Early Lapita colonisation of Remote Oceania: An update on the leapfrog hypothesis

Abstract

It is now more than 10 years since the original Lapita leapfrog hypothesis was proposed by Sheppard and Walter (2006) for the movement of Lapita out of Near Oceania into the southeast Solomon Islands. Data have continued to accumulate over the last decade and can be used to evaluate the original argument. This chapter will review new linguistic, genetic and archaeological data from the Solomon Islands and how they relate to the early colonisation of Remote Oceania.

Lapita Archaeology in the Southwest Pacific

“…While some measure of continuity between founding Lapita populations and later societies in both Near and Remote Oceania can be established (Kirch 2017: 106), documented transformations will continue to stimulate debate on the significance of the changes observed at archaeological sites yielding later pottery styles (Leclerc 2019), paralleling similar debates among historical linguists and biological anthropologists, and not limited to the post-Lapita period (Geraghty 2002(Geraghty , 2004Harris et al 2020;Sheppard 2019;Spriggs et al 2019).…”

The question of Early Lapita settlements in Remote Oceania and reliance on horticulture revisited: new evidence from plant microfossil studies at Reef/Santa Cruz, south-east Solomon Islands. In From Field to Museum—Studies from Melanesia in Honour of Robin Torrence, ed. Jim Specht, Val Attenbrow, and Jim Allen

“…After a formative period marking the emergence of the 'Lapita Cultural Complex' in the Bismarck Archipelago ca 3400 cal. BP (Denham et al, 2012: 44;Specht et al, 2014;Sheppard et al, 2015;Sheppard, 2019;cf. Specht and Gosden, 2019: 188, where a much later start date of 3250-3150 cal.…”

“…The nature of this migration has long been debated. At one extreme, models advocate a wave of advance and strand-looping across the region with a reliance on local resources for subsistence (e.g., Groube, 1971;Anderson, 2003; and see Davidson and Leach, 2001;Sheppard, 2019). At the other, leapfrogging scenarios are envisaged, entailing initial long haul voyages from the Bismarcks more-or-less directly across to the Reef/Santa Cruz Islands by groups of migrants carrying a suite of commodities including obsidian, pottery, domestic animals and subsistence plants, intended to facilitate settlement on new islands (Sheppard and Walter, 2006;Walter and Sheppard, 2009;Sheppard, 2011Sheppard, , 2019Sheppard et al, 2015).…”

Interaction and Isolation in New Georgia: insights from the Nabo Point ceramic assemblage, Tetepare

“…On current evidence, the first appearance of pottery‐bearing archaeological deposits in the greater Solomon Islands archipelago is late relative to neighbouring islands in the western Pacific. Archaeologists working in the region have documented ceramic assemblages at a widespread collection of sites in Bougainville, Choiseul, Santa Isabel and the New Georgia group, but all are best characterised as belonging to Late and Post‐Lapita periods, sharing stylistic affinities with ceramic traditions occurring in Buka and New Ireland after 2800 BP (Sheppard 2019). In contrast, Early Lapita pottery assemblages appear in the Bismarck Archipelago at about 3250–3150 BP, and in the Reef/Santa Cruz group, Vanuatu, and New Caledonia, upon the first colonisation of Remote Oceania around 3000 BP (Specht & Gosden 2019).…”

“…2013). The currently preferred explanation, however, is that initial Lapita period dispersals travelled an irregular path from the Bismarck Archipelago to the Reef/Santa Cruz islands, and “leapfrogged” the main Solomon Islands (Sheppard 2011, 2019; Sheppard & Walter 2006). Subsequent wave‐of‐advance backfilling by “Austronesian‐speaking, food‐producing, ceramic making populations moving … over a NAN [non‐Austronesian] substrate” subsequently made incursions into the Solomon Islands from the west during the Late Lapita period, accounting for the ceramic record and linguistic patterns (Sheppard & Walter 2006: 48).…”