Man's Role in Modifying Tropical and
Subtropical Polynesian Ecosystems
P.V.Kirch
Department of Anthropology, B. P. Bishop Museum, Honolulu, Hawaii
Some years ago, Raymond Fosberg
asserted that 'perhaps the thing
that most distinguishes islands, at
least oceanic islands, ... is their
extreme vulnerability, or susceptibility
to disturbance' (1963:55).
Within Polynesia, the role of prehistoric
man as a major force in
changing island ecosystems has long
been noted for the temperate, nearcontinental
islands of New Zealand.
There, the startling discovery of
extinct moa bones more than a century
ago spurred investigations that
have gradually led to a picture of
human-induced landscape alteration
and biotic change on a massive
scale. The evidence for forest retreat
under the impact of burning
(Cumberland 1961; Molloy et al
1963), and of the extinction - not
only of the 13 -odd species of moa
- but of some 16 other endemic
species of ducks, geese, crow, eagle,
coot and so forth (Casseis, ms.),
are well documented in the New
Zealand literature.
For the myriad tropical and subtropical
islands of Polynesia, there
has, in contrast, been relatively
little intensive research on prehistoric
man's role in altering indigenous
biota and landscapes. This
situation is, however, rapidly changing,
with recent investigations in
several island groups demonstrating
that vulnerable Polynesian ecosystems
underwent often drastic transformations
following upon human
colonization.
In assessing evidence for humaninduced
changes in Polynesian ecosystems,
we may speak of three
major processes contributing to environmental
transformation. First is
the introduction by man to the
naturally isolated, remote Pacific
Islands, of a variety of adventive
species. Such adventives included
not only the domestic triumvirate cf
pig, dog, and fowl, along with a
score or more cultigens, but a
range of inadvertent synanthropic
or anthropophilic 'stowaways' (rats,
terrestrial snails, cockroaches,
26
mites, skinks, geckos, and weeds).
Direct archaeological evidence of
domestic animals (and indirect
evidence for the crop plants) has
long been available from a number
of early Polynesian sites. Only recently
have such items as gecko
bones, terrestrial land snails (Christensen
and Kirch 1981a; Hunt
1980; Christensen 1981), and the
seeds of weedy plants (Allen 1981)
provided direct testimony to man's
larger role as a 'transporter of landscapes'
(Anderson 1952). To anyone
familiar with Pacific Island biogeography
and evolution, the significance
of these prehistoric biotic
introductions is evident. The barrier
of isolation having been breached
by man, the largely endemic and
vulnerable biotas of the Polynesian
islands were placed in competition
with, or were preyed upon by, a
host of new (and generally highly
competitive) adventives.
The second major process leading
to ecosystem change was that
of direct displacement of pre-human
indigenous biota by man's actions,
in particular forest clearance and
exploitation of wild food resources.
Prior to Polynesian colonization,
most (if not all) tropical and subtropical
oceanic islands appear to
have been heavily forested, so that
the large tracts of Gleichinia-iern
and grassland savannah noted at
European contact were the result of
human action. Take, for example,
the case of Easter Island, whose
treeless landscape the botanist
Skottsberg once thought to represent
a unique 'oceanic steppe'
(1956:422). Flenley's pollen cores
from several crater lakes (1979,
1981), along with the evidence of
root molds underlying the megalithic
ahu (Mulloy and Figueroa
1978:22), have now indicated that
Easter Island was formerly cloaked
in a scrubby rainforest. Though all
the results are not yet in, it is man
who is most strongly implicated in
the conversion of this forest to
savannah (Flenley 1979; McCoy
1976). Such massive habitat alteration
and destruction, combined with
direct prédation, doubtless affected
many native animal populations as
well, sometimes to the point of
extinction.
Third, we may distinguish processes
of modification of the physical
landscape or landforms, in particular
erosion and deposition (as
well as the rearrangement of landscapes
through construction of terraces,
field systems, fishponds, and
so forth). To the extent that such
changes depend upon the removal
of vegetation, they overlap with the
second category discussed above.
As archaeologists in Polynesia have
widened the scope of their investigations
from particular sites to
whole settlement landscapes, they
have begun to marshall direct evidence
of such landform modification.
In Futuna, for example, up to
3.5 metres of stratified alluvium
and slopewash capping Lapita deposits
(Kirch 1981) testify to the
efficacy of even early Polynesian
populations in initiating the movement
of large quantities of soil and
earth. The work of Hughes and
others (1979) on Lakeba provides
a similar picture.
Keeping in mind the three
general processes of human-induced
ecosystem change discussed above,
we may now turn to the specific
evidence recently obtained from two
Polynesian localities. The first to
be considered, Tikopia, is one of
the smallest of Polynesian islands,
although it has a lengthy occupation
sequence. For contrast, the
evidence from Hawaii, one of the
largest of Polynesian archipelagoes
with a relatively short occupation
sequence, will also be considered.
Together, these two case studies
demonstrate something of the
potential of prehistoric island populations
to modify their local eco-
systems.
Tikopia
Archaeological investigation of
ethnographically - famed Tikopia
(Firth 1936) revealed an unbroken,
3000-year long cultural
sequence mirroring several major
epochs of southwestern Pacific prehistory.
The cultural sequence has
been analyzed in full elsewhere
(Kirch and Yen 1982), and here
I shall focus solely on the evidence
for transformation of the island's
This content downloaded from 147.231.63.14 on Wed, 04 Dec 2019 12:19:23 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Figure 1. SEM enlargement of the anthropohilic
snail Gastrocopta pediculus,
one of several species transported
throughout the inner Pacific by the
Oceanic peoples. Length of shell 2.6mm.
(Photo courtesy C. Christensen.)
MOLLUSCS FISH TURTLE BIRDS PIO
γ' γχ ' π ~ieooAD
ΓΙ r' D l-| - 1200 A D
Ι λ λ
η /{' ά
v' y' 0 Γ ~100ec
/λ /Λ / *
vi /λ
™'//7λ -Ψ/Ζ/Λ-Ψ/Ζ/Λ Υ////Λ M y Λ Ι Ι .„«.ο.
0 10Ι»β/»η3 0 1 0 1 0 0.5 0 0.5kg /m3
Figure 2. Change in the Tikopia faunal
illustrating the great reduction in wild
colonization. The graph reflects estimat
logical deposit. The bottom component of
phase (Site TK-4).
landscape and biota. It is worth
noting that the sequence of local
environmental change is not necessarily
synchronized with that of
culture history as indicated by traditional
material culture.
The faunal content of Site TK-4,
a small hamlet settled ca. 900 BC,
provides a record of the initial
phase of modification of the
island's biota, after colonization by
a Lapitoid pottery-producing group
of settlers. The usual Austronesian
pattern of introducing domesticates
is attested by the skeletal remains
of pigs, dogs and fowl, and the
presence of cultigens can be inferred
from a range of evidence. Doubtless,
however, the variety of adventives
introduced to Tikopia by the
first human settlers went beyond
these purposefully transferred
species. Three anthropophilic landsnails,
Lamellidea pusilla, Gastrocopta
pediculus (Fig. 1), and
Lamellaxis gracilis, have been recovered
from the Site TK-4 sediments,
and attest to the transport of
plants and edaphic media (Christensen
and Kirch 1981a). The
Pacific rat, Rattus exulans, and a
larger species of Melanesian rat
(possibly Rattus ruber, or a species
of Uromys or Melomys) can also
be counted among the early, probably
inadvertent, introductions. The
transference of biotic elements from
neighbouring islands to Tikopia
was not confined to the initial
settlement period, and the cosmopolitan
mixture of Melanesian and
Polynesian plants on Tikopia reflects
a lengthy tradition of adventive
arrivals which continues today.
Against this picture of the addition
of new species to the island's
biota, we have the evidence of
drastic reductions in the populations
of indigenous species, in a few
instances leading to local extinction
(Fig. 2). In a pattern common to
many early Oceanic sites, the initial
settlers of Tikopia relied heavily
upon the exploitation of wild birds,
turtles, fish, and shellfish, as reflected
in the faunal record of massive
reductions in usable meat over time.
In the case of the molluscs the large
size range of individual species in
the early TK-4 site is never again
matched in later archaeological deposits.
Most heavily affected by
human exploitation were the wild
birds (both land birds and nesting
populations of seabirds). Among
these, a species of megapode (probably
Megapodius freycinet), and
possibly an indigenous rail (Rallus
or Por zana), were exploited to the
point of local extinction.
The net result of these biotic
introductions and of heavy exploitative
pressure on indigenous species
was the creation, on Tikopia, of a
thoroughly anthropogenic community.
This is especially evident in
the island's vegetation, where the
only remnant of an original Eastern
Solomons-New Hebrides rainforest
clings precariously to cliff-like
slopes of the crater rim. All else is
some form of managed vegetation.
Even more striking than the evidence
for biotic change on Tikopia
is that relating to transformation of
the island's physical landscape.
Here we must distinguish between
shoreline processes and those of
terrestrial erosion and deposition.
Shoreline changes in Tikopia have
been particularly dramatic, including
progradation of coastal dunes,
the creation of a large freshwater
swamp, and the closure of a former
salt-water bay, creating the brackish
lake, Te Roto. Quantitatively, these
shoreline alterations amounted to a
40% increase in land area, and a
concomitant loss of 41% in reef
flat area, since the period of human
settlement (Fig. 3).
To what causal mechanisms
should these changes in coasta
geomorphology be ascribed? The
immediate answer might appear to
be that such modifications are
simply the reflection of the environmental
initiative of the Holocene,
particularly the rapid increase in
global sea levels. One might also
invoke local tectonic movement on
the Torres- Vitiaz subplate (Hughes
1978). While such geologic forces
were doubtless initiating variables
of some import in the transformation
of the Tikopia coastline, I
doubt if they are sufficient to ac-
27
This content downloaded from 147.231.63.14 on Wed, 04 Dec 2019 12:19:23 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
count totally for these changes.
Rather, I believe that the net gain
in land over reef on Tikopia must
be explained as a combination of
geologic and cultural actions. Such
cultural practices of shoreline conservation
were witnessed in the
archaeological record as frequent
retaining walls of coral cobbles now
buried in fossil dune ridges. Ethnograph
ically, the evidence for
conservation of dunes is richer,
Figure 3. Paleogeographic reconstructions
of Tikopia at three points in time,
showing the evolution of the island's
landscape and distribution of prehistoric
settlements. After AD 1600, the central
bay became a closed, brackish lake.
28
including such practices as seawall
construction, the physical transport
of sand from beach front to dune
crest, the purposive in-filling of the
lakeshore for land reclamation, and
the planting of Calophyllum stands
to stabilize dune surfaces (Kirch
and Yen 1982). In short, while the
Tikopia shoreline would probably
have undergone some form of aggradation
even if man had not
colonized the island, I doubt that
the same pronounced gain in land
area over reef would have been
achieved without the input from
human actions.
Of equal, if not greater importance
for Tikopia man-land relationships
has been the alteration of the
terrestrial, volcanic landscape. Here
the dominant processes have been
erosion of the 80,000 year-old volcanic
crater, and mass transport of
soil, earth, and rock from the higher
volcanic slopes to the lower colluvium
that forms an interface
between volcanic and calcareous
edaphic environments. The adaptive
significance of such deposition
should not be underestimated, for
this colluvium is counted as the
most productive agricultural land
on the island, including the intensively
gardened Rakisu tract (Firth
1936: Plan IV). A series of excavations
undertaken in Rakisu by
my colleague, Douglas Yen, yielded
evidence that the rate of colluvial
deposition was significantly increased
in the period following
human colonization, and that forest
clearance with burning was a primary
cause of the increased erosion
on the higher slopes (Kirch and Yen
1982:147-160). The scale of erosion
and deposition on Tikopia is
difficult to translate into quantitative
terms, but a conservative
estimate of the volume of transported
soil and earth that mantles
the Rakisu zone stands at something
greater than 100,000 cubic meters.
On an island of only 4.6 km2, such
mass transport is indeed impressive.
We thus see from the evidence
of island Tikopia, that the ability
of the Polynesians to extensively
modify physical landscapes was
considerable, and that the use of
fire in forest clearance was a major
initiator of transformation. From a
wider comparative viewpoint, the
Tikopia evidence thus joins that of
Golson and Hughes (1980) for the
Kuk Swamp site in Highland New
Guinea, of Hughes and Sullivan
(1981) for the impact of bushfires
in Australia, and of Spriggs (1981)
for valley infilling in southern New
Hebrides. In Tikopia, however, the
positive repercussions of erosion
and deposition for intensive agriculture
cannot be overly stressed.
On a small island such as
Tikopia, the environmental co
quences of human land utiliza
might expectably be rather dr
tic, and the evidence relatively
to obtain through archaeological
and geomorphological investigations.
What then, of a large archipelago
such as Hawaii, with a land
area not only exceeding that of
Tikopia by a factor of 3,600 times,
but with the sequence of Polynesian
settlement only half as long as the
Tikopian? Until recently, the accepted
view appeared to be that the
Hawaiian ecosystem had undergone
only relatively minor transformation
due to Polynesian habitation. New
evidence, mostly obtained during
the past decade, and much of it not
yet widely published, has now
caused us to drastically reconsider
this viewpoint (Kirch 1982a,
1982b).
The Hawaiian Islands
As with Tikopia, we now have
abundant direct evidence from
Hawaii for the introduction by prehistoric
Polynesians of a considerable
range of exotic species. Aside
from the usual domesticates and
cultigens, these again include the
Pacific rat (Rattus exulans), several
species of landsnails, geckos, and
skinks. In her work on the archaeobotany
of the Mauna Kea Adz
Quarry sites, S. Allen (1981) has
recovered the carbonized seeds of
several weedy plants transported by
the Polynesians, including Oxalis
corniculata, Daucus sp., Solanum
nigrum, and Adenostema lavenia.
These discoveries add time depth
to St. John's (1978) analysis of the
first botanical collections in Hawaii
(by David Nelson, on Cook's third
voyage in 1778-9), which demonstrated
the importance of exotic
weeds in the lowland vegetation,
even at initial European contact.
The most exciting new developments
in Hawaiian prehistory and
paleo-environment are not, however,
these records of Polynesian
introductions to the Hawaiian
biota. Rather it is the striking discovery
over the past decade (and
This content downloaded from 147.231.63.14 on Wed, 04 Dec 2019 12:19:23 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Figure 4. Stratigraphie column through the sediments in Site OA-D6-78, a limestone sink at Barbers Point, Oahu, Hawaii,
showing the sequence of change in nonmarine molluscs. Layer II, from 5-35cm, contains large numbers of fossil bird bones, and
represents a phase of rapid decrease in the frequency of several native snail genera (now extinct), as well as an increase in
certain genera preadapted to disturbed conditions. Layer II is also marked by the presence of the anthropophilic snail Lamellaxis
gracilis.
especially since 1978) that a large
and hitherto unsuspected number of
endemic bird species formerly existed
in the main islands of the
archipelago, and that many of these
became extinct only within the
period of Polynesian tenure. (As
well, we now know that many
species of landsnails also became
extinct within the same period; see
below.) Amongst students of island
life and evolution, the Hawaiian
Islands have long been noted for
their endemic avifauna; the honeycreepers,
especially, with 22 species
in 9 genera, are considered a textbook
example of adaptive radiation
(Amadon 1950). Whilst some 40%
of the historically-known endemic
Hawaiian bird species are now
extinct, it has commonly been
assumed that such extinctions occurred
largely after European contact
(e.g., Berger 1972:18-20).
The destruction of large tracts of
native forest in the 19th century is
generally cited as the primary
cause.
The first hints that a number of
previously unknown species of birds
might have gone extinct prior to
European contact came with the
discovery in the early 1970s of a
flightless ibis (Apteribis glenos) and
of a large flightless goose (Thambetochen
chauliodous), the latter from
Pleistocene deposits on Molokai
Island (Olson and Wetmore 1976;
Stearns 1973). Subsequently, excavations
by A. Sinoto (1978) in
limestone sinks at Barbers Point,
Oahu Island yielded large quantities
of bones of extinct birds,
including more than 20 species. The
question of prehistoric man's role
in the extinction of this diverse
faunal assemblage was suddenly
brought to the fore.
The deposits containing extinct
bird bone at Barbers Point were also
notable for their high frequency of
endemic landsnails, again including
many extinct species. Recognizing
that terrestrial snails are potentially
good indicators of paleoenvironment,
Carl Christensen and I
undertook a paleomalacological
analysis of stratigraphie columns
from several limestone sinks and
open habitation sites (Kirch and
Christensen 1980; Christensen
and Kirch 1981b). The sequence
from Site B6-78, illustrated in
Figure 4, is representative of
those from the Barbers Point
area. The site, a small limestone
sinkhole, has three stratigraphie
units: Layer I, a thin overburden;
Layer II (30cm thick), consisting
of a mixture of decomposed limestone
mixed with aeolian soil particles,
contains the majority of the
extinct and locally extirpated avifauna;
and Layer III, a limestone
breccia with scattered bird bones.
Clearly, Layer II represents a period
of rapid deposition, and a period
just prior to the birds' extinction. It
is significant that Layer II also
reflects major changes in the terrestrial
snail fauna, with significant
reductions in certain endemic taxa
(Orobophana, Leptachatina, Cookeconcha,
and Endodonta), and with
relative increases in certain other
taxa preadapted to disturbed conditions
( Lamellidea, Tornatellides,
Lyropupa, and Succinea). We interpret
these changes in the snail
fauna as reflecting modifications in
the local Barbers Point environment,
particularly in the local
vegetation. That these changes are
coterminus with the period of rapid
deposition of the extinct bird bones
furthermore suggests that the extinction
process was closely linked
to habitat change.
That prehistoric man was the
cause, directly or indirectly, of these
habitat changes, is indicated by the
presence in Layer II of four of the
anthropophilic animals introduced
by the Polynesians to Hawaii: (1)
the Pacific rat; (2) geckos; (3)
skinks; and (4) the adventive snail,
Lamellaxis gracilis. Since our paleomalacological
studies were undertaken,
further investigations at a
very large sink (B6-22) by P. C.
McCoy have yielded more direct
evidence of the associations between
extinct birds and man. These include
the bones of a large goose
in a hearth feature, radiocarbon
dated to the thirteenth century AD
Further field studies, in progress at
29
This content downloaded from 147.231.63.14 on Wed, 04 Dec 2019 12:19:23 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
this time, are aimed at further elucidating
the role of man in the
extinction of the Barbers Point
avifauna.
The remains of extinct, and often
large, flightless sipecies of endemic
birds are by no means confined to
the Barbers Point area. Faunal
material from the Kuliouou rockshelter
site, excavated by Emory in
the early 1950's (Emory and
Sinoto 1961), proved - upon reexamination
by Dr Storrs Olson
(pers. comm.) of the Smithsonian
Institution - to contain skeletal
parts from several extinct species,
including a flightless goose. From
the Kawela Mound site on leeward
Molokai, we now have evidence
that the nene (Branta sandwicensis),
an endemic goose known during
the historic period only from
Hawaii Island, persisted until as
late as AD 1500 (Weisler and
Kirch 1982). Similarly, a refuge
cave near Kailua, Kona on Hawaii,
recently excavated by Rose Schilt
of the Bishop Museum, has yielded
the remains of yet another new
species of very large, and probably
flightless, endemic goose, along with
those of a possible new species of
rail, and of the locally extirpated
petrel.
These few examples, selected
from amongst a range of new evidence,
leave little room for doubt
that the period of prehistoric Polynesian
occupation of the Hawaiian
chain saw the rapid extinction of
several tens of endemic bird species.
Storrs Olson and Helen James
(1982), who have studied much of
this new material from a taxonomic
viewpoint, believe that the main
cause of extinction was the radical
alteration of the lowland dry-forest
habitats by the Polynesians, an
interpretation with which I completely
concur. Thus, the Hawaiian
case must now be counted with
that of New Zealand with regard
to avifaunal extinctions. (Amazingly,
the evidence for these extinctions
in Hawaii remained unrecognized
during nearly 30 years of intensive
archaeological excavations!)
The impact of the prehistoric
Polynesians on the Hawaiian ecosystem
was certainly not confined
to the introduction of exotic species
and to the extinction of endemic
birds and landsnails. As I have
noted, the faunal extinctions themselves
mirror major modifications
30
of the lowland habitats. In particular,
recent evidence suggests that
considerable tracts of lowland dryforest
or parkland were converted,
largely through the use of fire, to
open grassland or savannahs. Analyses
of pollen, opal-phytoliths,
wood charcoal, and landsnails from
sites in the Waimea-Kawaihae area
of Hawaii Island (Clark and Kirch
1983) have suggested precisely
such a vegetative transition over
the last few hundred years of the
Hawaiian sequence.
Evidence for local erosion resulting
from the firing of native
vegetation has been obtained from
several islands. In the Halawa
Valley, on Molokai, a series of
stratified colluvial beds containing
abundant charcoal and endemic
landsnails indicate burning of the
valley slopes, and consequent erosion,
beginning by AD 1200 (Kirch
and Kelly 1975:55-64, 180-183).
In the upper Makaha Valley,
Oahu, a local slumping of oolluvium,
believed to* have been initiated
by shifting cultivation, resulted
in the burial of a taro irrigation
system (Yen et al. 1972). More
dramatic evidence comes from the
dry, leeward island of Kahoolawe,
where 'burn layers' containing charcoal
and extinct landsnails, dated
to the 16th century AD, mark the
beginning of a phase of island-wide
erosion (Hammatt 1978, Hommon
1980).
It is only within the past few
years that Hawaiian archaeologists
have begun to look explicitly for
the evidence of environmental
change during the period of Polynesian
tenure. The advances in our
knowledge, made in such a short
time, hint that further studies of
prehistoric man-land relationships,
now in progress, will indeed be
rewarding.
Conclusion
To sum up, I wish to return
briefly to the general theme of this
symposium, the disentangling of
human and climatic influences in the
changing environments of Australia
and the Pacific Islands. I have focused
above on the evidence for
environmental change from two
Polynesian localities, both settled
relatively late in the overall time
frame of man in the Pacific region.
Though the cultural sequence for
Hawaii spans at most a mere millennium
and a half, we have seen
that time itself was not a determinant
of the degree to which humans
were capable of initiating major
ecological change. More important,
it would seem, was the fragility and
vulnerability of the remote, insular
biota of the inner Pacific Islands.
Once the barrier of isolation was
broken by seafaring Polynesians, it
was possible for drastic transformations
of biota and of landscape to
occur, on a time scale measurable
in centuries rather than millennia»
Based on the evidence from Tikopia
and Hawaii, it would clearly
seem that the dominant agent of
environmental change - during
the period that man has occupied
the islands - was man himself.
This does not imply that climatic
change may not have played some
role, but simply that whatever environmental
shifts were owed to
climatic initiative, these were significantly
overshadowed by man's
own actions.
The investigation of man's role
in modifying tropical and sub-tropical
Polynesia» - ecosystems would
appear to be of value not only for
prehistory, but for the study of
island evolution and biogeography
as well. We cannot assume that the
biota of the Pacific Islands, as
known to the first European explorers,
represented anything like
an original pre-human biota. Such
uncritical assumptions have, however,
underlain much of the work
in island biogeography, such as the
correlation of island size and
species diversity (e.g. McArthur
and Wilson 1967). Clearly, the
data of prehistory may be of inestimable
value in reconstructing
the nature of Oceanic ecosystems
prior to man's arrival, and of establishing
a baseline upon which more
sophisticated models of insular
evolution may be constructed. Our
recent efforts in Hawaii have certainly
revealed the reciprocal gains
possible through close interdisciplinary
work. Prospects for the future
are no less exciting.
This content downloaded from 147.231.63.14 on Wed, 04 Dec 2019 12:19:23 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
References
Allen, M. S. 1981. An Analysis of the
Mauna Kea Adz Quarry Archaeobotanical
Assemblage. Unpublished
MA Thesis, University of Hawaii.
Amadon, D. 1950. The Hawaiian Honeycreepers.
American Museum of Natural
History Bulletin 95, 151-262.
Anderson, E. 1952. Plants, Man, and
Life. University of California Press,
Berkeley.
Berger, A. J. 1972. Hawaiian Birdlife.
University of Hawaii Press, Honolulu.
Casseis, R. ms. Faunal extinction and
prehistoric man in New Zealand and
the Pacific Islands. Copy in author's
possession.
Christensen, C. C. 1981. Preliminary
analysis of nonmarine mollusks from
the Faahia archaeological site (ScH
1-2), Huahine, Society Islands. Ms. on
file, Department of Anthropology, B.
P. Bishop Museum, Honolulu.
Christensen, C. C. and Kirch, P. V.
1981a. Non-marine molluscs from
archaeological sites on Tikopia, Solomon
Islands. Pacific Science 35, 75-
88.
Christensen, C. C. and Kirch, P. V.
1981b. Landsnails and environmental
change at Barbers Point, Qahu, Hawaii.
American Malacological Union Bulletin,
31.
Clark, J. and Kirch, P. V. (eds).
1983. Archaeological investigations in
the Mudlane-Waimea-Kawaihae Road
Corridor, Island of Hawaii: an interdisciplinary
study of an environmental
transect. Departmental Report
83-1, Anthropology Department, B. P.
Bishop Museum.
Cumberland, K. B. 1961. Man in nature
in New Zealand. New Zealand Geographer
17, 137-154.
Emory, K. P. and Sinoto, Y. H. 1961.
Hawaiian Archaeology: Oahu Excavations.
Bernice P. Bishop Museum
Special Publication 49.
Firth, R. 1936. We, the Tikopia.
George Allen and Unwin, London.
Flenley, J. R. 1979. Stratigraphie evidence
of environmental change on
Easter Island. Asian Perspectives 22,
33-40.
Flenley, J. R. 1981. The late quaternary
palyno-flora of Easter Island. Paper
presented at the XIII International
Botanical Congress, Sydney, Australia.
Fosberg, F. R. 1963. Disturbance in
island ecosystems. In J. L. Gressitt
(ed.), Pacific Basin Biogeography, pp.
557-561. Bishop Museum Press, Hono-
lulu.
Oolson, J. and Hughes P. J. 1980. The
appearance of plant and animal domestication
in New Guinea. Journal de
la Société des Océanistes 69, 294-303.
Hammatt, H. H. 1978. Geoarchaeological
stratigraphy in the Hawaiian
Islands. Paper presented at the 43rd
Annual Meeting, Society for American
Archaeology, Tucson, Arizona.
Hommon, R. J. 1980. Multiple Resources
Nomination Form for Kahoolawe
Archaeological Sites, Overview. National
Register of Historic Places, Washington,
D.C.
Hughes, G. W. 1978. The relationship
between volcanic island genesis and the
Indo-Australian Pacific Plate margins
in the Eastern Outer Islands, Solomon
Islands, South-west Pacific. Journal
Phys. Earth 26, SuppL S123-S138.
Hughes, P. J., Hope, G., Latham, M.,
and Brookfield, M., 1979. Prehistoric
man-induced degradation of the Lakeba
landscape: evidence from two
inland swamps. In H. Brookfield (ed.),
Lakeba: Environmental Change, Population
Dynamics, and Resource Use,
do. 93-110. UNESCO. Paris.
Hughes, P. J. and Sullivan, M. E. 1981.
Aboriginal burning and Late Holocene
geomorphic events in eastern New
South Wales. Search 12, 277-278.
Hunt, T. 1980. Toward Fiji's Past: Archaeological
Research on Southwestern
Viti Levu. Unpublished MA Thesis,
University of Auckland.
Kirch, P. V. 1981. Lapitoid settlements
of Futuna and Alofi, Western Polynesia.
Archaeology in Oceania 16, 127-
143.
Kirch, P. V. 1982a. The impact of the
prehistoric Polynesians on the Hawaiian
ecosystem. Pacific Science 36, 1-
14.
Kirch, P. V. 1982b. Transported landscapes.
Natural History 91(12), 32-
35.
Kirch, P. V. and Christensen, C. C.
1980. Nonmarine Molluscs and paleoecology
at Barbers Point, Oahu.
Manuscript on file, Department of
Anthropology, B. P. Bishop Museum.
Kirch, P. V. and Kelly, M. (eds). 1975.
Prehistory and Human Ecology in a
Windward Hawaiian Valley: Halawa
Valley, Molokai. Pacific Anthropological
Records 24.
Kirch, P. V. and Yen, D. E. 1982. Tikopia:
The Prehistory and Ecology of a
Polynesian Outlier. B. P. Bishop Museum
Bulletin 238.
MacArthur, R. H. and Wilson, E. 1967.
The Theory of Island Biogeography.
Princeton Univ. Press, Princeton.
McCoy, P. C. 1976. Easter Island Settlement
Patterns in the Late Prehistoric
and Protohistoric Periods. International
Fund for Monuments, Easter
Island Committee, Bulletin 5.
Molloy, B. P. J., Burrows, C. J., Cox,
J. E., Johnston, J. A. and Wardle, P.
1963. Distribution of subfossil forest
remains, Eastern South Island, New
Zealand. New Zealand Journal of Botany,
1, 68-77.
Mulloy, W. and Figueroa, G. 1978. The
A Kivi- Vai Teka Complex and its relationship
to Easter Island architectural
prehistory. University of Hawaii,
Social Science Research Institute,
Asian and Pacific Archaeology Series
No. 8.
Olson, S. L. and James, H. F. 1982.
Prodromus of the fossil avifauna of
the Hawaiian Islands. Smithsonian
Contributions to Zoology 365.
Olson, S. L. and Wetmore, A. 1976.
Preliminary diagnoses of two extraordinary
new genera of birds from
Pleistocene deposits in the Hawaiian
Islands. Proceedings of the Biological
Society of Washington 89, 247-258.
Sinoto, A. 1978. Archaeological and
paleontological salvage at Barbers
Point, Oahu. Manuscript on file, Department
of Anthropology, B. P.
Bishop Museum.
Skottsberg, C. 1956. Composition, distribution,
and relationships of the flora.
In C. Skottsberg, The Natural History
of Juan Fernandez and Easter Island,
Vol. 1, Part 3. Uppsala.
Spriggs, M. 1981. Vegetable Kingdoms:
Taro Irrigation and Pacific Prehistory.
Unpublished PhD dissertation, Australian
National University.
Stearns, H. T. 1973. Geologic setting of
the fossil goose bones found on Molokai
Island, Hawaii B. P. Bishop
Museum, Occasional Papers 24, 155-
163.
St. John, H. 1978. The first collection of
Hawaiian plants by David Nelson in
1779; Hawaiian Plant Studies 55.
Pacific Science 32, 315-324.
Weisler, M. and Kirch, P. V. 1982. The
archaeological resources of Kawela,
Molokai. Manuscript on file. Department
of Anthropology, B. P. Bishop
Museum.
Yen, D. E., Kirch, P. V., Rosendahl, P.
and Riley, T. 1972. Prehistoric agriculture
in the upper valley of Makaha,
Oahu. Pacific Anthropological Records
18, 59-94.
Archaeol. Oceania 18 (1983) 26-31.
31
This content downloaded from 147.231.63.14 on Wed, 04 Dec 2019 12:19:23 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms