People are more than just Pots

Authors Avatar
People are more than just Pots

What is Lapita? This question, as many have noted, continuing to stimulate debate amongst those who are interested in the archaeology of Oceania. Although this student is not qualified to discuss many of the issues raised (particularly linguistics), an attempt will be made to address this question. There is no doubt something (temporal horizon, cultural phenomena etc) is represented by the artefacts associated with the distinctive pottery known as Lapita. It seems to this student that Lapita should be addressed as an archaeological culture rather than as an ethnic culture representing a homogenous group of people. In the first instance, what is known about Lapita will be outlined. The question of whether Lapita is more than just pots will be discussed before the criticisms of Terrell (1989) are reviewed. Finally the theories of Lapita origin will be discussed in an attempt to show that not only is Lapita more than just pots, but also the peoples who created the pots where more that just Lapita.

The archaeological culture known as Lapita, distinguished by dentated-stamped decorated ceramics (Ambrose 1997), as depicted in Figure 1and 2, extended 'down the Melanesian island chain from New Guinea to Tonga' (Allen 1996:11). Kirch noted that the spatial extent of Lapita is some four thousand kilometres 'as the frigate bird flies' (1996:61). This is illustrated in Figure 3. The temporal dimensions of Lapita, determined through radiocarbon (C14) dating, began around three and a half thousand years ago (i.e. 1500 B.C), lasted about one millennia and ended around two and a half thousand years ago (i.e. 500 B. C.)(Kirch 1996). The name Lapita comes from the first excavated site found to contain the distinctive ceramic, this was in New Caledonia (Allen 1996). Figure 1. Lapita Pottery (Source Bellwood 1979: 246)

The temporal and spatial homogeneity of sites containing this pottery led archaeologists to classify the sites as belonging to one culture, albeit an archaeological culture.

Figure 2. Dentated-Stamped Ceramic (Source Ambrose 1997: 528)

Irwin notes 'Lapita pottery is a conspicuous element of integration among dispersed communities' (1992:211). Although, it is not the only element common to these dispersed archaeological sites. Kirch suggests 'Lapita material culture was rich and complex' (1996: 60). The two to three thousand year old sites associated with Lapita pottery also contain shell tools and jewellery (Allen 1996), wood-working adzes made of stone (Kirch 1996), as well as plant remains associated with a shared subsistence strategy. It is also suggested from the distribution of obsidian that Lapita culture commanded an advanced voyaging technology for inter-regional exchange (Green 2000). This suit of traits directs archaeologists to distinguish Lapita as a cultural complex. It is argued that Lapita is an archaeological, not ethnological, culture.
Join now!


Figure 3. Map of the western Pacific showing the distribution of Lapita sites (Source The Metropolitan Museum of Art 2004)

Terrell believes that the search for an 'ethnically exclusive' (1989: 625) Lapita group is misguided. Irwin supports this view, stating 'Lapita is an uncertain and variable archaeological category...it does not begin to approach an ethnic category' (1992: 34).Terrell suggests that there is no single archaeological indicator of Lapita. He sites Gosden and associates and Bellwood & Koon, when he states that Lapita sites are found without pottery and decorated pottery is found that is not Lapita. ...

This is a preview of the whole essay