The Significance of Linguistic Interaction Spheres in Reconstructing Micronesian Prehistory

A sea change has taken place in the field of Pacific prehistory. As a result of recent voyaging experiments, many scholars now recognize that early and frequent interisland contacts are possibilities that must be considered in reconstructing the prehistory of this region. This shift in perspective is of significance to linguists since it potentially affects how we conduct our research as well as how others perceive its value. A case in point is Geoffrey Irwin's claim that the orthodox settlement model for Micronesia, based upon linguistics, is defective. He contends that the patterns of language distribution in this region can largely be explained as resulting from prehistoric linguistic interaction spheres. I argue that Irwin's reasoning is flawed, but that, nevertheless, there are problems associated with depicting the relationships of some Micronesian languages in the form of a conventional family tree. I then compare the relative chronology implicit in the linguistic model with actual dates from the archaeological record and discuss discrepancies between the two. I conclude by calling for improved communication and co-operation between these two disciplines.