| Abstract: |
The debate over the origin of the Polynesians and their presumed ancestors, the Lapita people, continues across all anthropological disciplines. The best means of assessing the origin of a population however is to look at the people themselves, at their skeletal remains. Such remains are scarce, but there is much which can be achieved using this type of evidence, providing the appropriate methodology is applied. This paper assesses previous research on the biological anthropology of the Polynesians, and points to some serious methodological flaws and tacit assumptions which need to be addressed. After reviewing the major theories on the biological origins of the Pacific peoples, the paper looks in detail at two particular aspects of current research: (1) the skeletal features classified as being distinctively "Polynesian" and (2) the geographic and temporal parameters of samples included in statistical analyses. The paper questions what we mean by the terms "Polynesian", "Melanesian" and "Lapita", and asks whether these terms can appropriately be applied to assessments of biological affinity.
|
