By the time o f Margaret M ead’s ethnographic research in 1928 obsidian was no longer used or traded in the Admiralty Islands, having been supplanted by implements o f iron and steel (Mead 1963 [ 1930]:231). Earlier observers noted the common occurrence o f obsidian and its use for tools ranging from simple unmodified flakes to hafted implements (Cayley-Webster 1898:312; Labillardiere 1800:303, 307; Mikloucho-Maclay 1878:428; 1879:169; Parkinson 1907:302; Romilly 1887:116). The earliest reference to obsidian dates to 1545 when Ortiz de Retes was attacked by islanders armed with what were probably obsidian-tipped spears ( ‘Feuersteinpfeile’ in Nevermann’s translation, 1934:1). Hostile encounters with islanders brandishing obsidian spears continued until well into the 1890s (Schnee 1900:329). Parkinson (1907:311, 327) observed that obsidian from Lou was traded as spearpoints and unworked blocks. The amount o f obsidian distributed to meet demand for spears and utilitarian implements must have been huge. Mikloucho-Maclay (1879:169) for instance recorded such an abundance during his stay on the small island o f Andra off the northern coast o f Manus that he doubted that there could ever be an insufficiency.
Although the historic trade o f obsidian seems to have been restricted to within the archipelago, in prehistory this commodity was distributed far more widely. Archaeological research has revealed that from 3500 BP obsidian from Lou and the Pam Islands was transported to localities as distant as the Reef/Santa Cruz Islands and Vanuatu (Sheppard 1992:147; Ambrose 1978:331). Characterisation studies on obsidian from archaeological contexts show that the Admiralty Islands were a significant source for sites on the northern New Guinea coast, as well as those located in an island arc stretching from the Mussau Group, through northern New Ireland, and out to the Solomons (Table 3.1). Only a small proportion o f obsidian from sites in the New Britain region and Remote Oceania was derived from Lou or the Pam Islands. On current evidence this obsidian never entered the distribution networks o f southeast Papua or the Massim. A likely explanation for this is that source deposits are present on New Britain and Fergusson Island. Commentators have observed that generally the post-Lapita period saw an increase in the proportion o f Admiralties obsidian transported to the northern Bismarcks and parts o f the Solomons (e.g. Spriggs 199la .230). Characterisation analysis undertaken during the “Lapita Homeland Project” (Allen and Gosden 1991) revealed that approximately 85% o f Admiralties obsidian exported beyond the archipelago was obtained from deposits on Lou, with the remaining 15% originating from the Pam Islands (Bird in prep.). The only region outside the Admiralties archipelago where Pam Islands obsidian is present in significant quantities is the Mussau Islands, where almost exactly 50% o f obsidian originated from the Pams (Bird in prep). If the Mussau results are excluded from consideration, Pam Islands obsidian comprised only 9% o f the material transported beyond the Admiralties.
As recounted in Chapter 1, some prehistorians consider that the transfer o f Admiralties obsidian to other regions o f western Melanesia from around 3500 BP is evidence for the arrival o f specialist traders, similar to those observed historically
(Kirch 1990). I have also outlined how this assumption has been questioned by Ambrose (1976; 1978) on the basis o f comparison with ethnographically observed Titan middlemen traders. In the period 1978-1985 Ambrose undertook a program to examine how and when obsidian was utilised in the Admiralties, research which had the potential to provide a better understanding o f why obsidian from this archipelago came to be distributed to distant locales. Ambrose excavated at five sites on Lou - Umleang (GBJ), Pisik School (GBC), Emsin (GEB), Sasi (GEF, formerly designated GDY) and Pisik Knoll (no designation). The Pisik Knoll excavation revealed little in the way o f cultural material, but the other four uncovered pottery and quantities o f worked obsidian. Details o f these investigations can be found in Chapter 6; here I will provide only a brief overview. The Emsin and Sasi sites were obsidian workshops containing hundreds o f semi-completed retouched points (Ambrose 1988:484; 1991a: 107; Antcliff 1988). Radiocarbon dates place occupation o f Emsin at approximately 1650 BP, that at Sasi 2100 BP. The Pisik School site is adjacent to and approximately contemporary with Emsin, but unlike its neighbour was not the locus o f large-scale point manufacture (Ambrose 1991a: 107). Umleang is distinguished by evidence o f extensive obsidian working, much o f which was probably associated with the use of a nearby obsidian mineshaft (Ambrose et al. 198la :7; see also Fullagar and Torrence 1991). Recent results o f obsidian hydration dating by Ambrose (in press) indicate that use of the mineshaft may have begun only within the last 200 years.
Ambrose and colleagues undertook characterisation analysis on obsidian from Emsin and Umleang to provide a chronological framework for the use o f particular Lou subsources (Ambrose et al. 1981a; 1981b; Ambrose and Duerden 1982). Although preliminary, the results suggest that multiple obsidian sources were used at both sites,
obsidian compositionally identical to some used at Emsin, suggesting that shafts were sunk to re-access deposits used 1600 years previously. Analysis was also carried out on assemblages from sites beyond Lou; within the Admiralties these consisted of Kohin and a test pit on Hus Island associated with a “modem” date (Ambrose et al.
198la: 14a); material from outside the archipelago included that from Masahet Island, Eloaua and Lossu. The results demonstrated a correspondence with the pattem for Emsin and Umleang; occupations dated to pre-1600 BP had obsidian compositionally similar to that found in Emsin, occupations occurring within the last 1000 years or so possessed a predominance o f Lou obsidian similar to that from layers in Umleang dated to less than 300 BP (Ambrose et al. 1981a; 1981b). Although it is tempting to see this patterning as demonstrating change in trade patterns, a more likely explanation is that this reflects the burial o f Lou obsidian deposits by major volcanic ashfall events over the last 2000 years (Ambrose 1988; Ambrose et al. 1981a).
Excavations on Lou therefore uncovered diachronic variation in the use o f obsidian subsources, a pattern also shown by the temporal distribution o f particular Lou obsidians in sites beyond this island. Continuity in the use o f Lou obsidian in off- island sites demonstrates that periods o f volcanically-induced disruption in the supply o f this material did not result in its complete replacement in the external distribution system by obsidian from the Pam Islands, or sources beyond the archipelago. This may say something about the enduring nature of trade between the inhabitants o f Lou and communities within and beyond the Admiralties archipelago. Additionally, the large-scale manufacture o f stylistically similar retouched artefacts in Sasi and Emsin shows continuity in the production of a particular implement form over a period o f perhaps 450 years, a time during which two major eruptive episodes blanketed Lou in tephra (Ambrose 1988:484). At least some artefacts o f this style were traded beyond the Admiralties; similar artefacts have been found on New Ireland in association with
a cultural deposit dated to 1700-1650 BP (White and Downie 1980:Fig 7), and on Buka from a possible 2500-2200 BP context (Wickler 1990:147).
The Lou investigations uncovered other lines o f evidence for prehistoric contact with regions beyond the Admiralties. The most dramatic is a piece o f worked bronze found in the Sasi site (Ambrose 1988). This provides unequivocal evidence that some form o f communication existed 2100 years ago between the Admiralties and metal using cultures o f Island Southeast Asia. Interestingly, Badner (1972) entertained the possibility that similarities in the art o f the Admiralties and Indonesia could reflect direct contact between these regions (see also Kennedy 1982 for a similar discussion, and Ambrose 1991b for the possibility o f past contact with Micronesia on the basis o f similarities in stone mortar morphology). The clay composition o f pottery obtained from the Lou excavations is currently being chemically analysed by Ambrose (1991a; 1992; 1993) for evidence o f patterning in the distribution o f pots, although research is at a too preliminary stage for any conclusions to be drawn. Trade connections between Manus and the Mussau group have been posited by Hunt (1989) on the basis o f his sourcing work on Mussau ceramics. This ties in with the distribution o f obsidian which in all o f the Mussau sites so far investigated originated from mainly Admiralties sources (Kirch et al. 1991:157). However, Ambrose (1993:210) has observed that Hunt’s analysis relies on data which are at best ambiguous.