physical anthropology of the...

Search Print this chapter Cite this chapter

PHYSICAL ANTHROPOLOGY OF THE PACIFIC

Michael PietrusewskyDepartment of Anthropology, University of Hawaii at Mānoa, Honolulu, 96822U.S.A.

Keywords: Physical anthropology, skeletal biology, bioarchaeology,paleopathology, craniology, biological distance, multivariate statistics, dentalstudies, genetic studies, Polynesian origins, Lapita skeletons

Contents

1. Introduction2. Pacific Islands: Geology, Prehistory and Linguistics3. First Impressions/Early Paradigms (Table 1)3.1. Early explorers3.2. Early craniology and printed catalogs3.3. Anthropometry and somatology: racial typology4. Pacific Relationships and Polynesian Origins (Table 2)4.1. Polynesian phenotype4.2. Biological distance studies4.3. Early Craniometric Studies4.4. Multivariate Statistics4.5. Recent multivariate studies of Pacific crania (two examples) (Figures 1 and 2)4.5.1. Pacific relationships and Polynesian origins: Example 14.5.2. Polynesian relationships: Example 24.5.3. Easter Island (Rapa Nui) and Marquesas relationships4.5.4. Origins of Easter Islanders (Rapanui)4.6. Dental anthropology in the Pacific4.7. Genetic evidence for Polynesian origins4.8. Lapita skeletons (Table 2)4.9. Summary of Polynesian-Pacific origins5. Health, Disease, and Lifestyle of Early Pacific Islanders (Table 3)5.1. Earlier Osteological Studies5.2. Issue-oriented studies5.2.1. Health among The Earliest Inhabitants Of The Pacific5.2.2. Cannibalism and mortuary practices5.2.3. Trauma, Interpersonal Violence, and Warfare5.2.4. Evidence Of Treponemal (Yaws) Infection5.2.5. Subadult health5.2.6. Musculoskeletal Indicators of Stress/Occupation5.2.7. Bioarchaeology of the Mariana Islands and inter-island differences5.2.8. European Contact5.2.9. Paleodiet and Subsistence5.2.10. Other5.2.11. Cessation of skeletal biology in the Pacific

PHYSICAL ANTHROPOLOGY OF THE PACIFIC http://greenplanet.eolss.net/EolssLogn/Mss/C03/E6-20A/E6-20-56...

1 of 7 7/23/12 6:54 AM

6. Regional Studies in Skeletal Biology6.1. Papua New Guinea6.2. Solomon Islands6.3. Vanuatu6.4. New Caledonia6.5. Fiji6.6. Mariana Islands6.7. Other Micronesian Islands: Marshall, Gilbert, Fais, Palau, and Ponape Islands6.8. Tonga and Samoa6.9. Society Islands, Tuamotu Archipelago, and Marquesas6.10. Easter Island (Rapa Nui)6.11. Hawai`i6.12. New Zealand6.13. Cook Islands6.14. Pitcairn (Henderson) Islands7. Conclusions and Future ProspectsRelated ChaptersGlossaryAcknowledgementsBibliographyBiographical Sketch

Summary

A brief summary of studies in physical anthropology and skeletal biology of thePacific and Polynesia is presented. Commencing with early studies in physicalanthropology in the mid-nineteenth century, which included studies of living aswell as prehistoric inhabitants of the Pacific, this survey focuses mainly on twotopics: What studies of skeletons from the region have revealed about 1) the initialpeopling of the Pacific and the origins of the Polynesians and 2) the health andlifestyle of past Pacific Islanders and Polynesians. Despite the limited number ofstudies in the physical anthropology of the Pacific and issues surroundingrepatriation, a significant amount of information about the past inhabitants of thisregion continues to emerge from work involving human skeletons.

1. Introduction

This chapter summarizes previous work in physical anthropology and skeletalbiology of the Pacific. Although evidence from other areas in physicalanthropology (e.g., genetic and dental studies) is included, the major focus will bewhat studies of human skeletons and teeth reveal about the origins, health, andlifestyle of the indigenous inhabitants of the Pacific, particularly Polynesians.

After a brief overview of the geography and prehistory of the Pacific, this reviewsummarizes some of the initial observations and descriptive reports in physicalanthropology using human skeletons (primarily crania) from the Pacific collectedduring the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries. Comparisons of Pacific


2 of 7 7/23/12 6:54 AM

crania stored in museums soon followed, studies that unfortunately were mired inracial typology. Likewise, the first anthropometric studies of the living inhabitantsof the Pacific were initiated in the early decades of the twentieth century.Coinciding with the initial systematic archaeological excavations in the Pacificfollowing World War II, extensive osteological investigations involving prehistorichuman skeletons began to appear. The most recent work in the Pacific focuses onfounding populations (e.g., from Vanuatu, New Guinea, and Fiji) and skeletonsrecovered during archaeological excavation and monitoring activities associatedwith Cultural Resource Management (CRM) surveys.

Although a great many earlier studies involving skeletons from the Pacific arefound in the literature, since the 1990s the possibilities of studying human remainsin many parts of the Pacific are now drastically reduced due to culturally sensitiveissues surrounding repatriation and the concerns of the indigenous groups. Despitethese obstacles, new information about the past inhabitants of the Pacific continuesto emerge, albeit not as intensely as in the past.

2. Pacific Islands: Geography, Prehistory, and Linguistics

Although based on an incorrect perception of culture-history, this review will makereference to Dumont d’Urville’s (1832) well known tripartite division of thePacific: Melanesia, Micronesia, and Polynesia. This review further recognizes theimportance of the distinction between Near Oceania (New Guinea, the BismarckArchipelago, and the Solomon Islands), and Remote Oceania (Micronesia,Vanuatu, Loyalty Islands, New Caledonia, Fiji, and Polynesia) for understandingthe prehistory of the Pacific (Green, 1991).

The human occupation of Near Oceania began approximately 40-50,000 years ago(Kirch, 2000). The first humans reached Remote Oceania some time between 3200and 2800 years BP, an event coupled with an eastward expansion of Austronesian-speaking people and the Lapita Cultural Complex, a cultural horizon identified byits distinctive dentate-stamped pottery, horticulture, and sophisticated navigationalskills (Kirch, 2000; Petchey et al., 2010). Following its immediate origins in theBismarck Archipelago, approximately 3350 BP, the Lapita culture spread throughthe Solomon Island chain and other islands in eastern island Melanesia, eventuallyreaching Tonga and Samoa in western Polynesia (Petchey et al., 2010). After apause of approximately one thousand years, these early Pacific navigators went onto inhabit the rest of the islands of Remote Oceania, arriving in some of the moremarginal islands in the triangle (e.g., Easter Island, Hawai`i, and New Zealand) aslate as 800 years BP (Hunt and Lipo, 2006). Recently, Hung et al. (2011) suggestedthat the first human expansion into Remote Oceania preceded the Lapitaexpansions by one to two centuries with the colonization of the Mariana Islands inthe western Pacific Ocean via the northern Philippines.

The majority of the evidence from historical linguistics, archaeology, and physicalanthropology indicates that the ultimate origins of these two great colonizationevents were in Southeast Asia. However, the timing and other details regarding theappearance and dispersal of the Lapita cultural complex believed to be associated


3 of 7 7/23/12 6:54 AM

with the earliest colonization of Remote Oceania, the focus of this chapter, remainmuch-debated topics.

Several competing models, based mainly on archaeological, historical linguistic,and genetic data, have been advanced to explain the exact tempo and mode of theinitial colonization of Remote Oceania and Polynesia. Among these, the so-called"Express Train" model, argues that the ancestors of Polynesians ultimatelyoriginated from an expansion of Austronesian-speaking agriculturalists that leftMainland Asia or Taiwan approximately 4000 years ago (Bellwood, 2005). TheseAustronesian-speaking people moved rapidly through island Southeast Asia andNear Oceania with little or no genetic admixture with the already indigenousgroups they encountered along the way before going on to colonize the rest ofRemote Oceania within the last 3000 years. This expansion is associated with thespread of speakers of the Austronesian language family and the initial developmentof the Lapita cultural complex in the Bismarck Archipelago.

Other models suggest maritime contacts, some as early as 12,000 years ago(Solheim, 2006), between the peoples of Island Southeast Asia and Melanesians inNear Oceania creating what some have termed spheres of interaction along a"voyaging corridor" as detailed in the "Entangled Bank" model (Irwin, 1992;Terrell et al., 2001; Hurles et al., 2003; Terrell, 2004). These models suppose a longhistory of cultural and genetic interactions among the ancestors of Polynesians andthe already established inhabitants of Island Southeast Asia and Melanesia. The"Slow Boat" model, based primarily on Y-chromosome data, is similar to theExpress Train model but proposes the ancestors of Polynesians emerged withinIsland Southeast Asia but then moved slowly eastward into Remote Oceania andPolynesia with significant admixture between them and the peoples of NearOceania (Richards et al., 1998; Oppenheimer and Richards, 2001a, 2001b).

A more extreme model argues for the indigenous development of the Lapitacultural complex in Near Oceania with no input from outside this region (Allen,1984). Roger Green’s mobile founding migrant category of models (Green, 1994,2003) maintains that there was interaction between the immigrant Austronesianspeakers and the indigenous peoples of the Bismarck Archipelago. Detaileddiscussions of these and other models are provided elsewhere (e.g., Green, 2003;Matisoo-Smith and Robins, 2004; Pietrusewsky, 2006a; Donohue and Denham,2010; Petchey et al., 2010).

3. First Impressions/Early Paradigms

The earliest impressions of the indigenous inhabitants of the Pacific are found inwritings of explorers, naturalists, missionaries, and other early European visitors tothe Pacific that appeared in the late seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries.

3.1. Early explorers

Johann Reinhold Forster, a naturalist on Captain James Cook's second Pacificvoyage (1772-1775) provides one description of Pacific Islanders:


4 of 7 7/23/12 6:54 AM

"We chiefly observed two great varieties of people in the South Seas; the one morefair, well limbed, athletic, of a fine size, and kind benevolent temper; the otherblacker, their hair just beginning to become woolly and crisp, the body slender andlow, and their temper, if possible, more brisk though somewhat mistrustful. The firstrace inhabits Tahiti, and the Society Islands, the Marquesas, the Friendly Islands,Easter Island, and New Zealand. The second race peoples New Caledonia, Tannaand the New Hebrides, especially Mallicollo" (Forster, 1778: 228).

Similarly, the Cook’s journals described the Maori men of New Zealand as beinglarge and of robust proportions, an attribution that was seen throughout Polynesia(Cook, 1955). Comparable descriptions of the physical characteristics of otherPacific peoples are common in these early texts (Roggeveen, 1970).

3.2. Early craniology and printed catalogs

Following on the heels of the great scientific exploring and collecting expeditionsto the Pacific in the early nineteenth century, descriptive studies of skeletons,mainly crania, began to appear (Table 1). One example of these early descriptivereports is William Turner’s (1884) study of crania collected during the voyage ofH.M.S. Challenger (1873-76) and other crania that eventually found their way intothe osteological collections of the University of Edinburgh. In another report, EmilZuckerkandl (1875) described crania from various regions of the world includingthe Pacific, collected during the Austro-Hungarian scientific Novara-Expedition(1857–1859), crania that eventually became part of the Natural History Museum inVienna.

Table 1. Early Studies of Pacific Crania and Skeletons (1846-1965)

Other, early descriptions of human skeletal remains from the Pacific were printedcatalogs of anatomical collections in museums and private collections, primarily inEurope, (e.g., Davis, 1867, 1875; Flower, 1879). In addition to offering anatomicalmaterial for sale, these catalogs provided information on details of cranialmorphology, including some measurements, and unusual anatomical andpathological features present in the collections. Data found in these catalogs,especially measurements, provided the basis for the initial efforts to reconstructhuman racial history.

One example of a printed catalog was one written by Joseph Barnard Davis, anEnglish doctor, who provided a comprehensive description of over 1500 craniafrom around the world acquired during his lifetime (Davis, 1867). In this massivework, Davis devoted several sections of his report describing crania from thePacific [Hawai`i (N=140), Marquesas (N=30), New Zealand Maori (N=14), and theLoyalty Islands (N=12)], a collection that would eventually become part ofholdings of the Natural History Museum in London. In addition to recordingmeasurements for each cranium, Davis provided descriptions of dental pathology,auditory exostoses, tooth ablation, and cranial modification in the skulls fromHawai`i. Davis was also one of the first researchers to attribute the extensive dentalwear and dental abscessing observed in New Zealand Maori crania to dietarypractices. As was customary for this period, Davis’ interpretations of cranial


5 of 7 7/23/12 6:54 AM

morphology were based on racial classification.

Likewise, the catalogs of William Henry Flower (1879, 1881), an Englishcomparative anatomist and surgeon, offered detailed descriptions, mainlycraniometric, of crania from the Pacific that were then part of the Royal College ofSurgeons. Most notably these collections included Polynesian (29 New ZealandMaori) and Fijian (N=33) crania. In his 1881 catalog Flower described 16 craniafrom the mountainous region of Viti Levu in Fiji and compared them with othersfrom coastal regions of the Fiji Islands. Again, as was typical of this period,Flower’s interpretation of the morphology observed in these skulls rests on theidentification of races and racial mixing among the Fijians.

The skeletal collections in Germany and surrounding regions were particularly welldescribed by a series of catalogs published in the early issues of Archiv fürAnthropologie, which were part of a large scale project, Die anthropologischenSammlungen Deutschlands, initiated by Hermann Schaaffhausen (Schaaffhausen,1878; Ecker, 1878) as well as other similar endeavors (e.g., Krause, 1881; vonLuschan, 1907; Schlaginhaufen, 1910a, 1910b). The information provided in thesedescriptions included age, sex, geographical origin, completeness, and therecording of a standard number of cranial measurements and the notation of anyunusual features observed.

Appearing around the same time as these first descriptive studies, were comparativestudies of skulls that typically used cranial measurements and indices to comparePolynesian and Micronesian skulls with other groups from around the world (e.g.,Uhde, 1861; Retzius, 1864; Pruner-Bey, 1864-1867; Weckler, l866; Wyman, 1868;Spengel, 1873, 1874, 1876; Le Batard, 1878; Virchow, 1880, 1881; Quatrefagesand Hamy, 1882; Krause, 1886; Prochownick, 1887; Weisbach, 1890; Volz, 1895;Allen, 1898; Duckworth, 1900; Slater, 1901; Meyer and Jablonowski, 1901;Duckworth and Taylor, 1902; Schlaginhaufen, 1906; Poll, 1903; Mollison, 1908;Thomson, 1915; Giuffrida-Ruggeri, 1921; Pearson, 1921; Wood-Jones, 1931a,1931b; von Bonin, 1931).

While most of this initial work involving Pacific crania emanated from Europe,descriptions of Polynesian crania by American physical anthropologists began toappear as well. One anatomist and pioneer anthropologist in the U.S. whoexamined skeletons from the Pacific was Jeffries Wyman. Wyman was a professorof anatomy at Harvard University and the first curator of Peabody Museum ofArchaeology and Ethnology. Wyman described, in great detail, a series of Hawaiiancrania from the island of Kaua`i (Wyman, 1868). His observations included thepresence of auditory exostoses, peg-shaped teeth, and other aspects of cranial anddental morphology. Overall, Wyman’s work was novel and introduced aninnovative comparative approach that included systematic observation andrecording of cranial pathology in the Pacific.

Harrison Allen, another American pioneer in the study of physical anthropology inthe Pacific, provided detailed descriptions of 65 Hawaiian skulls from severalcollections in Philadelphia, Harvard, and Princeton (Allen, 1898). In addition to adetailed summary of metric and nonmetric variation, Allen also made extensive


6 of 7 7/23/12 6:54 AM

notes on cranial and dental paleopathology. Unlike his contemporaries who werepreoccupied with race and race formation, Allen’s comprehensive study ofHawaiian skulls included an astonishing number of observations of paleopathology,including osteoporosis, periodontal disease, craniosyntosis, external auditoryexostoses, linear enamel hypoplasia, etc. By employing a descriptive andcomparative methodological approach, Allen was the first investigator to speculatethat some of the observed features were the result of nutritional deficiencies,disturbances during growth and development, and/or cultural modification.

The first detailed examination of complete skeletons from the Pacific was made byHalliday Scott, an anatomist and the first Dean of Otago Medical School inDunedin, New Zealand (Scott, 1893). In addition to detailed descriptions of metricand non-metric variation in 133 Maori and Moriori skulls, Scott included detailedobservations of 13 Maori and five Moriori skeletons. In this same report, Scottmade observations of dental pathology (e.g., dental caries and dental abscessing)and described features such as rocker jaw and squatting facets in Polynesianskeletons. As was typical of the period, Scott’s interpretations of cranialmorphology, which rested on cranial indices, were expressed in terms of racialmixing.

3.3. Anthropometry and somatology:racial typology

©UNESCO-EOLSS Encyclopedia of Life Support Systems


7 of 7 7/23/12 6:54 AM


3.3. Anthropometry and somatology: racial typology

Coinciding with early studies of Pacific crania were the first studies of livingPolynesians. Subsequent to the first Pacific Science Congress in 1920, the B. P.Bishop Museum (Honolulu) and the American Museum of Natural History (NewYork) initiated the Bayard Dominick Expeditions, one of the most ambitious effortsto document anthropological data, including anthropometric and somatological dataon the living inhabitants of Polynesia (Sullivan, 1921). The fieldwork undertakenduring this expedition resulted in the publishing of data on the inhabitants of theSociety Islands, Samoa, Tonga, the Marquesas, Hawai`i and the Cook Islands (e.g.,Sullivan, 1923; Shapiro, 1930; Shapiro and Buck, 1936; Shapiro, 1942). Althoughthese efforts often resulted in massive compilations of data, interpretations wererestrained by typological thinking.

By virtue of its insular environment, early reconstructions of the human biologicalhistory of the Pacific relied primarily on the identification of racial types that werepresumably the result of successive waves of migrants and their subsequent mixing(e.g., Dixon, 1920; Sullivan, 1921, 1924, 1927; Dixon, 1929). Skulls, or livingpeople, were classified, or 'typed,' into groups based on the possession of discreteassemblages of traits that reflected skull/head shapes, often including the ubiquitouscephalic, or cranial, index. The existence of these discrete packages of traits wasinterpreted as evidence for separate origins and migrations of people representingonce pure races. One early advocate of this method of interpreting populationhistory for the Pacific was Roland B. Dixon. Dixon, for example, identified at least

ANTHROPOMETRY AND SOMATOLOGY: RACIAL TYPOLOGY http://greenplanet.eolss.net/EolssLogn/Mss/C03/E6-20A/E6-20-56...

2 of 8 7/23/12 6:49 AM

four distinct racial elements, or types, among the inhabitants of the HawaiianIslands, each having been introduced as a result of a series of separate migrations(Dixon, 1920, 1923).

This fixation with racial typology, accompanied with the lack of appropriatemathematical procedures, resulted in extensive compilations of descriptive data thatcontributed very little to understanding the biological variability of the inhabitantsof the Pacific Islands or their origins. Recognizing the shortcomings of the racialtypological classification approach, development of more advanced statisticalprocedures, and adoption of a population genetics approach to understanding pastbiological relationships set the stage for a new era in studies in physicalanthropology.

The first researcher in Pacific physical anthropology to take advantage of this newparadigm in physical anthropology was William W. Howells. Using data on theliving that he had recorded himself and data found in the literature, Howells appliedprincipal components analysis to anthropometric variables recorded in 151 PacificIsland samples resulting in the first comprehensive assessment of biologicalvariability in this region (Howells, 1970). People of the Pacific and Australia werefound to group into three major branches, 1) an Australian branch, 2) a highlyvaried Melanesian branch to which some Micronesian series are attracted, and 3) aPolynesian branch. Similar conclusions were achieved using somatological features(e.g., skin color, hair form, nose form, facial profile etc.) (Howells, 1979; Howellsand Schwidetzky, 1981; Howells, 1997). Studies, such as these, led to therecognition of a specific "Polynesian phenotype".

4. Pacific Relationships and Polynesian Origins

4.1. Polynesian phenotype

Among the first modern investigators to bring attention to a distinctive Polynesianskull form and physique were studies by Shapiro and Buck (1936) and Marshalland Snow (1956). Later, Howells described Polynesian skulls typically as beinglarge with pronounced muscle markings, distinctive shapes, vertical faces, flat nasalbridges, well-developed brow ridges, high cheek bones, wide cranial bases, andmandibles (lower jaws) described as "rocker jaws" (Howells, 1973a, 1979; Howellsand Schwidetzky, 1981). The rocker jaw condition, by virtue of the mandiblesconvex lower border, refers to the propensity of the lower jaw to rock back andforth when placed on a level surface. Various aspects of Polynesian skull and headform, including the rocker jaw condition, were interpreted as the result of auniquely Polynesian pattern of facial growth originating during puberty whichcauses the lower jaw to rotate inferiorly and posteriorly (Houghton, 1977a;Schendel et al., 1980; Kean and Houghton, 1990). One outcome of this uniquegrowth is the wide angle between the body and ramus of the mandible and aconvex inferior border.

Philip Houghton, who has written extensively on Polynesian physical form,portrays Polynesians as possessing tall stature, robust long bodies, relatively short


3 of 8 7/23/12 6:49 AM

legs, bowed limb bones, and presence of a well developed costo-clavicular sulcusor ridge on the underside of the clavicle, and other physical attributes (Houghton,1980, 1996). The biological variation observed in Polynesians was described asrelatively homogeneous, an observation that cannot be made for the inhabitantsliving within the geographical boundaries of Melanesia and Micronesia.

Houghton interpreted the distinctive features of Polynesian skulls, teeth, andskeletons as adaptations to the cold ocean environment, which he maintained werethe consequence of long periods of ocean voyaging, living on small islands, andsea-related activities associated with voyaging and fishing (Houghton, 1990, 1991).Others (e.g., Van Dijk, 1991, 1993), however, disagree pointing to other casualfactors such as cultural and sexual selection. A recent multivariate analysis ofmeasurements recorded in crania from the Pacific and elsewhere failed to supportthese or other attempts (e.g., Katayama, 1996) to explain Polynesian cranialmorphology as adaptations to the environment (Stefan, 2005).

4.2. Biological distance studies

As noted by Howells, the biological characteristics of Polynesians are rich in cluesregarding their origin, clues that were misinterpreted on a regular basis in the past(Howells, 1979: 271). The earliest studies in physical anthropology, includingstudies of Pacific skeletal remains, were frozen in a typological paradigm, onebased largely on univariate interpretations of cranial indices. The transformation topopulation-based investigations of biological variation, strongly based on processesof evolution, and marked improvements in quantitative analysis heralded a new erain biological distance studies.

Based on the demonstrated correlation between phenotypic and genotypicsimilarities and the genetic basis for skeletal and dental variation, measures ofbiological distance ("biodistance") have generally been determined through theapplication of quantitative methods to metric and nonmetric categories of skeletaland dental variation (Buikstra et al., 1990). More recent applications includeancient DNA (aDNA) and other biochemical and geochemical traits. Theunderlying basis of biological distance studies is that groups of people that sharemore features in common are considered to be more closely related than those thatdo not share these same features (Larsen, 2002).

Investigations of cranial form, most notably cranial measurements (orcraniometrics) that quantify morphology, continue to play a central role inbiological distance studies, including those that focus on the Pacific. Althoughmorphological variation, especially quantitative variation, is subject to non-geneticor environmental influences, craniometric variation is generally assumed to reflectgenetic similarity resulting from neutral evolutionary forces (i.e., genetic drift,mutation, and gene flow). Further, the strong geographic patterning (e.g., Howells,1973b), selective neutrality of phenotypic (craniometric) variation (e.g., Relethford,2009), and the amenability of continuous variation to multivariate statisticalanalysis have insured the continued use of traditional landmark measurements andnewer geometric morphometric data in biodistance analyses. Recently, a consensus


4 of 8 7/23/12 6:49 AM

has emerged that craniometric data can be used as a proxy to genetic data, hencethe popularity of this category of variation in biodistance studies (von Cramon-Taubadel, 2009).

4.3. Early Craniometric Studies

Coinciding with the initial developments in the field of statistics, much of it underthe direction of Karl Pearson of the Biometric Laboratory, University College,London, physical anthropologists began to apply more advanced statisticalprocedures to craniometric data for reconstructing population history. A precursorof modern multivariate statistics was Pearson’s Coefficient of RacialLikeness--CRL (Pearson, 1926, 1928), which was used to investigate populationhistory using skull measurements. Another early measure of biological distancewas Penrose’s Size and Shape statistics Penrose (1954). Both statistics (CRL andPenrose’s Size and Shape statistics) contained a number of inadequacies when usedas measures of group divergence. Most notably, neither statistic sufficientlyaccounted for the correlation among the variables (measurements), the number ofmeasurements used, the differences in sample size, or a way to test for significance.

Although never intended as a measure of biological distance, researchers,nevertheless, began to apply these two measures of divergence to their data,including data from the Pacific. Felix von Bonin’s study of Oceanic crania,including 90 crania from Easter Island, from museums in London and Leiden (vonBonin, 1931), was one of the first attempts to apply CRL to craniometric data fromthe Pacific. Following this analysis, one of the largest quantitative comparisons ofOceanic skulls for its time was published (Wagner, 1937). In addition to using datafrom the literature, Wagner recorded measurements in 35 Maori crania that werepart of the osteological collections in Norway. Although aware of its shortcomings,Wagner used CRL to evaluate the biological relationships of Polynesians and otherPacific groups. Interpreting his results, Wagner noted the marginal placement ofEaster Island and Moriori skulls. Likewise, despite the geographical proximity ofNew Zealand and the Chatham Islands, Wagner noted that the Chatham IslandMoriori were closer to the Marquesans and Society Islanders than they were to theNew Zealand Maori (Wagner, 1937: 129).

Notwithstanding these and more recent warnings (e.g., Buranarugsa and Leach,1993), studies that use Penrose’s Size and Shape statistics for understandingbiological relationships of Pacific Islanders continue to appear in the literature (e.g.,Katayama, 1987, 1994; Houghton, 1989a, 2008).

4.4. Multivariate Statistics

Descriptive or univariate statistics, while appropriate for analyzing measurements,were not effective for understanding individual or population variability (Howells,1969: 312). The more advanced statistics of populations and the treatment ofindividual specimens in the context of their parent population commenced with theintroduction of multivariate statistical procedures (e.g., Fisher, 1936; Mahalanobis,1936; Rao, 1948; Mahalanobis et al., 1949; Rao, 1952).


5 of 8 7/23/12 6:49 AM

Multivariate statistical procedures allow the simultaneous analysis of multiplevariables (e.g., cranial measurements) recorded in individuals from one or moregroups (Pietrusewsky, 2008a, in press). It is generally assumed that because thevariables used in multivariate statistics are random and intercorrelated, theirdifferent effects cannot be interpreted individually in a meaningful manner. Cranialmeasurements, because they are continuous variables, are ideally suited formultivariate analysis.

One of the most popular statistics for measuring biological distance based onmetrical and phenotypic data is Mahalanobis’ generalized distance (Mahalanobis,1936; Mahalanobis et al., 1949). Mahalanobis’ generalized distance, whichcorrected for intercorrelation of variables and allowed the handling of largenumbers of variables simultaneously, as well as testing of significance, overcamethe statistical shortcomings of CRL and Penrose’s Size and Shape statistics.

Some other multivariate statistical procedures used by skeletal biologists andphysical anthropologists include factor analysis, principal components analysis, anddiscriminant function analysis. Several different clustering algorithms, as well asmultidimensional scaling techniques, provide a useful means of visualizing theresults of multivariate procedures. Similar methods, although not as sophisticatedas those used to analyze measurement data, are available for the analysis ofnon-metric data such as C.A.B. Smith’s Mean Measure of Divergence (MMD)statistic.

4.5. Recent multivariate studies of Pacific crania (two examples) (Figures 1

and 2)

Rupert Murrill’s study of skeletons from Easter Island (Murrill, 1968) and CharlesSnow’s study of the prehistoric Hawaiian skeletons from Mōkapu Peninsula onO`ahu (Snow, 1974) rekindled interests in skeletal biology in the Pacific. Biologicaldistance studies, using multivariate statistical procedures on cranial metric andnonmetric data recorded in Pacific crania, soon appeared (e.g., Pietrusewsky,1969a, 1970, 1976, 1977).

Later, a great many biological distance studies examining the relationships andorigins of Polynesians and circum-Polynesian groups appeared. In addition to theutilization of cranial metric and nonmetric variation, other biological distancestudies used dental metric and nonmetric data. The use of infracranial nonmetrictraits in biological distance studies in the Pacific is extremely rare (e.g., Donlon,2000).

Biological distance studies in the Pacific have examined biological relationships ata number of different levels including broad Pacific-Asian comparisons, moreregional (i.e., Polynesia, Melanesia, or Micronesia) investigations, and others thatexamine individual islands of the Pacific (i.e., Easter Island and Marquesas) forunderstanding the population history.

Two separate examples of biological distance analysis are provided in this chapter.The first examines the relationships among Pacific and Asian cranial series and the


6 of 8 7/23/12 6:49 AM

second focuses more exclusively on Polynesia and cranial series from North andSouth America. Both examples provide context for understanding the origins ofPacific Islanders and Polynesians.

4.5.1. Pacific relationships and Polynesian origins: Example 1

In the first example, multivariate statistical procedures are applied to craniometricdata for investigating relationships among Pacific and Asian groups (Pietrusewsky,2005). Stepwise discriminant function analysis and Mahalanobis’ generalizeddistance were applied to 27 cranial measurements recorded in a total of 2,805 malecrania representing the inhabitants of Oceania, Australia, Southeast and East Asia(Figures 1 and 2).

Figure 1. Canonical plot of 63 group means on the first two canonical variates[Source: Pietrusewsky, 2005; with permission of Routledge & the Taylor and

Francis Group]

Figure 2. The diagram of relationship resulting from applying the UPGMAclustering algorithm to Mahalanobis’ distances based on 27 measurements [Source:Pietrusewsky, 2005; with permission of Routledge & the Taylor and Francis Group]

Two major divisions, representing the inhabitants of the Pacific and neighboringregions of East and Southeast Asia, are indicated. One major division includescranial series representing the indigenous inhabitants of Australia, Tasmania, andgeographical Melanesia and a second division includes cranial series fromEast/North Asia, Southeast Asia, and Remote Oceania. The marked separationbetween these two major groups suggests separate origins for the people living inthese two regions. The first division coincides with the initial peopling of Australiaand Near Oceania while the second division coincides with the human colonizationof Remote Oceania.

With the exception of New Zealand, the Polynesian cranial series and one fromGuam occupy a separate branch within a greater East/Southeast Asian division. Thesecond division includes all the cranial series from Melanesia and Australia, arelationship that is more consistent with an ancestral homeland in Southeast Asia


7 of 8 7/23/12 6:49 AM

rather than one in adjacent geographic Melanesia. The results further demonstrate aclose connection between several of the Polynesian cranial series and cranial seriesfrom island Southeast Asia, most notably the Lesser Sunda Islands, Sulawesi, andthe southern Moluccas in eastern Island Southeast Asia. The linkage between NewZealand and the Southern Moluccas in the dendrogram based on the distanceshighlights this association. There is no support for a close biological connectionbetween Polynesians and the Ainu series from Japan, a finding that challengesstatements made by Brace and colleagues (e.g., Brace et al., 1990).

The sharpness of the differentiation between Polynesian and Melanesian cranialseries suggests that the colonizing process may have been relatively rapid, andunlike the evidence from molecular genetics (discussed below) and archaeology,the craniometric evidence does not support admixture between the ancestors of thePolynesians and the indigenous inhabitants of Melanesia or the BismarckArchipelago region of the Pacific. Further, the craniometric results provide littlesupport for a homeland in Taiwan or adjacent regions of Chinese mainland. Similarresults were obtained in biological distance studies that used dental metric andnonmetric data. (e.g., Turner, 1986; Hanihara, 1992a). Although the evidence fromcranial and dental data does not fit any of the current proposed models entirely,there is agreement with models, based mostly on genetic and archaeologicalevidence (e.g., Melton et al., 1995; Redd et al., 1995; Kirch, 1997; Richards et al.,1998; Merriwether et al., 1999; Kirch, 2000; Lum and Cann, 2000; Su et al., 2000;Oppenheimer and Richards, 2001a, 2001b) that suggest an ancestral homeland forPolynesians and the earliest inhabitants of Remote Oceania in island SoutheastAsia.

1. Introduction 4.5.2. Polynesian relationships:Example 2



8 of 8 7/23/12 6:49 AM


4.5.2. Polynesian relationships: Example 2

Physical anthropologists have also examined the internal relationships of Polynesia.In the example provided here (Figures 3 and 4), stepwise discriminant functionanalysis and Mahalanobis’ generalized distance were applied to 29 cranialmeasurements recorded in 592 male crania representing nine Polynesian and fourNative American groups (Pietrusewsky and Ikehara-Quebral, 2001). Asdemonstrated in Figure 3, although differentiation between the central and easternPolynesians cranial series is evident, the Polynesian and Fijian series form acohesive cluster far removed from North and South American cranial series. TheEskimo sample occupies the most isolated position in this representation. Likewise,in the dendrogram of distances (Figure 4), three of the four Native Americancranial series occupy an isolated cluster well removed from the cluster containingthe Polynesian and Fijian series. Again, the Eskimo series occupies the mostperipheral position and there is separation between western, central, and easternPolynesian series.

Figure 3. Plot of male Polynesian and Native American group means on the first

POLYNESIAN RELATIONSHIPS: EXAMPLE 2 http://greenplanet.eolss.net/EolssLogn/Mss/C03/E6-20A/E6-20-56...

2 of 9 7/23/12 6:50 AM

three canonical variates resulting from stepwise discriminant function analysis of29 cranial measurements. [Source: Pietrusewsky and Ikehara-Quebral, 2001; with

permission of the Easter Island Foundation]

Figure 4. The diagram of relationship resulting from applying the UPGMAclustering algorithm to Mahalanobis’ distances based on 29 cranial measurements.[Source: Pietrusewsky and Ikehara-Quebral, 2001; with permission of the Easter

Island Foundation]

4.5.3. Easter Island (Rapa Nui) and Marquesas relationships

Multivariate analyses of craniometric data by Vincent Stefan (1999) found littlesupport for significant differences between tribal regions ofprehistoric/protohistoric Easter Island (Rapa Nui). Instead, these resultsdemonstrated a relative homogeneity of early inhabitants of Rapa Nui, a findingthat was repeated in an analysis using cranial nonmetric traits (Chapman, 1998).This same craniometric work further demonstrated different levels of heterogeneitybetween male and female Easter Islanders (Rapanui) suggesting males may havebeen more mobile than females (Stefan, 1999). The results of both categories ofcranial variation do not support the existence of widespread strict tribal endogamybut rather lineage endogamy and restricted exogamy of the prehistoric inhabitantsof Rapa Nui.

A later analysis of metric and nonmetric data recorded in crania from theMarquesas Islands demonstrated regional differences between northwestern andsoutheastern regions of the Marquesas Islands (Stefan and Chapman, 2003).

4.5.4. Origins of Easter Islanders (Rapanui)

While representing one of the most differentiated eastern Polynesian series, there isalmost unanimous agreement among researchers that Easter Island (Rapa Nui)crania are related to other eastern and central Polynesian cranial series (e.g., Stefan,2000, 2009; Clow et al., 2001; Pietrusewsky and Ikehara-Quebral, 2001; and theexamples given in this chapter). A number of recent studies (Chapman, 1998;Stefan, 2000, 2001, 2009; Pietrusewsky, 2005, 2006a, 2006b, 2008a, 2008b) havefurther identified close biological connections between crania from Easter Islandand the Gambier Islands prompting Stefan and others to hypothesize that the firstinhabitants of Easter Island may have originated from Gambier Island. However, ina recent multivariate analysis of cranial measurements, Easter Island demonstrateda somewhat closer affinity first to New Zealand Maori and then together thesecranial series grouped with Gambier Island (Pietrusewsky, 2008b). Broader


3 of 9 7/23/12 6:50 AM

comparisons generally suggest that the ancestors of the early inhabitants of EasterIsland as well as the ancestors of Polynesians, originated in the west rather thanfrom North and/or South America. However, because of Easter Island’s relativeisolation in the extreme eastern Pacific and proximity to the South American coast,contact between the original inhabitants of Easter Island and South Americaremains a possibility (e.g., Matisoo-Smith and Ramirez, 2010).

4.6. Dental anthropology in the Pacific

Paralleling work focused almost exclusively on cranial morphology, were studies ofhuman dentitions of Pacific Islanders. Detailed dental studies in the Pacific began toappear in the initial decades of the twentieth century, including the first extensivestudies of the teeth and jaws of prehistoric Hawaiians (Chappel, 1927) andChamorro from Guam (Leigh, 1929). These studies provided detailed descriptionsof tooth size, dental pathologies, cultural modifications of teeth, and therelationship between dental health and diet of these prehistoric Pacific Islanders.After a hiatus of nearly 30 years, other dental studies in the Pacific began to appearincluding one by Reisenfeld (1956) examining shovel-shaped incisors. Followinganother lengthy pause, more dental studies were published in the late 1970s (e.g.,Turner and Scott, 1977; Turner and Swindler, 1978; Turner, 1986, 1989a, 1989b;Swindler et al., 1997; Swindler and Weisler, 2000).

This renewed interest in dental anthropology in the Pacific included studies by C.Loring Brace and colleagues on tooth size variation and Christy Turner’s studies ofdental nonmetric traits. Brace’s analyses of tooth size variation suggested twomajor migrations, an earlier (pre-agricultural) migration that was responsible forthe early human settlement of New Guinea, Australia, and the adjoining regionsand a later migration of people coinciding with the human occupation of moreRemote Oceania (e.g., Brace and Hinton, 1981).

Christy Turner’s work with dental nonmetric variation in the Pacific andsurrounding regions centered on the identification of two contrasting dentalcomplexes, Sundadont and Sinodont. According to Turner (1989b, 1990a, 1990b,1992) the dental nonmetric traits of Southeast Asians, Polynesians, andMicronesians are representative of the ‘Sundadont’ dental pattern while EastAsians are representative of the ‘Sinodont’ dental complex. Although AustralianAboriginals and Melanesians do not fit either category exactly, they are closest tothe Sundadont dental pattern suggesting that both have derived from a common(proto-Sundadont) ancestor in Southeast Asia (Turner, 1992; Scott and Turner,1997). Additional studies of dental variation by Hanihara (1992a, 1992b, 1993)indicated a Southeast Asian origin for the inhabitants of Remote Oceania.

4.7. Genetic evidence for Polynesian origins

Early studies using classic autosomal genetic marker data in the Pacific, whileagreeing on an Asian homeland for inhabitants of the Pacific, were generallyuninformative in reconstructing population history of the Polynesians (Simmons,1965).


4 of 9 7/23/12 6:50 AM

Studies of the human leukocyte antigen (HLA) system proved more useful intracing past events in the Pacific than those based on classic blood group geneticpolymorphisms. Studies by Serjeantson (1985, 1989) of the HLA system in thePacific suggested that the ancestors of the Polynesians journeyed along the northcoast of New Guinea rather than through Micronesia before arriving in westernPolynesia.

Later work with hemoglobin and globin gene variants in the Pacific provided newopportunities for tracing past human population movements (Hill et al., 1989;Oppenheimer, 1998). To account for the dominant α-globin gene deletion found inPolynesians, Austronesian speakers of the Bismarck Archipelago, and islandMelanesia, Oppenheimer and Richards (2003: 292) suggested the ancestors of thePolynesians may have traveled to Remote Oceania via islands in the voyagingcorridor around or off the northern coast of New Guinea such as in the BismarckArchipelago 3500 years ago. A Gm blood haplotype found primarily inAustronesian speakers, one that possibly confers some resistance to malaria, alsohas implications for tracing Austronesian-speaking population movements in thePacific (Clark and Kelly, 1993).

With breakthroughs in the field of molecular genetics, researchers began turningtheir attention to deciphering the peopling of the Pacific using mitochondrial DNA(mtDNA), Y-chromosome, and genome-wide data on living peoples. Interpretationsof the results obtained using genetic data were often viewed in the context ofmodels borrowed from archaeology and historical linguistics, most notably the"Express Train" and "Entangled Bank" models that were reviewed earlier in thischapter.

Initially, studies of the maternally inherited DNA, mtDNA, supported the "ExpressTrain" model to explain Polynesian origins (Gibbons, 2001). These studiesdemonstrated that the "Polynesian motif", a lineage of human mtDNA (includingthe characteristic 9-bp deletion located in the COII/tRNALys intergenic region) thatis restricted to Austronesian-speaking people and is almost fixed in Polynesians,could be traced to eastern Indonesia while other mtDNA types closely related to thePolynesian motif could be traced to western Indonesian, the Philippines, andespecially Taiwan (Redd et al., 1995; Melton et al., 1998).

However, later genetic studies challenged the Taiwan connection by identifyingnon-Asian mitochondrial lineages in people occupying Remote Oceania, includinglineages that can be traced to Near Oceania, while other lineages, notably the("Polynesian motif"), may have originated in eastern Indonesia (Wallacea)(Richards et al., 1998; Oppenheimer and Richards, 2001a, 2001b). Recently, basedon an analysis of 157 complete mtDNA genomes, Soares et al. (2011) concludedthat the "Polynesian motif" likely originated more than 6,000 years ago in thevicinity of the Bismarck Archipelago from an immediate ancestor more than 8,000years ago living in Near Oceania, much earlier than the time of dispersal predictedby the "Express Train" model.

These findings, taken together, suggest that the ancestors of modern Polynesianswere present in Southeast Asia and Near Oceania before the proposed time of


5 of 9 7/23/12 6:50 AM

Austronesian expansion from Taiwan (and/or mainland Asia) or the Lapita culturalcomplex. Soares and colleagues (2011) further reported evidence for more recenttwo-way maternal gene flow between Island Southeast Asia and Near Oceania, afinding that supports the "Entangled Bank" model.

Studies of the paternally inherited Y-chromosome in Pacific populations suggest a‘‘Melanesian’’ or Eastern Indonesian origin rather than southeast China or Taiwanfor the predominant lineage found in Remote Oceania, prompting researchers topropose an alternative hypothesis, the "slow boat to the Bismarcks model", toexplain Polynesian origins (Oppenheimer and Richards, 2001a, 2001b; Hurles etal., 2002; Jordan et al., 2009; Kayser, 2010). However, these researchers and others(e.g., Hage and Marck, 2003) also identified a number of Island Southeast Asian-derived lineages in both Near and Remote Oceania which suggests a differentsettlement pattern, including differential gene flow between males and females inthe founding groups, than that suggested by the mtDNA evidence (Matisoo-Smithand Robins, 2004).

Genome-wide studies, which examine a number of genetic loci in Pacificpopulations, have also been utilized to address Polynesian origins. The resultsobtained in one recent study that analyzed 14 short tandem repeat (STR) locisuggested that the modern Polynesians are the descendants of an expansion ofAustronesian-speaking people from Island Southeast Asia who intermixedsubstantially with Near Oceania groups (Lum et al., 2002). Later genome-wideanalyses revealed similar results demonstrating the Polynesian autosomal genometo be approximately 70% Asian and 30% Melanesian in origin (Kayser et al., 2008;Wollstein et al., 2010). Taken together, genome-wide studies indicate that thePolynesian autosomal gene pool is of distinctively Island Southeast Asia origin, butduring the migration into Remote Oceania the people intermixed substantially withindigenous groups they encountered along the way (Kayser, 2010).

Studies of mtDNA in modern and ancient commensal animals (e.g., Pacific rat,dog, pig, and chicken) provide proxy evidence for the movement of people intoRemote Oceania (Matisoo-Smith, 2009). Studies of the mtDNA phylogenies ofancient and modern Pacific rats (Ratta exulans) indicate an origin in easternIndonesia, specifically Halmahera Island (Matisoo-Smith and Robins, 2004).Ancient DNA studies on the domesticated dog found in the Pacific (Canisfamiliaris) suggest they derive from East Asia (Matisoo-Smith, 2009) while studiesof ancient DNA of the domesticated pig (Sus scrofa) indicate an origin in southernVietnam (Larson et al., 2007). Ancient DNA and geographic distribution analysesof the chicken (Gallus gallus), which is believed to have been introduced intoOceania by people associated with the Lapita cultural complex, indicate an EastAsian origin (Matisoo-Smith, 2009). The origin of all the commensal species is atodds with both the "Entangled Bank" and Express Train" models for Polynesianorigins.

Overall, studies of mtDNA (human and rat) and Y-chromosome variation in thePacific have reached very similar conclusions regarding the initial settlement ofRemote Oceania (Matisoo-Smith, 2009). First, the initial inhabitants of RemoteOceania share a common origin in a region that extends from Island Southeast Asia


6 of 9 7/23/12 6:50 AM

(notably southern Wallacea or Sulawesi, Halmahera, Lesser Sunda Islands, Maluku,and Timor Islands) to the Bismarck Archipelago and North coastal New Guinea.Second, evidence from maternally, paternally, and biparentally inherited moleculargenetic markers point to admixture between Austronesian migrants and theindigenous groups that they encountered during their initial movements across nearOceania. Third, central Micronesia and Polynesia have distinct and separatesettlement histories that include a significant amount of post-settlement gene flow(Lum and Cann, 2000; Hurles et al., 2002). Finally, differences between mtDNAand Y-chromosome diversity in the Pacific may represent differences in the timingof settlement or different patterns of gene flow between males and females in thefounding populations of Remote Oceania (Hage and Marck, 2003; Matisoo-Smithand Robins, 2004).

Studies of ancient human mtDNA obtained from archaeological sites in the Pacific,including some that are associated with the Lapita Cultural Complex, areinterpreted by Hagelberg and Clegg (1993) to indicate a Melanesian origin formodern Polynesians in contrast to a Southeast Asian origin suggested by studiesthat utilize molecular genetic evidence in extant humans (Melton et al., 1995; Reddet al., 1995; Richards et al., 1998). Given the problems associated with studies ofaDNA and re-dating of many of the Lapita burials (Petchey et al., 2010), theseresults should be viewed with caution.

4.8. Lapita skeletons (Table 2)

The first studies of human skeletons associated with the Lapita Cultural Complex(3600 - 2500 BP) began to appear in the mid-1980s (Pietrusewsky, 1985, 1989a,1989b; Houghton, 1989a). Because the Lapita culture has been linked to the initialhuman colonization of Remote Oceania, between approximately 3200 and 2800 BP,skeletons associated with the Lapita culture are viewed as important sources ofinformation for investigating the origins, health, and lifestyle of the earliestinhabitants of Remote Oceania and Polynesia. Thus far there are five sites (two inthe Bismarck Archipelago region of Near Oceania and three in eastern Melanesia inRemote Oceania) with skeletons associated with the Lapita culture (Table 2). Fouradditional sites, two each in New Caledonia and Fiji, have skeletons thatimmediately post-date the Lapita culture. Human skeletons from three sitespreviously believed to be associated with of Lapita culture (e.g., Koné WKO-013A,New Caledonia; Wakea, Fiji; Pea Village, Tonga) have been determined topost-date the Lapita phase by a considerable margin (Petchey et al., 2010).

Table 2. Lapita and Post-Lapita Skeletons

Of the five sites with Lapita burials, two date from the middle to late Lapita phase.The skeletons associated with the Lapita culture are generally of poor preservationand incomplete. Although the recent discovery of the Lapita-age cemetery at theTeouma site on Vanuatu has substantially increased the number of Lapita skeletons(perhaps by as many as 80 individuals), the number of Lapita and immediatelypost-Lapita skeletons found at other sites are far fewer in number. Five of the ninesites with skeletons are represented by a single individual each (Table 2). Very few


7 of 9 7/23/12 6:50 AM

Lapita skeletons have in-tact (or restored) crania, a situation that makescraniometric comparisons using multivariate statistical procedures exceedinglydifficult or impossible.

Initial studies demonstrated a suite of dental, cranial, and infracranial skeletal traits(e.g., shovel-shaped incisors, rocker jaws, flattened upper femoral shafts,oval-shaped fovea, costo-clavicular sulci, tall stature, etc.) in the Lapita skeletons,features that are observed in most Pacific Island and Polynesian skeletons. Severalother traits (e.g., small tooth sizes, broad mandibles, and lack of strongly markedmuscle attachments) observed in these skeletons are less characteristic ofPolynesian skeletons.

Multivariate analyses, using mostly mandibular measurement data recorded in theLapita skeletons and other Pacific Islands samples (e.g., Pietrusewsky, 1985, 1989a,1989b), have failed to produce a consistent pattern of biological relationship. Inthese analyses, the Lapita skeletons invariably occupy isolated positions. Becausemany of the skeletons post-date the Lapita horizon, it is not surprising that affinitieswith more modern inhabitants of eastern Melanesia are demonstrated (Pietrusewskyet al., 1998; Pietrusewsky, 2006a). Determining biological relationships betweenthe skeletons associated with the Lapita cultural horizon and the rest of the Pacificwill prove difficult, a situation that is not likely to change until larger and better-preserved samples of Lapita crania and skeletons become available

4.9. Summary of Polynesian-Pacific origins

Multiple lines of evidence from physical anthropology indicate a dichotomybetween Australians-Melanesians and Polynesians. The recognition of a"Polynesian phenotype" strengthens this dichotomy. Nowhere is this distinctionmore apparent than in the results of multivariate craniometric analyses like thosesummarized in this review. The dental, cranial, and most of the molecular geneticevidence further indicate that the first inhabitants of Remote Oceania sharecommon origins somewhere in island Southeast Asia.

While the dental and cranial evidence provides no support for an origin withingeographical Melanesia for the ancestors of Polynesians, researchers who haveutilized molecular genetic evidence have identified a possible origin in a regionextending from southern Wallacea (Sulawesi, Lesser Sunda Islands, Maluku, andTimor) to the Bismarck Archipelago and north coast of New Guinea. Thecraniometric evidence is more exclusive in identifying southern Wallacea as apossible ancestral source for the initial inhabitants of Remote Oceania. Unlike themolecular genetic evidence and the "Entangled Bank" and "Slow Boat" models, thecraniometric results provide only limited support for admixture between the earlyAustronesian speaking dispersing groups and those (non-Austronesian speaking)groups they encountered during and after the initial settlement of Remote Oceania.There is also no strong support for the "Express Train" model in the results ofbiological distance analyses of cranial measurements.

Until many better preserved and complete specimens of the earliest Lapita-associated skeletons in Near and Remote Oceania become available, their role in


8 of 9 7/23/12 6:50 AM

interpreting the initial settlement of Remote Oceania will be of limited value.

3.3. Anthropometry and somatology:racial typology

5. Health, Disease, and Lifestyle ofEarly Pacific Islanders



9 of 9 7/23/12 6:50 AM


5. Health, Disease, and Lifestyle of Early Pacific Islanders

5.1. Earlier Osteological Studies

Commencing in the 1950s, the first systematic archaeological excavations,including the exhumation of human skeletons, in the Pacific were initiated. Whilethe initial focus was on Polynesia, other regions of the Pacific, for example NewGuinea, Melanesia, and the Mariana Islands, were investigated. The earliest studiesof these skeletal collections, which until recently were curated in museums anduniversities throughout the Pacific, resulted in publication of the first detailedstudies in skeletal biology and paleopathology. These initial studies in skeletalbiology, although descriptive in nature, provided a baseline for understanding thehealth and lifestyle of the Pacific’s earliest inhabitants and provided much-neededcontext for later more issue-oriented studies. Examples of these studies of skeletonsfrom the Pacific include those by Murrill (1968), Pietrusewsky (1969b), Snow(1974), Pietrusewsky (1976), and Houghton (1980).

Rupert Murrill’s (1968) detailed descriptions of 33 adult skeletons recovered fromThor Heyerdahl’s Kon-Tiki expedition to Easter Island in 1955-1956, represents thefirst study of skeletons excavated from Easter Island and Polynesia. In addition toproviding a summary of metric and nonmetric variation and paleopathology inthese skeletons, Murrill discussed, at length, the origins and affinities of the EasterIslanders. Although the sample size is small, Murrill’s quantification of metric andnonmetric variation and detailed descriptions of paleopathology set a standard for

HEALTH, DISEASE, AND LIFESTYLE OF EARLY PACIFIC I... http://greenplanet.eolss.net/EolssLogn/Mss/C03/E6-20A/E6-20-56...

2 of 7 7/23/12 6:51 AM

future work in the field.

The next published study of human skeletons from the Pacific was MichaelPietrusewsky’s analysis of 99 human skeletons from two prehistoric burial mounds(To-At-1 and To-At-2) on the island of Tongatapu, Tongan Islands (Pietrusewsky,1969b). This study, which summarized the morphological features recorded in thelargest skeletal series from western Polynesia, provided a systematic descriptionand summary of the dental and skeletal pathology including evidence ofdegenerative joint disease, treponemal disease (yaws), and trauma. In allprobability, this was one of the first studies of human skeletons from the Pacific touse a mainframe computer to analyze skeletal data, including the application ofmodern multivariate statistical procedures.

Charles Snow (1974) described the largest skeletal assemblage from the Pacific tobe examined during this period, more than 1,500 Hawaiian skeletons in the BishopMuseum, many the result of systematic excavation that began in earnest in 1938and extended to 1957 at Mōkapu on the island of O`ahu. Snow’s study waspublished posthumously. In addition to providing summaries of metric andnonmetric observations in these skeletons, Snow included extensive information onpaleopathology and cultural modifications observed in these remains.

Two additional early studies of skeletons from the Pacific were published byPietrusewsky (1976). This report summarized of the skeletal biology of skeletonsfrom the Nebira site in Papua New Guinea and the Hane Dune site (MUH 1), in theMarquesas. The Nebira hilltop site, dated from AD 1230-1650, located in southernPapua New Guinea approximately 10 km inland from the coastline, contained 38burials of all ages. As well as documenting age, sex, metric and non-metric featuresobserved in these remains, summaries of dental and skeletal pathology wereprovided. Among the observations reported were two individuals with evidence ofpossible treponemal disease in the long limb bones, one individual with fusedvertebrae, and several examples of cranial vault thickening and cribra orbitalia thatwere attributed to iron deficiency anemia.

The skeletons of approximately 42 individuals, representing subadults and adults ofboth sexes, from the coastal Hane dune site (MUH 1) on Uahuku Island, MarquesasIslands were excavated by Y. H. Sinoto of the Bishop Museum in 1964-1965. Theskeletal report (Pietrusewsky, 1976) summarized metric and nonmetric variationand paleopathology in the skulls, infracranial skeletons, and teeth from this site.Examples of paleopathology reported included trauma in six individuals, fusedcervical vertebrae, cribra orbitalia, spondylolysis, and extreme acetabulardegeneration in one individual. Observations of musculoskeletal stress markerssuch as auditory exostoses, mandibular torus, costo-clavicular sulcus, and squattingfacets were also recorded in these remains.

Also during this time period were studies of New Zealand Maori by PhilipHoughton and colleagues at the University of Otago. Although Houghton wasprimarily interested in the human biology of the Pacific, including phenotypicadaptations of Polynesians, his work touched on many aspects of skeletal biologyand the health of the New Zealand Maori and other Pacific islanders, which he


3 of 7 7/23/12 6:51 AM

detailed in two published books (1980, 1996) and numerous publications.Houghton also made several significant contributions to understanding Polynesianhead and skull form, including the "rocker" jaw condition.

5.2. Issue-oriented studies

More recent work in the skeletal biology of the Pacific reveals a continued interestin providing detailed descriptions of skeletal remains from different regions of thePacific as well as more research-oriented studies that address specific questionsregarding population history, lifestyle, diet, adaptive shifts, and specific and moregeneral aspects of the health of the people. Some of the specialized topicsinvestigated include cannibalism and mortuary practices, cultural modification ofskeletal and dental remains, "rocker jaw" and head form, treponemal disease,occipital superstructures, paleodiet, descriptions of skeletons associated with theLapita and post-Lapita cultural traditions, as well as general surveys of health andlifestyle of Pacific Islanders. Some of these specialized topics in skeletal biologyare surveyed in this chapter.

5.2.1. Health among The Earliest Inhabitants Of The Pacific

With one or two exceptions, the number of Lapita and post-Laptia (see Table 2)skeletons from sites in the Pacific are represented by a single skeleton. One notableexception is the Teouma site on Efate Island in Vanuatu, presently the oldest (ca.3,100-3,200 BP) Lapita cemetery site. Buckley et al. (2008) provide a preliminaryreport of the health and lifestyle of these early inhabitants of this site based on 36individuals, which very likely represent the first few generations of humaninhabitants of this island group. While the age and sex distribution of the sampleare uneven, this study identified a relatively high frequency of musculoskeletalinjuries and other evidence suggestive of an active physical lifestyle. Also reportedin the same study is the possible presence of infectious disease(s) in the skeletonsfrom the Teouma site but no conclusive evidence of yaws. Moderately highfrequencies of dental wear, dental caries, and periodontal disease were interpretedas possibly reflecting a mixed diet. The authors concluded that the individualsrepresented in this sample, while suitably adapted to their island environment, livedphysically demanding lives and were affected by a significant disease burden. In aseparate study, Buckley (2007) further reported the occurrence of erosive arthritisin seven individuals from the Teouma site whose differential diagnosis includesgout, a significant health problem among modern Pacific Islanders.

Some of oldest skeletons from the western Pacific are the remains of 25 individualsfrom the Chelechol ra Orrak site in Palau examined by Nelson and Fitzpatrick(2006). Beginning approximately 3000 BP, this large rockshelter was used forapproximately one thousand years as a cemetery. Although highly fragmentary, theremains reveal evidence for degenerative joint disease, dental diseases, porotichyperostosis, periostitis, spondylolysis, and a glimpse of the lives of the inhabitantsof this Pacific island.


4 of 7 7/23/12 6:51 AM

5.2.2. Cannibalism and mortuary practices

Human cannibalism has long intrigued anthropologists who have documented it inskeletons, both recent and ancient, around the world. In the Pacific, because of thegeneral perception that Fijians practiced cannibalism, it is not surprising that therehave been a number of studies of human skeletons from the Fiji Islands that haveexamined this topic. An analysis of human skeletal remains recovered in 1947 fromthe Navatu midden site on Viti Levu led DeGusta (1999) to conclude that themodifications in these remains were consistent with cannibalism. A key factor inthis analysis was the demonstration that the human remains from the midden weremodified similarly to the nonhuman remains from the same midden. Analysis ofmodified human remains from a second site, Navatu, on Viti Levu, however, didnot support the cannibalism hypothesis (DeGusta, 2000).

Pietrusewsky et al. (2007) determined that the incomplete prehistoric skeleton of anadolescent excavated from an earth-oven feature at the Qaranicagi cave site onWaya Island, Fiji, was minimally modified by heat suggesting that it was placed ontop of the ash after a fire had recently been terminated. While the remains showedcut marks that are characteristic of butchering and quartering, it was concluded thatthe unique context of the remains (no midden), does not support these remains fromQaranicagi cave represent a cannibalized individual.

Other studies that examined mortuary practices in the Pacific include descriptionsof vandalized bones from the Hawaiian Islands (Pietrusewsky and Ikehara-Quebral,1996), bone spear points associated with skeletons from the Mariana Islands(McNeill, 2002), and mortuary practices in the Cook Islands (Anton and Steadman,2003) and Papua New Guinea (Stodder and Rieth, 2011).

5.2.3. Trauma, Interpersonal Violence, and Warfare

Very few studies of skeletons from the Pacific specifically address trauma,interpersonal violence, and warfare. A frequency of 0.6% for healed limb bonefractures in Chamorro skeletons from the Mariana Islands reported by Pietrusewskyet al. (1997a) suggests that there was very little deliberate or accidental injury inthis part of the Pacific during prehistoric times. Further, although still relatively lowcompared to worldwide frequencies, the reported prevalence of healed bonefractures in pre-contact Hawaiians (1.6%) was significantly higher than thefrequency observed in prehistoric Chamorro.

Scott and Buckley (2010) reported evidence of interpersonal violence and warfarein cranial and postcranial skeletons from two Pacific archaeological sites, Nebria(Papua New Guinea) and the Namu (Taumako Island, southeastern SolomonIslands). These authors found that the Nebria individuals, particularly males,exhibited significantly more postcranial fractures compared to the Taumakoskeletons. The fractures sustained at Nebira were consistent with accidentalinjuries. In this same report, the authors suggested that conflict or warfare couldexplain the relatively high prevalence of healed cranial trauma observed in theNebira series. Overall, there was little difference between males and females in the


5 of 7 7/23/12 6:51 AM

amount of trauma.

5.2.4. Evidence Of Treponemal (Yaws) Infection

The first study to document yaws in the Pacific was by Stewart and Spoehr (1952)examining skeletons from the Mariana Islands. Because yaws was the onlyrecorded treponemal disease among Pacific Islanders prior to Western contact, it isnot surprising that researchers working in the Pacific have focused their attentionon describing and differentiating yaws from other treponemal diseases. Rothschildand colleagues documented treponemal infection in skeletons from Guam whileaddressing the complicated issues surrounding the differential diagnosis oftreponemal diseases in skeletons. Using criteria developed by the authors,Rothschild and Heathcote (1993) reported an incidence of 18.8% for yaws in theGogna-Gun Beach skeletons from Guam. While this attempt to establish criteria forthe diagnosis of yaws (versus syphilis and bejel) was challenged (see e.g.,Heathcote et al., 1998), it nevertheless contributed to understanding treponemaldisease worldwide.

Another attempt to interpret lesions observed in skeletons from the Pacificconsistent with treponemal (yaws) disease is found in the work of Buckley andTayles (2003a, 2003b). As well as introducing new methods for differentialdiagnosis, the authors reported skeletal lesions in 14/226 (6.2%) individuals fromthe Namu burial site on Taumako Island, southeast Solomon Islands, which areconsistent with yaws.

5.2.5. Subadult health

Relatively few studies of Pacific skeletons focus on subadults. Hanson (1990)examined subadult health in a small sample of pre-Latte and Latte burials from theisland of Rota in the Northern Mariana Islands. Among the findings was evidenceof dental pathology (dental caries, dental enamel hypoplasia, and enamelhypocalcification) and two types of skeletal lesions (periostitis and porotichyperostosis) in ten subadults ranging in age from neonatal to 48 months. Toexplain the observed co-occurrence of enamel defects and severe dental caries withskeletal pathologies in these subadults Hanson suggested a combination of factorssuch as the fluoride content of food and drink, increased risk of food/watercontamination brought about by a limited water supply, introduction of solid foodsin the infants’ diet, and/or a nutritionally inadequate weanling diet.

A later study from the Pacific that addressed subadult health, is a study by Buckley(2000), which undertook a differential diagnosis of lesions observed in 17 subadultskeletons aged six months to three years from the ToAt-1 and ToAt-2 prehistoricburial mounds in the Tongan Islands. Evidence for possible trauma, infectiousdisease, and nutritional deficiencies in the subadult skeletons from these twoarchaeological sites was reported by the author.

5.2.6. Musculoskeletal Indicators of Stress/Occupation


6 of 7 7/23/12 6:51 AM

Evidence of stress fractures of the lower back (spondylolysis) and well developedinsertions for muscles, so-called occipital superstructures in the crania, ofprehistoric Chamorro from the Mariana Islands have been interpreted as evidencethat the early inhabitants lived relatively strenuous physical lives. Arriaza (1997),in his examination of 176 skeletons from the Hyatt site on Tumon Bay, Guam,reported spondylolysis frequencies of 29.4 % (5/17) and 14.3% (3/21) for malesand females, respectively. While the frequencies for males and females were notsignificantly different, the overall frequency for stress fractures was high.Heathcote et al. (1996) reported marked expressions of posterior cranialsuperstructures in male crania from the Mariana Islands and Tonga. Bothspondylolysis and occipital superstructures have been linked to seafaring culturesand stone working among the prehistoric inhabitants of these Pacific islands,activities that undoubtedly required considerable upper body strength and agility.

4.5.2. Polynesian relationships: Example2

5.2.7. Bioarchaeology of the MarianaIslands and inter-island differences



7 of 7 7/23/12 6:51 AM


5.2.7. Bioarchaeology of the Mariana Islands and inter-island differences

Given the nature of CRM work, very few broad surveys of health in the Pacific areavailable. One exception was a paper by Pietrusewsky et al. (1997), whichprovided an assessment of health and lifestyle in the Mariana Islands utilizing datarecorded in skeletons excavated during CRM work in the archipelago. Using avariety of skeletal and dental stress indicators, including mortality andpaleodemographic data, stature, dental paleopathology, cribra orbitalia, limbfractures, osteoarthritis, and infectious disease, the authors made generalizedstatements about the health of prehistoric Mariana Islanders.

Studies of skeletons from the Mariana Islands indicate that the average stature ofprehistoric adult Chamorro males was approximately 173 cm (5’8") while theaverage adult Chamorro female stature was 163 cm (5’4"), statures that arecomparable to pre-contact Polynesians. While they suffered a number of endemicand chronic diseases, including yaws, the prehistoric inhabitants were relativelyhealthy and many lived well into their third and fourth decades of life. Evidence ofdegenerative joint disease, traumatic injury, especially in the lower back region(e.g., spondylolysis), and other indicators, such as the presence of well formedtubercles in the occipital region, further indicate that these early people livedrelatively physically strenuous lives. Some of these indicators have been linked tothe construction and transport of heavy latte stones (megalithic pillars) in theprehistoric period. Relatively low frequencies of limb bone fractures suggest little

BIOARCHAEOLOGY OF THE MARIANA ISLANDS AND IN... http://greenplanet.eolss.net/EolssLogn/Mss/C03/E6-20A/E6-20-56...

2 of 9 7/23/12 6:52 AM

deliberate or accidental injury in prehistoric times. Evidence of childhood stress(linear enamel hypoplasia) and iron deficiency anemia have been reported in theskeletons of the Mariana Islands.

Studies of teeth of prehistoric Chamorro indicate heavy attrition but relatively lowfrequencies of dental caries, antemortem tooth loss, and dental abscessing. Some ofthese indicators of dental health may be attributed to the cultural practice ofchewing Areca (betel) nut during the Latte Period. In addition to tooth staining,there is also evidence that the prehistoric Chamorro sometimes incised or filed theirteeth. Studies of paleodiet suggest that the prehistoric Chamorro subsisted on bothterrestrial plant-based foods as well as marine resources.

More recent investigations of health and lifestyle in the Mariana Islands (e.g.,Pietrusewsky et al. 2010, 2011) have identified possible inter-island differences thatmay reflect differences in environment and/or resource availability caused bynatural disasters or other factors associated with living on smaller islands. Some ofthe inter-island differences in dental health are linked to the fairly ubiquitouscultural practice of chewing Areca (betel) nut, at least during the Latte Period.

5.2.8. European Contact

Although the effects, often devastating, experienced by once-isolated Pacificpopulations following initial contact with Europeans are generally well knownhistorically, there have been few studies utililzing skeletons from the Pacific toaddress the biological consequences of contact between Pacific Islanders andEuropeans. Pietrusewsky and Douglas (1994) examined the health of precontactand historic burials from Hawai`i using a variety of skeletal and dental indictors ofhealth including mortality and fertility data, adult stature, dental enamel hypoplasia,cribra orbitalia, trauma, degenerative joint disease, dental pathologies, and evidenceof infection. Despite sampling issues, this initial study presented evidence of adeterioration in health of Hawaiians following contact with Europeans. Thebiological effects of European contact on Easter Island were explored in a paper byOwsley et al. (1994).

5.2.9. Paleodiet and Subsistence

Studies designed to investigate paleodiet and subsistence are becoming morefrequent in research on Pacific skeletons (e.g., Valentin et al., 2006, 2010; Bentleyet al., 2007; Kyle et al., 2009). A study of some of the burials from the first twofield seasons of excavation at the Teouma Lapita site in Vanuatu indicated a dietconsisting of marine resources supplemented with plants grown on local basalticsoils (Bentley et al., 2007). This later study further indicated that four of theindividuals sampled were probably immigrants.

5.2.10. Other

More specialized topics investigated in Pacific skeletons include the use of kava


3 of 9 7/23/12 6:52 AM

(Visser, 1994), cranial modification (Stodder, 2006, Stodder and Rieth, 2011), toothablation (Pietrusewsky and Douglas, 1993), leprosy (Trembly, 1995a), malaria(Buckley, 2006), rocker jaws (Houghton, 1977a), and wryneck syndrome ortorticollis (Douglas, 1991).

5.2.11. Cessation of skeletal biology in the Pacific

During the construction the Ritz Carlton Hotel in Kapalua, Maui between 1987 and1988, the remains of over 1000 Native Hawaiians were disinterred from an ancientburial ground, the Honokahua site. The events surrounding the excavation of thissite resulted in the initiation and implementation of strict burial laws in Hawai`ithat have effectively made it nearly impossible to analyze human skeletal remainsolder than 50 years in the state.

The osteological report on more than 700 skeletons from this site (Pietrusewsky etal., 1991) provided one of the most detailed summaries of metric and nonmetricvariation, including paleopathology, in Hawaiian skeletons since the study by Snow(1974) nearly two decades earlier. In addition to summarizing the metric andnonmetric variation in the skeletons and teeth from the Honokahua site, evidencefor hydrocephaly, clubfoot, congenital muscular torticollis (wryneck syndrome),degenerative joint disease, limb bone fractures, and infectious diseases such astuberculosis and congenital syphilis were presented. Although infectious diseasesuch as tuberculosis and syphilis are not believed to have been present in Hawai`iprior to the arrival of Europeans beginning approximately in 1778, some of theburials at this site may date to the proto-historic period.

6. Regional Studies in Skeletal Biology

More recent work in skeletal biology by island or island group is summarized hereand in Table 3.

Table 3. Skeletal Biology of the Pacific by Island Group (1966-2011)

6.1. Papua New Guinea

Studies of human skeletons from Papua New Guinea are not numerous. Followingwork by Pietrusewsky involving skeletal remains from Papua New Guinea andsurrounding regions (e.g., Pietrusewsky, 1973, 1976, 1983, 1990a) there have beenbiological distance studies using cranial nonmetric data (e.g., Green, 1990; VanDijk, 1998, 2005), studies of trauma (e.g., Scott and Buckley, 2010), and studies ofcranial modification and mortuary behavior (e.g., Stodder, 2006; Stodder and Rieth,2011). In addition to these, several studies of Lapita-associated skeletons from theSAC on Watom Island off the northern coast of New Britain (e.g., Houghton,1989a; Pietrusewsky, 1989a; Turner, 1989a; Pietrusewsky, 1990b). Other, includingmore recent, studies have examined paleopathology in limited skeletal series fromPapua New Guinea (e.g., Webb, 1982, 1995; Buckley, 2006).

In addition to the early study by Pietrusewsky (1976) of the prehistoric skeletons


4 of 9 7/23/12 6:52 AM

excavated at Nebria in southern Papua New Guinea, Buckley (2006) reportedevidence of linear enamel hypoplasia (LEH) and cribra orbitalia in these remains,which the author correlated with the presence of malaria in the western Pacific. In amore recent study, Scott and Buckley (2010) reported both cranial and postcranialtrauma, which these authors attribute largely to interpersonal violence and warfare,in 9/28 (32.1%) of the Nebria skeletons.

Until the discovery of the Teouma site in Vanuatu, the largest sample of skeletonsassociated with the Lapita cultural complex were those excavated at the SAC siteon Watom Island. The incomplete skeletons representing eight adult individualsfrom this site have been examined by Houghton (1989a) and Pietrusewsky (1989a).As reported by Pietrusewsky (1989a) two of the burials exhibited evidence ofhealed fractures while another exhibited evidence of severe periostitis in one femur.Univariate and multivariate analyses yielded no definitive conclusions regardingthe biological relatedness of these Lapita-associated skeletons (Pietrusewsky,1989a). At least six additional Lapita skeletons from this site were excavated in2008 and 2009, remains that have not been described in detail as yet (HallieBuckley, personal communication).

6.2. Solomon Islands

Other than craniometric studies that include museum collections, studies ofskeletons from the Solomon Islands are largely restricted to the Namu burial site onTaumako Island, located in the Santa Cruz district, in the Duff Island group of thesoutheast Solomon Island chain. The majority of the 198 burials, in varying statesof completeness and preservation, identified at this site were excavated andsubsequently examined at the University of Otago by various researchers. Inaddition to a general osteological report (Houghton, 2008), there have been morespecialized studies by Hallie Buckley and colleagues that have focused onpaleopathology and at least one study that examined the biological relationshipsbetween the prehistoric inhabitants of Namu and surrounding regions of the Pacificusing craniometric data (Pietrusewsky, 2008b). Evidence of treponemal (yaws)disease and physiological indicators of stress such as linear enamel hypoplasia andcribra orbitalia, and evidence of interpersonal violence and warfare were observedin the prehistoric skeletons from Taumako Island (Buckley and Tayles, 2003a,2003b; Buckley, 2006; Scott and Buckley, 2010). A multivariate analysis ofcraniometric data indicate Namu crania are closest to cranial series fromneighboring regions of island Melanesia (Pietrusewsky, 2008b).

6.3. Vanuatu

Recent osteological and bioarchaeological studies in Vanuatu (French Melanesia)revolve around the exciting discovery there of the oldest (ca. 3,100-3,200 BP) andlargest early Lapita cemetery site at Teouma on Efate Island (Bedford et al., 2006,2009). A brief summary of preliminary studies of these skeletons is given inSections 5.2.1. and 5.2.9. The first cases of a cremation from the Lapita Period wasreported by Scott et al. (2010) at the Teouma site. Valentin et al. (2010) further


5 of 9 7/23/12 6:52 AM

report on subsistence strategies at this site.

6.4. New Caledonia

In addition to biological distance studies that include crania from museumcollections, are descriptions of several individual post-Lapita skeletons from NewCaledonia (e.g., Pietrusewsky, 1998; Valentin et al., 2004, 2005a).

6.5. Fiji

A number of studies, some recent, that analyze human skeletons from the FijiIslands include studies of individual burials associated with the Lapita andpost-Lapita cultural period (e.g., Pietrusewsky et al., 1997b, 1997c; Kumar et al.,2004), studies that focus on cannibalism (e.g., DeGusta, 1999, 2000), mortuary andburial practices (e.g., Valentin et al., 2001; Cochrane et al., 2004; Pietrusewsky etal., 2007), paleodiet (Valentin et al., 2006; Kyle et al., 2009), and kava use (Visser,1994).

One of the largest samples of skeletons, representing approximately 64 individuals,from Fiji was excavated between 1987 and 1988 at the Sigatoka sand dunes site VL16/1 on Viti Levu (Best, 1987). Although the preservation of these remains was notgood, a preliminary study of these skeletons indicated healed fractures of the skulland two arm bones, and three cases of possible bone infection consistent withtreponemal (yaws) infection (Pietrusewsky et al., 1994). Other observationsincluded extreme osteoarthritis in the temporomandibular joint (TMJ), markeddental attrition, and high levels of antemortem tooth loss. Conversely, thefrequencies of dental caries, dental abscessing, and evidence of periodontal diseasein this series were low. Published studies of these skeletal remains are restricted toone that examines kava use and TMJ degeneration (Visser, 1994) and one thatinvestigates biological relationships using crania from this site (Pietrusewsky,2010). Multivariate analyses demonstrate that Sigatoka crania are more similar toother Melanesian cranial series (e.g., Fiji, New Caledonia, Loyalty Islands, andVanuatu) than to Polynesian cranial series suggesting extensive contact betweenFiji and geographically proximate island Melanesia had already occurred by thethird century AD

6.6. Mariana Islands

Corresponding to archaeological activity, much of it associated with culturalresource management projects in the region; there has been an increased focus onskeletal studies in the Mariana Islands in the western Pacific in recent years. Paperspresented and later published as a special issue of the American Journal of PhysicalAnthropology (Hanson and Pietrusewsky, 1997), at a symposium on thebioarchaeology of the Mariana Islands are fairly representative of the work inskeletal biology and bioarchaeology for this region. Studies of skeletons from theMariana Islands include a focus on skeletal biology of prehistoric sites (e.g., Taylesand Roy, 1989; Douglas et al., 1997), paleopathology (e.g., Suzuki, 1986, 1987;


6 of 9 7/23/12 6:52 AM

Rothschild and Heathcote, 1993; Arriaza, 1997; Stodder, 1997), overviews ofhealth and lifestyle (e.g., Pietrusewsky et al., 1997a-discussed in Section 5.2.7),mortuary practices (Hanson, 1987, 1990), and paleodiet (e.g., Ambrose et al.,1997). Studies of infectious diseases including treponemal (yaws) and leprosyobserved in the skeletons from the Mariana Islands also appear in the literature(e.g., Rothschild and Rothschild, 1995; Trembly, 1996a).

6.7. Other Micronesian Islands: Marshall, Gilbert, Fais, Palau, and Ponape

Islands

Compared to the Mariana Islands, there have been relatively few studies ofskeletons from the rest of Micronesia. The majority of these studies, such as thosefor the Marshall, Gilbert, and Fais Islands, involve the skeletal remains of a singleindividual. Larger skeletal series represent Palau, including the oldest skeletons todate from Chelechol ra Orrak (Nelson and Fitzpatrick, 2006) discussed in Section5.2.1, and Ponape (e.g., Pietrusewsky and Douglas, 1985; Pietrusewsky andWillacker, 1997).

6.8. Tonga and Samoa

In addition to Pietrusewsky’s early study of human skeletons excavated from twoprehistoric burial mounds in Tonga (Pietrusewsky, 1969b) discussed in 5.1,Buckley (2000, 2001, 2006) has reported on the health of the subadults in thisskeletal series and evidence of malaria.

Although a few skulls from Samoa are found in museum collections scattered overthe world, there are no samples of excavated skeletons from this island group inwestern Polynesia known to exist now or in the past. Cultural resourcemanagement work in recent years has resulted in a few skeletons being described inthe grey literature (e.g., Pietrusewsky, 1998, 2004).

6.9. Society Islands, Tuamotu Archipelago, and Marquesas

Other than multivariate craniometric studies, there have been very few studies ofskeletons with archaeological context from the Society Islands and the Tuamotus(e.g., Conte and Denninson, 1995).

With the exception of the previously summarized (Section 5.1) description of 42prehistoric burials excavated from the coastal Hane dune site (MUH 1) on UahukuIsland (Pietrusewsky, 1976), there have been few studies of skeletons from theMarquesas. Crania from the Marquesas found in museum collections have beenused in a great many biological distance studies for the Pacific.

6.10. Easter Island (Rapa Nui)

Following the earlier work by Murrill (1968) that examined skeletons excavatedduring Thor Heyerdahl’s Kon-Tiki Expedition to Easter Island, George Gill and his


7 of 9 7/23/12 6:52 AM

students (e.g., Gill and Owsley, 1993; Owsley et al., 1994; Stefan, 1999) haveundertaken extensive osteological investigations of the Rapa Nui skeletons curatedin the Padre Sebastian Englert Museum of Anthropology in Rapa Nui; work thathas primarily focused on establishing Polynesian affinities (e.g., Gill et al., 1997;Chapman, 1998), documenting interisland morphological variation (Baker and Gill,1997; Stefan, 1998; Stefan et al., 1998; Stefan, 1999), and the effects of Europeancontact (Owsley et al., 1994). Additional Pacific-wide multivariate analysesinvolving crania from Rapa Nui have also appeared (Pietrusewsky and Ikehara-Quebral, 2001). In addition to her Pacific wide research (Hagelberg and Clegg,1993), Erika Hagelberg was one of the first to extract mtDNA from Rapa Nuiskeletons (Hagelberg et al., 1994), and continues to document the geneticrelationships of Rapanui and Pacific Islanders (e.g., Hagelberg, 1997; Hagelberg etal., 1999, 2008). More recent studies of Rapa Nui skeletons are those by Polet whoexamined two indicators of stress (linear enamel hypoplasias and cribra orbitalia) in125 individuals (Polet, 2006) and Dudgeon (2008) who, using genetic and chemicaldata, examined the internal structure of prehistoric and protohistoric Rapanui.

6.11. Hawaiì

Following Snow’s examination of the skeletons from Mōkapu, there were a numberof specialized studies of Hawaiian skeletons including studies of dental pathology(e.g., Keene and Keene, 1985; Keene, 1986), cranial modification and rocker jaw(e.g., Schendel et al., 1980), and paleopathology (Suzuki, 1987; Keene, 1990;Douglas, 1991; Suzuki, 1993; Trembly, 1995b, 1996b, 1997). In the three decadesfollowing his arrival at the University of Hawaiì in 1969, Pietrusewsky and hisstudents examined a great many prehistoric and historic skeletons from theHawaiian Islands, many the result of archaeological activities in the islands. Theseincluded some of the largest samples of skeletons from ancient Hawaiiancemeteries, such as those excavated at Keopu on Hawaiì Island (Collins, 1986),the Honokahua site on Maui (Pietrusewsky et al., 1991) [summarized in Section5.1] and Ànaehoòmalu on the Big Island of Hawaiì (Pietrusewsky et al., 1990c)and many smaller series. While much of this information is presented in reportsprepared for Cultural Resource Management companies too extensive to reviewhere, several published accounts of this work have also appeared. These include astudy by Pietrusewsky and Douglas (1994) that utilized data recorded in sevenprehistoric and four historic skeletal series to provide an overall assessment ofhealth in pre-1778 and post-contact Hawaiì. Other published reports have focusedon skeletal biology of an historic Hawaiian cemetery (Pietrusewsky and Douglas,1992) and the documentation of tooth ablation in Hawaiian skeletal remains(Pietrusewsky and Douglas, 1993).

6.12. New Zealand

Except for the continued interest in comparative studies of Pacific crania, there wasa major hiatus between Scott’s pioneering study published in 1893 and later studiesof Maori and Moriori skeletons. Morris Taylor made a number of important studiesin dental anthropology involving Maori and other Pacific groups (e.g., Taylor,


8 of 9 7/23/12 6:52 AM

1975, 1986). Much of the later work in New Zealand and the Pacific was the resultof Philip Houghton’s research in the Department of Anatomy and StructuralBiology at the University of Otago, which continues in this department by hissuccessors. In addition to his research in Polynesian body form discussed earlier,Houghton has written extensively on the skeletal biology and paleopathology ofMaori skeletons (Table 3). As is the case for Hawai`i, osteological studies in NewZealand have diminished considerably due to the concerns expressed by membersof the Maori community regarding the respectful treatment of the dead.

6.13. Cook Islands

Katayama and colleagues (e.g., Katayama, 1986; Tayaga and Katayama, 1988) andAnton and colleagues (Anton and Steadman, 2003) have undertaken limitedinvestigations of human skeletons from the Cook Islands. These studies havefocused on mortuary practices, paleopathology, and comparative studies of CookIslanders and other Pacific groups. The sample sizes are relatively small.

6.14. Pitcairn (Henderson) Islands

There have been two recent studies of skeletal remains from Henderson (Pitcairn)Island by Collins and Weisler (2000) and Stefan et al. (2002).

5. Health, Disease, and Lifestyle ofEarly Pacific Islanders 7. Conclusions and Future Prospects



9 of 9 7/23/12 6:52 AM


7. Conclusions and Future Prospects

Commencing with anecdotal reports made by early explorers and the firstdescriptions of crania and skeletons from the Pacific in the early decades of thenineteenth century, there has been a continued interest in studies of the physicalanthropology and skeletal biology of Pacific peoples. A focus on the biologicalrelationships of Pacific peoples and their origins dominated the initial studies in thisfield, studies that were hampered by a flawed theory and inadequate methodology.With refinements in theory and methods, primarily drawn from quantitativegenetics and population genetics, our understanding of morphological (andespecially cranial) variation, evolution, and population history of the Pacific hasadvanced considerably. As demonstrated in this chapter, studies that applymultivariate statistics to craniometric and other kinds of data made great advancesin understanding the peopling of the Pacific, Polynesian origins, and the populationstructure of individual islands. Notwithstanding these advances, the observation oftwo major divisions of people inhabiting the Pacific made by the first Europeans isat least partially substantiated. While studies of living people, including studies ofmtDNA in commensal animals, that use molecular genetic data have grown almostexponentially, studies of ancient DNA, hampered by methodological problems andbone preservation issues, have been few in number for the Pacific.

Coinciding with the advent of controlled archaeological excavations beginning inthe mid-nineteenth century in the Pacific, comprehensive osteological analyses oflarger skeletal series were published. While these early studies were mainly

PHYSICAL ANTHROPOLOGY OF THE PACIFIC - CONCLU... http://greenplanet.eolss.net/EolssLogn/Mss/C03/E6-20A/E6-20-56...

2 of 26 7/23/12 6:49 AM

descriptive in content they allowed the first summaries of skeletal and dentalvariation as well as paleopathology of prehistoric inhabitants of the Pacific. Laterwork in physical anthropology and skeletal biology, which continues to the present,coincides with Cultural Resources Management (CRM) mitigation studies. Inaddition to the continuing interest in biological distances studies, more recent workin the field increasingly focuses on more specialized issues that contribute tounderstanding the health and lifestyle of Pacific Islanders. Although studies ofhuman skeletons, especially those from Remote Oceania, generally indicate theyenjoyed relatively good health, there is also ample evidence that prehistoric PacificIslanders suffered from childhood stress, iron deficiency anemia, limb bonefractures and other kind of trauma, degenerative joint diseases, gout, and for thewestern and central Pacific, infectious diseases such as yaws and malaria. Evidencefor dental caries and dental abscessing is rare in the teeth and jaw bones ofprehistoric Pacific Islanders but there is evidence for extensive tooth wear,periodontal disease, and dental calculus. A few studies question whether diseasessuch as syphilis, leprosy, and tuberculosis were present before the first Europeanexplorers and visitors.

Demonstrated by the recent discoveries at the Teouma site in Vanuatu, skeletalbiologists have recognized the importance of Lapita and post-Lapita skeletons forunderstanding the early inhabitants of Remote Oceania and their ancestors in NearOceania and beyond. Because of strict burial laws and repatriation claims,opportunities for studies of skeletal remains in some parts of the Pacific (e.g.Hawai`i and New Zealand) are now largely nonexistent. Examination ofarchaeological human skeletons associated with the Lapita cultural tradition as wellas skeletons from other parts of the Pacific (e.g., Mariana Islands) are expected tocontinue, often with the active support of the native inhabitants who wish to learnabout their ancestors.

Acknowledgements

My thanks to Drs. Michele Toomay Douglas and Rona Ikehara-Quebral for readingthis entry and for their valuable comments and suggestions.

Related Chapters

Click Here To View The Related Chapters

Glossary

Anthropometry : The measurement of living humans (e.g., stature, head andbody dimensions) for examining human biological variationand human evolution.

Austronesian : A widely dispersed (Madagascar to Easter Island) languagefamily with speakers found in island Southeast Asia, Taiwan,the Pacific, and parts of mainland Asia.


3 of 26 7/23/12 6:49 AM

aDNA : Ancient DNA isolated from once living organisms.Betel nut : The nut or seed of the fruit of the oriental palm Areca

catechu, which when chewed causes tooth staining. Betel nutchewing is common throughout South Asia, Southeast Asia,and the western Pacific.

Bioarchaeology : In the U.S. bioarchaeology refers to the scientific study ofhuman skeletal and dental remains from archaeologicalcontexts.

Biological distance : Also referred to as biodistance, is the measure of biologicalrelatedness (or divergence) between and within humangroups, living and past, based on metric and nonmetricvariation in the human skeleton.

Canonical analysis : see Discriminant function analysisCoefficient ofRacial Likeness(CRL)

: A crude measure of divergence devised by Karl Pearson in1926, initially applied to craniometric and anthropometricdata for understanding biological relationships.

Continuousvariables

: Variables that can assume different values within acontinuum, or within the limits of the variable’s range; e.g., aheight of 176.5 mm.

Costo-clavicularsulcus

: A roughened ridge or gouged-out depression where thecosto-clavicular ligament inserts on the inferior medialborder of the clavicle, an activity-induced trait found in highfrequency in Polynesian and Pacific Island skeletons.

Cranialmorphology

: Size and shape differences in the skull.

Craniometric : Size (metric) differences in the skull such as skullmeasurements, indices, etc.

Craniology : The study of skull size and shape characteristics.Cribra orbitalia : A form of porotic hyperostosis, which is expressed as a

porosity of the orbital roof, commonly attributed to thepresence of transient iron deficiency anemia.

Cultural ResourceManagement(CRM)

: The protection and management of cultural heritage such asarchaeological and historic sites; in the U.S. CRM hasreplaced traditional contract archaeology.

Discontinuousvariables

: Or discrete variables assume a fixed value; e.g., thepresence or absence of a complete metopic suture.

Discriminantfunction analysis

: Also, canonical analysis, is a multivariate statistic thatmaximizes differences between groups by maximizing theratio of between-group variance to total variance, a procedurethat produces a linear array of weighted variables(discriminant functions or canonical variates) from theoriginal measurements.

Kava : The roots of the kava plant (Piper methysticum) used toproduce a soothing drink consumed throughout the Pacific.


4 of 26 7/23/12 6:49 AM

Latte stone : Megalithic pillar, sometimes more than 16 feet high, madeof limestone, coral, or basalt with a hemispherical capstone.Latte sets were comprised of two parallel rows of pairedpillars used to support raised structures and were constructedfrom AD 1000 to AD 1521 (Latte Period) by the Chamorroin the Mariana Islands.

Lapita : The name of an archaeological horizon found in the Pacificcharacterized by geometric dentate-stamped pottery, longdistance navigation, distinctive coastal settlement pattern,and more, associated with the initial spread of the ancestorsof Remote Oceania.

Lapita skeletons : Skeletons associated with the Lapita cultural complex.Linear EnamelHypoplasia (LEH)

: A non-specific indicator of childhood stress that isexpressed as one or more transverse furrows or grooves ofvarying depths on the crown surfaces of teeth resulting froma disruption of enamel development during infancy and earlychildhood.

Mahalanobis’distance

: Mahalanobis' generalized distance, or D2, which uses thesquared Euclidean distance, is the classic measure ofbiological distance for analyzing metric data.

Mariana Islands : An island archipelago in the western Pacific Ocean east thePhilippines and south of Japan. Guam, Rota, Tinian, andSaipan are the largest of the Mariana Islands. The nativeinhabitants of the Mariana Islands are referred to asChamorro.

Melanesia : The name (literally meaning the black islands) first givenby Dumont d'Urville in 1832 for the subregion of Oceaniaextending from the western end of New Guinea eastward toFiji including the immediately north and northeast ofAustralia.

Micronesia : The name (literally meaning small islands) first given byDumont d'Urville in 1832 for the subregion of Oceaniacomprising many small islands in the western Pacific Oceandistinct from Melanesia (to the south) and Polynesia (to theeast).

MMD : The Mean Measure of Divergence (MMD) distance statisticused to assess inter-sample phenetic affinity, especiallynonmetric skeletal and dental traits.

Mōkapu : Name of a peninsula located on the northeast side of O`ahuIsland of the Hawaiian islands where approximately 1,600pre-contact skeletons were recovered and are now slated forreburial.

Multivariatestatistics

: A family of related mathematical procedures that allow thesimultaneous analysis of multiple variables (e.g.,measurements or non-metric traits) recorded in individuals or


5 of 26 7/23/12 6:49 AM

objects from one or more groups. Discriminant functionanalysis and Mahalanobis generalized distance are examplesof multivariate statistics.

mtDNA : Maternally inherited DNA found in the mitochondria withineukaryotic cells; often used in forensic and molecular geneticstudies.

Near Oceania : The region within Oceania that includes the islands of NewGuinea, Bismarck Archipelago, and the Solomon Islandchain; the first human occupation of Near Oceania beganapproximately 35,000 years ago.

9 bp deletion : A deletion in the intergenic region between the COII andtRNA(Lys) genes of mitochondrial DNA molecule thatapproaches fixation in Polynesians.

Nonmetric skeletaland dental traits

: Also referred to as discrete traits that are scored aspresence, absence, form, or degree of development forexamining human skeletal and dental variability.

Pacific Islands : Islands in the Pacific Ocean; those south of the tropic ofCancer are traditionally grouped into Melanesia, Micronesia,and Polynesia.

Paleodiet : The diets of ancient people determined through chemicalanalysis of human bones and teeth.

Paleopathology : The study of ancient diseases in bones and teeth.Penrose Size andShape Statistics

: An early measure of biological distance introduced byLionel Penrose in 1954 for determining biologicalrelationships based on craniometric and anthropometric data.

Physicalanthropology

: Subfield of anthropology concerned with the study ofhuman evolution and human biological variation.

Polynesia : The name (literally meaning many islands) first given byDumont d'Urville in 1832 for the subregion of Oceaniacomprising many islands located in the central and southernPacific Ocean. The indigenous inhabitants of the islands ofPolynesia are called Polynesians.

PoroticHyperostosis (PH)

: Symmetrically distributed porosity of the cranial vaultbones often associated with iron-deficiency anemia.

Racial typology : An outdated paradigm used in physical anthropology todivide the human species into distinct races based on theclustering of observable traits such as head and body form,skin color, stature, etc.

Rapa Nui : Easter Island, a volcanic high island located on thesoutheast periphery of Polynesia, famous for its enigmaticmegalithic statues or moai.

Rapanui : Easter Islanders or inhabitants of Rapa Nui.Remote Oceania : That region of the Pacific comprising all of Micronesia,

Polynesia and the Melanesian archipelagoes of Vanuatu,


6 of 26 7/23/12 6:49 AM

Loyalty Islands, New Caledonia, and Fiji. The indigenousinhabitants of this region, whose ancestors first appeared inthe region 4000-3500 years BP, speak Austronesianlanguages exclusively.

Rocker jaw : A condition found most commonly in Polynesianmandibles, whereby the shape of the inferior border of themandible is rounded causing it to rock back and forth like arocking chair when placed on a level surface.

Sinodonty : One of two dental patterns identified by Christy Turnerwithin the "Mongoloid dental complex" that characterizespeople from northeastern Asia (China, Japan, Siberia) andNative Americans.

Skeletal biology : The study of the human skeleton for addressing researchquestions in physical anthropology, bioarchaeology, andforensic anthropology.

Spondylolysis : A stress fracture of the lumbar vertebrae at the parsinterarticularis

Sundadonty : One of two dental patterns identified by Christy Turner withthe "Mongoloid dental complex" that characterizes thepeople of Southeast Asia, Polynesia and Micronesia.

Treponemaldiseases

: Infections that include pinta, yaws, and syphilis, which arecaused by the spirochete, Treponema pallidum. Only yawsand syphilis affect the skeleton.

UPGMA : Unweighted Pair Group Method Algorithm for theconstruction of dendrograms, or diagrams of relationship,based on measures of biological distance.

Variable : Any metric (quantitative) or nonmetric (qualitative) trait orcharacteristic that varies.

Yaws : A treponemal infection, which in advanced stages, mayproduce lesions of the cranial vault and long limb bones.

Bibliography

Allen, H. (1898). A study of Hawaiian skulls. Wagner Free Institute of Science of PhiladelphiaTransactions, 5, 1-55. [Detailed descriptive and comparative study of metric and nonmetric variationin 65 Hawaiian skulls in American museums, including observations of cranial and dentalpaleopathology].Allen, J. (1984). In search of the Lapita Homeland. Journal of Pacific History, 19, 186-201.Ambrose, S. H., Butler, M. M., Hanson, D. B., Hunter-Anderson, R. L. and Krueger, H. W. (1997).Stable isotopic analysis human diet in the Marianas Archipelago, western Pacific. American Journal ofPhysical Anthropology, 104, 343-361.Anson, D., Walter, R., and Green, R. C. (2005) A Revised and Redated Event Phase Sequence for theReber-Rakival Lapita Site, Watom Island, East New Britain Province, Papua New Guinea. Dunedin:University of Otago Studies in Prehistoric Anthropology, No. 20.Anton, S. C. and Steadman, D. W. (2003). Mortuary patterns in burial caves on Mangaia, CookIslands. International Journal of Osteoarchaeology, 13, 132-146.Arriaza, B. T. (1997). Spondylolysis in prehistoric human remains from Guam and its possible


7 of 26 7/23/12 6:49 AM

etiology. American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 104, 393-397.[A study of stress fracture thatoccurs at a relatively high frequency in Latte Period skeletons from Hyatt site on Guam. The authorassociates spondylolysis with strenuous physical activity].Baker, S. J. and Gill, G. W. (1997). A modification of results of the osteological analysis of theNorwegian expedition to Easter Island. Rapa Nui Journal, 11, 53-57.Bedford, S., Spriggs, M. and Regenvanu, R. (2006). The Teouma Lapita site and the early humansettlement on the Pacific islands. Antiquity, 80(310), 812–828.Bedford, S., Spriggs, M., Buckley, H., Valentin, F., Regenvanu, R. (2009). The TeoumaLapita site, South Efate, Vanuatu: a summary of three field seasons (2004-2006). In New ZealandArchaeological Association Monograph 28: Lapita: Ancestors and Descendants, ed. P. Sheppard, T.Thomas and G. Summerhayes. Auckland: New Zealand Archaeological Association, pp. 215-234.Bellwood, P. (2005). First Farmers: The Origins of Agricultural Societies. Oxford: Blackwell.Bentley, R. A., Buckley, H. R., Spriggs, M., Bedford, S., Ottley, C. J., Nowell, G. M., Macpherson, C.G. and Pearson, D. G. (2007). Lapita migrants in the Pacific’s oldest cemetery: isotopic analysis atTeouma, Vanuatu. American Antiquity, 72(4), 645-656. [An isotope analysis of 17 individuals fromone of the oldest (approximately 3200 to 3000 years old) Lapita cemeteries in the Pacific. Four of theindividuals were found to have different isotope levels suggesting that they were immigrants].Berger, L. R., Churchill, S. E., De Klerk, B. and Quinn, R. L. (2008). Small-bodied humans fromPalau, Micronesia. PLoS ONE, 3(3): e1780.doi:10.1371/.Best, S. (1977). Archaeological investigations on Lakeba, Lau Group, Fiji. New ZealandArchaeological Association Newsletter, 20, 28-38.Best, S. (1984). Lakeba: the prehistory of a Fijian island. (Doctoral dissertation). The University ofAuckland.Best, S. (1987). A preliminary report on the Sigatoka burials. Domodomo, 3, 2-15.Bonin, F. von (1931). A contribution to the craniology of the Easter Islanders. Biometrika, 23,249-270. [An early craniometric study of 90 crania from Easter Island that applied the Coefficient ofRacial Likeness-CRL for determining biological relationships].Bowers, W. F. (1966). Pathological and functional changes found in 1864 pre-Captain Cook contactPolynesian burials from the sand dunes at Mokapu, Oahu, Hawaii. Internal Surgery, 45, 206-217.Brace, C. L., Brace, M. L., Dodo, Y., Hunt, K.V., Leonard, W. R., Li, Y., Sangvichien, S., Shao, X. andZhang, Z. (1990). Micronesians, Asians, Thais and relations: A craniofacial and odontometricperspective. Micronesica Supplement, 2, 247-269.Brace, C. L. and Hinton, R. J. (1981). Oceanic tooth-size variation as a reflection of biological andcultural mixing. Current Anthropology, 22, 549-569. [Using cross-sectional tooth size, this studypresents evidence for an earlier and a later migration of Oceanic peoples].Buckley, H. R. (2000). Subadult health and disease in prehistoric Tonga, Polynesia. American Journalof Physical Anthropology, 113, 481-505. [This article investigates new evidence of disease patterningfrom two burial mounds on Tongatapu, Tonga dated to approximately 1100-1250 AD. A differentialdiagnosis of pathological lesions in 17 subadult (between 6 months and 3 years of age) skeletons fromthe two mounds is presented].Buckley, H. R. (2001). Health and disease in the prehistoric Pacific Islands. (Doctoral dissertation).Dunedin: University of Otago.Buckley, H. R. (2006). The predators within: investigating the relationship between malaria and healthin the prehistoric Pacific Islands. In The Bioarchaeology of Southeast Asia, ed. M. Oxenham and N.Tayles. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 309-332.Buckley, H. R. (2007). Possible gouty arthritis in Lapita-associated skeletons from Teouma, EfateIsland, Central Vanuatu. Current Anthropology, 48(5), 741-749.Buckley, H. R. and Tayles, N. (2003a). The functional cost of tertiary yaws (Treponema pertenue) in aprehistoric Pacific Island skeletal sample. Journal of Archaeological Science, 30, 1301-1314. [Adifferential diagnosis of bone lesions most likely due to yaws in mainly pre-European skeletons from asite on Taumako Island, Solomon Islands].Buckley, H. R. and Tayles, N. (2003b). Skeletal pathology in a prehistoric Pacific Island sample: issuesin lesion recording, quantification, and interpretation. American Journal of Physical Anthropology,122(44), 303-324.


8 of 26 7/23/12 6:49 AM

Buckley, H. R., Tayles, N. and Fuller, R. (2005). The people of Teouma: investigating health andquality of life in a Lapita-associated cemetery site from Vanuatu. Oceanic Explorations Conference.August 1-7, 2005. Paper presented at Nukualofa, Tonga.Buckley, H. R., Tayles, N., Spriggs, M. J. T. and Bedford, S. (2008). A preliminary report on healthand disease in early Lapita skeletons, Vanuatu: possible biological costs of island colonization. Journalof Island and Coastal Archaeology, 3, 87-114. [An initial study of health of 36 individuals from anearly Lapita site, Teouma, Vanuatu. The authors conclude that these early inhabitants of RemoteOceania were well-adapted, physically active, and possessed a significant disease burden].Buikstra, J. E., Frankenberg, S. R. and Konigsberg, L. W. (1990). Skeletal biological distance studiesin American physical anthropology: recent trends. American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 82,1-7.Buranarugsa, M. and Leach, D. P. (1993). Coordinate geometry of Moriori crania and comparisonswith Maori. Man and Culture in Oceania, 9, 1-43.Chapman, P. M. (1998). An examination of East Polynesian population history. (Doctoral dissertation).University of Otago, Dunedin.Chapman, P. M. and Gill, G. W. (1997). Easter Island origins: non-metric cranial trait comparisonbetween Easter Island and Peru. Rapa Nui Journal, 11, 58-63.Chappel, H. G. (1927). Jaws and teeth of ancient Hawaiians. Memoirs of the BP Bishop Museum, 9,249-268. [One of the earliest modern studies of ancient Hawaiian dentitions, including observations ofdental pathology and cultural modification, in skulls once stored at the Bishop Museum].Clark, J. and Kelly, K. (1993). Human genetics, palaeoenvironments and malaria: relationships andimplications for the settlement of Oceania. American Anthropologist, 95, 612-30.Clow, C. M., Stefan, V. H., Gill, G. W. and Owsley, D. W. (2001). Cranial and facial form descriptionand comparisons of several Polynesian and Peruvian samples. In Pacific 2000, ed. C. M. Stevenson, G.Lee and F. J. Morin. Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Easter Island and the Pacific.Los Osos, CA: Easter Island Foundation, pp. 76-88.Cochrane, E. E., Pietrusewsky, M. and Douglas, M. T. (2004). Culturally modified human remainsrecovered from an earth-oven interment on Waya Island, Fiji. Archaeology in Oceania, 39, 54-59.

Collins, S. L. (1986). Osteological studies of human skeletal remains from the Keōpū burial site. InMoe Kau a Hoòilo: Hawaiian Mortuary Practices at Keōpū, Kona, Hawaiì, ed. T. L. Han, S. L.Collins, S. D. Clark and A. Garland. Report Series 86-1. Honolulu: Department of Anthropology. BPBishop Museum, pp. 165-260, 291-389. [A detailed summary of the osteology of human skeletalremains of approximately 355 individuals from a prehistoric cemetery on the island of Hawaiì].Collins, S. L. and Weisler, M. I. (2000). Human dental and skeletal remains from Henderson Island,Southeast Polynesia. People and Culture in Oceania, 16, 67-85.Conte, E. and Dennison, J. (1995). An anthropological study of the burials in Marae Te Tahata, Tepoto(Tuamotu Archipelago, French Polynesia). Journal of Polynesian Society, 104(4), 397-427.Cook, J. (1955). The Journals of Captain James Cook on his Voyage of Discovery. The Voyage of theEndeavour 1768-1771, ed. J. C. Beaglehole. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press for KakluytSociety.Cramon-Taubadel von, N. (2009). Congruence of individual cranial bone morphology and neutralmolecular affinity patterns in modern humans. American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 140,205-215.Davidson, J. M. and Leach, B. F. (1993). The chronology of the Natunuku site, Fiji. New ZealandJournal of Archaeology, 15, 99-105.Davidson, J. M., Hinds, E., Holdaway, S. and Leach, F. (1990). The Lapita site of Natunuku, Fiji. NewZealand Journal of Archaeology, 12, 121-55.Davis, J. B. (1867). Thesaurus Craniorum. Catalogue of the Skulls of the Various Races of Man, in theCollection of Joseph Barnard Davis. London: Printed for the Subscribers. [An early printed cataloguedescribing 1500 skulls from around the world, including many from the Pacific; some measurementsand notations of paleopathology are presented].Davis, J. B. (1875). Supplement to Thesaurus Craniorum. Catalogue of the Skulls of the Various Racesof Man, in the Collection of Joseph Barnard Davis. London: Printed for the Subscribers.Dedane, S. and Kasarherou, E. (1988). La sépulture du site WKO-013B, Koné. In Fouilles deSauvetage en Nouvelle-Calédonie-1988. Noumea: Office Calédonien des Cultures et Service des


9 of 26 7/23/12 6:49 AM

Musées et du Patrimoine de Nouvelle-Calédonie, pp. 2-5.DeGusta, D. (1999). Fijian cannibalism: osteological evidence from Navatu. American Journal ofPhysical Anthropology, 110, 215-241. [An analysis of human skeletons from a midden site on VitiLevu, Fiji, suggestive of cannibalism].DeGusta, D. (2000). Fijian cannibalism and mortuary ritual: bioarchaeological evidence from Vunda.International Journal of Osteoarchaeology, 10, 76-92. [An analysis of modified human skeletalremains from a site on Viti Levu, Fiji, that does not support the cannibalism hypothesis].Dixon, R. B. (1920). A new theory of Polynesian origins. Proceedings of the American PhilosophicalSociety, 59, 261-267.Dixon, R. B. (1923). The Racial History of Man. New York: Scribners.Dixon, R. B. (1929). The peopling of the Pacific. Philippine Magazine, 26(4), 195-197, 244-245.Donlon, D. (2000). The value of infracranial nonmetric variation in studies of modern Homo sapiens:an Australian focus. American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 113(3), 349-368. [A biodistancestudy that uses non-metric traits in postcranial skeletons from five regions of the world, includingHawaiì].Donohue, M. and Denham, T. (2010). Island Southeast Asia during the mid-Holocene: reframingAustronesian history. Current Anthropology, 51, 223-256.Douglas, M. T. (1988). Wryneck in the Sandwich Islands: an investigation of cranial asymmetry.(M.A. thesis). Honolulu: University of Hawaiì.Douglas, M. T. (1991). Wryneck in the ancient Hawaiians. American Journal of PhysicalAnthropology, 84, 261-272. [This paper, utilizing a multiple working hypothesis approach to simulatedifferential diagnosis, examines the occurrence of a unique cranial asymmetry first identified in cranialremains from Hawaiì. Torticollis and basilar impression remains the most likely explanation for theanomaly].Douglas, M. T., Pietrusewsky, M. and Ikehara-Quebral, R. M. (1997). Skeletal biology of Apurguan: aprecontact Chamorro site on Guam. American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 104, 315-342. [Thepaper is the first published bioarchaeological data on a fairly large sample (n=152) of pre-1521 LattePeriod human skeletons from a single site in the Mariana Islands, recovered during CRM work].Duckworth, W. L. H. (1900). On a collection of crania, with two skeletons, of the Mori-ori, oraborigines of the Chatham Islands. With a note on some crania from the same islands now in theMuseum of the Royal College of Surgeons. Journal of the Anthropological Institute, 30, 141-152.Duckworth, W. L. H. and Taylor, A. E. (1902). The craniology of the natives of Rotuma. Journal of theRoyal Anthropological Institute, 32, 432-44.Dudgeon, J. V. (2008). The genetic architecture of the late prehistoric and protohistoric Rapa Nui.(Doctoral dissertation). University of Hawaiì at Manoa.Dumont d’Urville, M. J. (1832). Notice sur les îles du Grand Océan et sur l’origine des peuples qui leshabitent. Société de Géographie Bulletin, 17, 1-21.Dumoutier, P. M. A. (1846). Anthropologie et physiologie. In Voyage au pole sud et dans l'Océanie surles corvettes l'Astrolabe et la Zélée: pendant les années 1837-1840, ed. M. J. Dumont d'Urville, C. H.Jacquinot and W. H. Dall. Paris: Gide.Ecker, A. (1878). VIII: Schädel von Eingeborenen Australiens und Oceaniens. Catalog derAnthropologischen Sammlungen der Universität Freiburg i. B. In Die anthropologischen SammlungenDeutschlands, ed. H. Schaaffhausen. Band 3, Braunschweig: Vieweg, pp.53-58.Fisher, R. A. (1936). The use of multiple measurements in taxonomic problems. Annals of Eugenics, 7,179-188.Fitzpatrick, S. M., Nelson, G. C. and Clark, G. (2008). Small scattered fragments do not a dwarf make:archaeological and biological data indicate that prehistoric inhabitants of Palau were normal-sized.PLoS ONE, 3(8): e3015.doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0003015.Flower, W. H. (1879). Catalogue of the Specimens Illustrating the Osteology and Dentition ofVertebrated Animals, Recent and Extinct. Contained in the Museum of the Royal College of Surgeonsof England. Part I. Man: Homo sapiens. London: The Museum of the Royal College of Surgeons ofEngland.Flower W. H. (1881). On the cranial characteristics of the natives of the Fiji Islands. Journal of theAnthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland, 10, 153-174. [An early printed catalogue withdetailed descriptions, mainly craniometric, of crania from the Pacific including Polynesia].


10 of 26 7/23/12 6:49 AM

Forster, J. R. (1778). Observations Made during a Voyage Round the World on Physical Geography,Natural History, and Ethic Philosophy. London: Printed for G. Robinson.Gibbons, A. (2001). The peopling of the Pacific. Science, 291, 1735-1737.Gill, G. W. (1990). Easter Island rocker jaws. Rapa Nui Journal, 4(2), 21.Gill, G. W. and Owsley, D. W. (1993). Human osteology of Rapanui. In Easter Island Studies:Contributions to the History of Rapa Nui in Memory of William T. Mulloy, ed. S. R. Fischer. OxbowMonograph 32, pp. 56-65.Gill, G. W., Haoa, S. and Owsley, D. W. (1997). Easter Island origins: implications of osteologicalfindings. Rapa Nui Journal, 11, 64-71.Giuffrida-Ruggeri, V. (1921). A proposito della leptorrinia dei Moriori e della loro deformazionecranica. Rendiconti della Regia accademia delle scienze fisiche e matematiche di Napoli, 27, 84-95.Goodwin, C., Pietrusewsky, M., Douglas, M. T. and Ikehara-Quebral, R. M. (1995). Honoruru toHonolulu: from Village to City. Volume II: The Burials. Archaeological Data Recovery Report MarinTower Property, Site No. 50-80-14-4494. Honolulu, Hawai`i. International Archaeological ResearchInstitute, Inc.Green, M. K. (1990). Prehistoric cranial variation in Papua New Guinea. (Ph.D. thesis). Canberra:Australian National University.Green, R. C. (1991). Near and Remote Oceania-disestablishing "Melanesia" in culture history. In Manand a Half. Essays in Pacific Anthropology and Ethnobiology in Honour of Ralph Bulmer, ed. A.Pawley. Auckland: The Polynesian Society, pp. 491-502. [One of the first papers to introduce andprovide archaeological and cultural context for Near and Remote Oceania].Green, R. C. (1994). Change over time: Recent advances in dating human colonisation of the Pacificbasin area. In The Origins of the First New Zealanders, ed. D. G. Sutton. Auckland: AucklandUniversity Press, pp. 19-51.Green, R. C. (2003). The Lapita horizon and traditions-signature for one set of Oceanic migrations InPacific Archaeology: Assessments and Prospects, ed. C. Sand. Proceedings of the InternationalConference for the 50th Anniversary of the first Lapita Excavation (July 1952), Koné-Nouméa 2002.Nouméa: Le Cahiers de l’Archéologie en Nouvelle-Calédonie, Vol.15, pp. 95-120.Green, R. C. and Anson, D. (1987). The Lapita site of Watom: new evidence from excavations in1985. Man and Culture in Oceania, (Special Issue) 3, 121-31.Hage, P. and Marck, J. (2003). Matrilineality and the Melanesian origin of Polynesian Y chromosomes.Current Anthropology, 44, S121-S127.Hagelberg, E. (1997). Ancient and modern mitochondrial DNA sequences and the colonization of thePacific. Electrophoresis, 18, 1529-1533.Hagelberg, E. and Clegg, J. B. (1993). Genetic polymorphisms in prehistoric Pacific Islandersdetermined by analysis of ancient bone DNA. Proceedings Royal Society of London BiologicalScience, 252, 163-170. [One of the first studies of ancient human mtDNA obtained fromarchaeological sites in the Pacific for addressing Polynesian origins].Hagelberg, E., Quevedo, S., Turbon, D. and Clegg, J. B. (1994). DNA of prehistoric Easter Islanders.Nature, 369, 25-26.Hagelberg, E., Kayser, M., Nagy, M., Roewer, L., Zimdahl, H., Krawczak, M., Lió, P. andSchiefenhövel, W. (1999). Molecular genetic evidence for the human settlement of the Pacific: analysisof mitochondrial DNA, HLA and Y chromosome markers. Philosophical Transactions of the RoyalSociety B, 354, 141-152.Hagelberg, E., Cox, M. and Frame, I. (2008). A genetic perspective on the origins and dispersal of theAustronesians: mitochondrial DNA variation from Madagascar to Easter Island. In Past HumanMigrations in East Asia, ed. A. Sanchez-Mazas et al. Routledge, pp. 356-375.Hanihara, T. (1992a). Dental and cranial affinities among populations of East Asia and the Pacific: thebasic populations in East Asia, IV. American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 88, 163-182.Hanihara, T. (1992b). Dental variation of the Polynesian populations. Journal of the AnthropologicalSociety of Nippon, 100, 291-302.Hanihara, T. (1993). Dental affinities among Polynesian and circum-Polynesian populations.Nichibunken Japan Review, 4, 59-82. [An analysis of dental variation recorded in skulls from thePacific and surrounding regions used to test a Southeast Asian origin for the inhabitants of Remote


11 of 26 7/23/12 6:49 AM

Oceania].Hanihara, T. (1997). Craniofacial affinities of Mariana Islanders and circum-Pacific peoples. AmericanJournal of Physical Anthropology, 104, 411-425.Hanson, D. B. (1987). Prehistoric mortuary practices and human biology. In ArchaeologicalInvestigations on the North Coast of Rota, Mariana Islands: The Airport Road Project, ed. B. M.Butler. Carbondale: Center for Archaeological Investigations, pp. 355-413.Hanson, D. B. (1989). The skeletal biology of prehistoric human mortuary remains from the Duty Freesite, Garapan Village, Saipan. Prepared for Duty Free Shoppers Ltd., Saipan and Historic PreservationOffice, Department of Community and Cultural Affairs, Commonwealth of the Northern MarianaIslands.Hanson, D. B. (1990). Paleopathological observations on human skeletal remains from Rota, MarianaIslands: epidemiological implications. Micronesica Supplement, 2, 349-362. [One of the very fewstudies that examines subadult health in pre-Latte and Latte burials from the Northern Mariana Islandsfocusing on dental pathology].Hanson, D. B. (1993). Mortuary and skeletal analysis of human remains from Achugao, Saipan. InArchaeological Investigations in the Achugao and Manansa Areas of Saipan, Mariana Islands, ed. B.M. Butler. Saipan: Division of Historic Preservation, pp. 311-343.Hanson, D. B. and Butler, B. M. (1997). A biocultural perspective on Marianas prehistory: recenttrends in bioarchaeological research. American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 104, 271-290.Hanson, D. B. and Pietrusewsky, M. (1997). Bioarchaeological research in the Mariana Islands of thewestern Pacific: an overview. American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 104, 267-269.Heathcote, G. M. (1994). Osteology and odontology of fragmentary human skeletal remains recoveredfrom sites 10, M204, NP4 and 266, Miyama (Manenggon) Hills, Guam.Heathcote, G. M. (2005). The West Sepik Gnau were never in Guam and other factual errors!Chungara, Revista de Antropología Chilena, 37, 261-264.Heathcote, G. M., Bansil, K. L. and Sava, V. J. (1996). A protocol for scoring three posterior cranialsuperstructures which reach remarkable size in ancient Mariana Islanders. Micronesica, 29, 281-298.[The paper that introduces a scoring system for recording occipital superstructures found in highfrequency in the Mariana Islands and some other parts of the Pacific].Heathcote, G. M., Stodder, A., Buckley, H., Hanson, D., Douglas, M., Underwood, J., Taisipie, T. andDiego, V. (1998). On treponemal disease in the western Pacific: corrections and critique. CurrentAnthropology, 39, 359-368.Henckel, K. O. 1939. Contribuciones al estudio de la antropología chilena IX. Observacionesantropológicas acerca de la Isla de Pascua. Boletín de la Sociedad de Biología de Concepción (Chile)13: 83-105.Hill, A. V. S., O’Shaughnessy, D. F. and Clegg, J. B. (1989). Haemoglobin and globin gene variants inthe Pacific. In The Colonisation of the Pacific: A Genetic Trail, ed. A. V. S. Hill and S. W. Serjeantson.Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 246-285.Houghton, P. (1975a). The people of Wairau Bar. Records of the Canterbury Museum, 9, 231-246.Houghton, P. (1975b). The bony imprint of pregnancy. Bulletin of the New York Academy of Medicine,51, 655-661.Houghton, P. (1977a). Rocker jaws. American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 47, 365-370. [One ofthe first investigations that sought to explain the meaning and development of the rocker jaw conditionobserved in high frequency in Polynesian mandibles].Houghton, P. (1977b). Trephination in Oceania. Journal of Polynesian Society, 86, 265-269.Houghton, P. (1977c). Human skeletal material from excavations in eastern Coromandel. Records ofthe Auckland Institute and Museum, 14, 45-56.Houghton, P. (1978a). Polynesian mandibles. Journal of Anatomy and Physiology, 127, 251-260.Houghton, P. (1978b). Dental evidence for dietary variation in prehistoric New Zealand. Journal ofPolynesian Society, 87, 257-263.Houghton, P. (1980). The First New Zealanders. Auckland: Hodder and Stoughton. [A compact bookthat summarizes the health and lifestyle of New Zealand Maori and Polynesians based on studies ofhuman skeletons].Houghton, P. (1983). A nineteenth-century musket wound. New Zealand Archaeological Association


12 of 26 7/23/12 6:49 AM

Newsletter, 26, 274-275.Houghton, P. (1989a). Watom: the people. Records of the Australian Museum, 41, 223-233.Houghton, P. (1989b). Comment on the human skeletal material from Pea, Tonga, Site To.1. Records ofthe Australian Museum, 41, 331-32.Houghton, P. (1989c). Lapita-associated human material from Lakeba, Fiji. Records of the AustralianMuseum, 41, 327-329.Houghton, P. (1990). The adaptive significance of Polynesian body form. Annals of Human Biology,17, 19-32.Houghton, P. (1991). The early human biology of the Pacific; some considerations. Journal of thePolynesian Society, 100, 167-196. [An attempt to explain the unique features of Polynesian body sizeand shape as a result of cold adaptation].Houghton, P. (1996). People of the Great Ocean. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [A majorsynthesis of studies in human biology and skeletal biology of peoples of the Pacific for its time].Houghton, P. (2008). The people of Namu. In Archaeology on Taumako: A Polynesian Outlier in theEastern Solomon Islands, ed. F. Leach and J. Davidson. New Zealand Journal of Archaeology SpecialPublication, Dunedin, New Zealand, pp. 325-352.Houghton, P. and Kean, M. R. (1987). The Polynesian head: a biological model for Homo sapiens.Journal of Polynesian Society, 96, 223-242.Howells, W. W. (1969). The use of multivariate techniques in the study of skeletal populations.American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 31, 311-314.Howells, W. W. (1970). Anthropometric grouping analysis of Pacific peoples. Archaeology andPhysical Anthropology in Oceania, 5, 192-217. [An early multivariate analysis of anthropometric datarecorded in 151 samples from the Pacific].Howells, W. W. (1973a). The Pacific Islanders. New York: Scribner. [One of the first extensivesyntheses of mainly biological data from Australia and Oceania that provide context for understandingthe indigenous inhabitants of this region].Howells, W. W. (1973b). Cranial Variation in Man. Papers of the Peabody Museum of Archaeologyand Ethnology Vol. 67, Cambridge, Massachusetts.Howells, W. W. (1979). Physical anthropology. In The Prehistory of Polynesia, ed. J. D. Jennings.Canberra: The Australian National University, pp. 271-285. [For its time, a concise informativesummary of studies in physical anthropology of Pacific peoples].Howells, W. W. (1997). Oceania. In History of Physical Anthropology, ed. F. Spencer. GarlandPublishing. Inc., New York, pp. 762-775.Howells, W. W. and Schwidetzky, I. (1981). Oceania. In Rassengeschichte der Menschheit, ed. I.Schwidetzky. Asia I: Japan, Indonesien, Ozeanien, pp. 115-166.Hung, H-C., Carson, M. T., Bellwood, P., Campos, F. Z., Piper, P. J., Dizon, E., Bolunia, M. J. A. L.,Oxenham, M. and Chi, Z. (2011). The first settlement of Remote Oceania: the Philippines to theMarianas. Antiquity, 85, 909-926.Hunt, T. L. and Lipo, C. P. (2006). Late colonization of Easter Island. Science, 311, 1603-1606.Hurles, M. E., Nicholson, J., Bosch, E., Renfrew, C., Sykes, B. C. and Jobling, M. A. (2002). Ychromosomal evidence for the origins of Oceanic-speaking peoples. Genetics, 160, 289–303.Hurles, M., Matisoo-Smith, E., Gray, R. D. and Penny, D. (2003). Untangling Oceanic settlement: theedge of the knowable. Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 18, 531–540. [A review of the moleculargenetic data for understanding the human settlement of Near and Remote Oceania].Igarashi, U., Katayama, K. and Takayama, J. (1987). Human skeletal remains from Tuvalu with specialreference to artificial cranial deformation. Man and Culture in Oceania, 3, 105-124.Ikehara-Quebral, R. and Douglas, M. T. (1997). Cultural alteration of human teeth in the MarianaIslands. American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 104, 381-391. [Surveys the literature forevidence of culturally modified (e.g., abraded or incised) teeth in the Mariana Islands and describestwo new cases in a pre-contact (pre-1521) sample from Guam].Imbelloni, J. (1951). Craneologia de la Isla de Pascua. Runa (Buenos Aires), 4, 223–281.Irwin, G. (1992). The Prehistoric Exploration and Colonisation of the Pacific. Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press.


13 of 26 7/23/12 6:49 AM

Ishida, H. and Dodo, Y. (1997). Cranial variation in prehistoric human skeletons remains from theMarianas. American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 104, 399-410.Jaeger, T. and Schendel, S. (1982). Craniofacial development and the rocker mandible in subadultHawaiians. Journal of the Hawaii Dental Association, 13(2), 26-30.

Johnson, L. and Kerley, E. (1974). Appendix B. Report on pathological specimens from Mōkapu. InEarly Hawaiians. An Initial Study of Skeletal Remains from Mokapu, Oahu, ed. C. E. Snow.Lexington, KY: University Press of Kentucky, pp. 149-158.Jordan, F. M., Gray, R. D., Greenhill, S. J. and Mace, R. (2009). Matrilocal residence in ancestralAustronesian societies. Proceedings of the Royal Society B, 276, 1957-1964.Katayama, K. (1985). Human skeletal remains from Makin Atoll of the Gilbert Islands, Micronesia.Man and Culture in Oceania, 1, 81-120.Katayama, K. (1986). Human skeletal remains of late pre-European period from Mangaia, CookIslands. Man and Culture in Oceania, 2, 57-80. [A study of three adult male skeletons from the CookIslands and extensive craniometric comparisons with other Polynesians].Katayama, K. (1987). Physical anthropology in Polynesia: Japanese contribution. Man and Culture inOceania, (Special Issue) 3, 1-18.Katayama, K. (1988a). Geographic distribution of auditory exostoses in South Pacific humanpopulations. Man and Culture in Oceania, 4, 63-74.Katayama, K. (1988b). A comparison of the incidences of non-metric cranial variants in severalPolynesian populations. Journal of the Society of Nippon, 96, 357-369.Katayama, K. (1994). Biological affinity between Southern Cook Islanders and New Zealand Maori:Implications for the settlement of New Zealand. In The Origins of the First New Zealanders, ed. D. G.Sutton. Auckland: Auckland University Press, pp. 230-242.Katayama, K. (1996). Polynesians the hypermorphic Asiatics- a scenario on prehistoric mongoloiddispersals into Oceania. Anthropological Science, 104, 15-30.Kayser, M. (2010). The human genetic history of Oceania: near and remote views of dispersal. CurrentBiology, 20, R194-R201.Kayser, M., Lao, O., Saar, K., Brauer, S., Wang, X., Nurnberg, P., Trent, R. J. and Stoneking, M.(2008). Genome-wide analysis indicates more Asian than Melanesian ancestry of Polynesians. TheAmerican Journal of Human Genetics, 82, 194-198.Kean, M. R. and Houghton, P. (1990). Polynesian face and dentition: functional perspective. AmericanJournal of Physical Anthropology, 82, 361-370.Keene, H. J. (1986). Dental caries prevalence in early Polynesians from the Hawaiian Islands. Journalof Dental Research, 65, 935-938. [This paper provides a comprehensive look at the prevalence ofcaries in pre-European contact Hawaiians from early infancy into late adulthood using an earlycollection in the Bishop Museum].Keene, H. J. (1990). Solitary lesion of the mandible resembling a "Stafne cyst" in human archaeologicmaterial from Mokapu, Hawaii. Journal of Oral Pathology and Medicine, 19, 195-196.Keene, H. J. and Keene, A. J. (1985). Dental caries prevalence in early Hawaiian children. PediatricDentistry, 7, 271-277.Kieser, J. A., Kelsen, A., Love, R., Herbison, P. G. P. and Dennison, K. J. (2001). Periapical lesionsand dental wear in the early Maori. International Journal of Osteoarchaeology, 11, 290-297.Kirch, P. V. (1997). The Lapita Peoples: Ancestors of the Oceanic World. Oxford: Blackwell Scientific.Kirch, P. V. (2000). On the Road of the Winds. An Archaeological History of the Pacific Islands beforeEuropean Contact. Berkeley: University of California Press.Kirch, P. V., Swindler, D. R. and Turner, C. G. II (1989). Human skeletal remains and dental remainsfrom Lapita sites 1600-500 B.C. in the Mussau Islands, Melanesia. American Journal of PhysicalAnthropology, 79, 63-76. [A relatively thorough study of fragmentary skeletal remains associated withthe Lapita tradition from five sites in Bismarck Archipelago, Papua New Guinea].Krause, R. (1881). Verzeichniss der Schädel und Skelete. In Die Ethnographisch-AnthropologischeAbtheilung des Museum Godeffroy in Hamburg: Ein Beitrag zur Kunde der Südsee-Völker. Section 4.Ed. Schmeltz, J. D. E. and Krause, R. Hamburg: Friederichsen & Co., pp. 545-670.Krause, R. (1886). Über micronesische Schädel. Korrespondenzblatt der Deutschen Gesellschaft fürAnthropologie 17,122-128. [An article that reviewed what was then known about the physical


14 of 26 7/23/12 6:49 AM

anthropology of Micronesia based on studies of crania found in museum collections].Kumar, R., Nunn, P., Katayama, K., Oda, H., Matararaba, S. and Osborne, T. (2004). The earliestknown humans in Fiji and their pottery: the first dates from the 2002 excavations at Naitabale(Natukuru), Moturiki Island. The South Pacific Journal of Natural Sciences, 22, 15-21.Kyle, B., Field, J. S. and Kenyhercz, M. (2009). Post-Lapita health, lifestyle, and mortuary behavior inFiji: a brief report. Rapa Nui Journal, 23, 28-39.Larsen, C. S. (2002). Bioarchaeology: Interpreting Behavior from the Human Skeleton. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.Larson, G., Cucchi, T., Fujita, M., Matisoo-Smith, E., Robins, J., Anderson, A., Rolett, B., Spriggs,M., Dolman, G., Kim, T. H., Thuy, N. T. D., Randi, E., Doherty, M., Due, R. A., Bollt, R.,Djubiantono, T., Griffin, B., Intoh, M., Keane, E., Kirch, P., Li, K. T., Morwood, M., Pedriña, L. M.,Piper, P. J., Rabett, R. J., Shooter, P., van den Bergh, G., West, E., Wickler, S., Yuan, J., Cooper, A. andDobney, K. (2007). Phylogeny and ancient DNA of Sus provides new insights into neolithic expansionIsland Southeast Asia and the Pacific. PNAS, 104(12): 4834-4839.Le Batard, M. (1878). Communications. Sur les dimensions de la tête des habitants de l'Ile de Tahuata(iles Marquises). Bulletins de la Société d’Anthropologie de Paris, 1, 202-206.Lee, L., Katayama, K. and Intoh, M. (2009). Morphological examination of the human skeletalremains from Fais Island, Federated States of Micronesia. People and Culture in Oceania, 25, 23-52.Leigh, R. W. (1929). Dental Morphology and Pathology of Prehistoric Guam. B. P. Bishop MuseumMemoirs, 11, 258-273. [One of the earliest studies of dental morphology and pathology in prehistoricChamorro skulls once stored at the Bishop Museum].Lum, J. K. and Cann, R. L. (2000). MtDNA lineage analyses: origins and migrations of Micronesiansand Polynesians. American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 113, 151–168.Lum, J. K., Jorde, L. B. and Schiefenhövel, W. (2002). Affinities among Melanesians, Micronesiansand Polynesians: a neutral, biparental genetic perspective. Human Biology, 74, 413–430.Luschan, F. von (1907). Sammlung Baessler. Schädel von Polynesischen Inseln. Veröffentlichangenaus dem Königlichen Museum für Völkerkunde in Berlin 12. [A detailed craniometric study ofPolynesian crania once part of the Museum of Ethnography in Berlin].Mahalanobis, P. C. (1936). On the generalized distance in statistics. Proceedings of the NationalInstitute of Sciences Calcutta, 2, 49-55.Mahalanobis, P. C., Majumdar, D. N. and Rao, C. R. (1949). Anthropometric survey of the UnitedProvinces, 1941: a statistical study. Sankhya, 9, 89-324.Marshall, D. S. and Snow, C. E. (1956). An evaluation of Polynesian craniology. American Journal ofPhysical Anthropology, 14, 405-427. [One of the first studies (in English) of Polynesian skull formbased on metric and nonmetric variation including the recognition of a "Polynesian type"].Matisoo-Smith, E. (2009). The commensal model for human settlement of the Pacific 10 years on:what can we say and where to now? Journal of Coastal and Island Archaeology, Special Issue, 4,151-163. [A summary of what studies of mtDNA in commensal animals reveal about the settlement ofOceania].Matisoo-Smith, E. and Ramirez, J. M. (2010). Human skeletal evidence of Polynesian presence inSouth America? Metric analyses of six crania from Mocha Island, Chile. Journal of PacificArchaeology, 1, 76-88.Matisoo-Smith, E. and Robins, J. H. (2004). Origins and dispersals of Pacific peoples: evidence frommtDNA phylogenies of the Pacific rat. Proceeding of the National Academy of Science, 101(24),9167–9172.McNeill, J. R. (2002). Human spear points and speared humans: the procurement, manufacture and useof bone implements in prehistoric Guam. Bulletin of the Indo-Pacific Prehistory Association, 22,175-180. [Describes the first case of archaeologically documented use of human bone spear points asweapons in pre-contact (pre-1521) Mariana Islands, including 10 human points embedded in an adultmale (which apparently caused his death)].McNeill, J. R. (2005). Putting the dead to work: an examination of the use of human bone inprehistoric Guam. In Interacting With the Dead: Perspectives on Mortuary Archaeology for the NewMillenium, ed. G. F. M. Rakita, J. E. Buikstra, L. A. Beck, and S. R. Williams. Gainesville, FL:University Press of Florida, pp. 305-315. [Describes the post-interment removal of human bone,including skulls and limb bones, in the Mariana Islands. Explores Chamorro interaction with the dead


15 of 26 7/23/12 6:49 AM

from burial placement within house compounds (i.e., beneath latte structures) to the use of humanbone in the manufacture of tools (e.g., bone spear points)].Melton, T., Peterson, R., Redd, A. J., Saha, N., Sofro, A. S. M., Martinson, J. and Stoneking, M.(1995). Polynesian genetic affinities with Southeast Asian populations as identified by mtDNAanalysis. American Journal of Human Genetics, 57, 403–414.Melton, T., Clifford, S., Martinson, J., Batzer, M. and Stoneking, M. (1998). Genetic evidence for theProto-Austronesian homeland in Asia: mtDNA and nuclear DNA variation in Taiwanese aboriginaltribes. American Journal of Human Genetics, 63, 1807-1823.Merriwether, D. A., Friedlaender, J. S., Mediavilla, J., Mgone, C., Gentz, F. and Ferrell, R. E. (1999).Mitochondrial DNA variation is an indicator of Austronesian influence in Island Melanesia. AmericanJournal of Physical Anthropology, 110, 243-270.Messeri, P. (1956). Contributo alla craniologia della Polinesia. Archivio per l'Antropologia e laEtnologia, 86, 25-55.Meyer, A. B. and Jablonowski, J. (1901). 24 Menschenschädel von der Oster-Insel Abhandlungen undBerichte des Königlichen Zoologischen und Anthropologisch-Etnographischen Museums zu Dresden.Dresden: Königliches Zoologisches und Anthropologisch-Etnographisches Museum.Mollison, T. (1908). Beitrag zur kraniologie und osteologie der Maori. Zeitschrift für Morphologie undAnthropologie, 19, 529-595.Murrill, R. I. (1968). Cranial and Postcranial Skeletal Remains from Easter Island. Minneapolis:University of Minnesota Press.Nelson, G. and Fitzpatrick, S. M. (2006). Preliminary investigations of the Chelechol re Orrakcemetery, Republic of Palau: I, skeletal biology and paleopathology. Anthropological Science, 14,1-12. [A relatively comprehensive study of approximately 25 individuals from a rockshelter site inPalau that dates to approximately 2000-3000 years BP].Nunn, P. D., Ishimura, T., Dickinson, W. R., Katayama, K., Thomas, F., Kumar, R., Matararaba, S.,Davidson, J. and Worthy, T. (2007).The Lapita occupation at Naitabale, Moturiki Island, Central Fiji.Asian Perspectives, 46, 96–132.Oppenheimer, S. J. (1998). Eden in the East: the Drowned Continent of Southeast Asia. London:Weidenfeld and Nicolson.Oppenheimer, S. J. and Richards, M. (2001a). Polynesian origins: slow boat to Melanesia? Nature,410, 166-167.Oppenheimer, S. J. and Richards, M. (2001b). Fast trains, slow boats, and the ancestry of thePolynesian Islanders. Science Progress, 84(3), 157-181.Oppenheimer, S. J. and Richards, M. (2003). Polynesians: devolved Taiwanese rice farmers orWallacean maritime traders with fishing, foraging and horticultural skills? In Examining theFarming/Language Dispersal Hypothesis, ed. P. Bellwood and C. Renfrew. Cambridge: McDonaldInstitute for Archaeological Research, pp. 287–297.Owsley, D. W., Mires, A. M. and Gill, G. W. (1983). Caries frequency in deciduous dentitions ofprotohistoric Easter Islanders. Bulletin of the Indo-Pacific Prehistory Association, 4, 143-147.Owsley, D. W., Mires, A. M. and Gill, G. W. (1985). Carious lesions in permanent dentitions ofprotohistoric Easter Islanders. Journal of Polynesian Society, 94(4), 415-422.Owsley, D. W., Gill, G. W. and Ousley, S. D. (1994). Biological effects of European contact on EasterIsland. In In the Wake of Contact: Biological Responses to Conquest, ed. C. S. Larsen and G. R.Milner. New York: Wiley-Liss Inc., pp. 161-177. [A paper that addresses the pre- and post-contacthealth and lifestyle of Easter Islanders using information recorded in over 500 complete andincomplete skeletons].Pacher, H. M. (1947). Drei Maori-schädel und ihre stellung innerhalb der biologischen probleme derSüdsee. Mitteilungen der Anthropologischen Gesellschaft in Wien, 73-77, 33-54.Pearson, K. (1921). Was the skull of the Moriori artificially deformed? Biometrika, 13, 338-346.Pearson, K. (1926). On the coefficient of racial likeness. Biometrika, 18, 105-117.Pearson, K. (1928). Note on the standardization of method of using the coefficient of racial likeness.Biometrika, 20, 376-378.Pearson, R. J., Kirch, P. V. and Pietrusewsky, M. (1971). An early prehistoric site at Bellows Beach,Waimanalo, Oahu, Hawaiian Islands. Archaeology and Physical Anthropology in Oceania, 6(3),


16 of 26 7/23/12 6:49 AM

204-234.Penrose, L. S. (1954). Distance size and shape. Annals of Eugenics, 18, 337-345.Petri, H. (1936). Eine Schädelserie von der Osterinsel. Mitteilungen der AnthropologischenGesellschaft in Wien, 66, 3-29.Petchey, F. and Green, R. (2005). Use of three isotopes to calibrate human bone radiocarbondeterminations from Kainapirina (SAC), Watom Island, Papua New Guinea. Radiocarbon, 47(2), 1-12.Petchey, F., Spriggs, M., Leach, F., Seed, M., Sand, C., Pietrusewsky, M. and Anderson, K. (2010).Testing the human factor: radiocarbon dating the first peoples of the South Pacific. Journal ofArchaeological Science, 38, 29-44. [A study that re-evaluates the age of human burials from keyarchaeological sites in the Pacific using improved advanced methods. Some of the skeletons oncebelieved to be associated with the Lapita cultural complex were found to post-date this culturaltradition].Pietrusewsky, M. (1969a). The physical anthropology of early Tongan populations: a study of bonesand teeth and an assessment of their biological affinities based on cranial comparisons with eightother Pacific populations. (Doctoral dissertation). University of Toronto.Pietrusewsky, M. (1969b). An osteological study of cranial and infracranial remains from Tonga.Records of the Auckland Institute and Museum, 6(4-6), 287-402. [One of the earliest published detailedstudies of approximately 99 skeletons excavated from two prehistoric burial mounds in Tonga].Pietrusewsky, M. (1970). An osteological view of indigenous populations in Oceania. In Studies inOceanic Culture History, ed. R. C. Green and M. Kelly. Pacific Anthropological Records, No. 11Department of Anthropology, B.P. Bishop Museum, Honolulu, pp. 1-11.Pietrusewsky, M. (1971). Human Skeletal Remains at Anaehoomalu. Report 71-7. Honolulu:Department of Anthropology. BP Bishop Museum.Pietrusewsky, M. (1972). Analysis of skeletal remains from site C4-165, Makaha Valley. In MakahaValley Historical Project Interim Report No. 3, ed. E. Ladd and D. Yen. Pacific AnthropologicalRecords No. 18. Honolulu: Department of Anthropology. BP Bishop Museum, pp. 23-28.Pietrusewsky, M. (1973). A multivariate analysis of craniometric data from the Territory of Papua NewGuinea. Archaeology and Physical Anthropology in Oceania, 8, 12-23.Pietrusewsky, M. (1976). Prehistoric Human Skeletal Remains from Papua New Guinea and theMarquesas. Asian and Pacific Archaeology Series. No. 7. Honolulu: Social Sciences LinguisticInstitute, University of Hawaii. [A report that describes the vital statistics, skeletal and dentalmorphology, and pathology in prehistoric human skeletons from two sites in the Pacific: Nebira inPapua New Guinea and the Hane Dune site in the Marquesas].Pietrusewsky, M. (1977). Étude des relations entre les populations du pacifique par les méthodesd’analyse multivariée appliquées aux variations crâniennes. L’Anthropologie, 81(1):67-97.Pietrusewsky, M. (1983). Multivariate analysis of New Guinea and Melanesian skulls: a review.Journal of Human Evolution, 12, 61-76.Pietrusewsky, M. (1985). The earliest Lapita skeleton from the Pacific: A multivariate analysis of amandible fragment from Natunuku, Fiji. Journal of the Polynesian Society, 94, 389-414.Pietrusewsky, M. (1989a). A study of skeletal and dental remains from Watom Island and comparisonswith other Lapita people. Records of the Australian Museum, 41, 235-292. [A detailed summary of anosteological study of eight Lapita-associated burials from Watom Island, Papua New Guinea, and anassessment of their biological relationships with skeletal samples from the Pacific and Asia].Pietrusewsky, M. (1989b). A Lapita-associated skeleton from Natunuku, Fiji. Records of theAustralian Museum, 41, 297-325.Pietrusewsky, M. (1990a). Cranial variation in New Guinea and neighboring populations of the Pacific:a multivariate study of specimens in the Museum für Völkerkunde Dresden and the GermanDemocratic Republic. Abhandlungen und Berichte des Staatlichen Museums für Völkerkunde Dresden,45, 233-257 (5 plates & Appendices A-E on microfiche).Pietrusewsky, M. (1990b). Lapita-associated skeletons from Watom Island Papua New Guinea and theorigin of the Polynesians. Asian Perspectives, 28, 83-89.Pietrusewsky, M. (1998). Osteological examination of skeletal remains from Eastern Tutuila Waterline,American Samoa. Report prepared for Archaeological Consultants of the Pacific. November 11, 1998.Pietrusewsky, M. (2004). Human skeletal remains from Fatumafuti, Tutuila, American Samoa. Reportsubmitted to Dr. Paul Cleghorn, Pacific Legacy Inc., Pacific Basin Division, 332 Uluniu Street, Kailua,


17 of 26 7/23/12 6:49 AM

HI 96734, June 19, 2004.Pietrusewsky, M. (2005). The physical anthropology of the Pacific, East Asia, and Southeast Asia: amultivariate craniometric analysis. In The Peopling of East Asia: Putting Together Archaeology,Linguistics, and Genetics, ed. L. Sagart, R. Blench and A. Sanchez-Mazas. London: Routledge, pp.201-229.Pietrusewsky, M. (2006a). The initial settlement of remote Oceania: the evidence from physicalanthropology. In Austronesian Diaspora and the Ethnogenesis of People in Indonesian Archipelago,ed. T. Simanjuntak, I. H. E. Pojoh and M. Hisyam. Proceedings of the International Symposium,Jakarta, Indonesian Institute of Sciences, LIPI Press, Jakarta, pp. 320-347. [A general review paperthat examines the evidence from physical anthropology for testing models that address the initialsettlement of Remote Oceania].Pietrusewsky, M. (2006b). Chapter 3: A multivariate craniometric study of the prehistoric and moderninhabitants of Southeast Asia, East Asia, and surrounding regions: a human kaleidoscope? InBioarchaeology of Southeast Asia, ed. M. R. Oxenham and N. Tayles. Cambridge University Press,Cambridge, pp. 59-90.Pietrusewsky, M. (2008a). Metric analysis of skeletal remains: methods and applications. In BiologicalAnthropology of the Human Skeleton, 2nd edition, ed. M. A. Katzenberg and S. R. Saunders. JohnWiley and Sons Inc., New York, pp. 487-532.Pietrusewsky, M. (2008b). Biological comparisons of male Namu crania: a multivariate craniometricstudy. Appendix 13. In The Archaeology of Taumako: a Polynesian Outlier in the Eastern SolomonIslands, ed. B. F. Leach and J. M. Davidson. New Zealand Journal of Archaeology (SpecialPublication), pp. 455-475.Pietrusewsky, M. (2010). A multivariate analysis of cranial measurements: Fijian and Polynesianrelationships. In Research in Physical Anthropology: Essays in Honor of Prof. L.S. Penrose, ed. S. D.Banik. Mérida, Yucatán: Unas Letras Industria Editorial, pp. 37-66.Pietrusewsky, M. (in press). Biological distance. In Encyclopedia of Global Archaeology, ed. C. Smith.New York: Springer.Pietrusewsky, M. and Douglas, M. T. (1985). Report on human skeletal material recovered from NanMadol, Ponape. Report prepared for International Archaeological Institute Inc., Honolulu, Hawaii.Pietrusewsky, M. and Douglas, M. T. (1990). An analysis of additional historic human skeletal remainsfrom the Kahoma Stream flood control project, 1989, Lahaina, Maui.Pietrusewsky, M. and Douglas, M. T. (1992). The skeletal biology of an historic Hawaiian cemetery:familial relationships. Homo, 43(3), 245-262. [A summary of osteological findings from a study of 24skeletons from a historic Hawaiian cemetery in Kailua-Kona, Island of Hawai'i, that presents evidenceof possible kin relationships].Pietrusewsky, M. and Douglas, M. T. (1993). Tooth ablation in old Hawaiì. Journal of PolynesianSociety, 102(3), 255-272. [This article describes the patterns of tooth ablation exhibited in a survey ofhistoric and prehistoric skeletons (N=589) from the Hawaiian Islands, a practice most likely associatedwith the mourning ritual].Pietrusewsky, M. and Douglas, M. T. (1994). An osteological assessment of health and disease inpre-contact and historic (1778) Hawaiì. In In the Wake of Contact: Biological Responses to Conquest,ed. C. S. Larsen and G. R. Milner. New York: Wiley-Liss, Inc., pp. 179-196. [This chapter is the firstattempt to document biological change in Hawaiì following European contact using a variety ofskeletal and dental indicators recorded in prehistoric and historic skeletons. Significant increases overtime for a number of the indicators suggest a deterioration in health following contact with Europeans].Pietrusewsky, M. and Ikehara-Quebral, R. M. (1996). Cultural alteration of human bone in Hawaiianskeletal remains. Hawaiian Archaeology, 5, 13-28. [Summarizes evidence of culturally modified (e.g.,cut or smashed) human bone in pre-contact (pre-1778) Hawai'i. While tool manufacture is often citedto explain intentional bone modification in the literature, the detailed examination of three new casesfrom O'ahu does not support this].Pietrusewsky, M. and Ikehara-Quebral, R. M. (2001). Multivariate comparisons of Rapa Nui (EasterIsland), Polynesian, and circum-Polynesian crania. In Pacific 2000, ed. C. M. Stevenson, G. Lee and F.J. Morin. Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Easter Island and the Pacific. Los Osos,CA: Easter Island Foundation, pp. 457-494. [This new multivariate study using 3,337 craniareconfirms a basic Polynesian identity of Rapa Nui crania and the early inhabitants of this remoteeastern Pacific island. It further reaffirms that Island Southeast Asia is the most probable homeland ofthe Polynesian ancestors].


18 of 26 7/23/12 6:49 AM

Pietrusewsky, M. and Willacker, L. M. (1997). The search for Father Bachelot, first Catholicmissionary to the Hawaiian Islands (1827-1837). Journal of Forensic Science, 42(2), 208-212.Pietrusewsky, M., Douglas, M. T. and Ikehara, R. (1989). An osteological study of human remainsrecovered from South Street and Quinn Lane, Kakaàko, Oàhu, Hawaiì. Report prepared for CulturalSurveys Hawaii, Kailua, Hawaii.Pietrusewsky, M., Douglas, M. T. and Davis, B. D. (1990a). Congenital syphilis in a prehistoricHawaiian burial. Paper presented at the Third Annual Conference of the Society for HawaiianArchaeology.Pietrusewsky, M., Douglas, M. T. and Ikehara, R. (1990b). A human skeleton found at Barber’s Point,Honoùliùli, Èwa, O`hau (Appendix C). In Archaeological and Palaeontological Investigations atthe Proposed HECO Barbers Point Generating Station, Honoùliùli, Èwa, Oàhu, by B.D. Davis BD.International Archaeological Research Institute, Inc. Honolulu, pp. 92-109.Pietrusewsky, M., Douglas, M. T. and Kalima, P. A. (1990c). Human skeletal remains recovered fromÀnaehoòmalu, South Kohala, Hawaiì Island: A second study. Paul H. Rosendahl, Ph.D. Inc. Report5545-091990.Pietrusewsky, M., Douglas, M. T., Kalima, P. A. and Ikehara, R. M. (1991). Human skeletal and dentalremains from the Honokahua burial site, Land of Honokahua, Lahaina District, Island of Maui,Hawaiì. PHRI Report 246-041091 prepared for Kapalua Land Company, Ltd., Kahului, Maui. [Thisunpublished report presents the results of osteological examination of 712 generally well preservedskeletons excavated at the Honokahua burial site, West Maui, Hawaiì, one of the largest ancientcemeteries excavated in modern times in Polynesia].Pietrusewsky, M., Douglas, M. T. and Ikehara, R. (1994). The human osteology of the Sigatoka duneburials (Site VL16/1), Viti-Levu, Fiji Islands. Unpublished manuscript.Pietrusewsky, M., Douglas, M. T. and Ikehara-Quebral, R. M. (1997a). An assessment of health anddisease in the prehistoric inhabitants of the Mariana Islands. American Journal of PhysicalAnthropology, 104, 315-342. [This paper assesses the health and lifestyle of the prehistoric inhabitantsof the Mariana Islands using a variety of indicators of stress recorded skeletons from Guam, Rota,Tinian, and Saipan. While these Pacific Islanders suffered a number of endemic and chronic diseases,including yaws, their overall health was good].Pietrusewsky, M., Hunt, T. and Ikehara-Quebral, R. M. (1997b). A Lapita-associated skeleton fromWaya Island, Fiji Islands. Micronesica, 30(2), 355-388. [Documents a rare Lapita-associated humanskeleton that dates to approximately 2700 BP Limited morphometric comparisons suggest ancestralties to East and Southeast Asia].Pietrusewsky, M., Hunt, T. and Ikehara-Quebral, R. M. (1997c). A new Lapita-associated skeletonfrom Fiji. Journal of the Polynesian Society, 106(3), 284-295.Pietrusewsky, M., Galipaud, J. C. and Leach, F. (1998). A skeleton from the Lapita site at Koné, FouéPeninsula, New Caledonia. New Zealand Journal of Archaeology, 18(1996), 25-74. [A detaileddescription, including isotope analysis, of a post-Lapita female skeleton from New Caledonia andcomparisons with other Lapita-associated skeletons from eastern island Melanesia].Pietrusewsky, M., Douglas, M. T., Cochrane, E. E. and Reinke, S. (2007). Cultural modification in anadolescent earth-oven interment from Fiji: sorting out mortuary practice. Journal of Island and CoastalArchaeology, 2(1), 44-71. [A detailed osteological analysis of the skeletal remains of an adolescentrecovered from an earth-oven in Fiji that suggests human cannibalism or a secondary deposition].Pietrusewsky, M., Douglas, M. T., Swift, M., Harper, R. and Fleming, M. A. (2010). An assessment ofhealth and lifestyle among pre-1521 Chamorro from Saipan, Commonwealth of Northern MarianaIslands. American Journal of Physical Anthropology, S50, 189.Pietrusewsky, M., Douglas, M. T., Swift, M., Harper, R. and Fleming, M. A. (2011). An assessment ofhealth and lifestyle among prehistoric Chamorro from Tinian Island in the Northern Mariana Islands.American Journal of Physical Anthropology, S52, 238-239.Polet, C. (2006). Indicateurs de stress dans un échantillon d’anciens Pascuans. Antropo, 11, 261-270.www.didac.ehu.es/antropoPoll, H. (1903). Über Schädel und Skelete der Bewohner der Chatham-Inseln. Zeitschrift fürMorphologie und Anthropologie, 5, 1-134.Poulsen, J. (1987). Early Tongan Prehistory: The Lapita Period on Tongatapu and its Relationships.Terra Australis 12, vol. 1. Canberra: Department of Prehistory, Research School of Pacific Studies.Australian National University, pp. 1-307.


19 of 26 7/23/12 6:49 AM

Prochownick, L. (1887). Messungen an Südseeskeleten: mit besonderer berücksichtigung des beckens,Jahrbuch der Hamburgischen Wissenschaftlichen Anstalten, 4, 1-40.Pruner-Bey, M. (1864-1867). Resultats de craniometrie. Memoires de la Société d'Anthropologie deParis, 2, 417-432.Quatrefages de Bréau, J. L. A. de and Hamy, E. J. (1882). Crania ethnica: les crânes des raceshumaines, décrits et figurés d'après les collections du Muséum d'Histoire Naturelle de Paris, de laSociété d'Anthropologie de Paris et les principales collections de la France et de l'étranger. Paris: J.B. Baillière & Fils. [A study of skulls from around the globe, including many from Polynesia and thePacific, found in museum collections in Paris].Rao, C. R. (1948). The utilization of multiple measurements in problems of biological classification.Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, B(10), 159-193.Rao, C. R. (1952). Advanced Statistical Methods in Biometric Research. New York: John Wiley.Redd, A. J., Takezaki, N., Sherry, S. T., McGarvey, S. T., Sofro, A. S. and Stoneking, M. (1995).Evolutionary history of the COII/tRNALys intergenic 9-base-pair deletion in human mitochondrialDNAs from the Pacific. Molecular Biology and Evolution, 12, 604-615.Reisenfeld, A. (1956). Shovel-shaped incisors and a few other dental features among the nativepeoples of the Pacific. American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 14, 505-524.Relethford, J. (2009). Race and global patterns of phenotypic variation. American Journal of PhysicalAnthropology, 139, 16-22.Retzius, A. (1864). Ueber schädel von Sandwich-Insulaner. In Ethnologische Schriften. Nach demTode des Verfassers gesammelt, ed. G. Retzius. Stockholm: P.A. Norstedt and Söner, pp. 65-66.Richards, M., Oppenheimer, S. and Sykes, B. (1998). mtDNA suggests Polynesian origins in easternIndonesia. American Journal of Human Genetics, 63, 1234-1236.Roggeveen, J. von (1970). The Journal of Jacob Roggeveen, edited and translated by A. Sharp.Oxford: Clarendon Press.Rothschild, B. M. and Heathcote, G. M. (1993). Characterization of the skeletal manifestations of thetreponemal disease yaws as a population phenomenon. Clinical Infectious Diseases, 17, 198-203.Rothschild, B. M. and Heathcote, G. M. (1995). Characterization of gout in a skeletal populationsample: presumptive diagnosis in a Micronesian population. American Journal of PhysicalAnthropology, 98(4), 519-525. [The paper reports a diagnosis of lesions in 5.6% of the skeletons fromGognga-Gun Beach on Guam (950 - 1450 AD), which are consistent with gouty arthritis].Rothschild, B. M. and Rothschild, C. (1995). Treponemal disease revisited: skeletal discriminators foryaws, bejel, and venereal syphilis. Clinical Infectious Diseases, 20, 1402-1408. [Although highlycriticized later, this paper, which includes an examination of skeletons from Guam, establishesquantitative dry bone criteria for distinguishing specific treponemal diseases in skeletons, allowing apositive diagnosis of bejel, yaws, or syphilis].Sand, C. (2010). Lapita Calédonien. Archéologie d’un premier peuplement insulaire océanien. InTravaux et documents Océanistes 2. Paris: Société des Océanistes.Schaaffhausen, H. (1878). Die anthropologischen sammlungen Deutschlands I. Bonn. AnatomischesMuseum der Universität Bonn. Archiv für Anthropologie, 10, 1-65.Schendel, S., Walker, G. and Kamisugi, A. (1980). Hawaiian craniofacial morphometrics; averageMokapuan skull, artificial cranial deformation, and the "rocker" mandible. American Journal ofPhysical Anthropology, 52, 491-500.Schlaginhaufen O. (1906). Über eine Schädelserie von den Marianen. Separat-Abdruck aus demJahrbuch 1905 der St. Gallischen Naturwissenschaftlichen Gesellschaft, 455-509. [An earlyrepresentative study of 45 complete and incomplete human skulls from a limestone cave near TanapagSaipan, a collection that was formerly part of the Museum of Ethnography in Berlin].Schlaginhaufen, O. (1910a). Reisen in Kaiser-Wilhelmsland (Neuguinea). Abhandlungenund undBerichte des Königlichen Zoologischen und Anthropologisch-Ethnographischen Museums zu Dresden,13(1), 1-19 + Tafeln 1-3.Schlaginhaufen, O. (1910b). Verzierte schädel aus Neuguinea und Neumecklenburg.Abhandlungen und berichte des Königlichen Zoologischen und Anthropologisch-EthnographischenMuseums zu Dresden, 13(4), 3-16. [A detailed description, mainly cranial measurements and indices,of a large series of skulls collected by the author in Papua New Guinea and New Ireland in the early1900s].


20 of 26 7/23/12 6:49 AM

Scott, G. R. and Turner, C. G. II (1997). The Anthropology of Modern Human Teeth. DentalMorphology and its Variation in Recent Human Populations. Cambridge Studies in BiologicalAnthropology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Scott, J. H. (1893). Contribution to the osteology of the aborigines of New Zealand and ChathamIslands. Transactions of the New Zealand Institute, 26, 1-64.Scott, R. M. and Buckley, H. R. (2010). Biocultural interpretations of trauma in two prehistoric PacificIsland populations from Papua New Guinea and the Solomon Islands. American Journal of PhysicalAnthropology, 134, 509-518.Scott, R. M., Buckley, H. R., Spriggs, M., Valentin, F. and Bedford, S. (2010). Identification of the firstreported Lapita cremation in the Pacific Islands using archaeological, forensic and contemporaryburning evidence. Journal of Archaeological Science, 37, 901-909.Serjeantson, S. W. (1985). Migration and admixture in the Pacific: insights provided by humanleucocyte antigens. In Out of Asia: Peopling the Americas and the Pacific, ed. R. L. Kirk and E.Szathmary. Canberra: The Journal of Pacific History Inc., Australian National University, pp. 133-145.Serjeantson, S. W. (1989). HLA antigens. In The Colonization of the Pacific: A Genetic Trail, ed. A. V.S. Hill and S. W. Serjeantson. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 286-294.Shapiro, H. L. (1930). The Physical Characters of the Society Islanders. Memoirs B.P. Bishop Museum,11(4).Shapiro, H. L. (1942). The anthropometry of Pukapuka. Anthropological Papers of the AmericanMuseum of Natural History, 38, 141-169.Shapiro, H. L. and Buck, P. H. (1936). The Physical Characters of the Cook Islanders. Memoirs of theB.P. Bishop Museum, 12(1).Shaw, E. (1975). The decorative system of Natunuku, Fiji. In The Lapita Pottery Style of Fiji and ItsAssociations, ed. S. Mead, L. Birks, H. Birks and E. Shaw. Wellington: The Polynesian Society, pp.44-55.Shima, G. and Suzuki, M. (1967). Problems of race formation of the Maori and Moriori in terms ofskulls. Osaka City Medical Journal, 13, 9-54.Simmons, R. T. (1965). The blood group genetics of Easter Islanders (Pascuense) and otherPolynesians. In Reports of the Norwegian Archaeological Expedition to Easter Island and the EastPacific, Vol. 2: Misc. Papers, ed. T. Heyerdahl and E. N. Ferdon. Santa Fe: School of AmericanResearch Museum, pp. 333-343.Slater, H. (1901). Maori craniometry. Journal Royal Anthropological Society of Australasia, 3(12),211-212.Snow, C. E. (1974). Early Hawaiians. An Initial Study of Skeletal Remains from Mokapu, Oahu.Lexington: The University Press of Kentucky. [This book, published posthumously, provides a detailedsummary of an osteological examination of more than 1000 prehistoric/early historic Hawaiianskeletons from sites located on the Mokapu peninsula of O`ahu].Soares, P., Rito, T., Trejaut, J., Mormina, M., Hill, C., Tinkler-Hundal, E., Braid, M., Clarke, D. J.,Loo, J. H., Thomson, N., Denham, T., Donohue, M., Macaulay, V., Lin, M., Oppenheimer, S. andRichards, M. B. (2011). Ancient voyaging and Polynesian origins. The American Journal of HumanGenetics, 88, 239-247.Solheim, W. G. II (2006). Archaeology and Culture in Southeast Asia: Unraveling the Nusantao.Diliman, Quezon City: University of the Philippines Press.Specht, J. (1968). Preliminary report of excavations on Watom Island. Journal of the PolynesianSociety, 77, 117-34.Spengel, J. W. (1873). Beiträge zur kenntniss der Fidschi-Insulaner. Journal des Museum Godeffroy, 4,63-76. [One of the earliest studies of Fijian skulls, eight from the Godeffroy Museum in Hamburg,using mainly cranial indices].Spengel, J. W. (1874). Beiträge zur kenntniss der Fidschi-Insulaner. Journal des Museum Godeffroy, 6,117-118.Spengel, J. W. (1876). Ein beiträge zur kenntniss der Polynesier-schädel. Journal des MuseumGodeffroy, 12, 116-158.Spennemann, D. H. R. (1987). Appendix 9. Reanalysis of the human remains at TO.1. In: EarlyTongan Prehistory: The Lapita Period on Tongatapu and its Relationships, Terra Australis 12, vol. 1,ed. J. Poulsen. Canberra: Department of Prehistory, Research School of Pacific Studies, Australian


21 of 26 7/23/12 6:49 AM

National University, pp. 289-303.Spennemann, D. H. R. (1992). Differential representation of human skeletal remains in eroded andredeposited coastal deposits: a case study from the Marshall Islands. International Journal ofAnthropology, 7, 1-8.Spennemann, D. H. R. and Franke, B. (1995). Decomposition of human bodies and the interpretationof burials in the tropical Pacific. Archaeology in Oceania, 30, 66-73.Stefan, V. H. (1999). Craniometric variation and homogeneity in prehistoric/protohistoric Rapa Nui(Easter Island) regional populations. American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 110, 407-419. [Thisstudy applied multivariate procedures to craniometric data recorded in skulls from Easter Island. Theauthor’s interpretation of the results demonstrates relative homogeneity of early inhabitants of thisPolynesian island].Stefan, V. H. (2000). Craniometric variation and biological affinity of the prehistoric Rapanui (EasterIslanders): their origin, evolution, an place in Polynesian prehistory. (Doctoral dissertation).University of New Mexico, Albuquerque.Stefan, V. H. (2001). Origin and Evolution of the Rapanui of Easter Island. In Pacific 2000:Proceedings of the Fifth International Congress on Easter Island and the Pacific, ed. C. M. Stevenson,G. Lee and F. J. Morin. Los Osos: Easter Island Foundation, pp. 495-522.Stefan, V. H. (2004). Assessing Intra-sample Variation: Analysis of Rapa Nui (Easter Island) MuseumCranial Collections Example. American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 124, 45-58.Stefan, V. H. (2005). Polynesian nasal morphology: indications of cold adaptation. In The ReñacaPapers: VI International Conference on Easter Island and the Pacific, ed. C. M. Stevenson, J. M.Ramírez, F. J. Morin and N. Barbacci. Los Osos: Easter Island Foundation, pp. 213-222.Stefan, V. H. (2009). Craniometric Variation and Biological Affinity of the Prehistoric Rapanui (EasterIslanders): Their Origin, Evolution, and Place in Polynesian Prehistory. Saarbrücken, Germany:VDM/Verlag Dr. Müller.Stefan, V. H. and Chapman, P. M. (2003). Cranial variation in the Marquesas Islands. AmericanJournal of Physical Anthropology, 121, 319–331.Stefan, V. H., Gill, G. W. and Owsley, D. W. (1998). Craniometric variability among prehistoric EasterIsland regional populations and their discrimination, in Easter Island in Pacific Context South SeasSymposium: Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Easter Island and East Polynesia,ed. C. M. Stevenson, G. Lee and F. J. Morin. The Easter Island Foundation Occasional Papers 4. LosOsos: Easter Island Foundation, pp. 151-155.Stefan, V. H., Clow, C. M., Gill, G. W. and Owsley, D. W. (2001). Cranial and facial form descriptionsand comparisons of several Polynesian and Peruvian samples, ed. C. M. Stevenson, G. Lee, and F. J.Morin. Pacific 2000: Proceedings of the Fifth International Congress on Easter Island and the Pacific.Los Osos: Easter Island Foundation, pp. 437-446.Stefan V. H., Collins, S. L. and Weisler, M. I. (2002). Henderson Island crania and their implication forsoutheastern Polynesian prehistory. Journal of the Polynesian Society, 111, 371-383.Stewart T. D. and Spoehr, A. 1952. Evidence on the paleopathology of yaws. Bulletin of History ofMedicine, 26(6), 538-553. [This case study reports the first case of yaws in a pre-contact skeleton of asingle subadult individual from Tinian, Marianas Islands, thus establishing the antiquity for thismodern endemic illness].Stodder, A. L. W. (1997). Subadult stress, morbidity, and longevity in Late Period populations onGuam, Mariana Islands. American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 104, 363-380.Stodder, A. L. W. (2006). The taphonomy of cranial modification in Papua New Guinea: implicationsfor the archaeology of mortuary ritual. In Skull Collection, Modification and Decoration, ed. M.Bonogofsky. BAR International Series 1539. Oxford: Archaeopress, pp. 77-89. [This study examinesskull modification as practiced on the north coast of Papua New Guinea and the relevance these datahave to the investigation of prehistoric mortuary ritual in this region of the Pacific].Stodder, A. L. W and Rieth, T. (2011). Chapter 10: Ancient mortuary ritual and human taphonomy.Fieldiana: Anthropology, 42, 197-217.Storey, A. A. (2001). Can Tongan cannibalism be substantiated by archaeological evidence?: a studyof human remains from the Ha’apai Islands. (M.A. thesis). Burnaby: Simon Fraser University.Su, B., Jin, L., Underhill, P., Martinson, J., Saha, N., McGarvey, S. T., Shriver, M. D., Chu, J., Oefner,P., Chakraborty, R. and Deka, R. (2000). Polynesian origins: insights from the Y chromosome. PNAS,


22 of 26 7/23/12 6:49 AM

97(15), 8225-8228.Sullivan, L. R. (1921). The status of physical anthropology in Polynesia. Proceedings of the First PanPacific Science Conference (Honolulu) 1920, Part I., pp. 63-69.Sullivan, L. R. (1923). Marquesan Somatology with Comparative Notes on Samoa and Tonga.Memoirs of the Bernice P. Bishop Museum, 9(2).Sullivan, L. R. (1924). Race types in Polynesia. American Anthropologist, 26, 22-26.Sullivan, L. R. (1927). Observations on Hawaiian Somatology. Memoirs of the B.P. Bishop Museum,9(4).Suzuki, T. (1986). Paleopathological and paleoepidemiological study on human skeletal remains fromthe Mariana Islands. In Anthropological Studies on the Origin of Pacific Populations, with SpecialReference to the Micronesians: a Preliminary Report, ed. K. Hanihara. Japan: Ministry of Education,Science and Culture, pp. 15-57.Suzuki, T. (1987). Cribra orbitalia in the early Hawaiians and Mariana Islanders. Man and Culture inOceania, 3, 95-104.Suzuki, T. (1993). Paleopathological and paleoepidemiological investigation of human skeletalremains of early Hawaiians from Mokapu site, Oahu Island, Hawaii. Japan Review, 4, 83-128.Swindler, D. R. and Weisler, M. I. (2000). Dental size and morphology of precontact MarshallIslanders (Micronesia) compared with other Pacific Islanders. Anthropological Science, 108, 261-282.Swindler, D. R., Drusini, A. G. and Cristino, C. (1997). Variation and frequency of three-rooted firstpermanent molars in pre-contact Easter Islanders: anthropological significance. Journal of thePolynesian Society, 106, 175-83.Tagaya, A. and Katayama, K. (1988). Craniometric variation in Polynesians: multivariate positioningof male crania from Mangaia, Cook Islands. Man and Culture in Oceania, 4, 75-89. [Using skeletonsfrom two burials caves in the Cook Islands, the authors apply multivariate techniques to a battery ofcranial measurements for investigating the biological relationships of Cook Islanders and other Pacificgroups].Tayles, N. and Roy, K. (1989). The human population. In Aftena: The Prehistory of Southwest Saipan,ed. R. McGovern. Report prepared for InterPacific Resorts, Inc. and Historic Preservation Office,Saipan, CNMI, pp. 115-158.Taylor, R. M. S. (1971). Dental report on archaeological material from Tonga. Australian DentalJournal, 16, 175-181.Taylor, R. M. S. (1972). A Maori mortal combat weapon. Man, 7(1), 141-190.Taylor, R. M. S. (1975). Significance of tooth wear in Polynesians. South African Dental Journal, 30,241-244.Taylor, R. M. S. (1978). Variations in Morphology of Teeth: Anthropologic and Forensic Aspects.Springfield, Illinois: C.C. Thomas.Taylor, R. M. S. (1986). Sealskin softening by teeth - a Maori case? Journal of Polynesian Society,95(3), 357-369.Taylor, R. M. S. (1991). Anatomy and Biology of Tooth Dislocation in pre-European Maoris andAustralian Aborigines. Auckland: Department of Anatomy, School of Medicine, University ofAuckland and New Zealand Dental Research Foundation.Terrell, J. E. (2004). The ‘sleeping giant’ hypothesis and New Guinea’s place in the prehistory ofGreater Near Oceania. World Archaeology, 36, 601-609.Terrell, J. E., Kelly, K. M. and Rainbird, P. (2001). Foregone conclusions? In search of ‘Papuans’ and‘Austronesians’. Current Anthropology, 42, 97-107, 118-124.Thomson, E. Y. (1915). A study of the crania of the Moriori, or aborigines of the Chatham Islands,now in the Museum of the Royal College of Surgeons, London. Biometrika, 11, 82-135.Trembly, D. (1995a). On the antiquity of leprosy in western Micronesia. International Journal ofOsteoarchaeology, 5, 377-384. [This paper, through an examination of approximately 700 sets ofremains from Guam and Saipan, reports leprosy in six individuals, four that were radiocarbon dated toAD 830 ± 170, which the author claims are the earliest known cases of leprosy in the Pacific].Trembly, D. (1995b). New pre-contact Hawaiian material: comparison with Mokapu. Proceedings ofthe IXth European Meeting of the Paleopathology Association (Barcelona, 1st-4th September, 1992).Barcelona, Museu D’arqueologia de Catalunya.


23 of 26 7/23/12 6:49 AM

Trembly, D. (1996a). Treponematosis in pre-Spanish western Micronesia. International Journal ofOsteoarchaeology, 6, 397-402.Trembly, D. (1996b). From whence came tuberculosis to Hawai`i? Hawaiian Archaeology, 5, 29-37.Trembly, D. (1997). A germ’s journey to isolated islands. International Journal of Osteoarchaeology,7, 621-624.Turner, C. G. II (1986). Dentochronological separation estimates for Pacific rim populations. Science,232, 1140-1142.Turner, C. G. II (1989a). Dentition of Watom Island, Bismarck Archipelago, Melanesia. Records of theAustralian Museum, 41, 293-296.Turner, C. G. II (1989b). Teeth and prehistory in Asia. Scientific American, 262, 88-96.Turner, C. G. II (1990a). Major features of sundadonty and sinodonty, including suggestions about EastAsia microevolution, population history, and Late Pleistocene relationships with Australianaboriginals. American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 82, 295–317.Turner, C. G. II (1990b). Origin and affinity of the people of Guam: A dental anthropologicalassessment. Micronesica, (Supplement)2, 403-416. [Applying the Mean Measure of Divergencestatistic to 25 dental nonmetric traits recorded in several thousand individuals from Asia and thePacific, the author concludes that the dentitions of Guamanians and Polynesians are more similar toSoutheast Asians than to Australian and Melanesian groups].Turner, C. G. II (1992). Microevolution of East Asian and European populations: a dental perspective.In The Evolution and Dispersal of Modern Humans in Asia, ed. T. Akazawa, K. Aoki and T. Kimura.Tokyo: Honkusen-Sha Pub. Co., pp. 415-438.Turner C. G. II and Scott, G. R. (1977). Dentition of Easter Islanders. In Orofacial Growth andDevelopment, ed. A. A. Dahlberg and T. M. Graber. The Hague: Mouton, pp. 229-249.Turner, C. G. II and Swindler, D. R. (1978). The dentition of the New Britain West NakanaiMelanesians. American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 49, 361-371.Turner, W. (1884). Report on the human crania and other bones of the skeletons collected during thevoyage of H.M.S. Challenger, in the years 1873-1876. Part I: The Crania. In Report of the ScientificResults of the Voyage of H. M. S. Challenger during the years 1873–76. Zoology. Edinburgh: H.M.S.Challenger Reports, Volume 10. HMSO.http://www.19thcenturyscience.org/HMSC/HMSC-Reports/Zool-29/htm/doc.htmlUhde, C. W. F. (1861). Uber die schädelform der Sandwich-Insulaner. Verhandlungen der KaisolichenLeopoldino-Carolinischen Deutschen. Akadademie der Naturforscher, 28, 3-12.Underwood, J. H. (1969). Human Skeletal Remains from Sand Dune Site (H1), South Point (Ka Lae),Hawaii. Pacific Anthropological Records No. 9. Honolulu: Bernice Pauahi Bishop Museum.Valentin, F. (2003). Human skeletons recovered in the site of Lapita at Koné (New Caledonia).Mortuary and biological features in Pacific archaeology assessments and prospects. Proceedings of theInternational Conference for the 50th Anniversary of the first Lapita Excavation (July 1952),Kone-Noumea 2002, ed. C. Sand. Nouméa: Les Cahiers de l’Archéologie en Nouvelle-Calédonie, 15,285-293.Valentin, F. and Sand, C. (2000). Archéologie des morts. Études anthropologiques de squelettespréhistoriques de Nouvelle-Calédonie. Nouméa: Les Cahiers de l’Archéologie en Nouvelle-Calédonie,11.Valentin, F. and Sand, C. (2001). Inhumations préhistorique en Nouvelle-Calédonie. Journal de laSociété des Océanistes, 113, 135-149.Valentin, F., Sand, C., Le Goff, I., Sorovi-Vunidilo, T., Matararaba, S., Ouetcho, A., Bole, J., Baret, D.and Naucabalavu, J. (2001). Burial practices at the end of the prehistoric period in Cikobia-i-ra(Macuata, Fiji). In The Archaeology of Lapita Dispersal in Oceania, ed. G. R. Clark, A. J. Andersonand T. Vunidilo. Proceedings of the Fourth Lapita Conference, June 2000, Canberra, Australia.Canberra: Pandanus Books, pp. 211-223.Valentin, F., Ouetcho, A. and Bolé, J. (2004). Rapport numéro 1 sur l’étude paléoanthropologique esossements humains lapita découverts sur le site WKO013B (Foué, Koné) à la suite du cyclone Erica,Résultat du premier décapage de la structure. Nouméa: Département Achéologie du Service desMusées et du Patrimoine de Nouvelle-Calédonie, et Paris: CNRSUMR 7041.Valentin, F., Ouetcho, A. and Bolé, J. (2005a). Rapport numéro 2 sur l’´etude paléoanthropologiquedes ossements humains Lapita découverts sûr le site WKO013B (Foué, Koné) à la suite du cyclone


24 of 26 7/23/12 6:49 AM

Erica, résultat du deuxième décapage de la structure. Report on file. Nouméa: DépartementArchéologie du Service des Musées et du Patrimoine de Nouvelle-Calédonie. Paris: CNRS UMR7041.Valentin, F., Shing, R. and Spriggs, M. (2005b). Des restes humains datés du début de la période deMangaasi (2400-1800 BP) découverts à Mangaliliu (Efate, Vanuatu). Comptes Rendus Palevol, 4, 420-427.Valentin, F., Bocherens, H., Gratuze, B. and Sand, C. (2006). Dietary patterns during the lateprehistoric/historic period in Cikobia Island (Fiji): Insights from stable isotopes and dental pathologies.Journal of Archaeological Science, 33, 1396-1410. [This article examines dental pathologies in light ofstable isotopic evidence for diet in eight adults and one child excavated from a burial mound innorthern Fiji dated to AD 1850. The results of this study suggests the Cikobia individuals were eating adiet associated the high-status individuals].Valentin, F., Buckley, H. R., Herrscher, E., Kinaston, R., Bedford, S., Spriggs, M., Hawkins, S. andNeal, K. (2010). Lapita subsistence strategies and food consumption patterns in the community ofTeouma (Efate, Vanuatu). Journal of Archaeological Science, 37(8), 1820-1829.Van Dijk, N. (1991). The Hansel and Gretel syndrome: a critique of Houghton’s cold adaptationhypothesis and an alternative model. New Zealand Journal of Archaeology, 13, 65-89. [The authorprovides alternative explanations for Houghton’s cold adaptation hypothesis to explain the Polynesianphenotype].Van Dijk, N. (1993). The evolution of the Polynesian phenotype: an analysis of skeletal remains fromTongatapu, Tonga. (M.A. thesis). Department of Anthropology, University of Auckland.Van Dijk, N. (1998). The Melanesian: an osteological study of their biological relationships within thePacific. (Ph.D. thesis). Canberra: Australian National University.Van Dijk, N. (2005). Biological relationships amongst New Guinean populations and between NewGuinean and Australian populations: the skeletal evidence. In Papuan Pasts: Cultural, Linguistic, andBiological Histories of Papuan Speaking Peoples, ed. R. Attenborough, J. Golson and R. Hide.Canberra, ACT, Australia: Pacific Linguistics, pp. 789-817.Virchow, R. (1880). Schädel- und tibiaformen von Südseeinsulanern. Verhandlungen der BerlinerGesellschaft für Anthropologie, Ethnologie und Urgeschichte, 12, 112-119.Virchow, R. (1881). Über Mikronesische Schädel. Monatsberichte der Königlichen Akademie derWissenschaften, pp. 1114-1143. [This early study discusses various cranial indices obtained frommeasurements recorded in skulls collected on Chuuk (formerly Truk) and Kiribati (formerly Gilbert)Islands in Micronesia that became part of museum collections in Berlin].Visser, E. P. (1994). Skeletal evidence of kava use in prehistoric Fiji. Journal of Polynesian Society,103(3), 299-317. [The author links the onset, occurrence, and severity of temporomandibular joint(TMJ) degeneration in prehistoric skeletons from Sigatoka, Fiji, with the traditional processing andpreparation of kava].Visser, E. P. and Green, M. K. (1999). Prehistoric Oceanic biological variation: Sigatoka, Lapita andPolynesia. In The Pacific from 5000 to 2000 BP: Colonisation and Transformations, ed. J. C.Gallipaud and I. Lilley. Paris: I: Editions de IRD, pp. 161-187.

Volz, W. (1895). Beiträge zur anthropologie der Sudsee. Archiv für Anthropologie, 23, 97-169.Wagner, K. (1937). The Craniology of the Oceanic Races. Skrifter utgitt av det Norske Videnskaps-Akademi i Oslo. I. Mat.-Naturv. Klasse. No. 2. [One of the most ambitious early craniometriccomparisons of Oceanic skulls, some from collections in Norway, that included the use of the nowdefunct CRL statistic for evaluating biological relationships of Polynesians and other Pacific groups].Webb, S. G. (1982). Cribra orbitalia: a possible sign of anaemia in pre- and post-contact crania fromAustralia and Papua New Guinea. Archaeology in Oceania, 17(3), 148–156.Webb, S. G. (1995). Motupore: the paleopathology of a prehistoric New Guinea island community. InPaleopathology of Aboriginal Australians. Health and Disease across a Hunter-Gatherer Continent,ed. S. G. Webb. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 256-271, references 295-320. [Thischapter focuses on the paleopathology in skeletal remains representing 42 individuals, dating from AD1200-1700, from the island of Motupore in Papua New Guinea].Weber, E. (1934). Studien an Skeletten aus dem Inneren Vitilevus: ein Beitrag zur Rassenkunde derViti-Inseln. Leipzig:Verlag der Werkgeineinschaff. [A very detailed study of measurements recorded in18 (13 male and 5 female) skeletons from Fiji, including those that were once part of the originalGodeffroy collection that was later sent to Leipzig and subsequently destroyed during bombing raids in


25 of 26 7/23/12 6:49 AM

World War II. The study is noteworthy as it includes measurements recorded in the skulls andinfracranial skeletons from Fiji].Weckler, H. (1866). Kraniologische mittheilungen. Archiv für Anthropologie, 1, 89-160.Weckler, H. (1888). Cribra orbitalia, ein ethnologischdiagnostisches mermal am schädel mehreremenschrassen. Archiv für Anthropologie, 17, 1-18.Weisbach, A. (1890). Der Maori-schädel. Mitteilungen der Anthropologischen Gesellschaft, Vienna,20, 32-37.Weisler, M. I. and Swindler, D. R. (2002). Rocker jaws from the Marshall Islands: evidence forinteraction between eastern Micronesia and West Polynesia. People and Culture in Oceania, 18, 23-33.Weisler, M. I., Lum, J. K., Collins, S. L. and Kimoto, W. S. (2000). Status, health, and ancestry of alate prehistoric burial from Kwajalein Atoll, Marshall Islands. Micronesica, 32(2), 191-220.Wollstein, A., Lao, O., Becker, C., Brauer, S., Trent, R. J., Nürnberg, P., Stoneking, M. and Kayser, M.(2010). Demographic history of Oceania inferred from genome-wide data. Current Biology 20,1983-1992.Wood-Jones, F. (1931a). The non-metrical morphological characters of the skull as criteria for racialdiagnosis. Part III: The non-metrical morphological-characters of prehistoric inhabitants of Guam.Journal of Anatomy, 65(Part 4), 438-445 [A very early study of non-metric cranial traits recorded inskulls from Guam in the Bishop Museum].Wood-Jones, F. (1931b). The non-metrical morphological characters of the skull as criteria for racialdiagnosis. Part II: The non-metrical morphological-characters of the Hawaiian skull. Journal ofAnatomy, 65(Part 3), 368-378. [A pioneering study of non-metric cranial traits recorded in Hawaiianskulls in the Bishop Museum].Wyman, J. (1868). Observations on Crania. Boston: A. A. Kingman. [A detailed study of cranial anddental morphology and pathology in a series of Hawaiian crania from the island of Kauai once part ofthe Peabody Museum collection at Harvard University].Zuckerkandl, E. (1875). Reise der Österreichischen fregatte Novara um die erde. Anthroplogischertheil. Erste abtheilung: Cranien der Novara-Sammlung. Wien: Aus der kaiserlich-koniglichen hof-undstaatsdruckerei in commission bei Karl Gerold's Sohn.

Biographical Sketch

Michael Pietrusewsky is professor of anthropology at the University of Hawai`i at Mānoa, Honolulu,Hawai`i. He has conducted research on bioarchaeology, skeletal biology, forensic anthropology, andbiodistance studies in Australia, Pacific Islands, Southeast Asia, and East Asia.

To cite this chapterMichael Pietrusewsky, (2012), PHYSICAL ANTHROPOLOGY OF THE PACIFIC, in Physical(Biological) Anthropology, [Eds. UNESCO-EOLSS Joint Committee], in Encyclopedia of LifeSupport Systems(EOLSS), Developed under the Auspices of the UNESCO, Eolss Publishers, Oxford,UK, [http://www.eolss.net] [Retrieved July 23, 2012]

5.2.7. Bioarchaeology of the MarianaIslands and inter-island differences



26 of 26 7/23/12 6:49 AM