Page 1054

Samoa and the Cook Islands, a distance of some 1,600 kilometers, and more recently Weisler (1998) has tracked the movement of adzes from the Marquesas to the Society Islands. Equally innovative has been the work of E. Matisoo-Smith and colleagues (1998) using studies of mitochondrial DNA variation in Pacific rats (Rattus exulans) to show patterns of interisland contact.

Contemporary Archaeology in Polynesia

Polynesian archaeology continues to change and evolve. The very practice of archaeology has been significantly affected by changing institutional and sociopolitical contexts. Throughout the first six decades of the twentieth century, archaeology fell almost exclusively within the institutional purview of a few museums and universities. This situation began to change dramatically in the 1970s with the rise of “public archaeology” or, as it has come to be labeled in Americanist contexts, “cultural resource management” (CRM) archaeology. In Hawai’i, for example, most contemporary archaeological work is carried out not by research institutions but by private (for-profit) archaeological contractors. Thus the very definition of field projects has shifted from areas selected strictly on the basis of their research potential to specific locations subject to impact from highway construction, resort development, and the like (Graves and Erkelens 1991; Kirch 1999). Similarly, in French Polynesia much archaeological work is now undertaken to mitigate the adverse effects of “development,” such as in the large-scale Papeno’o Valley project where the construction of hydroelectric dams was the main consideration. Although it has generated significant new funding sources for fieldwork, this shift to CRM archaeology also led to the production of a very large “gray literature” of archaeological reports not published in the usual academic journals and monographs—a serious problem for the long-term archiving and preservation of archaeological evidence.

The sociopolitical context of Polynesian archaeology is also rapidly evolving. Once almost exclusively the purview of white, expatriate scholars (Te Rangi Hiroa was a major exception), archaeology in the islands has begun to incorporate significant numbers of indigenous practitioners. As Polynesians themselves are trained in the theory and methods of archaeology and begin to take up professional posts in museums, universities, historical preservation agencies, and CRM firms, they bring new questions and concerns to the field. There is, for example, a renewed interest in the potential integration of indigenous oral traditions and narratives with archaeological evidence (Cachola-Abad 1993). Heightened cultural sensitivity toward the archaeological record has also changed the nature of archaeological practice. This is evidenced, for instance, in the complete reburial of several thousand human skeletal remains that had been excavated from Hawaiian archaeological sites, a direct outcome of the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act in the United States.

These and other influences will continue to modify the ways in which archaeology is practiced in Polynesia and elsewhere in the Pacific islands. Certainly, however, there is no sign that interest in Polynesian archaeology is abating. The long-term history of the islands and their indigenous peoples has engaged scholars for more than two centuries, yet new questions continually emerge even as older issues receive renewed scrutiny from fresh approaches and methods.

Patrick V. Kirch