failed colony

Mystery of a failed colony

The Prehistoric Archaelogy of Norfolk Island. Pacific Anthropoligical Records 34.

Published by Department of Anthropology Bernice P.

Bishop Museum, Honolulu, Hawaii 96819. ISBN

0.910240.95.7 Sus6.Oo.

New aspects of Pacific Anthropology have cap tured both public and professional imaginations like the prehistoric settlement of Polynesia.

The Polynesians’ success in colonising places as far flung as Hawaii, Easter Island and New Zealand has impressed Euro peans at least since the time of Cook’s voyages through the region in the 18th Century.

That interest persists today as archaeologists, ethnographers and linguists bring to light new and more exact details of what is, without doubt, a fascinating episode in human prehistory.

It is perhaps to be expected that much of the interest and commentary, both public and professional, is preoccupied with the more dramatic, re markable and above all, successful efforts of the Polynesian seafarers. Equally intriguing, though, are their seeming failures. It is one such failure that Specht examines in his compact report.

Norfolk Island, lying east of Australia, halfway between New Zealand’s North Island and New Caledonia, was unin habited when Europeans first went there in 1774.

As Specht notes “since the first British settlement in 1788, however, various chance finds have suggested prior occupa tion ... by Pacific Islanders”.

Encouraged by the fact that local historians are still finding things, the author undertook a short archaeological study of the island and reassessed pre viously documented evidence in an attempt to resolve mat ters.

The questions he wished to address were: did Pacific Islan ders reach the island prior to

European arrival? And if they did, why did they not establish a successful colony there? Was Norfolk a case of unsuccesssful colonisation, or a casual visiting without settlement?

The archaeological evidence consists of one possible shell midden discovered during an otherwise fruitless examination of the coast and selected inland parts of the island; a variety of stone tools variously reported but now lost, held by the Australian Museum, or in pri vate collections on Norfolk; and a range of similarly dispersed human skeletal material.

The stylistic characteristics of the stone artefacts were exam ined by the author, with pet rological identifcations being handled by a specialist whose results are appended to the study.

Integrating these two data sets, Specht argues for a mini mum of four source areas for four identifiable groups of tools.

Only one group of items is thought to be “convincing evi dence” for pre-European habitation. Of the remaining 3 groups, two probably relate to post-European activities while the third may indicate a more recent, pre-contact visit to Nor folk.

Like the stone tools, various samples of the extant human skeletal material have been examined by specialists. Re ports of two recent studies are presented as appendices.

Neither is definite about the racial origins of the specimens.

It is most likely they represent European X Oceanic hybrids such as the Pitcairn Islanders brought to Norfolk in the 1850 s.

The discussion of indirect evidence is a good example of how widely archaeologists can spread their nets in searching for clues. First, Specht outlines the clear evidence for bananas having been well-established on the island when the first British penal colony was only starting up.

As he points out, bananas

grow vegetatively (i.e. from suckers) and so it is extremely improbable that they drifted to the island and then established themselves over one kilometre inland and some height above sea level.

Second, there is a suggestion that a species of rat, Rattus exulans, was introduced before Cook’s first tour. A small, deli cate creature, R. exulans is native to the Pacific but owes its distribution to human agencies.

It may be the small rat described in early journals as having devastated the colony’s food supplies.

While previously thought not to have been on Norfolk, its presence today has lately been demonstrated and its early in troduction made reasonable definite by the discovery of an R. exulans skeleton in 700-800 year old sediments in the is land’s old cemetery area.

Summing up his exhaustive survey of the evidence, Specht argues that: “the best in terpretation ... is that there was certainly one arrival from Eastern Polynesia, probably about ADIOOO to 1400, and possibly a second between ADI4OO and 1774.

“The first landing may have originated from North Island New Zealand, the Cook Islands, or the Society Islands; the puta tive later landing would most likely have come from South Island New Zealand.”

He buttresses these conten tions with the results of compu ter simulations of drift voyages in the Pacific. Although the Kermadec Islands near New Zealand are the point of origin for most of the successful simu lated landings on Norfolk, bananas do not grow there.

The simulations suggest Ton ga, and the Cook and Society Islands as other possibilities, the latter two of which are most likely in view of the nature of the stone tools and drift material.

Having got this far, Specht points out that regardless of where people may have come from or how many times they came, the question of their fate on Norfolk remains unresolved.

While there is some support for the idea that the island was not a regular port-of-call for Polynesian sailors, this does not mean people did not attempt to settle permanently there.

The planting of bananas, which take 12 months to ma ture, certainly suggests people intended to stay. What, then, prevented their survival in the longer term?

The answer may be that many of the food crops normal ly used in the Pacific were not brought to Norfolk and this, coupled with the relative pover ty of local marine and other resources, meant the settlers were doomed from the start.

Alternatively, the group may not have constituted a viable breeding population, regardless of the state of their resource base.

Disappointingly, the evi dence available does not allow the author to do more than present these possibilities. He can only conclude that more archaeological work needs to be done if we wish to more fully explore the constraints on hu man settlement in the Pacific.

Like its companion volumes in the Pacific Anthropological Records series, Specht’s report is well-produced and very rea sonably priced. Its clearly printed text is interspersed with quite a few adequately labelled figures and tables.

The only criticism I have with regard to presentation is that most of the black and white

photographs are unclear. The body of the text is written in an academic rather than popular style, but is as jargon-free as could be expected and so is accessible to both professionals and interested laymen alike.

However, some of the tables and, more particularly, the three appendices, are strictly for the technically-minded who are familiar with arcane geological and osteological terms and methods. In short, the report is not for everyone, but frustrating as its inconclusive ness is it would be a useful addition to the library of any student of Pacific anthropology.

lan Lilley.