Marginalization of the Margins: The Importance of Smaller Islands in Human Prehistory

Abstract

Across the world's seas and oceans, archaeological research focused on islands has generally privileged those that are larger in size. Explanations for this phenomenon range from the (mis)perception by scholars that prehistoric peoples were more attracted to the presumed greater number and diversity of resources typically available on larger islands, to the ephemeral aspect of archaeological evidence on smaller land areas. These are coupled with logistical and infrastructure issues that often limit access to labor, equipment, and transportation to conduct field activities (e.g., remote atolls in the Pacific). A growing body of research demonstrates, however, that ancient peoples regularly and readily occupied and/or accessed many smaller islands for both terrestrial and marine resources. In some cases, within an archipelago, evidence shows an earlier occupation on smaller islands versus larger ones, or an attraction to the former given unique or seasonal resource availability and/or defensive capabilities. We describe cases from several areas of the world that highlight the importance of relatively small islands (∼1-500 km 2 ) for understanding human adaptations in what many have considered to be among the most marginal of environments.

Two millennia of mollusc foraging on Ebon Atoll, Marshall Islands: Sustained marine resource use on a Pacific atoll

“…Other authors working in Micronesia have noted the remarkable productivity of the nearshore habitats on atolls, positing that low population density and abundant marine resources mitigated long-term impacts to the reef (Thomas 2014;Weisler 2001b). These results are also consistent with current discourses on the role of small islands in the human story, with Fitzpatrick et al (2016) among a number of researchers challenging traditional conceptions of small islands as remote, marginal and isolated (Giovas 2016), a position developed early on by Weisler (1995Weisler ( , 1996Weisler ( , 1997 for the geographically isolated but socially connected Pitcairn Group. Linguistic evidence clearly points to consistent and continuous contact between atolls across the Marshall Islands throughout prehistory (Rehg 1995).…”

“…These results are also consistent with current discourses on the role of small islands in the human story, with Fitzpatrick et al . () among a number of researchers challenging traditional conceptions of small islands as remote, marginal and isolated (Giovas ), a position developed early on by Weisler (, , ) for the geographically isolated but socially connected Pitcairn Group. Linguistic evidence clearly points to consistent and continuous contact between atolls across the Marshall Islands throughout prehistory (Rehg ).…”

Kisar and the Archaeology of Small Islands in the Wallacean Archipelago

“…Islands are generally characterized in archaeology as remote, marginal, and isolated. Small islands in particular (i.e., those between ∼1 and 500 km 2 ) are often neglected by archaeologists due to the perception that they would have been too marginal to have sustained human populations (Fitzpatrick et al 2016). This widely held perception is in large part due to the acceptance of the 'Theory of Island Biogeography' (MacArthur and Wilson 1967) by archaeologists.…”

Archaeomalocological methods, forager decision-making, and intertidal ecosystems: Two millennia of mollusc exploitation on a remote Pacific atoll

“…These results are also consistent with current discourses on the role of small islands in the human story, with Fitzpatrick et al (2016) among a number of researchers challenging traditional conceptions of small islands as remote, marginal, and isolated , a position developed early on by Weisler (1995Weisler ( , 1996Weisler ( , 1997 for the geographically isolated but socially connected Pitcairn Group. Linguistic evidence clearly points to consistent and continuous contact between atolls across the Marshall Islands throughout prehistory (Rehg 1995).…”