeology at Marae Tainuʻu.............................................................................. 183 Landscape Change........................................................................................... 185 Chronology ...................................................................................................... 187 Material Culture and Subsistence .................................................................... 189 Marae Tainuʻu Today ............................................................................................ 192 Conclusion ............................................................................................................. 194 APPENDIX: 14C DATING AND BOTANICAL IDENTIFICATION REPORTS .... 197 REFERENCES CITED ............................................................................................... 204 xvi LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page 1. Map of Oceania ..................................................................................................... 2 2. Leeward Society Islands of French Polynesia ....................................................... 10 3. Archaeological features of Raʻiātea ...................................................................... 17 4. Archaeological features in traditional districts ...................................................... 26 5. Map of Sunda and Sahul........................................................................................ 35 6. Example of dentate stamped Lapita pottery artifact .............................................. 47 7. A map of East Polynesia........................................................................................ 59 8. A paradigmatic classification protocol for fishhook LAD morphology................ 64 9. Network graphs...................................................................................................... 75 10. Map of Raʻiātea ..................................................................................................... 81 11. South-facing photograph of the ahu at Marae Tainuʻu.......................................... 92 12. West-facing photograph of the Marae Tainuʻu complex....................................... 92 13. Map of Marae Tainuʻu archaeological complex.................................................... 95 14. North-facing photograph of TP1Tainuu ................................................................ 96 15. North-facing cross section profile of Test Pits 1 and 2 ......................................... 97 16. North-facing photograph of TP2Tainuu ................................................................ 98 17. North-facing photograph of TP3Tainuu ................................................................ 99 18. North-facing photograph of TP4Tainuu ................................................................ 101 19. South-facing photograph of TP1Dehors................................................................ 104 20. Map of Marae Tainuʻu archaeological complex.................................................... 107 21. North-facing photograph of TP5Tainuu ................................................................ 109 xvii Figure Page 22. North-facing photograph of TP6Tainuu ................................................................ 111 23. North-facing photograph of TP7Tainuu ................................................................ 114 24. Southeast view of TP1Tainuu and TP2Tainuu...................................................... 117 25. Southeast view of TP5Tainuu and TP6Tainuu...................................................... 118 26. 14C results calibrated (SHCal13) ........................................................................... 136 27. 14C results calibrated (IntCal13) ............................................................................ 137 28. Basalt adze............................................................................................................. 148 29. Basalt adze fragment ............................................................................................. 149 30. Urchin spine abraders ............................................................................................ 152 31. Portion of pig mandible ......................................................................................... 157 32. Turbo setosus shell with operculum ...................................................................... 162 33. Tridacna maxima shells......................................................................................... 163 34. Weight distribution of Turbo setosus and Tridacna maxima ................................ 167 35. Distribution of marine shell remains ..................................................................... 169 36. Small pointed snail and small rounded snails........................................................ 171 37. Land snail distributions ......................................................................................... 172 38. The upright basalt and coral slabs of the ahu of Marae Tainuʻu ........................... 179 39. Examples of shell and bone artifact fishhooks ...................................................... 182 40. Looking northward up the west coast of Raʻiātea ................................................. 184 41. Twentieth century church constructed atop the Marae Tainuʻu ............................ 186 42. Māʻohi dance competition at Tevaitoa .................................................................. 192 43. Dr. Hinanui Cauchois teaches local students and elders ....................................... 194 xviii LIST OF TABLES Table Page 1. Presence-absence data matrix for fishhook LAD .................................................. 65 2. Similarity/dissimilarity matrix for 18 East Polynesian LAD assemblages ........... 70 3. Similarity/dissimilarity matrix for seven island or archipelago groupings ........... 72 4. Locations of 2016 auger samples .......................................................................... 87 5. Locations of 2016 excavated test pits.................................................................... 94 6. Locations of 2017 auger sample and test pits........................................................ 103 7. Radiocarbon dating results (SHCal13) .................................................................. 132 8. Radiocarbon dating results (IntCal13)................................................................... 133 9. Pre-contact and post-contact artifacts.................................................................... 145 10. Basalt debitage recovered from archaeological excavations ................................. 150 11. Bulk vertebrate bone weights ................................................................................ 155 12. Bulk marine shell weights ..................................................................................... 155 13. Bulk vertebrate bone.............................................................................................. 159 14. Bulk marine shell................................................................................................... 161 15. Faunal remains recovered from TP1Tainuu .......................................................... 164 16. Floral species identified at Marae Tainuʻu ............................................................ 174 1 CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION The islands of Polynesia evoke images of mystery and exoticism as much today as when European explorers first entered the Pacific realm. The human settlement of Polynesia and the broader radiation of Austronesian-speaking voyagers saw related peoples colonize thousands of islands from Madagascar to Rapa Nui. The archaeologically rapid and sustained movement of people to all habitable islands of the remote Pacific Ocean constitute one of the final chapters in the history of human dispersals to the far ends of the earth (Blust 1995; Kirch 1997a, 2010). It was the ancestors of today’s island populations who first traveled beyond the Andesite Line, or the geological boundary that separates the continental islands of the western Pacific Ocean from the volcanic islands of the Pacific Plate, to colonize the islands of Remote Oceania and make a lasting impression on the cultural, ecological, and geographical aspects of the greater Pacific region (Green 1991b; Irwin 2007). The technological and navigational ability of these voyaging groups, the expansive distances covered during dispersal, and the unique cultural trajectories of island communities from Tonga to Tahiti to Hawaiʻi have made Polynesia the subject of extensive archaeological and ethnographic study for generations of researchers. The archaeology of voyaging societies in the islands of Central East Polynesia is key to understanding cultural and ecological history of the region at large. My dissertation project seeks to understand the human impacts of these voyagers on newly encountered islands through questions of chronology and landscape change at Raʻiātea Island in the Society Islands of French Polynesia. Archaeological mapping and 2 excavation of near-shore deposits on the coastal flats of Tumaraʻa, Raʻiātea, augment current knowledge regarding the history of the island and provide a case study for ecological change that complements ongoing work in central East Polynesia. Expanded studies of the historical ecology of Raʻiātea will facilitate further evaluation of the influence of early human-environmental interactions on coastal resources and a better understanding of the development of Māʻohi cultural systems and voyaging spheres prior to European contact in the region. My dissertation research project explores the timing and impacts of human colonization in the Tumaraʻa district of Raʻiātea Island, Society Islands, French Polynesia. The Society Islands are of primary importance for understanding human Figure 1. Map of Oceania with locations discussed in text. 3 impacts on island ecologies and the dispersal of pre-contact voyaging populations among the islands of East Polynesia. Raʻiātea, also known by the ancestral name Havaiʻi, is the largest island of the Leeward Group and recognized through Polynesian oral traditions as a departure point for migrations that colonized the distant islands or archipelagos of Hawaiʻi, Aotearoa (New Zealand), and Rapa Nui in the 12th and 13th centuries AD (Henry 1928; Hiroa 1938; Wilmshurst et al. 2011). Prior research in the Society Islands’ Windward and Leeward Groups has revealed dense archaeological deposits with radiocarbon sequences dating from the 11th century AD and major shifts in land use and sediment accumulation in the middle of the last millennium (Anderson and Sinoto 2002; Kahn et al. 2015a, 2015b; Lepofsky 1995). Raʻiātea is notably underrepresented in the archaeological literature. This project addresses this absence of information with an analysis of East Polynesian cultural transmission networks followed by a comprehensive mapping and excavation program in Tumaraʻa Commune at western Raʻiātea, specifically focusing on the archaeological visibility of early settlement, the role of sample choice in building radiocarbon chronologies, spatiotemporal change in land use and settlement patterns, and the utility of geomorphological and paleoecological evidence as proxies for human colonization. A secure colonization chronology at Raʻiātea is imperative for the refinement of island settlement models in East Polynesia. The examination of regional sociality in combination with the identification local resource use and landscape change aids in explanations of cultural trajectories during the Polynesian voyaging period. The intellectual merit of this project lies in the advancement of knowledge regarding Society Islands archaeology, a relatively neglected area of study with 4 implications for public policy, local resource protection, and furthering collective knowledge of Polynesia’s deep history. This is important for both scientific interests and social activism in the region. Archaeological research has been fundamental to cultural revival in Polynesia and the reassertion of autonomy among Pacific Islanders following Western colonization. Regional archaeology is paid great attention and is a source of pride among local communities, as evidenced by positive community participation in this study. Project results have been used for local education and will be disseminated through publicly accessible literature in addition to academic journals. The broader impacts of this work include contributions to the assessment of anthropogenic environmental change on oceanic islands. Archaeologists are uniquely positioned to model patterns of human-environmental interaction that provide insight into cultural development and allow the creation of historical baselines against which to measure contemporary environmental circumstances (Erlandson and Rick 2010; Morrison and Hunt 2007; Rick et al. 2014). Thus, archaeology provides access to environmental and historical data that extend beyond the confines of the discipline. The islands of French Polynesia are central to current discussions of climate change and resource degradation in the Pacific. Studies of community patterning and historical ecology contribute to these conversations, and I hope to make significant contributions to the archaeological literature through my work at Tumaraʻa, Raʻiātea. Historical Ecology and Island Archaeology The role of human behavior in shaping our natural world is a primary interest, spanning numerous disciplines of scientific study and millennia of philosophical thought. 5 Realizing the full extent of socio-ecological interplay and the impacts of human populations on the external environment requires a comprehensive approach to the study of human history, one that assists in recognizing the motivations, constraints, and effects of different strategies of interaction within social groups and in relation to environmental resources. Crucial to this goal is the acknowledgment of Homo sapiens as part of the natural world and an intrinsic component of the holistic ecological system (Rindos 1980; Terrell 2006). This foundational concept allows the exploration of human behavior from an evolutionary ecological perspective, a viewpoint that has contributed much to archaeological research in studies of historical ecology (Braje et al. 2009; Egan and Howell 2005; Erlandson and Fitzpatrick 2006; Erlandson and Rick 2008, 2010; Erlandson et al. 2009; Fitzpatrick and Donaldson 2007; Fitzpatrick and Keegan 2007; Hunt 2007; Jackson et al. 2001; Jones 2009; Kirch 1997b, 2007a; Kirch and Hunt 1997; Moss 2012; Rick and Erlandson 2008; Rick et al. 2014). Crumley (1994:6) defined historical ecology as “the study of past ecosystems by charting the change in landscapes over time”, to which Winterhalder (1994:19) added that historical ecology is based on the epistemological assertion that “a complete understanding of ecological structure and function must reference the timing and sequence of causal events producing them” (e.g., anthropogenic impacts). Therefore, historical ecology explicitly locates archaeology in the domain of human ecology (Butzer 1982), while privileging the analysis of landscape modification and the spatiotemporal trajectories of plant and animal species as dynamic components of human history (Jochim 1991). 6 The origins of ecological anthropology can be traced to Julian Steward’s work in the American Southwest (Steward 1937; see Bettinger 1998; O’Brien et al. 2005; Smith 1983), where he worked to understand non-deterministic cultural patterns overlying those of the natural landscape in a way that profoundly shaped the development of evolutionary ecological approaches to ethnography and archaeology. Steward (1942) championed the direct historical approach with inclusion of the environment as part of the cultural process in ethnographic study. His work greatly influenced the formalization of an ecologically aware settlement pattern archaeology (Parsons 1972; e.g., Green 1967; MacNeish 1964; Willey 1953) and the onset of research programs in ethnoarchaeology (see Gould 1980 for concept of analogous baselines). In a reversal of ethnographic attempts to recognize a recent baseline from which to work backward (e.g., Binford 1978; Steward 1942), archaeologists working in historical ecology have sought to first understand the complexities of the natural environment prior to human encroachment and the cultural and ecological changes that ensue with the passage of time (Erlandson et al. 2008; Kirch and Hunt 1997). Historical ecology approaches provide deep time perspectives that require a more definitive picture of human impacts in contrast to the often arbitrary and inaccurate “shifting baselines” of comparative historical observations (Braje et al. 2009; Erlandson and Fitzpatrick 2006; Erlandson and Rick 2010; Pauly 1995; Pauly et al. 1998). Imperative to historical studies of human behavior and settlement patterning is the critical evaluation of anthropogenic impacts on the respective ecosystem of the actors. The juxtaposition of sound archaeological chronologies with analyses of ecological information from different temporal periods creates reference points beneficial for 7 understanding past human-environmental interactions and the development of unique cultural trajectories. The establishment of these historical baselines is paramount to archaeological research, but is also increasingly relevant in contributions to public policy regarding habitat restoration and conservation biology (Anderson 2005; Jackson et al. 2001; O’Brien 2005; Rick et al. 2014; Swetnam et al. 1999). Human Behavioral Ecology and Community Patterning Historical ecology has maintained a synergistic relationship with studies of human behavioral ecology and settlement pattern archaeology due to a shared focus on environmental variability and the ways by which human communities organize their daily lives. Models from human behavioral ecology center on how behavioral trade-offs affect differential fitness in distinct environments as demonstrated in patterns of resource acquisition, subsistence practices, and population distributions. These models have been widely implemented in archaeological studies (Aswani 1998; Bettinger 2006; Broughton 2002; Codding et al. 2014; Giovas and Fitzpatrick 2014; Gremillion et al. 2014; Groesbeck et al. 2014; Hunt and Lipo 2011; Kennett 2005; Kennett and Winterhalder 2008; Morrison and Hunt 2007; Nagaoka 2002; Reeder-Myers 2014; Whitaker and Bird 2014). Concepts of resource acquisition have also been implicit to studies of ancient migrations and the relationship between people and landscapes as substantiated by settlement pattern research (Anderson 2002; Anderson and Smith 1996; Burley 1994; Erlandson 2001; Erlandson et al. 2007; Hunt and Kirch 1988; Jennings et al. 1982; Maric and Cauchois 2009; Morrison and O’Connor 2015; Rick et al. 2013). Historical ecology 8 integrates notions from other evolutionary ecological approaches with archaeology, paleoecology, geomorphology, traditional ecological knowledge, and even historic accounts to elucidate a continuous record of human activity and form a complete cultural and ecological history for the targeted locality. Human Impacts in Polynesia The relatively late inception of archaeology in Oceania and, specifically, the dearth of durable artifacts in Polynesian archaeological contexts, have encouraged the development of a largely interdisciplinary approach to archaeology in Polynesia congruent with historical ecology models. Evaluating human impacts on marine ecosystems entails a broad interdisciplinary approach with implications for archaeological research and resource conservation efforts (Erlandson and Rick 2010; Erlandson et al. 2009; Kirch 2005), allowing the use of proxy measures to define robust archaeological histories where material culture may be lacking. In island and coastal settings, the impacts of human activity on marine and terrestrial ecosystems are often well represented in the near-shore archaeological record. Likewise, the anthropogenic alteration of natural landscapes is often immediately apparent. Archaeologists are uniquely situated to study these environmental impacts and the role of cultural expression in the transformative process. Clearly defined boundaries and the opportunities for comparative analyses have led researchers to describe islands as model ecosystems in which to study both the cultural and biological development of human populations (Burney 1997; Erlandson and Fitzpatrick 2006; Fitzpatrick and Anderson 2008; Fitzpatrick and Erlandson 2018; Kirch 1997b, 2007a; Kirch et al. 2004; Rick et al. 2013), 9 and this concept has influenced the ecological mindset of archaeologists working in island environments (Allen 2014; Allen and Morrison 2013; Anderson 2001a, 2009; Fitzpatrick et al. 2015; Hunt 2007; Kennett et al. 2006a; Kirch 1989, 2007b). The islands of Polynesia present an ideal setting for the study of human impacts in maritime environments and a unique history of community interaction among geographically diverse island groups covering a massive expanse of the planet’s surface. Raʻiātea: Geography The Society Islands are one of the five linear volcanic chains of French Polynesia, comprising nine high volcanic islands and various associated atolls and seamounts roughly aligned in a southeast to northwest orientation on the southern portion of the Pacific tectonic plate (Cordier et al. 2005; Dickinson 2001). The Society Islands are geographically and politically organized into the geologically younger Windward Group in the southeast and the older Leeward Group to the northwest (Figure 2). The Windward Islands include Tahiti, Moʻorea, Maiʻao, Mehetiʻa, and Tetiʻaroa Atoll. The Leeward Group consists of Raʻiātea, Tahaʻa, Huahine, Bora Bora, and Maupiti, with Tūpai Atoll to the north of the high islands and the atolls of Maupihaʻa, Manuaʻe, and Motu One far to the west. The island of Raʻiātea, located at 16º49’S, 151º25’W and comprising ~150 km2, is the second largest of the Society Islands after Tahiti and is the largest island of the Leeward Group. Raʻiātea is principally an alkali basaltic shield volcano, with exclusively basaltic pāhoehoe lavas emplaced between 2.75 and 2.52 Ma (K-Ar dating) and the intrusion of chemically distinct trachytic flows in areas such as Tauopu and the central Temehani plateau between 2.54 and 2.44 Ma (Blais et al. 1997). The island is located 220 10 Figure 2. The Leeward Society Islands of French Polynesia (Wikimedia Commons). km northwest of Tahiti and 350 km northwest from the present locus of the Society Islands hotspot at Mehetiʻa, a distance consistent with estimates of 11 cm per year spreading rate for the southern Pacific plate (Blais et al. 1997; Cheng et al. 1993; Cordier et al. 2005). Dickinson has studied the effects of plate tectonics, volcanism, and eustatic and hydro-isostatic variation in sea level on Pacific islands, contributing to knowledge regarding the stratigraphic position of archaeological deposits in relation to late Holocene hydro-isostatic drawdown and island subsidence (Dickinson 2003, 2004, 2014; Dickinson and Athens 2007; Dickinson and Burley 2007; Dickinson et al. 1994, 1999). Following the mid-Holocene highstand in tropical Pacific sea level, decreases in relative sea level resulting from hydro-isostasy and equatorial ocean siphoning were not uniform among island groups (Dickinson 2001, 2003). The timing of sea level drawdown from a highstand of 1.0 ± 0.1 m is estimated between AD 1-500 for the Society Islands, meaning 11 that fringing and barrier paleoreef flats at an island such as Raʻiātea would have been exposed by approximately 1500 BP (Dickinson 2003). Dickinson also noted the position of the Leeward Society Islands as geographically beyond the range of flexural upwarp caused by volcanic loading of the oceanic lithosphere at Mehetiʻa. This means that island subsidence at Raʻiātea has been unaffected by local lithospheric upflexure, a situation that potentially places early coastal archaeological sites slightly below modern high tide levels due to a cumulative estimated submergence of <0.4 m over the last millennium from island subsidence, sediment compaction, and modest sea level increase (Dickinson 2001). Projected increases in global sea level will impact the preservation and detectability of archaeological deposits in the future. Raʻiātea is a high island sharing an extensive barrier reef with the island of Tahaʻa to the north. The lagoon between the two islands creates a refuge from the open ocean and a rich habitat for reef fish and littoral species. Native flora and fauna in the Leeward Group prior to human occupation are believed to be typical of East Polynesian islands, in which deficiencies in terrestrial protein and carbohydrate sources were encountered by early colonists and likely served as a major barrier to be overcome for the successful settlement of East Polynesian islands (Addison 2008; Anderson 2003; Green 1991a, 1991b; Kirch 1997b, 2007a; Oliver 1974). Decreases in biodiversity can be observed along a continuum traveling west to east in the Pacific as the number of floral and faunal species decrease from Near Oceania and West Polynesia to central East Polynesia and the more distant islands of the Hawaiian chain, Rapa Nui, and other outliers (Athens 2009; Hunt 2007; Irwin 2007; Kennett et al. 2006b; Kirch 2010; Steadman 1997). 12 To compensate for a dearth of terrestrial game, Polynesians transported pigs, dogs, chickens, and rats for consumption throughout Oceania (Anderson 2009; Matisoo- Smith 2009). However, the transformation of Polynesian ecosystems is even more evident in floral communities, where many of the cultivated staples observed at European contact originated from outside the region, evidently introduced following initial human incursion into Remote Oceania (Barrau 1965a, 1965b; Cauchois 2002; Gosden 1992; Hather 1992; Hinkle 2007; Horrocks et al. 2009; Jones and Quinn 2009; Kennedy 2008; Lebot 1999; Zerega et al. 2004). Lepofsky’s (2003) review of ethnographic sources and botanical collections details that at European contact, Māʻohi populations in the Society Islands operated extensive agricultural systems, comprising at least 47 distinct taxa of economic plants and including a variety of non-native cultigens that were imported during the Polynesian voyaging period. Raʻiātea: Culture The foundation of Society Islands archaeology is based on early ethnographic observations, oral traditions, and reconstructions from historical linguistics (Beaglehole 1934; Cartwright 1929; Emory 1959, 1963; Green 1966; Handy 1930; Hiroa 1938). Samuel Wallis first approached Tahiti on June 19, 1767 (Henry 1928), after which a succession of European navigators entered the region for activities of trade and conquest. Early accounts from European seamen provide a wealth of information regarding the culture and ecology of Society Islands populations at the time of contact (Beaglehole 1938; Oliver 1974). English missionaries followed shortly thereafter, offering their records of traditional histories and ethnohistorical observations (Ellis 1969; Henry 1928; 13 Orsmond 1894). Gunson (1963) addressed accuracy and bias in early historical ethnographies of the Society Islands by noting disparities in Tahitian and European sources of cultural information that foster divergent and subjective interpretations of societal development. Regardless of inaccuracies, these records persist as helpful guides for historical reconstruction and archaeological research. Particularly, Teuira Henry’s Ancient Tahiti (1928) and Douglas Oliver’s comprehensive volumes entitled Ancient Tahitian Society (1974) have contributed much to Western knowledge of ethnography and history in the Society Islands. It is from the oral traditions and ethnographies that Raʻiātea emerges as the land of Havaiʻi or Hawaiki Nui, names still used for the island today. Raʻiātea is enshrined as a pivotal location in the cosmogonies of Polynesian peoples and the island is widely accepted as an ancestral homeland for voyaging parties that traveled beyond the archipelago to settle new islands and establish cultural connections throughout the Pacific (Handy 1930; Hiroa 1938; see Kawaharada 1995 and Oliver 1974 for collected stories). Ancient links between island communities are intricately detailed, as illustrated in Henry’s (1912) article on the naming of Raʻiātea in which the trajectory of religious- political organization at Havaiʻi is chronicled through the emergence of power at Opoa and the Rotuma-Porapora (Bora Bora) development of the Haufaʻatauaroha (Friendly Alliance) that extended from Raʻiātea to reinforce political alliances throughout East Polynesia. These original and secondary sources of information have been instrumental to hypotheses of social interaction and the order of island settlement in the Pacific, and many rightly argue for the continued inclusion of oral traditions as a primary component 14 of historical studies in Polynesia (Anderson 1995; Cachola-Abad 1993; Cauchois 2015; Collerson and Weisler 2007; Finney 1994; Maric and Cauchois 2009; Maric 2016). Though often derided by Western philosophers, oral traditions themselves can become the subject of explanation due to political realities and traditional ecological knowledge presented within the structure of cultural lore. In Polynesia, the knowledge embedded in oral traditions has increasingly been accepted as providing real-world departure points for empirical academic research that often serves to complement indigenous philosophy and culture-specific understandings of history in the region. Raʻiātea: Archaeology Polynesian oral traditions served as a departure point for the direct historical approach employed by Emory (1927, 1933), Handy (1930), Hiroa (1938), and colleagues who began with the study of landscape features and the comparison of material culture throughout the Pacific. Tracing the history of pre-contact voyaging populations intensified with archaeological advances in stratigraphic excavation and radiocarbon dating. The research programs of Emory, Sinoto, and Green were instrumental in establishing scientific bases for archaeological inquiry in the Society Islands (Emory 1959, 1962, 1963, 1970, 1980; Green 1961, 1967, 1996; Green and Descantes 1989; Green et al. 1967; Sinoto 1979; Sinoto and McCoy 1975). Green’s work at ʻOpunohu, Moʻorea, was among the most productive long-term programs in the Society Islands to date, with decades of intense research by Kirch, Lepofsky, Kahn, Cauchois, and others that have provided the majority of information regarding settlement patterns and human- environmental interactions for this archipelago (Cauchois 2005, 2008, 2015; Descantes 15 1990, 1993; Kahn 2003, 2004, 2006, 2012; Kahn et al. 2014a; Kahn and Kirch 2014; Kahn et al. 2015b; Lepofsky et al. 1992; Lepofsky et al. 1996; Lepofsky and Kahn 2011; Maric and Cauchois 2009). Among studies in the Leeward Society Islands are excavations at Motu Paeao, Maupiti, where Emory and Sinoto (1964) uncovered dense cultural deposits containing human burials and an artifact assemblage that supported close associations with Māori (Aotearoa) and Hawaiian collections. Sinoto’s (1979; Sinoto and McCoy 1975) work at Vaitoʻotia-Faʻahia, Huahine, also yielded large archaeological collections. Significant among them were components of a large voyaging canoe similar to a specimen recently recovered from New Zealand (see Johns et al. 2014). The work at Maupiti and Huahine contributed greatly to artifact studies, but initial 14C dating that placed the settlement of both Motu Paeao and Vaitoʻotia-Faʻahia in the 9th century AD is problematic due to discordance between estimated date ranges and inter-archipelago artifact comparisons, specimen choice for age determination, and problems with the processing laboratory (Anderson 2001b; Anderson et al. 1999; Anderson and Sinoto 2002; Spriggs and Anderson 1993). Additional dating of these deposits has suggested a period of AD 1400- 1450 for interments at Motu Paeao, Maupiti (Anderson et al. 1999), and a period of AD 1050-1450 for marine shell use at Vaitoʻotia-Faʻahia, Huahine (Anderson and Sinoto 2002). This later time frame of a post-1000 BP human dispersal throughout East Polynesia has been supported by regional syntheses (Allen 2014; Anderson et al. 2003; Wilmshurst et al. 2011). New work at Maupiti has provided information as to the timing of colonization and human impacts on the terrestrial environment, with settlement of the 16 coastal flats in the 14th century AD (consistent with the Motu Paeao cemetery) and large- scale landscape change from agricultural modification and accompanied colluvial/alluvial sediment re-deposition in the 17th century (Kahn et al. 2015a). These impacts follow a similar, though more recent, course of events evidenced at Moʻorea in the Windward Group, where anthropogenic effects such as sediment accumulation on coastal flats and the infilling of valley floors appears to have begun between about 460-534 cal BP (Kahn et al. 2015b). Work on Raʻiātea has been lacking compared to other islands of the archipelago, with the majority of projects focused on the areas around Faʻaroa and the site of Marae Taputapuātea at Opoa (Eddowes 2001; Edwards 1990, 1995). Lepofsky (1995) obtained four 14C dates from composite charcoal deposits at Raʻiātea dating the inception of agricultural practices to approximately 750 ± 60 cal BP at Faʻaroa Valley on the east side of the island and 470 ± 60 cal BP at Matorea on the west coast. This supported the notion of earlier human impacts in more agriculturally viable areas of the landscape. These dates are congruent with the later period now surmised for East Polynesian expansion, but the absence of a robust chronology of human impacts at Raʻiātea is of primary concern. Kirch (2010:140) noted that “the large and centrally situated Society Islands archipelago remains a gap in our knowledge of early sites…clearly, more investigation in the Society Islands is warranted.” The Service de la Culture et du Patrimoine has documented many archaeological features throughout the island (Figure 3), and the ancestral marae of Taputapuātea was confirmed as a UNESCO World Heritage Site of Humanity on July 9, 2017. This 17 Figure 3. Archaeological features of Raʻiātea as recorded by the Service de la Culture et du Patrimoine, Bureau Archéologie, Tahiti, with current research area shown in red. 18 international designation has reinvigorated work in the area (Maric 2016; Valentin personal communication). However, the lack of in-depth archaeological investigation at Raʻiātea, particularly on the western side of the island, has left historians to depend on oral tradition as a primary source of information. This lack of empirically defined archaeological knowledge is insufficient for Pacific-wide research interests as well as for local resource management, government planning operations, and the preservation of traditional knowledge in the Leeward Group. Research Issues and Questions In this dissertation I seek to address interrelated issues of settlement chronology, land use, human impacts, and the position of Raʻiātean communities in the cultural trajectories of Polynesia. Research questions are addressed through a regional analysis of East Polynesian artifact collections and a multi-year archaeological fieldwork program in the traditional districts of Pūfau, Tuʻu Fenua, and Tevaitoa at Tumaraʻa Commune, Raʻiātea. A regional analysis of related artifact collections serves to position Raʻiātea in the context of regional voyaging and better illustrate the degree to which long-distance voyaging networks allowed Polynesian populations to maintain extensive social ties among distantly located islands. On-island fieldwork at Tumaraʻa serves as a methodological case study for understanding the local cultural activity of Māʻohi populations prior to European contact and the effects of these activities on an archetypal Pacific high island with a barrier reef. Primary research issues include: 1) the position of Raʻiātea in regional voyaging networks, 2) the archaeological visibility of early settlement and valid 14C dating chronologies; 3) spatiotemporal change in land use and 19 settlement patterns; 4) the relation of geomorphological and paleoecological indicators as evidence for human activity; and 5) anthropogenic impacts on lagoon and coastal environments. Cultural Transmission and Regional Community Patterning The colonization of East Polynesia represents the last great human dispersal across the surface of our planet, a demographic expansion made possible by voyaging technology and strategies that effectively erased travel constraints and minimized the costs of long distance travel to new lands. The transmission of cultural knowledge between islands and among island groups is reflected in artifactual evidence and assists in understanding the structure of social networks and the extent of community interaction in the region (Cochrane 2015; O’Connor et al. 2017). How can we map the movement of people throughout the region using empirical artifacts? What do specific artifact attributes tell us about the exchange of cultural information among island populations? What is the position of Raʻiātea and other East Polynesian islands within pre-contact voyaging networks? How do these kinds of analyses inform upon the structure of inter- island communities? Early Settlement and Radiocarbon Sampling Radiocarbon samples with inbuilt age (e.g., the “old wood problem”) add unknown error to archaeological chronologies. The reevaluation of old 14C dates along with AMS 14C dating of short-lived samples from Polynesian archaeological contexts have consistently narrowed the temporal period between initial human incursion into East 20 Polynesia and large-scale demographic expansion across all habitable islands of the region (Anderson 1995; Anderson and Sinoto 2002; Kirch 2011; Wilmshurst et al. 2011). Studies of Polynesian expansion typically situate the Society Islands as a dispersal point central to this phenomenon, but recent work supports near contemporaneous settlement for many island groups of East Polynesia in a manner of rapid and continuous dispersal and settlement at variance with models of step-by-step colonization (Allen 2014; Athens et al. 2014; Kahn 2012; Kirch 2010). How does a contemporaneous settlement chronology for East Polynesia fit with the model of the Society Islands as the point of initial colonization? What do earlier dates in the Leeward Society Islands actually mean, and how does this reconcile with the notion of Raʻiātea as a departure point for inter- archipelago voyaging? How can adventive species serve as a proxy for human colonization and the development of a secure chronology? Land Use and Settlement Patterns Human-environmental interactions are reflected in patterns of material culture and resource use as evident in the archaeological record. A settlement pattern describes the way in which human populations order themselves across the landscape and spatially organize their lives in relation to daily activities and various elements of the natural environment (Davidson 1969; Green 1967, 1970; Kowalewski 2008; Willey 1953; see Morrison and O’Connor 2015). Research in the Leeward and Windward Society Islands has identified spatiotemporal changes in surface architecture that correspond to variation in subsistence practices and major shifts in sediment accumulation following agricultural intensification (Kahn et al. 2015a, 2015b; Lepofsky and Kahn 2011). Cauchois (2015; 21 Maric and Cauchois 2009) further documented significant relationships between settlement strategy, resource exploitation, and defensive visibility in geologically and ecologically privileged landscapes. If congruent environmental effects (sediment infilling, biotic shift, etc.) are seen in the archaeological record of diverse regional islands, what does this mean for the littoral zones, coastal flats, and near-shore valleys of leeward Raʻiātea? How do we expect colonizing populations to have modified the landscape upon arrival at Tumaraʻa, and how did they respond to changes in landscape and population needs over time? What does island topography and bathymetry allow us to predict regarding initial settlement and access to necessary resources? How did the configuration of geographic features (e.g., coral reefs, valley slopes and crests) influence societal interaction? What do artifacts tell us about resources, land-use, and community patterning among the Society Islands and beyond? Geomorphology and Paleoecology Anthropogenic and natural geographical transformations are inherent to discussions of island archaeology as a basis for understanding deterministic aspects of island geomorphology and the influence of humans on the inhabited environment (Burley 1998; Carson and Athens 2007; Dickinson 2001, 2003, 2004, 2014; Kahn et al. 2015b; Kirch 1996, 1997b; Lepofsky et al. 1996; Thomas 2009). Likewise, paleoecological data from plant macrofossils, archaeofaunal remains, and other paleoenvironmental sources contribute to assessments of human activity at local and regional scales (Anderson 2003; Burney 1997; Fitzpatrick and Keegan 2007; Hunt 2007; Hunt and Lipo 2009; Rick et al. 2013). What were the effects of late Holocene hydro-isostatic drawdown on the local 22 environment at Raʻiātea? How did this influence the habitability of coastal landforms on the island? How has island subsidence affected the preservation of archaeological deposits, and what environmental elements may have contributed to destruction of the archaeological record? What does variation in the paleoecological record tell us about human behavior and shifts in biome composition following human arrival? Do regional data from pollen cores and other proxy measures fit with archaeological observations at Tumaraʻa? Human Impacts Colonization, subsistence practices, and related human-environmental interactions all have effects on the ecosystem. Human populations have been shown to impose variable pressures upon the initial colonization of new lands (Anderson 1995; Hunt and Lipo 2006), and human impacts have been central to archaeological research on the islands of Oceania (Fitzpatrick et al. 2015; Jones 2009; Kirch 2005, 2007a, 2007b, 2010; Kirch and Kahn 2007; Morrison and Hunt 2007; Parkes 1997). Coupled with the intensification of global climate change and disproportionate effects imposed upon Pacific islands and atolls, analyses of island and lagoon ecosystems have been thrust to the forefront of current environmental studies due to ʻreal life’ consequences for current populations and historical connections to ancestral lands and resources. How do issues of chronology, settlement patterns, and paleoenvironment in the Society Islands contribute to broader assessments of ecological issues in the Pacific? How does research on Raʻiātea complement current information on historical baselines of terrestrial and marine resources? What do studies of subsistence strategies and landscape 23 modification at Tumaraʻa suggest about past resource use and the potential for future solutions on oceanic islands? Hypotheses and Expectations I employ an evolutionary and historical ecology approach for the examination of East Polynesian artifact collections and the analysis of archaeological remains on the west coast of Raʻiātea. Concepts of evolutionary ecology will be incorporated to make sense of the archaeological record and clarify the history of human occupation in this area of the Leeward Society Islands. Hypotheses and archaeological expectations revolve around the structure of cultural transmission among inter-island voyaging populations and the chronological sequence for habitation and human impacts on the local environment at Tumaraʻa deriving from settlement activity, subsistence practices, and resource consumption. Geospatial mapping and targeted subsurface testing will emphasize the location and recovery of 14C samples, floral and faunal remains, and artifacts. Hypothesis 1: The transmission of cultural information among island communities, as evident in artifact collections, will display patterns of horizontal transmission based on human interaction. Test: If we are accurately monitoring phylogenetic relationships in the context of highly mobile social interaction, then assemblage relatedness should display patterns of horizontal transmission largely unrelated to other influential factors of sample size and geographic distance (Allen 1996; Cochrane and Lipo 2010). These patterns can be used 24 to suggest hypotheses of island colonisation and the position of Raʻiātea within East Polynesian voyaging networks. Hypothesis 2: Radiocarbon dates will support a post-1000 AD chronology for initial settlement at Raʻiātea. Test: Previous Society Islands work (Anderson and Sinoto 2002; Wilmshurst et al. 2011) suggested an 11th century AD colonization chronology with later inland demographic expansion. Minimization of error between radiocarbon and target events (i.e., short-lived species in stratified cultural contexts) should yield near-shore temporal estimates congruent with this 11th century colonization model prior to inland intensification at Raʻiātea. Hypothesis 3: Land use and technology patterns in near-shore areas will reflect changes in resource procurement and social interaction. Test: Local and inter-archipelago Polynesian communities tend toward a dispersed settlement pattern in agreement with economic resource distributions and a great degree of social interaction among agents (Cauchois 2015; Morrison and O’Connor 2015). Settlement pattern imprint and variation in technologies (e.g., fishhooks, lithic tools) should indicate the local expansion of landscape modification and a diversification of technological classes due to in situ variation and the introduction of exotic forms. Hypothesis 4: Subsistence remains will indicate change through time resulting from increases in human predation pressure and the intensification of subsistence strategies. 25 Test: Subsistence activity has been modeled as an expansion of diet breadth in which human predation pressure on high density/easily accessible species results in the dietary inclusion of less desirable species as primary targets decline (Braje et al. 2007; Erlandson et al. 2009; Morrison and Hunt 2007). Island colonization activities exert immediate environmental impacts that can be monitored through behavioral changes in marine species procurement and the introduction of foreign biota. Variation in exploited floral and faunal remains at Raʻiātea should reflect the stabilization of cultivars and an expansion of utilized faunal species as a consequence of human impacts on the local ecosystem. Field Methods and Data Collection A reconnaissance archaeological and landscape survey was completed with permission of the Tavana’s office, and field excavations proceeded in cooperation with local Māʻohi professionals and community members. Survey and sediment coring took place at the offshore islets of Horea, Tapute, and Punaeroa and in near-shore coastal flats at Pūfau Bay, Tuʻu Fenua, and Tevaitoa. Seven 1 × 1 m test units were excavated under controlled conditions at the megalithic Marae Tainuʻu adjacent to the Tumaraʻa Commune government offices at Tevaitoa (Figure 4). A single 1 × 1 m test unit was excavated at Domain Dehors. All fieldwork was documented with field notes, photographs, maps, and sketches, with additional imagery recorded with airborne satellite sensors. Test units were excavated in natural stratigraphic layers subdivided into arbitrary levels (e.g., 10 cm). Samples were screened using 6 mm, 3 mm and 1.5 mm mesh screen. Subphreatic samples were wet-screened and dried, with unstable specimens 26 Figure 4. Archaeological features in traditional districts of Pūfau, Tuʻu Fenua, and Tevaitoa as recorded by the Service de la Culture et du Patrimoine, Bureau Archéologie, Tahiti. 27 secured for laboratory transfer and preservation. Materials were catalogued and prepared for curation at facilities approved by the Bureau Archéologie in Papeʻete. Select samples were transported to the University of Oregon for analysis and will later be returned to Tahiti for permanent storage and disposal. Laboratory Methods Laboratory work was divided into two phases: 1) the analysis of artifact fishhook assemblages and 2) the analysis of recovered materials from the 2016 and 2017 excavations at Raʻiātea. Morphological variation in artifact fishhooks was analyzed to evaluate specific artifact attributes uncoupled from performance specifications, permitting the observation of design elements that were the product of individual and cultural notions of implement design. Data were created for 1505 fishhooks and fishhook fragments from laboratory and museum assemblages, photographic collections, detailed artist renderings, and previously published material. Published and unpublished collections are held at the American Museum of Natural History in New York, the Bernice Pauahi Bishop Museum in Honolulu, the National Tropical Botanical Garden at Kauaʻi, and the Father Sebastian Englert Anthropological Museum on Rapa Nui. Eighteen archaeological assemblages representing 17 East Polynesian islands were analyzed, including assemblages from the islands of Aitutaki, Bora Bora, Hawaiʻi (Puʻu Aliʻi), Huahine, Kauaʻi (Makauwahi and Nuʻalolo Kai), Maiʻao, Maupiti, Moʻorea, Nuku Hiva, Oʻahu (Kuliʻouʻou), Pukapuka, Raʻiātea, Rapa Nui, Tahaʻa, Tetiʻaroa, Tubuaʻi, and Ua Huka. Artifact class similarity matrices were created based on similarity coefficients to control for sample bias, and matrices values were tested against geographic distance 28 using unweighted pair group method using arithmetic averages in BIOMstat 3.3 (Rohlf & Slice 1999) statistical software. Chapter III of this dissertation includes previously published co-authored material. Laboratory work and data creation for archaeological and paleoecological specimens from fieldwork at Raʻiātea took place on-island at field facilities at Tumaraʻa Commune, at Service de la Culture et du Patrimoine facilities in Papeʻete, Tahiti, and at the Island and Coastal Archaeology Laboratory at the University of Oregon. All excavated materials were sorted and quantified by general class. Select lithic materials, archaeofaunal remains, floral macrofossils, and carbonized samples were transported to the University of Oregon for analysis. Artifacts (e.g., lithic and faunal tools) were analyzed in preparation for possible chemical testing and comparative studies with East Polynesian collections at the Musée de Tahiti et des Îles te Fare Manaha, Tahiti, and the Bernice Pauahi Bishop Museum, Oʻahu. Invertebrate and vertebrate remains were identified to genus and taxon, when possible, using photographic collections and comparative collections at the aforementioned institutions. Zooarchaeological remains were quantified according to the number of individual specimens (NISP) and minimum number of individuals (MNI) where feasible (Grayson 1984; Jones and Quinn 2009), though MNI classification was largely impossible due to the nature of recovered deposits. Bulk sample weights for general faunal classes were recorded according to stratigraphic layer and level. Carbonized samples were selected for temporal testing based on availability and contemporary dating protocol (Allen and Huebert 2014; Wilmshurst et al. 2011), and all samples were submitted for AMS 14C dating at DirectAMS in Seattle, WA. Geospatial mapping and image creation took place at field facilities at Raʻiātea and at the 29 University of Oregon. The Service de l’Urbanisme Polynésie Française provided geospatial data for this project in the form of digital elevation models and geographic information system shapefiles for mapping and future landscape analysis of Raʻiātea. Research Schedule This dissertation describes the results of the first several years of a long-term collaboration with French Polynesian colleagues and the local communities of Tumaraʻa Commune, Raʻiātea. I served as Principal Investigator and Project Director for all permits, research activities, and publications. Pre-excavation artifact classification and network analysis took place in 2015-16 at the Bernice Pauahi Bishop Museum at Oʻahu and the University of Oregon, resulting in a 2017 journal publication in Archaeology of Oceania with Frances White and Terry Hunt as co-authors (O’Connor et al. 2017). The 2017 publication comprises the majority of Chapter III of this document, with background information added to better contextualize the research and relate the regional study to the local fieldwork that followed. The study of cultural transmission among island communities in East Polynesia better illuminates the history of extreme mobility and inter-island voyaging prior to European contact in the region. The island of Raʻiātea is integral to these voyaging networks and the establishment of sociopolitical alliances throughout the Pacific region. O’Connor’s September 2015 trip to Raʻiātea involved a reconnaissance survey of the island and formal meetings with government officials and community members who expressed overwhelming support for archaeological research in Tumaraʻa commune. Initial fieldwork planning took place in collaboration with Hinanui Cauchois of Pūfau 30 and Tavana (mayor) Cyril Tetuanui of Tumaraʻa. Tamara Maric of the Service de la Culture et du Patrimoine, Bureau Archéologie, Tahiti, assisted with excavation permits for invasive fieldwork beginning July 2016. The 2016 field season included sediment coring at offshore motu and on-island coastal locations, followed by controlled subsurface testing at Marae Tainuʻu. The 2017 field season involved continued testing at Marae Tainuʻu and inland valley locations, as well as the facilitation of an island-wide cultural day event at the marae. A component of the 2017 field season was my direction of an archaeological field school and cultural immersion program for University of Oregon students in the island of Raʻiātea. Laboratory work, writing, teaching, academic lectures, and public outreach have been ongoing components of this research project. Subsequent academic publications will follow completion of this dissertation. Intellectual Merit Despite their centrality, the Society Islands have remained a lacuna in East Polynesian archaeological research (Cauchois 2015; Kahn 2012). The study of social networks and historical ecology at western Raʻiātea will fill significant gaps in the knowledge of central East Polynesian prehistory. Oral histories remain strong in the traditional districts of Raʻiātea, but a comprehensive archaeological study is necessary to refine chronological estimates of human arrival and subsequent impacts on the island’s ecology. At the local level, this study will lay the groundwork for cultural resource preservation and provide a definitive outline of human-environmental interaction that will be used as an educational tool for the local community and a reference for government land management. Regionally, this work will serve to integrate Raʻiātea into the 31 archaeological settlement model of the larger Society Islands archipelago, a necessary charge given the importance of the island to the Polynesian people and the cultural history of Oceania. Broader Impacts Archaeological research at Raʻiātea, a small island in the southern Pacific Ocean, has far-reaching implications for human ecology and the study of human impacts on maritime and island terrestrial environments. Humans have had a disproportionate impact on our planetary ecosystem through resource extraction and ecosystemic manipulation (Jackson et al. 2001; Rick et al. 2013). Engaging archaeology as historical ecology, researchers can provide insight regarding historical baselines of environmental health through paleoenvironmental data from archaeological deposits. Work at Tumaraʻa, Raʻiātea, will contribute to discussions of lagoon and landscape change on oceanic islands. This is of primary importance for islander communities because providing empirically grounded assessments of past environmental circumstances assists in creating models for environmental rehabilitation and the preservation of cultural and natural resources in low-lying coastal areas. In the face of projected global rises in sea level (Mengel et al. 2016), now is the time to increase our knowledge base in Pacific Islands archaeology and work with interdisciplinary networks for a better understanding of the ocean world that is our planet. 32 CHAPTER II RAʻIĀTEA IN CONTEXT: THE COLONIZATION OF OCEANIA The colonization of the Pacific Islands represents a remarkable feat of humanity and the final geographic extension of Homo sapiens beyond the confines of continental ecosystems to the marine worlds that comprise Oceania. While much archaeological interest has focused on the terminus of human dispersal in the islands of Micronesia and Polynesia (Allen 2014; Fitzpatrick et al. 2003; Goodwin et al. 2014; Hunt 2007; Intoh 1997; Kirch 2011; Kirch and Kahn 2007; Spriggs and Anderson 1993; Weisler et al. 2012), initial human incursions into the Pacific Islands began during the Pleistocene with movements of anatomically modern humans into what are now Island Southeast Asia (ISEA), New Guinea, Australia, and Near Oceania (Anderson and O’Connor 2008; Bulbeck 2007; Codding et al. 2014; Kayser 2010; Kirch 2010; O’Connell and Allen 2012; Reepmeyer et al. 2011; Stoneking and Delfin 2010). The antiquity of population dispersals over this vast portion of the earth’s surface suggests the human experience of geographical and biological environments very different from those encountered by their descendants over subsequent generations (Allen and O’Connell 2008; Bird et al. 2005; Ono et al. 2009; Woodroffe 1993). Sea-level fluctuations, tectonic and volcanic activity, tsunamis, catastrophic storms, and global climate change all affected the stability of regional ecologies over tens of thousands of years on the margins of the western Pacific Ocean. Additionally, the gradual exposure of early colonizing populations to new and diverse habitats influenced the development of subsistence strategies and the ways in which early populations traversed terrestrial and 33 aquatic landscapes. This chapter describes the history of the dispersal of H. sapiens populations in ISEA and Oceania as a background discussion for ocean voyaging and the human colonization of Raʻiātea and East Polynesia. Sunda and Sahul The journey of humans into the Pacific begins with the expansion of hominin species into East Asia and contemporary ISEA beginning approximately 2.0-1.6 million years ago (Ciochon and Bettis 2009; Moore and Brum 2007; Swisher et al. 1994). Paleoanthropological excavations at Sangiran in the Solo Basin on the island of Java have revealed Homo erectus remains in sediment deposits ranging from 1.6-0.9 million years old based on the 40Ar/39Ar dating of associated volcanic heavy minerals (Zaim et al. 2011). The timing of initial hominin expansion in Southeast Asia, around 1.66-1.57 million years ago, correlates with an extended period of drier environmental conditions in ISEA. Riverine, marsh, and lake-edge habitats persisted throughout the region, with vast expanses of dryland savanna in better drained parts of the landscape. The most significant aspect of the environment at this time is that many of the islands of ISEA were not islands. Rather, fluctuations in Pleistocene eustatic sea-level exposed vast expanses of continental crust incorporating subregions of present-day islands such as Borneo, Sumatra, Java, and portions of the Philippine Archipelago, into a large emergent landmass referred to as Sunda. The appearance of a central savanna corridor extending from Southeast Asia through the middle of Sumatra and Borneo is believed to have served as a primary migration route for grassland-adapted terrestrial species during glacial periods ranging 34 from the early Pleistocene through the Last Glacial Maximum (LGM, ca. 20,000 BP) (Bettis et al. 2004; Bird et al. 2005; Zaim et al. 2011). Interglacial periods of elevated sea-level contributed to a dynamic and changing landscape with the alternating emergence and submergence of landbridges and coastal landforms in the Sunda region, perpetuating the opening and closing of discrete subregions and the corresponding accessibility and seclusion of local floral and faunal species (Bulbeck 2007; Reis and Garong 2001). Sea-level fluctuations and related changes in land area through time have contributed substantially to the divergent evolution of plant and animal species throughout the region, contributing to a wide spectrum of biodiversity that can be witnessed today. The Pleistocene emergence of Sunda as an extension of the Southeast Asian continental landmass occurred simultaneously with the exposure of large landbridges extending northward and southward from Australia to incorporate New Guinea and Tasmania, respectively, as well as other nearby islands. This larger island-continent is referred to as Sahul, and appears as a historical complement to Sunda in the geological and environmental literature (Langley et al. 2011; O’Connell and Allen 2004; Woodroffe 1993). For millions of years Sunda and Sahul have been exposed above the surface of the ocean to varying degrees due to sea-level lowstands of as much as 120 meters below present based on LGM bathymetric estimates (Allen and O’Connell 2008; Bird et al. 2005). However, extended periods of glacio-eustatic depression in sea-level still left a ~1500 kilometer expanse of water between the two landmasses (O’Connell et al. 2010). Therefore, the eastern boundary of Sunda defines the extent of unimpeded migration for terrestrial species during periods of low sea-level and represents a substantial natural 35 barrier for species diversity. Referred to as Wallace’s Line after famed naturalist Alfred Russell Wallace, this aquatic perimeter extends from between Bali and Lombok in the south, northward between Borneo and Sulawesi, and terminating at the water passage between the island of Palawan and the other Philippine Islands (Green 1991b; Irwin 2007; see Mayr 1944 regarding biogeographical variation and later adjustments of this zoogeographic demarcation). Lydekker’s Line is the corresponding designation for the extent of Sahul species diversity that follows the western coastline of Australia and New Figure 5. Map of Sunda and Sahul (Wikimedia Commons). 36 Guinea. All islands between these biogeographic boundaries, including the Lesser Sunda Islands, Maluku, and the Sulawesi subregion, are referred to as Wallacea (Carstensen et al. 2012). The protracted time-depth of evolutionary divergence between mammal species in the Sunda and Sahul bioregions is evidenced by Wallace’s Line serving as the eastern boundary for placental-dominated ecosystems and Lydekker’s Line serving as the western boundary for the marsupial-dominated ecosystem observable in modern Australian faunal diversity (Cooper and Stringer 2013). The expansion of H. sapiens into East Asia and farther southward through the Sunda region is estimated to have begun with population movements out of Africa sometime between 75,000 and 60,000 years ago (Bulbeck 2007; Stoneking and Delfin 2010). The timing of early H. sapiens population dispersal derives from genetic mapping primarily based on the spatiotemporal modeling of mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) and non-recombining Y-chromosome (NRY) lineage distributions. The genetic picture of East Asia is rather convoluted due to approximately 60,000 years of population dispersal, migration, and interbreeding among H. sapiens populations and between H. sapiens and other ancestral hominin species (Cooper and Stringer 2013; Reich et al. 2011). There has been some consensus regarding a southern route for human dispersal out of Africa, in which colonizing populations followed the northern rim of the Indian Ocean in an eastward advance toward Southeast Asia (Erlandson and Braje 2015; HUGO 2009; Mellars et al. 2013; Pope and Terrell 2008; Stoneking and Delfin 2010). However, this has been contested by other workers who view coastal ecology as a barrier to the geographical advancement of human populations along the coastlines of southern Asia (Boivin et al. 2013; Field et al. 2007). 37 Macaulay et al. (2005) reconstructed the phylogeny of mtDNA sequences from Southeast Asian populations for comparison to other Eurasian and Australasian genome data. Temporal estimates for coalescence among founder haplotypes for all regions and the geographic distributions of M, N, and R mtDNA haplogroups show divergence from an ancestral East African L3 haplogroup after 85,000 years ago (Macaulay et al. 2005). These results support the exodus of a single founder population from Africa ca. 85,000- 70,000 years ago, the subsequent branching off of a Eurasian founder population, and then a rapid coastal dispersal after 65,000 BP from the littoral Indian Ocean to Southeast Asia and the Sunda region. A southern dispersal route out of Africa followed by a predominant south-to-north population expansion in East Asia was later supported through a massive survey of genotypic variation in Asian and ISEA populations (Field and Lahr 2005; HUGO 2009). According to the temporal scenario outlined above, the movement of human populations into the region of Southeast Asia occurred at the same time that sea-level was declining from a ca. 125,000 BP interglacial highstand, estimated as comparable to modern sea-level, toward the -120 meter glacio-eustatic lowstand of the LGM (Bird et al. 2005: Pope and Terrell 2008). Sunda and Sahul were approaching the maximum extent of subaerial exposure at a time when human populations became archaeologically visible in the region. Existing environmental circumstances may have provided a greater opportunity for terrestrial dispersal and migration than would be possible today. However, there were four instances of sea-level rise between 60,000 and 40,000 years ago during which variation in coastal morphology and continental land area would have contributed to periods of long-term environmental fluctuation prior to continued sea-level 38 decline (Allen and O’Connell 2008). Interestingly, the presence of human groups on the Sunda shelf is nearly contemporaneous with the appearance of human activity in Wallacea and Sahul where the earliest archaeological deposits date to approximately 45,000 years ago (Ford 2011; Hill et al. 2007; Kealy et al. 2016; Langley et al. 2011; O’Connell and Allen 2004; Ono et al. 2009; Pawlik 2012). Kayser (2010) noted that except for Niah Cave on Borneo and similar contexts on the island of Palawan, the oldest securely dated sites in the region appear beyond the continental barrier of Wallace’s Line, although sampling is likely impacted by Holocene sea-level rise (see Barker et al. 2007, Mijares et al. 2010, and Pawlik 2012 for reviews of early Borneo and Philippine settlement chronologies). Reepmeyer et al. (2011) have recovered evidence of long-duration lithic manufacture from Jerimalai shelter in East Timor, with the modification of local and imported lithic materials dating to as early as 42,000 cal BP. Associated deposits have revealed evidence for the extensive exploitation of marine faunal species also dating to this period at Jerimalai (O’Connor et al. 2011). Large assemblages comprising lithic artifacts, fishhooks, and shell beads have been recovered with the remains of marine fish and turtles, signifying a sustained maritime subsistence economy persisting for many millenia. Summerhayes et al. (2010) suggested dates of 49,000-44,000 cal BP for initial colonization of the Ivane Valley of highland eastern New Guinea based on thermoluminesence dating of lithic artifacts, radiocarbon age determinations from carbonized plant foods (Pandanus and Dioscorea spp.), and subsequent increases in charcoal particulate concentrations (see Ford 2011 regarding Ivane lithic manufacture). O’Connell and Allen (2004) reviewed dozens of archaeological sites in Sahul that are estimated to predate 20,000 BP, with particular 39 focus on >45,000 BP sites in New Guinea and northwest Australia. While retaining a skeptical view of previously determined settlement chronologies, O’Connell and Allen show that numerous sites provide reliable evidence of human occupation prior to 40,000 BP. It is important to briefly note the presence of a ‘relict’ hominin species discovered in Late Pleistocene deposits on Flores Island in Indonesia. Skeletal remains, lithic artifacts, and associated faunal remains serve as evidence for a species named Homo floresiensis that successfully traversed the water beyond Wallace’s Line prior to the presence of H. sapiens in the region (Morwood et al. 2004; Moore and Brum 2007). Non- rchaeological deposits at Liang Bua on Flores Island were originally suggested to be between 95,000 and 12,000 cal BP, with lithic artifacts ranging from approximately 190,000 to 50,000 BP, based on stratigraphic evidence and the dating of associated charcoal and faunal remains (Morwood et al. 2004). Recently, the chronology for these deposits has been revised with the 234U/230Th dating of H. floresiensis skeletal elements in combination with infrared stimulated luminescence (IRSL) and thermoluminescence (TL) of associated sediment samples. This chronological revision places H. floresiensis at Liang Bua between 100,000 and 60,000 cal BP, with artifact evidence extending to as recent as approximately 50,000 BP (Sutikna et al. 2016; Sutikna et al. 2017). This revised chronology shows the movement of this species into Wallacea prior to that of H. sapiens and the disappearance of archaeological evidence for H. floresiensis at Flores Island at time nearly coinciding with the sustained arrival of anatomically modern humans in the region. 40 The modern human colonization of Sahul by at least ca. 45,000 BP (O’Connell et al. 2010) and the presence of early archaeological deposits in places such as the Talaud Islands (35,000-32,000 BP; Ono et al. 2009) and Gebe Island in Maluku (32,000-28,000 BP; Szabo et al. 2005) support a scenario of archaeologically rapid H. sapiens population dispersal throughout the region. Except for the H. floresiensis population on Flores Island (Sutikna et al. 2017), there had been no prior hominin intrusion into Wallacea. Indications of human occupation in Wallacea and Sahul within a time-frame coeval with the initial arrival of humans in Southeast Asia illustrate the ability of human populations to effectively negotiate water crossings of substantial distance at this time. Furthermore, the presence of Pleistocene deposits in both coastal and inland habitats emphasizes the ability of populations to adapt and survive in a diversity of environmental circumstances (Langley et al. 2011). Pope and Terrell (2008) write that the spread of modern humans into Australasia between 47,000 and 40,000 BP coincided with a particularly warm and wet interval, with increased temperatures and summer monsoons as a partial result of an extended period (ca. 55,000-35,000 BP) of decreased El Niño-Southern Oscillation (ENSO) events (see Pope and Terrell 2008 for a comprehensive review of Pleistocene and Holocene coastal climate data). This period of increased precipitation and lower sea-level likely bolstered inland reservoirs and fostered the colonization of continental interiors. Debates of behavioral modernity have largely been settled due to the recognition of complexity in regional tool kits and taphonomic issues affecting previous assessments of ‘archaic’ humans (Langley et al. 2011; Pawlik 2012; Szabo et a. 2005). Yet, questions have lingered over the subjects of intentionality in voyaging, watercraft technology, and the 41 actual route taken by the first human groups dispersing to Sahul (Anderson 2000; Birdsell 1977; Butlin 1993; Calaby 1976; Erlandson and Braje 2015; Smith 2001). Allen, Hawkes, and O’Connell address issues of Pleistocene seafaring, arguing that the swift diffusion of colonizing populations through mainland Southeast Asia, across Wallacea, and into Australia and New Guinea was the result of deliberate migrations involving the participation of substantial human populations with relatively sophisticated watercraft (Allen and O’Connell 2008; O’Connell et al. 2010). O’Connell and Allen (2012; see also Erlandson 2010) summarize the archaeological data supporting their argument, including the narrow time range for the movement of H. sapiens through Wallacea, across Sahul, and into the Bismarcks; the time depth of shared genetic variation in Australian and New Guinean populations and the diversity of mtDNA haplogroups (see van Holst Pellekan 2013); and the evidence of human colonization on other islands (e.g. Japan ca. 42,000-40,000 BP) that would have required watercraft. Bulbeck (2007) framed discussion of the coastal ʻout of Africa’ dispersal in a context of resource use and innovation. He contends that the exploitation of estuarine resources by migrating populations would have facilitated watercraft experimentation and coastal exploration as they moved eastward along the rim of the Indian Ocean (see Erlandson 2001, 2010; Erlandson and Braje 2015; Erlandson et al. 2007 for further discussion of seafaring and maritime dispersals). The confluence of technological development and specialization in tropical estuarine habitats would have created a situation in which groups could increase their mobility, resource extraction, and overall speed of movement through water travel while decreasing risk by avoiding unknown or less desirable habitat patches. Citing oscillating 42 sea-level between 60,000 and 40,000 BP (Butlin 1993; Pope and Terrell 2008), Allen and O’Connell (2008) also hypothesize periods of heightened seastand as times of watercraft innovation. It is important to remember that regardless of sea-level (estimation of -30 to -60 meters at the time of Sahul colonization; see Allen and O’Connell [2008:32] for map with 50 meter and 120 meter bathymetric contour), all water routes to Sahul would have involved at least one open water crossing of 90 kilometers and often multiple others for both a northern and a southern route. Irwin (1992) created intervisibility models for northern and southern routes from Sunda to Sahul that show the ability of human settlers to perceive voyaging direction based on land-visibility during passage from one island to the next across Wallacea. Irwin examined both a northern route through Sulawesi and Halmahera to the western tip of New Guinea (Birdsell 1977) and a southern route through Timor to northwestern Australia (Butlin 1993), with the model favoring the northern route due to unbroken visibility (see Irwin 199