Where did the Lapita people originate?

The accepted opinion has been that the Lapita were an established cultural group with distinctive food resources and pottery that formed outside Melanesia, but more recently, the idea has grown that the Melanesians themselves were Lapita, the culture forming within the Melanesian boundaries.

Three theories of the movement of Lapita people into Melanesia have been proposed:


Route of migration theory 1
Migration theory 1 (Click to see a larger image)

Theory 1: a particular Austronesian speaking people from SE Asia [pdf], the Phillipines or Indonesia, with domesticated plants and animals, metal and pottery skills, moved either into or around western Melanesia and thus settled eastern Melanesia. 

Arguments for this:

  • the quality of the decoration on the pottery

  • the domesticated animals that Lapita carried originated in SE Asia

  • genetic evidence of Polynesians having SE Asian origins (Kennett, Anderson & Winterhalden 2006:¶8). 


Route of migration theory 2
Migration theory 2 (Click to see a larger image)

Theory 2: Melanesians(CQU¶10) who arrived in New Guinea and the western region about 30,000BP themselves settled eastern Melanesia.

Arguments for this

  • many plants that Lapita carried were domesticated in New Guinea where agriculture was practiced earlier than 4000BP

  • a lack of disruption in western Melanesian lifestyle which would be due to an influx of new culture (Gosden 1992:4) [pdf]

  • there is no sign of Lapita pottery in SE Asia

  • the Melanesians were skilled sea travellers, which is evident in the movement of obsidian from its sources through the Bismarck archipelago

  • words describing boats and navigation originate in the Bismarck region


Route of migration theory 3
Migration theory 3 (Click to see a larger image)

Theory 3: a group of Austronesians joined the Melanesians in the Bismarck region and developed a culture that then moved east.

  • this theory accounts for the problems of language, race and food resources of each of the above theories.


Analysis of language is complex and not, at the moment, very useful -  it is so complex that arguments have been used to support both theories 1 and 2.

All these theories leave unanswered the question of where Lapita pottery originated.