93. Sepulchral Pottery of Murua, Papua.

Lyons, Alice

doi:10.2307/2840683

Cited by 5 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This is further substantiated by the fact that Dobu and Murua have a long trade record. On the other hand, since at the present time there is similar clay in the Sulega District, where the pottery was found, it is also possible that this sepulchral pottery represents a lost art of the Murua people (Lyons, 1915 ;Riesenfeld.Yqyoc).…”

Section: :R82mentioning

confidence: 57%

Historical Perspective and the Study of Melanesian Culture1

Rosenstiel¹

1954

Oceania

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: :R82mentioning

confidence: 57%

Historical Perspective and the Study of Melanesian Culture1

Rosenstiel¹

1954

Oceania

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…After the structures fell into disuse and collapsed they continued to be used as a place of secondary burial, with skeletal remains in pots placed in niches between the fallen columns (Bickler & Ivuyo 2002). Seligman and Strong (1906), Lyons (1922) and Ollier and Pain (1978) had earlier reported several secondary burials on Woodlark in caves or in niches within megalithic arrangements, and although not all were associated with pots, of those pots recorded some were considered to have originated from Panaeati Island (Lauer, 1970). Secondary burials have also been recorded on the Trobriand Islands (Austen, 1939;Ollier & Holdsworth, 1968, 1969; Ollier Venturi, 2002), Nuamata Island (Egloff, 1972) and the Amphlett Islands (Lauer, 1974).…”

Section: Secondary Burialsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Indirect dating of secondary cave burials in the Massim region of Papua New Guinea reveals last millennium reorganisation of social practices

Boyd,

Shaw

2023

Archaeology in Oceania

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In the Massim Island region of southeastern Papua New Guinea secondary interment of skeletal remains was widely practiced historically, but its social context and regional expression in the deeper past remains uncertain. In this paper the chronology of secondary burial on Panaeati Island is established indirectly by reconstructing the cultural and spatiotemporal association of 21 clay pots placed with human skeletal remains at Biniwaga Cave, coincidently establishing the first whole vessel typology of Southern Massim Combed Pottery (SMCP) and Southern Massim Pottery (SMP). Comparison with excavated pottery assemblages on Panaeati and elsewhere in the region demonstrates that the Biniwaga pots are consistent with SMCP and early SMP, dating from 740 to 470 calBP. Secondary burial practices on Panaeati are contemporary with those recorded elsewhere in the region and coincide with changes in pottery production centres. Compared to excavated pottery assemblages from contemporary sites, a relatively narrow range of pots are represented at Biniwaga. It is hypothesised that pots were selected to reflect the cultural affiliation of deceased individuals during a period of increasing inter‐island interaction.

show abstract

“…Also of note is a large series of second millennium CE burials investigated on the Polynesian Outlier island of Taumako in the Solomons (Leach and Davidson 2008:133-253; see also Buckley 2001;Kinaston and Buckley 2017). Apart from this, there is a long history of Melanesian funerary studies of cave burials, some placed inside pottery vessels, going back to the early decades of the 20th century in the archaeological literature (see for instance Austen 1939;Lyons 1922;Seligmann 1910:731).…”

Section: The Archaeology Of Deathmentioning

confidence: 99%

Towards a history of Melanesian archaeological practices

Spriggs¹

2019

Archaeologies of Island Melanesia: Current Approaches to Landscapes, Exchange and Practice

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

To be ignorant of what occurred before you were born is to remain always a child. For what is the worth of human life, unless it is woven into the life of our ancestors by the study of history.-Cicero, Orator, 120 10 Archaeologies of Island Melanesia terra australis 51 This paper will not delve into the history of the wider theoretical frameworks that we use to organise our data, the subject being too vast to cover here, but it will illustrate the point made above about the availability of particular scientific practices and techniques. It will provide a few select case studies concerning when particular techniques were first available, when they were first deployed in Pacific archaeology more generally and when in the archaeology of the Melanesian region in particular. Certain kinds of evidence-based discussions were not possible until particular technical advances in practice in archaeological science were deployed; some questions simply could not be asked. Radiocarbon dating is the obvious place to start the discussion, and then the lead is given by the three themes for the volume identified by the editors. I will draw illustrations from each of these in turn, before using this history to evaluate the networked or isolated status of archaeology in our region at particular times. The themes lend themselves to the examination of particular facets of our discipline. The first, 'Landscapes and complexities', requires an engagement with settlement patterns and landscape archaeology. The second, 'Exchange and contacts', relies on characterisation and provenance studies of such artefacts as stone adzes, pottery and obsidian flakes. I will use this as my primary 'case study' and cover the topic in most detail. The final theme, 'Practices', involves such topics as manufacturing sequences, environmental reconstruction and funerary (bio)archaeology. Has there been a slow unfolding of knowledge or were there particular, perhaps serendipitous, moments that have shaped the course of archaeological investigation? The radiocarbon revolution One such defining moment was surely the invention of radiocarbon dating by Willard Libby and colleagues in the late 1940s, becoming potentially available to archaeologists throughout the world around 1949-50. It was very quickly deployed by Pacific archaeologists, with Bishop Museum archaeologist Kenneth Emory getting the first date back from a Polynesian archaeological site in 1950, the Kuli'ou'ou rock shelter on O'ahu, Hawaii. It was published originally on 21 September 1951 in the second date list from Libby's laboratory at the University of Chicago, along with two Australian archaeological samples collected by Edmund Gill from Victorian middens (Libby 1951). Melanesia was not far behind with Edward Winslow Gifford publishing multiple dates from two significant Fijian sites he had excavated in 1947 and judiciously kept the charcoal from (Gifford 1952, 1955, as anticipated in his earlier monograph [1951:203]), and then from his 1952 New Caledonia excavations, including at the site of Lap...

show abstract

93. Sepulchral Pottery of Murua, Papua.

Cited by 5 publications

References 0 publications

Historical Perspective and the Study of Melanesian Culture1

Historical Perspective and the Study of Melanesian Culture1

Indirect dating of secondary cave burials in the Massim region of Papua New Guinea reveals last millennium reorganisation of social practices

Towards a history of Melanesian archaeological practices

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About