Lapita to Post-Lapita transition: Insights from the chemical analysis of pottery from the sites of Teouma, Mangaasi, Vao and Chachara, Vanuatu

Abstract

Lapita and Post-Lapita ceramic collections from four archaeological sites scattered across two of the main islands of Vanuatu were characterised using LA-ICP-MS. Results from the analysis of 112 ceramic samples show that the decorated ceramics from Lapita sites are generally more compositionally variable than the later assemblages. Not only do the early sites contain more exotic samples, but the early locally made decorated vessels also display a wider compositional range. This is interpreted as revealing behaviours of potters initially settling into new territories before developing recurrent habits in terms of pottery manufacture. The decrease in variability of the technological styles encountered between Lapita and Post-Lapita occupations suggest that important social modifications occurred: increasingly sedentary populations, changes in the social structure and political economy, and the collapse of the symbolic Lapita belief system and its ceremonial practices. Source: Illustration by author. 17. Lapita to Post-Lapita transition 351 terra australis 52 Technological style During the course of pottery manufacturing, as is the case for any object produced, many technological choices have to be taken by the potter in order to reach their goal and produce a ceramic vessel that is satisfying in every aspect (performance, appearance, economic and symbolic role, etc.). These behaviours are adopted and chosen among a vast array of equifinal possibilities based on choices that are meaningful socially, economically and ideologically (Lechtman 1977; Rye 1976; Sillar and Tite 2000). Technology can thus be considered as 'the materialisation of social thought' (Dobres and Hoffman 1994:221). If we consider 'style' as the manifest impression of cultural patterning (Lechtman 1977:4), or in other words as the part of formal variability in material culture that is culturally significant, active and conveying information (Conkey 1978; Wobst 1977:321), then technology has a style of its own. This technological style comprises the stylistic elements embedded into its technological features and is the expression, on the level of technological behaviour, of underlying cultural values,

The natural variability of clay and its impact on provenance study of pottery in Vanuatu and further afield

“…The campaign of clay sampling over three of the main islands of Vanuatu, that is, Efate, Erromango, and Malekula was part of a chemical characterization project of Lapita and post‐Lapita pottery from sites in Vanuatu (Leclerc, 2016; Leclerc et al, 2019). The objective was to gather a large sample of raw materials from areas surrounding archaeological sites to assess the natural variability of clays and evaluate its impact on pottery analysis.…”

“…(e.g., Hall, 2001; Li et al, 2008; Minc et al, 2016; Monette, Richer‐LaFlèche, Moussette, & Dufournier, 2007; Sherriff, Court, Johnston, & Stirling, 2002; Tschegg, Ntaflos, & Hein, 2009a; Vaughn & Neff, 2000). In Oceania, various pottery assemblages, from the earliest Lapita occupations (c. 3300–3200 BP) to much later traditions, have been the subject of compositional analysis involving collections from Mussau Islands (Hunt, 1989, 1993); Watom (Anson, 2000; Green & Anson, 1991, 2000); Manus (Ambrose, 1992, 1993; Ambrose, Duerden, & Bird, 1981); the Arawe Islands, West New Britain (Summerhayes, 2000); Buka Island, just north of Bougainville (Summerhayes, 1997); Papuan coastal areas such as Motupore Island on the southeastern coast of New Guinea (Rye & Duerden, 1982) and the Sepik Coast (Golitko, 2011) on the north side; Papuan islands of the Massim region (Shaw, Leclerc, Dickinson, Spriggs, & Summerhayes, 2016); Micronesia (Descantes, Neff, Glascock, & Dickinson, 2001); the Solomon Islands (Buhring, Azémard, & Sheppard, 2015; Tochilin et al, 2012); New Caledonia (Chiu, 2003a, 2003b, 2007); Vanuatu (Leclerc, ; Leclerc, Grono, Bedford, & Spriggs, ); Fiji (Bentley, 2000; Best, 1984; Clark & Kennett, 2009; Cochrane, 2004; Rutherford, Almond, & Nunn, 2012); Tonga (Burley & Dickinson, 2010); Samoa (Eckert & James, 2011); and a combination of samples from Fiji, Tonga and New Ireland (Kennett, Anderson, Cruz, Clark, & Summerhayes, 2004). The works of Allen and Rye (1982) in the Port Moresby area, Ambrose (1992, 1993) on Lapita pottery from Manus and Summerhayes (1997) on pottery from Buka, also documented clay properties and their effect on provenance studies.…”

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).…”