Competition for resources : the role of pig and dog in the Polynesian agricultural economy

by

Jan BAY-PETERSEN *

The introduction of the domesticated animals of Polynesia — pig, dog and fowl — represents the partial success of very small breeding populations transferred between what were often very limited distribution areas : coral atolls and small volcanic islands. That success was partial is reflected in the absence of some or all of this limited range of animal species from areas colonised by Polynesians and domesticated plant species. Pig are absent, for example, from New Zealand, Easter Island and many of the smaller Polynesian islands ; similarly dog and fowl have a discontinuous distribution over Polynesia (see Urban, 1961, Fig. 1).

Generally the main factors limiting the distribution of animal species in a particular geographical area are its accessibility, its suitability as a habitat for survival and reproduction, and the presence of competing animal species (Krebs, 1978). In the case of domesticated animals, given that a particular area is within the range of environmental tolerance, the main limitations to distribution are likely to be artificial, in that the relative abundance of domesticated animal species will probably be a direct reflection of their role in a human economy. This is particularly true of agricultural societies, for whom the territory available for exploitation is limited by the distance factor and, usually, competition from other groups. In this type of economy the main limiting factors in animal husbandry will be the extent to which the maintenance of domesticates competes with the production of other food resources, the extent to which animal protein can be

placed by other foods, and the ability of domesticates to live within or coexist with a largely man-made habitat. The distribution of domesticated animals in Polynesia, an area with a low diversity of indigenous species in which nearly all the plants and all the terrestrial mammals exploited by man were introduced as part of an established agricultural economy, is thus of particular interest, in that the presence or absence of particular species may have important economic implications. This will of course only apply if animal species were present in the Polynesian economy at the time when the settlement of different areas occurred. It has sometimes been suggested that the absence of pig and dog from some parts of Polynesia is due to the fact that colonisation by man predated the introduction of these species. Handy and Handy (1978, 242) for example, have suggested that the introduction of the pig into Polynesia postdates the settlement of New Zealand.

Unfortunately, dated remains of pig and dog are rare in both Polynesia and Melanesia. Both species have been found associated with Lapita ware in Watom, off northern New Britain, and on Bellona in the Solomon Islands (Specht 1968, Cram 1975), but the Lapita sites of Samoa and Tonga are unfortunately poor in faunal remains (see e.g. Davidson, in Green and Davidson, 1974 & 1969). Certainly dogs, although of a different species from the Polynesian dog, are found in Australia at a very early date. Dingo bones at Madura Cave in Western Australia have been dated to 3,450 ± 95 B.P., and at Wombah in New South Wales a sample of dingo bones