Subsistence intensification in the late prehistory of Manus

Abstract

This thesis explores possible evidence of intensified production in the prehistory of Manus Province (Admiralty Islands), Papua New Guinea. This research aim draws on broader archaeological assumptions that changes in past subsistence are traceable through durable modifications of the landscape and often signal attempts to intensify production. To address this issue two examples of walled complexes, both constructed for subsistence production, are compared. On the small volcanic island of Baluan, walled garden enclosures cover the landscape while in the other, inhabitants of Andra constructed a nearly continuous barrier of walled fish traps along the reef edge. Three approaches were used to address these issues. The first is descriptive in that it documents through ethnographic interviews and field observations the physical structure, function and customary use of both walled complexes. Particular attention is given factors influencing yields, labor requirements and the consequences of capital investments, all considered significant in measuring intensified production. For Baluan, agricultural procedures and cycles are reconstructed as are the island's once pronounced and diverse assemblages of fruit and nut trees. For Andra, the walled trap complexes were one of 28 fishing methods known to be used by a specialized fishing community to exploit highly differentiated reef environments and their diverse fish populations. While the function of the walled traps are examined in detail, all 28 methods are also described. The second approach attempts to isolate and deduce phases of chronological and spatial development in these complexes, focusing primarily on their establishment, expansion and the possible intensification of their structural capacities. On Baluan analyses examine a sample of 736 walled enclosures while, for Andra, the sample included 221 walled fish traps visible on aerial photographs and 47 mapped examples. The third approach emphasizes the environmental and social context of these developments as they can provide the impetus for production increases or present limitation to these efforts. Several common elements emerged from comparisons between these two, almost contrasting, walled complexes. Customary use and the structural histories of the complexes suggest that competition over the allocation of resources was of greater significance in their development than attempts to increase production. Underscored is the value, in similar circumstances, of considering the organizational aspects of production in explaining these developments instead of focusing solely or primarily on issues of production increases or labor requirements. In both cases, pressures on production were expressed most strongly at the level of the household, a trend reflected in the replication of individual forms that constitute the complexes. Although neither complex appears to strongly and directly express the process of intensification, evidence suggests that both were components in a larger trend in which production as a whole was intensifying and becoming more concentrated. These results serve as reminders that the most archaeologically visible components of subsistence may not represent production prominence or precisely mark significant phases of intensification.