Archaeological Investigations of Marae Structures in Huahine, Society Islands, French Polynesia: Report and discussions 9781407305677, 9781407336275

Citation preview

BAR S2091 2010 WALLIN & SOLSVIK

Archaeological Investigations of Marae Structures in Huahine, Society Islands, French Polynesia Report and discussions

Paul Wallin Reidar Solsvik

ARCHAEOLOGICAL INVESTIGATIONS OF MARAE STRUCTURES

B A R

BAR International Series 2091 2010

Archaeological Investigations of Marae Structures in Huahine, Society Islands, French Polynesia Report and discussions

Paul Wallin Reidar Solsvik

BAR International Series 2091 2010

ISBN 9781407305677 paperback ISBN 9781407336275 e-format DOI https://doi.org/10.30861/9781407305677 A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library

BAR

PUBLISHING

ABSTRACT This publication is based on new fieldwork carried out on the island of Huahine, French Polynesia, in the years 20012004. The work was done within the frames of the project “Local Developments and Regional Interactions: The Huahine Archaeological Project” in collaboration between the Kon-Tiki Museum in Oslo, Norway, the Ethnographic Museum, Oslo, Norway, the Service de la Culture et du Patrimoine, Papeete, French Polynesia, and the Bernice P. Bishop Museum, Honolulu, USA. The work was financed by the Kon-Tiki Museum, the Norwegian Research Council, and the Bishop Museum. The aim of the project was to establish a chronological framework of the marae structures mainly on the island of Huahine in the Leeward Society Islands. However dates were also conducted on earlier collected charcoal from excavated marae structures on the Windward Islands to control the wider context of our local results. Other questions of interest to this study were how the marae structures were located on the landscape, as well as, aspects of their extended uses and modern changes. Key words: Archaeology, ethnohistory, ceremonial structures, marae, Huahine, Society Islands, French Polynesia, Radiocarbon dating, landscape archaeology.

7

8

CONTENTS PART I. EXCAVATION REPORTS 2002-2004 Abstract……………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 7 List of illustrations……………………………………………………….……………………………………........ 11 Preface………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 13 1. Recearch presentation…………………………………………………………………………...………………. 15 1.1 Introduction………………………………………………………………………………........………………. 15 1.2 Itinerary………………………………………………………………………………………..………………. 16 1.3 Acknowledgement……………………………………………………………………………..………………. 17 2. Investigations of Society Islands marae complex………………………………………………………………. 18 2.1 Background…………………………………………………………………………………….……………….18 2.2 Research history……………………………………………………………………….………………………. 20 2.3 Society Islands marae and their significance for theories of origin on ritual spaces in Polynesia……………………………………………………………………………………….………………. 22 3. Research design and methodology……………………………………………………………...………………. 24 3.1 Site selection…………………………………………………………………………………...……………….24 3.2 Site location……………………………………………………………………………………………………. 24 3.3 Excavation methodology………………………………………………………………………………………. 27 4. Excavation of marae ScH-2-62-1, Te Ana……………………………………………………………………….28 4.1 Description of structure……………………………………………………………….……….………………. 28 4.2 Location of trenches………………………………………………………………….………..………………. 28 4.3 Trench I…………………………………………………………………………….………….………………. 28 4.4 Trench II…………………………………………………………………………….…………………………. 33 4.5 Trench III and IV………………………………………………………………….……...........………………. 34 4.6 Trench V……………………………………………………………………………….………………………. 35 5. Excavation of marae ScH-2-62-3, Te Ana……………………………………………………………………….37 5.1 Description of the structure……………………………………………………………………………………. 37 5.2 Location of trenches…………………………………………………………………………...………………. 37 5.3 Trench I………………………………………………………………………………………..………………. 37 5.4 Trench II……………………………………………………………………………..………...………………. 38 5.5 Trench III…………………………………………………………………………...………….………………. 39 6. Excavation of marae ScH-2-65-1, Te Ana……………………………………………………………………….41 6.1 Description of the structure……………………………………………………………………………………. 41 6.2 Location of trenches……………………………………………………………...…………....………………. 42 6.3 Trench I………………………………………………………………………………………..………………. 42 6.4 Trench II……………………………………………………………………………………….………………. 43 6.5 Trench III………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 43 7. Excavation of marae ScH-2-65-2, Te Ana……………………………………………………………………….44 7.1 Description of the Structure…………………………………………………………………………………….44 7.2 Trench I……………………………………………………………………………….……….………………. 44 8. Excavation of marae ScH-2-66-1………………………………………………….…………….………………. 46 8.1 Description of the structure………………………………………………………….………...………………. 46 8.2 Trench I………………………………………………………………………………………..………………. 47 8.3 Trench II……………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 49 9. Excavation of marae ScH-2-18, Marae Manunu, Motu Ovarei…………………….………...………………. 50 9.1 Description of the structure……………………………………………………………………………………. 50 9.2 Location of trenches…………………………………………………………………………..……………….. 52 9.3 Test Pit Units on courtyard…………………………………………………………………….………………. 52 9.4 Test units at the rear-wall or sea-ward face of the ahu………………………………………...……………….53 9.5 Trench I (X-2Y-1/X-1Y-1/X0Y-1/X0Y0)……………………………………………………..……………….54 9.6 Trench II (X24Y0/X24Y1/X25Y0/X25Y1)…………………………………………………...………………. 56 9.7 Trench III (X10Y8/X10Y9/X11Y8/X11Y9)………………………………………………….………………. 57 9.8 Soil samples for phosphate analysis…………………………………………………………...………………. 57 9.9 Conclusions regarding the excavations at marae Manunu……………………………………………………. 57 10. Excavation of marae ScH-2-19, Marae Mata’ire’a Rahi, Mata’ire’a Hill……………………….………….. 59 10.1 Description of the structure…………………………………………………………...….......………………. 59 10.2 Location of trenches………………………………………………………………………….………………. 61 9

10.3 Trench I, at rear-wall of ahu………………………………………………………………….………………. 61 10.4 Trench II, through the enclosing wall and ahu……………………………………………….………………. 63 10.5 Testing at the enclosing wall and the marae terrace…………………………………………………………. 66 10.6 Conclusion regarding the excavations at marae Mata’ire’a rahi……………………….……………………. 66 10.7 Restoration work made on marae Mata’ire’a rahi…………………………………...……….……………… 67 11. Excavation at marae Tiamaue, on land Tiamaue, district of Fare……………………….……….………….68 11.1 Description of the structure………………………………………………………….……….………………. 68 11.2 Test-excavation of the ahu and courtyard………………………………………….………...………………. 69 11.3 Summary of investigations at Tiamaue………………………………………………………………………. 70 12. Excavations at marae on land Tuituirorohiti, Fa’ahia land division, district of Fare………...…………… 71 12.2 Excavations of fare-pote on the courtyard, Trench I………………………………………...………………. 71 12.3 Excavations of the ahu and courtyard, Trench II……………………………………….........………………. 73 12.4 Excavations on the courtyard, Trench III…………………………………………………….………………. 74 12.5 Excavations on the courtyard, Trench IV…………………………………………………….………………. 74 12.6 Summary of investigations at marae on land Tuituirorohiti……………………………........………………. 74 13. Excavations of marae Haupoto, on land Haupoto, district of Maeva……………………………………….. 76 13.1 Description of the structure…………………………………………………………………..………………. 76 13.2 Location of trenches…………………………………………………………………………….……………. 78 13.3 Trench I………………………………………………………………………………………….…………… 78 13.4 Trench II………………………………………………………………………………………...……………. 78 13.5 Trench III……………………………………………………………………………………….……………. 78 13.6 Trench IV…………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 79 13.7 Trench V………………………………………………………………………………………...……………. 79 13.8 Summary of investigations at marae on land Haupoto………………………………………………………. 80

PART II. RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS 14. Dating of marae on Huahine………………………………………………………………..…….…………… 81 14.1 Dating stone structures…………………………………………………………………….....………………. 81 14.2 Dating marae at the chiefly centre of Maeva, Huahine Nui…………………………….…..………………. 85 14.3 The two national marae of Maeva…………………………………………………………...………………. 85 14.4 The Te Ana complex…………………………………………………………………….…...………………. 87 14.5 Dating marae outside the Maeva area…………………………………………………….....………………. 90 14.6 Development of marae on Huahine……………………………………………….…………………………. 93 15. Tracing ritual activity on Polynesian marae structures………………………………….………………….. 96 15.1 Phosphate analysis……………………………………………………………………….…..………………. 96 15.2 Uprights and downrights……………………………………………………………………..………………. 101 16. The ritual landscape of Huahine………………………………………………………………………………. 103 16.1 Marae location in the landscape…………………………………………………………......………………. 103 16.2 Concerning restorations, reconstructions and change……………………………………….………………. 104 17. Ethnohistory of marae structures at Maeva……………….………………..………………..………………. 106 17.1 The settlement at Maeva……………………………………………………………………..………………. 106 17.2 Two national temples…………………………………………………………………………...……………. 107 18. The wider context of the investigations…………………………………………………………..…………… 111 18.1 Emergence of marae structures in the Leeward Islands……………………………………..………………. 111 18.2 New radiocarbon dates from the Windward Islands marae…………………………………………………. 111 18.3 Marae in the Society Islands…………………………………………………………………………………. 112 18.4 Broader East Polynesian perspectives………………………………………………..………………………. 113 19. References……………………………………………………………………………………....………………. 117

PART III. APPENDICES Appendix 1: Findlists….……………………………………………………………………………………………. 123 Appendix 2: Charcoal sourcing by J.Coil…………………………………………………………..………………. 147 Appendix 3: Radiocarbon reports…………………………………………….…………………………………….. 149 Appendix 4: Osteological analysis by P. Wallin…………………………………………….……..………………. 157 Appendix 5: Photo survey by P.Wallin and R. Solsvik…………………………………….………………………. 165

10

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS Fig. 1: Part of field crew 2003, Taui LaBaste, Pu’ai Tinirau, and Maurice LaBaste (landowner). Fig. 2: Part of fieldcrew fall 2003, Tu’ai Tinirau, Reidar Solsvik, and Martel Teavae. Fig. 3: Part of field crew at marae Tuituirorohito, Teva Parker; Paul Wallin, Mark Eddowes, Hiro Oopa. Fig. 4: Part of fieldcrew at marae Haupoto, Jean-Marie Faatauira, Jose Tefaataumarama, Pu’ai Tinirau, Reidar Solsvik, and Paul Wallin. Fig. 5: Map of the Society Islands and the Huahine, the island under study. Fig. 6: Emory’s typology of Windward Islands marae structures. Fig. 7: Emory’s typology of Leeward Islands marae structures. Fig. 8: Sinoto’s typology of the Society Islands marae (from Sinoto 2001). Fig. 9: Wallin’s typology of Society Islands marae structures (Wallin 2001, fig. 2). Fig. 10: K.P. Emory and Te Ranig Hiroa at Raiatea in 1923. Fig. 11: Yoshiko H. Sinoto during excavations at Vai’to’otia (Courtesy of Y.H. Sinoto). Fig. 12: B.P. Bishop Museum, the center of Polynesian researches during the first decades of the 20th century. Fig. 13: Map of Huahine and the excavated sites. Fig. 14: Map of the Mata’ire’a Hill and Maeva area with excavated and sampled marae structures located. Fig. 15: Legend of symbols used in the plan and section drawings below. Fig. 16: Ahu of marae ScH-2-62-1, taken from NE. Fig. 17: Marae ScH-2-62-1 plan drawing. Fig. 18: Trench 1, plan drawing prior to excavation. Fig. 19: Trench 1 during excavation from N. Fig. 20: Photo of Trench 1, unit 2,N section through the ahu. Scattered charcoal found at far right in picture. Fig. 21: Photo of Trench 1, unit 2,rear SW corner of ahu. Fig. 22: Trench I, plan drawings. Fig. 23: Trench I, E section. Fig. 24: Trench II, plan drawings. Fig. 25: Trench II, E-section drawing. Fig. 26: Trench II, photo of S-section, showing the end of platform dividing court in two parts. Fig. 27: Trench II, S-section drawing. Fig. 28: Trench II, 20-30 cm below surface, bottom of earth oven (F2). Fig. 29a: Trench III, S-section drawing. Fig. 29b: Trench III, picture taken from N prior to excavation. Fig. 30: Trench IV, photo of S-section . Fig. 31: Trench V, a layer with mixed charcoal at a depth of 60 cm b.s. Fig. 32: Trench V, plan drawings. Fig. 33: Trench V, E-section drawing. Fig. 34: S to N transect drawing through the center of the marae. Fig. 35: E to W transect drawing through the center of the ahu. Fig. 36: Overview of marae, taken from S. Fig. 37: Plan drawing indicating the locations of excavated trenches. Fig. 38: Location of thench 1 at the N end of the marae platform. Fig. 39: Trench 1, plan draing of Layer 2. Fig.40: Trench 1, E-W Section. Fig. 41: Feature at the E side of the marae platform. Fig. 42: Trench II. Plan drawing of Layer 1. Fig. 43: Trench II, S-N Section. Fig. 44: Trench 3 at the base of the W side of the marae platform. Fig. 45: Plan drawing, trench III, 0-10 cm b.s. Fig. 46: Plan drawing, trench III, 10-20cm b.s. Fig. 47: Plan drawing, trench III, 20-25 cm b.s. Fig. 48: Plan drawinf, trench III, 25-30 cm b.s. Fig. 49: Plan drawing, trench III, 30-40 cm b.s. Fig. 50: Plan drawing, trench III, 40-50 cm b.s. Fig. 51: Plan drawing, trench III, 50-60 cm b.s. Fig. 52: Trench III, N-S section. Fig. 53: Plan drawing of marae ScH-2-65-1, with the location of trenches I-III. Fig. 54: Trench I, plan drawings. Fig. 55: Trench I, WNW section. Fig. 56: Trench I, Unit 1.

Fig. 57: Trench I, East section. Fig. 58: Trench II, plan drawings. Fig. 59: Trench III, plan drawing of surface. Fig. 60: Plan drawing of the ahu of marae ScH-2-65-2. Fig. 61: Overview of marae ScH-2-65-2. Marae ScH-2-65-1 is seen behind. Photo from NW. Fig. 62: Marae ScH-2-65-2, trench 1, bottom of layer 1, 0-10 cm. Fig. 63: Trench 1, South section. Fig. 64: Trench 1 East section. Fig. 65: Plan drawing of marae ScH-2-66-1 with excavated trenches indicated. Fig. 66: Marae ScH-2-66-1 covered by jungle vegetation. Fig. 67: Trench I during excavation. Human bones were found inside but also around the stone heap in the right corner of the picture. It was left unexcavated. Fig. 68: Trench I, plan drawings. Fig. 69: Trench I, E section. Fig. 70: Upper stone fill inside ahu, level 1. Photo from N. Fig. 71: Human remains, a mandibulae from a child found in level 2. Fig. 72: Trench II, plan drawings. Fig. 73: Location of trench II on marae court. Fig. 74: Trench II, E section. Fig: 75: Front view of marae Manunu. Fig. 76: Plan drawing of marae Manunu, with the location of trenches I-III,, test –pits and test units indicated. Fig. 77: Transect drawing through marae Manunu along the centre line of the courtyard. Fig. 78: Test Unit I at rear-wall of ahu, W section. Fig. 79: Test Unit I. Detail of pigbone found under ahu slab. Fig. 80: Test Unit II at rear wall of ahu W section. Fig. 81: Trench I. Plan drawing 0-10 cm b.s. Fig. 82: Trench I. Plan drawing 10-20 cm b.s. Fig. 83: Trench I. Plan drawing 20-30 cm b.s. Fig. 84: Trench I. Detail of pigjaw found on top of layer IV. Fig. 85: Trench I. Plan drawing 30-40 cm b.s. Fig. 86: Bottom of trench I. Fig. 87: Trench I. N section drawing. Fig. 88: Trench I. E section. Fig. 89: Square X25/Y0 in trench I. Layer 2. Fig. 90: Trench II. Square X25/Y0. NW section. Fig. 91: Trench II. SE Section. Fig. 92: Trench III. Plan drawing with finds indicated. Fig. 93: Trench III. NE section. Fig. 94: Trench III. Square X10/Y10 NW section. Fig. 95: Blue/white glass bead found in trench III. Fig. 96: Trench I refilled. Fig. 97: Excavations at marae Mata’ire’a rahi. Fig. 98: Plan drawing of ScH-2-19. Marae Mata’ire’a Rahi. With location of threnches indicated. Fig. 99: Transect drawing through the centre of marae Matai’re’a Rahi. Fig. 100: Drawing of the E front wall of the ahu including excavated and restored SE corner. Fig. 101: Trench I. Plan drawing 0-10 cm b.s. Fig. 102: Trench I. Plan drawing 10-15 cm b.s. Fig. 103: Trench I. Plan drawing 15-20 cm b.s. Fig. 104: Trench I. Plan drawing bottom of trench. Fig. 105: Trench I. Observe the broken lime stone slabs at the base of the ahu. Fig. 106: Trench I. N section. Fig. 107: Location of trench II in the SE part of the ahu. Fig. 108: Trench II. Plan draing before excavation. Fig. 109: Trench II. Plan drawing of surface under fill. Fig. 110: Trench II. Inside Ahu 1. N section. Fig. 111: Human cranium found under flat stone in ahu corner Fig. 112: Trench II. Inside Ahu 1. W section. Fig. 113. Extension of trench II at the side of ahu braking through the surrounding wall. Fig. 114: Rough bone cache inside ahu. Fig. 115: Trench II. Inside Ahu 2. N section. Fig. 116: The restored ahu after excavation. Fig. 117: Plan drawing of marae Tiamaue indicating excavated units.

11

Fig. 118: Transection drawing of marae Tiamaue Fig. 119: Trench I, N section. Fig. 120: Plan drawing of marae on land Tuituirorohiti and the associated round-ended house. Location of trenches indicated. Fig. 121: Trench I. The stones indicating the end of the house is visible in the centre of the photo. View from W. Fig. 122: Plan drawing of trench I indicating end of the house. Fig. 123: Trench II. N section. Fig. 124: Excavation of trench II. Units 2-5. Fig. 125: Trench II. Unit 10, N section. Fig. 126: Trench II. Unit 13,70, W section. Fig. 127: Trench III. East section. Fig. 128: Bottom and E section of umu, found in Trench III. Fig. 129: Trench III. N section. Fig. 130: Trench IV. W section. Fig. 131: Marae Haupoto. Courtyard and doubble ahu. Fig. 132: Plan drawing of marae on land Haupoto. Excavated trenches indicated. Fig. 133: Trench I. A burried upright set in a layer with plenty of charcoal. Fig. 134: Trench I. S section, showing the locations of 14C samples. Fig. 135: Trench III south section. Fig. 136: Trench V prior to excavation. A small basalt upright can be seen in the lower left corner of the picture, while the buried upright in Trench V is not yet visible. Fig. 137: Trench V. Plan drawings. Fig. 138: Trench V, E section drawing about 70 cm out (W) from the ahu end of unit. The top layer of this section begins - 30 cm below surface. Fig. 139: Marae Taputapuatea at Opoa, Raiatea. Fig. 140: Various methods for establishing marae chronology. Fig 141: The chiefly centre at Maeva as seen from the summit of Moua Tapu, with marae structures and a fare-pote along the lagoon shore. Fig. 142: Marae Mata’ire’a Rahi. Fig. 143: Marae Manunu. Fig 144: Marae Anini, Huahine Iti. Fig. 145: Trench II, surface under fill of ahu. Provinence for samples Wk-14604 (B) and Wk-14606 (A) indicated. Fig. 146: Trench II, N section, Inside Ahu 1. Provinence for samples Wk14605 (B) and Wk-16789 (A) indicated. Fig. 147: Trench I, (just in front of ahu) Level 4. Location of sample Wk14603 indicated. Fig. 148: Test Unit 1. Location of pig bone fragment, sample Wk-16790, found under limestone slab in rear wall of ahu. Fig. 149: Segment of Zone 3 of the Te Ana site complex, showing the location of investigated marae structures (adopted from Sinoto 1996). Fig. 150: Marae ScH 2-62-1. Trench II, E section. Location of sample Wk-13175 indicated. Fig. 151: Marae ScH 2-66-1. Trench 1, E section. Sample Wk-13178 was collected from the lower part of layer III. Fig. 152: Marae ScH-2-62-3. Trench 1, E section. A layer of charcoal and shell was found stretching in under marae platform. From this layer sample Wk-13176 was collected. Fig. 153: Marae on land Haupoto. Trench I, S section. Indicating the locations of samples Wk-17064 and Wk-17065. Fig. 154: Umu found in Trench III below courtyard at marae on land Tuituirorohiti. Samples Wk-17062 and Wk-17063 dating this feature. Fig. 155: Correlation between excavated sites, marae types and time. Fig. 156: Calibrated age ranges of four 14C dates in pieces of coral collected from the fill of various ahu on Huahine. Fig. 157: List of 14C dates from excavated marae structures on Huahine. Fig. 158: Calibration box plot of all pre-construction 14C dates from marae structures on Huahine, except for the three samples from marae Mata’ire’a Rahi, which can be associated with a rebuilding of this structure. Fig. 159: Test- excavations on the courtyard of marae Manunu. Fig. 160: Systematic collection of earth samples for the phosphate analysis. Fig. 161: Earth samples ere also collected during excavation of test units. Fig. 162: Illustration of phosphate values (after Östeholm and Österholm 1997:145). Fig. 163: Result of the phosphate analysis plotted on the site plan. Fig. 164: Interpretation of phosphate mapping. Fig. 165: A fata, or offering altar at a Tahitian marae, with pigs placed on top of the structure. Detail from engraving in Wilson 1799.

Fig. 166: Priest house situated in connection with a Tahitian marae. Detail from Wilson 1799. Fig. 167: Human sacrifice and a smaller fata, or offering altar, recorded from Tahiti in the 1770s. (From J. Cook 1818). Fig. 168: Burried upright in trench I during excavation Fig. 169: Burried uppright in trench I. Fig. 170: Close up of burried upright found in trench I at marae on land Haupopo. Fig. 171: In trench V another buried upright was discovered at marae on land Haupoto. Fig. 172: Restored marae Arahurahu. Today sometimes used as an outdoor theatre. Fig. 173: Marae Oavaura during stabilisation work in 1967 (Photo Y. Sinoto). Fig. 174: Marae Oavaura as observed in 2001 (Photo P. Wallin). Fig. 175: Marae Vaiotaha during stabilisation ork in 1967 (Photo: Y. Sinoto). Fig. 176: Marae Vaitotaha in 1991 (Photo: P. Wallin). Fig. 177: The re-constructed marae Vaiotaha in 2001. (Photo: P. Wallin). Fig. 178: Unu planks and wooden altars at marae Rauhuru in 2002 (Photo P. Wallin). Fig. 179: Portable graffiti at marae Ofata. Fig. 180: Emory’s map of Maeva Village (From Emory 1933:126). Fig. 181: Marae Matairea Rahi according to Emory (1933:Figure 88). Fig. 182: Marae Manunu according to Emory (1933:Figure 87). Fig. 183: Plan of marae Marae Ta’ata, Tahiti, showing the location of unit S1 (sample Wk-17522) (Drawing adopted from Garanger 1975:fig. 6). Fig. 184: Cross-section of test unit at marae TTA-03-A, Airua Valley, Tautira district, Tahiti. Umu underneath the enclosing wall of the marae from which sample Wk-17523 was collected (adopted from Garanger 1980:fig. 9). Fig. 185: New 14C dates from excavated marae structures in the Society Islands. Fig. 186: Box-plot of 14C dates on charcoal from Society Islands marae sites dating a pre-construction context.

12

PREFACE The fieldwork presented in this volume was undertaken in the years 2001-2004. During this time the authors directed six different fieldwork sessions on the island of Huahine. The project itself was called “Local Developments and Regional Interactions” and was directed by Paul Wallin as a part of a larger Norwegian Research Council project called “Identity Matters: Movement and Place”. The archaeological work consisted of both surveys of the areas of Maeva Village/Mata’ire’a Hill and its surroundings, as well as of field excursions to other parts of the island to visit additional ceremonial sites. However, the excavations were concentrated to the Maeva area and a few complimentary sites at the northern part of the island. Much work has been done on Huahine when it comes to restoration and reconstruction of the structures at Maeva. The main bulk of this work has been carried out by Dr. Yosihiko Sinoto one of the founders of modern archaeology in the Pacific. To us, this fact was a good reason to continue the work in this area, since we then knew that much work already had been done. Due to this we did not have to start from scratch, the marae sites were all well known, but still our main question was not answered by the previous archaeologists. The question we wanted to solve was the fundamental one on the age of the marae in Central East Polynesia. Our hope when excavating the typologically distinctive sites at Maeva was to get a fine-grained scale of the visible variations. Would it be possible to confirm or reject old ideas concerning marae change and chronology, discussed already by Kenneth Emory about 80 years ago? The chronological accuracy of Emory has been rejected by Roger Green already 40 years ago and by others following him. However, an evolutionary chronology is still in practice when discussing origins of the marae, in the way that they were the product of certain ideas found in the wake of the Lapita expansion and the formation and dispersal of Polynesian cultures. With our aim to find out more about the age of these structures it has been necessary to focus on the discussion on what the 14C samples actually dates. We have to remember that by dating ceremonial sites we probably need to date the biography of the site, from phases before the marae was constructed, to use, and re-use/modification phases. This is necessary since the structures were used during rituals and ceremonies for an extended period of time. Marae-complexes were not monuments built for one purpose at a single time but for multiple uses. In our efforts we have tried to date not only charcoal, but also bones and coral, all has been useful, but some of these samples have at times been difficult to interpret due to marine effects indicated on certain bones. From our work we have sorted out two main chronological phases: A late phase, with extreme structures including truly megalithic stones, used at a large scale level by the paramount leaders. There are also earlier phases showing a variety of structures used at family and lineage bases. We could also conclude that small structures probably are for specialists, usually added to the greater structures. We could not confirm that these structures were older than the lineage monuments, instead probably later in time. Other questions that have been on the agenda are how marae changes in our time, through both natural and cultural processes, which could be another source of error in establishing a detailed developmental sequence for the site. In fact there is no exact end to when these structures actually were abandoned. Their religious importance took an end in the mid 1800s, but they were, and still are, affected by locals, tourists and archaeologists! A third theme that we have been dealing with is the landscape itself and how the structures were located in its natural surroundings. It is evident that the landscape variables were of great 13

importance when the monuments were built. The selection of Maeva as a certain place for the highest chiefly segment of the island of Huahine is, in this perspective, logical and natural. The whole centre was symbolically leaning against the mountain called “Moua Tapu” or the holy mountain, with the hill forming a seat for the ancestors. The location and shape of this area was well suited to be imposed with mana. The Lake Fauna nui was a place full of fish that could easily be cached with the help of the stone traps built at the narrow passage where the lake connects to the lagoon and the sea. It functioned as the economical base for such a centralization of ritual and domestic architecture. The marae themselves are located in three significant zones. The largest ones like marae Manunu are placed by the sea shore, probably as a sign of external contacts and interests. Several structures of the family and lineage sizes are located at the shore of the lake, so close that they actually are built out in the lake. This indicates a strong connection to this element, to the water, the light and open space. The third location is the Mata’ire’a hill, the hill for the ‘eight sons’ of Queen Maeva. This location may be seen as the dark and closed place for the leaders, which fortification walls on the hill may indicate. It is also a good place for growing breadfruit trees, and other fruits. Since this project now has reached its end it is our hope that this research may be an inspiration for further research in this field of detailed chronological and functional questions of the marae and their additional settlements in East Polynesia. Visby, October 9, 2009 Paul Wallin

Oslo, October 9, 2009 Reidar Solsvik

Moua Tapu, the seat of the chiefs of Huahine (Photo: P. Wallin).

14

PART I EXCAVATION REPORTS 2002-2004

Sinoto’s first interest in the area stemmed from an extensive program of marae restoration, which he initiated in collaboration with the Tahitian Tourist authorities in the early 1960s (Sinoto 2001, 1969; Sinoto and Emory 1965). Based on this work, and the above mentioned survey of the Mata’ire’a Hill, Sinoto and his associates have developed morphological classifications (Sinoto, Komori et al. 1981:7-9) of the Huahine marae, and Sinoto has also established typologies and chronologies for the Tahitian marae complex in general (Sinoto 2001, 1996). However, these classifications and typologies have not been tested through archaeological excavation, and a program of test-excavation of marae structures was important to complement the survey and test-excavations of settlement sites.

1.Research Presentation 1.1 Introduction From 2002 to 2004 The Kon-Tiki Museum, in collaboration with the University in Oslo, Culture Historic Museums, Section of Ethnography undertook a project called “Local Developments and Regional Interactions” which aimed at dating the first construction phase of temple structures (marae) in the Maeva area of Huahine, the Leeward Islands, French Polynesia. During four fieldwork seasons; one in 2002, two in 2003, and one in 2004, ten marae were investigated, seven around Maeva Village, two closer to the port town of Fare, and one on the northeast coast. These investigations were based upon the survey work in Maeva and around Huahine done by Yosihiko H. Sinoto, Eric Komori, and Elaine Rogers-Jourdane. Parts of the fieldwork were conducted in close collaboration with Sinoto and his team, from who we received both material and moral support. The results from all field work sessions are presented together for the first time below.

From this, Sinoto and Wallin worked out six main research objectives for the joint research program to be initiated in the fall of 2002. The aims of the objectives were:

In 2001, Dr. Yosihiko H. Sinoto, senior anthropologist at the Bernice Puahi Bishop Museum on Hawai’i, invited Dr. Paul Wallin of the Kon-Tiki Museum, to participate in his work in Maeva on the Northeast tip of Huahine. Participation in two field seasons, during fall 2001 and spring 2002, resulted in an expressed interest in initiating excavation of marae structures in this part of Huahine. During this same period, it was decided to combine the research resources in a joint project were Sinoto’s associates continued the investigation of the costal area of the Te Ana land division, which they have initiated on the request of the Ministry of Culture, Government of French Polynesia (Komori and Sinoto 2002:1). Paul Wallin was going to initiate test-excavations of marae structures in the same area. Since 1979 Sinoto and his associates Eric Komori and Elaine Rogers-Jourdane, and later Toru Hyashi, have conducted a survey program of the Mata’ire’a Hill and adjacent areas, recording marae structures, terraces, house foundations, and other features (Sinoto and Rogers-Jourdane 1980; Sinoto, Komori et al. 1981; Sinoto, Komori et al. 1983). They have also completed a program of test-excavations of house sites in the upper part of the Te Ana land division (Zone 1) (Sinoto and Komori 1988; Komori and Sinoto 2002).

15

•

To date the initial construction of the marae structures of the Te Ana land division, and to document their morphological and typological developments. This work was begun in August 2002 (Solsvik 2003).

•

To investigate the cultural chronology and use of the extensive, water lodged settlement area at the coastal end of the Te Ana land division, Zone III, which extends to the northeast. These house sites are thought to be contemporaneous with the marae structures located along the Fauna Nui lagoon lake. This is a continuation of work initiated in 2001 (Komori and Sinoto 2002).

•

To investigate the changes in landscape and ecological conditions of the costal part of the Te Ana land division. Also a continuation of work initiated in 2001.

•

To date the initial construction and investigate structural developments of various marae structures on the Mata’ire’a Hill and along the coast, to complement data from the Te Ana land division.

•

To re-survey marae structures of Huahine, in particular around Maeva village, with a special

reference to the landscape these structures are situated in. In this way a historical record of these structures might be constructed, and social analysis of marae structures can be undertaken. This work has been completed for the main structures located around Maeva village (Wallin and Solsvik 2002a). •

To compare the Huahine (Leeward Islands) result with marae studies in the Society Windward Islands. Making complimentary dates of already excavated structures on Tahiti was planned.

Reported below are the investigations concerning the marae structures in Maeva and on other parts of Huahine as well as, new 14C datings made from a few previously excavated marae on Tahiti.

Fig. 1: Part of field crew 2003, Taui LaBaste, Pu’ai Tinirau, and Maurice (landowner) (Photo: P.Wallin). Juanita LaBaste A. Beck (BA), Hawaii.

1.2 Itinerary Fieldwork in 2002: Arrived on Huahine on Monday 5 August. 6. to 14. August, excavations at ScH2-62-3. 15. to 22. August, excavations at ScH2-65-2. 23. August. Left for Papaete. Participants in the fieldwork 2002-2004 The 2002 campaign Only the junior author participated in the fieldwork during the autumn of 2002, but he had strong support from Dr. Sinoto and his team, logistically and socially. Fieldwork in 2003: During the year 2003 the project “Local Developments and Regional Interactions” carried out two separate excavation campaigns.

Fig 2: Part of field crew fall 2003, Tu’ai Tinirau, Reidar Solsvik, and Martel Teavae (Photo: P.Wallin).

From April 28 to May 23. The fieldwork concentrated on test-excavations of marae structures ScH-2-62-1, ScH-262-3, ScH-2-65-1, and ScH-2-66-1 in the Te Ana land division just West of Maeva village.

Fieldwork in 2004: Reidar Solsvik arrived on Huahine on Tuesday 28. August and Paul Wallin arrived on the 21. October.

From August 25 to September 17. The fieldwork concentrated on test-excavations of marae Manunu, ScH2-18, on land divisions Tearanu’u and Tetuatiare, located on Motu Ovarei; and marae Mata’ire’a Rahi, ScH-2-19, on land division Tehu’a, located on the Mata’ire’a Hill.

30. September – 7. October, and 18. October. Excavation at marae Tiamaue. 23.October – 2. November. Excavations at marae Tuiuirorohiti. 4. November – 9. November. Excavations at marae Haupoto. 11. November Left for Papete.

Participants in fieldwork sessions 2003: Pu’ai Tinirau (foreman). Taui LaBaste. Patrick Faatauira. Windy Keala McElroy (MA), Hawaii. Juanita A Beck (BA) SCI , Hawaii Olivier Mare. Martel Teavae.

Participants in fieldwork session 2004: Pu’ai Tinirau (foreman) Martel Teavae

16

located in Oslo; and by funds from the Bishop Museum in Honolulu, coordinated by Dr. Yosihiko H. Sinoto. Coordination of the research was provided by the Service de la Culture et du Patrimoine, Government of French Polynesia, represented by Priscille Tea Frogier and Henry Marchesi. Mrs. Louise Peltzer and Mr. M.J. Rapoto, Ministers of Culture, Government of French Polynesia and the Haut-Commissariat de la Republique en Polynesie Francaise kindly supplied the research permits necessary for doing this research. Permission to work in the Te Ana area was kindly given by the Service de la Culture et du Patrimoine and Maurice LaBaste, who owns part of this land; permission to work on land Tehu’a and Tetuatiare was kindly given by Iosepha Mare, representing the family; permission to work on land Tearanu’u was given by Lucile Teavae and Martel Teavae, who represented the family owning this land. Permission to work on land Tiamaue was kindly given by Richard Lai; permission to work on land Tuituirorohiti, which is part of the Fa’ahia land division, was kindly given by Virginia Richmond; and permission to work on land Haopoto was kindly given by Tefaataumarama Timiona Dit Atamu.

Fig. 3: Part of field crew at marae Tuituirorohito, Teva Parker; Paul Wallin, Mark Eddowes, Hiro Oopa (Photo: R.Solsvik).

Our gratitude goes to the people of Huahine, represented by Mayor Marcelin Lisan who provided encouragement and material support for the project. We would also like to thank Marieta Mare for kind help. A special thanks to Peni and Sophie Teururai who have supported the work of Dr. Sinoto in so many ways over many years. They also supported our project and received us with much hospitality. Our thanks goes to Mark Eddowes for help, support, and much hospitality during our stay on Huahine. We would also like to thank Dorothy Levy, Marty and Moe Temahahe for information, help, and support, as well as Pu’ai Tinirau; Maurice LaBaste, and Martel Teavae who have been most excellent friends in the field.

Fig. 4: Part of fieldcrew at marae Haupoto, Jean-Marie Faatauira, Jose Tefaataumarama, Pu’ai Tinirau, Reidar Solsvik, and Paul Wallin.

Toto Tiihiva Gerome Teva Parker Hiro Oopa Giles Oopa Jose Tefaataumarama Jean-Marie Faatauira Mark Eddowes.

1.3 Acknowledgement Our work in Maeva would not have been undertaken or indeed completed without the help and support from Dr. Yoshiko H. Sinoto, Senior Anthropologist at the B.P. Bishop Museum in Hawai’i and his – and our – friends Eric Komori and Elaine “Muffet” Rougers-Jourdane. Thank you very much. Financial support for this project was provided by the Norwegian Research Council through the project “Identity Matters: Movement and Place” directed by Dr. Ingjerd Hoëm; by The Kon-Tiki Museum and the Institute for Comparative Research in Human Culture, 17

invitation of Marlon Brando who bought the island after starring in the motion-picture The Bounty on Tahiti. Next to nothing in terms of excavation and dating of marae structures have been done in the Leeward group. Bertrand Gérard excavated one small marae on Raiatea and Kenneth Emory and Y.H. Sinoto dated marine shells found in cavities on the ahu slabs of marae Taputapuatea on the same island. Consequently, our work on Huahine is groundbreaking for understanding the development of Leeward Islands marae structures.

2. Investigation of Society Islands marae complexes 2.1 Background The purpose of the fieldwork was to date the emergence and development of marae structures on the island of Huahine, and to establish a chronological database on marae complexes in the Leeward group as a whole. In addition to present our data and discuss their significance for the development of the temple sites in the Leeward Islands, we will compare these results to earlier work done on Windward Islands ritual structures (Fig. 5). Hopefully, a picture will emerge when it comes to questions on origin and development of the Society Islands marae complex.

Secondly, we will discuss how our work contributes to the understanding of architectural design developments in the Society Islands. Establishing a marae typology from

Fig. 5: Map of the Society Islands and Huahine, the island under study.

Before the results of these excavations are presented, site by site, we would like to give the background for this project and the significance of its result. Through the years great efforts has been put into understanding the morphological variation of these structures; constructing typologies and chronologies; and use these sequences to say something about the social and cultural development on these islands. Very little work has, in comparison, been devoted to the excavation and dating of the construction sequences of marae structures. Investigations and excavation of marae were first begun by Roger Green who between 1960 and 1962 directed the first archaeological project in Polynesia using a settlement pattern approach in the ‘Opunohu Valley, Mo’orea. French archaeologists continued the effort during the early 1960s, in particular on the islands of Tahiti. Additional work was carried out on Mo’orea by Yoshihiko H. Sinoto and on Tetiaroa atoll on the

the Windward group was one of Kenneth P. Emory’s major contribution to Polynesian archaeology (Emory 1933; Emory 1970), although his developmental sequence is today considered erroneous (Wallin 1993; Wallin 2001). Morphology and typology is the most studied aspect of Society Island marae, much more so, than on any other island group in Polynesia which have similar monumental ritual architecture. It is only on the Society Windward Islands that architectural variation can be ordered into a typological sequence, or chronology, and this is the probable cause for the substantial amount of attention given to these structures and this topic by archaeologists working in these islands. In 1933 Emory was able to distinguish between four different marae types of the Windward group (Fig. 6) interpreted as a continuous sequence of development, but he identified only one type of marae in the Leeward group (Fig. 7). Later survey by Yosihiko H. Sinoto on the island of 18

Huahine resulted in new type divisions of the Leeward Island structures (Sinoto 1996, 2001). In this division Sionto adapted the Windward Island terms inland, intermediate and coastal marae as established by Emory (1933). He indicates the following types in the Leeward inlands: Shrines of type I and II (Uprights and simple platforms with uprights, inland type I and two, which is platforms or enclosures with a detached ahu. The intermediate have an ahu which is attached to the rear wall enclosure. Finally, Sinoto indicates two coastal ahu types, which are slab ahu placed on a court without enclosing wall (Fig. 8). The chronology within the types is that shrines/inland types are early developments and that the coastal types are late (Sinoto 1996:550, 2001:257-259).

Fig. 8: Sinoto’s typology of the Society Islands marae (from Sinoto 2001).

existed as separate spaces when communities in Tonga and Samoa developed the culture we today call Polynesian. The marae is said to have existed as a central open space in the settlement that was not sacred in nature. During the Polynesian formative period this open space was fused or co-located with a more sacred mound or upright, called ahu, and the classic malae, marae, or ahu of Polynesia was created, much like a ethnographic attested malae structure as it could be found on islands like Tikopia, Futuna, or Alofi in the 19th or even 20th century. This model was the result of the extensive survey work carried out by the Bishop Museum on Polynesian islands most intensively from 1910 to around 1940. Although one or two excavations had been carried out at ritual sites, one by John F. Stokes on Hawai’i (Dye 1991; Ladd 1987) in 1919, the orthodox model was construced on basis of comparison of architectural form, or morphological classification, and not on the development of the temporal framework for these structures. The central premise of the orthodox model is that these structures developed on the basis of concepts, spaces, and structures found in early Polynesian communities and which spread with these people when they discovered and settled new island groups. Consequently, it is to be expected that the temporal framework of the development of these

Fig. 6: Emory’s typology of Windward Islands marae structures (From Emory 1933).

Fig. 7: Emory’s typology of Leeward Islands marae structures (From Emory 1933)

Thirdly, the significance of our work in relation to the broader perspectives of the origin of Polynesian ritual architecture is going to be discussed. An orthodox model of how heiau, marae, and ahu complexes on islands in the Hawaii chain, on the Society or Tuamotu Islands, and on Easter Island respectively were first constructed and how they developed was conceived in the late 1920s (Cf. Solsvik 2006:89-92). The unanimously accepted theory has been that the ritual structures and places documented through ethnographic research on Polynesian islands

19

man Medford R. Kellum (Danielsson 1967). Just after lunch on Friday, October 31, 1924, the yacht Kaimiloa sailed into Honolulu harbour, and onboard was the Kellum family, who were touring the Pacific. Herbert Gregory, the director of the Bernice Puahi Bishop Museum at the time, took advantages of the situation and succeeded in persuading Kellum to let a group of researchers accompanying him on the Kaimiloa’s next leg down to the central part of the Polynesian islands. By the time Kaimiloa had reached Tahiti, Kellum and the key scientists had become mutally disinterested in each other. The result was that Kellum told the group of researchers to get off the boat in Papete, but he gave them a rather generous fund for continuing their investigations without the participation of the Kellum family. Much as Gregory had ceased the opurtunity when Kaimiloa sailed into Honolulu, the young Kenneth Pike Emory rolled with the moment and decided to ask permission for staying in Tahiti to do archaeological surveys of the stone structures in these islands. Permission was granted, and the next fifteen months Emory spent his time surveying over two-hundred archaeological sites (Fig.10). Almost all of these were ritual sites, called marae in the Society Islands, and most of them where located on the island of Tahiti. Emory’s survey was the first compehensive attempt to record and describe the Society Islands marae and their morphological variation, and as such, Stone Remains in the Society Islands have become the main references for all subsequent research on these monuments.

Fig. 9: Wallin’s typology of Society Islands marae structures (Wallin 2001, fig. 2).

structures also, to a certain extent, will follow the same west-to-east pattern as the colonisation of this region. Centrally located island groups like the Society Islands, should, following this logic, yield quite early dates for ritual structures. Although work in the 1960s did not produce such early dates, this has not lead to a redefinition of the orthodox model, except amongst French archaeologists (Gérard 1978a). The finding of a 12th or 13th century ahu structure on Easter Island in 1987 (Skjølsvold 1994) made it evident that the empirical support for the orthodox model was slight. Providing data from the more centrally located island groups, like the Society or Tuamotu Islands, became a priority. It is against this background that our contribution to Society Islands marae studies becomes significant.

2.2 Research history In 1933, Kenneth P. Emory published Stone Structures in the Society Islands, which is probably his most frequently cited work. One could claim that this work was in a way brought about by the temper of the American business

Fig. 10: K.P. Emory and Te Ranig Hiroa at Raiatea in 1923.

This position is given for three main reasons. 1) It was 20

the first comprehensive survey of marae structures in the Society Islands. 2) Since the 1920s many marae sites have disappeared due to development of settlement and infrastructure. 3) The fact that Emory developed the only typology of Polynesian ritual structures that had both spatial and temporal validity, and still contained all ritual structures of this island group. Although subsequent research have shown that Emory’s typology is an inadequate description of spatial and morphological variation in Society Islands marae, and in particular the concepts of inland marae and coastal marae should be abandoned, they nevertheless have to begin their discussion with a critical view of Emory’s typology and to some extent rely on his data (Wallin 1993) (Fig. 9). In fact the destroyed marae sites that Emory either surveyed or recorded information about are important, because this information does not exist today. Even in 1925 much information of marae sites had disappeared as is evident in the situation at Maeva, where Emory was taken to many of the most important ritual sites on the Mata’ire’a Hill, but he was not shown the many smaller and less important marae structures located just off the paths Emory have had to walk along.

been used to any great extent. One of the reasons is that it is a localized typology that would need revision if it should have been applied on structures from other areas. In a way it is too detailed and have taken small, localized variation, found in marae structures from a relative late time period and reified them into types. Although the first radiocarbon dates from marae structures in the Society Islands came from the ‘Opunohu investigations by Roger C. Green, it was French archaeologists working on the island of Tahiti that produced the first 14C dates with a time depth greater than 200 years. During the 1960s and 1970s José Garanger and Bertrand Gérard undertook survey, excavations, and extensive investigation of marae structures, mainly from Tahiti and Mo’orea (Garanger 1964; Garanger 1975; Garanger 1980; Gérard 1974; Gérard 1978b). Garanger’s excavations in the Tautira district, on Tahiti, produced the first radiocarbon dates from Society Islands marae indicating that marae structues were constructed in the Tahitian vallies from the 15th century onwards. Gérard (1978a) concluded, therefore, that the epoch of marae in Tahiti was a post-AD 1400 phenomena.

The legacy of Kenneth Emory was taken up in the 1960s, when researchers such as Roger C. Green, José Garanger, Bertrand Gérard, and later Y.H. Sinoto (Sinoto and Verin 1965, Verin 1964) (Fig. 11) initiated surveys and testexcavations of marae structures on the islands of Mo’orea, Tahiti, Raiatea, Me’etia, and Tetiaroa. A greater understanding of the development, and the morphological and typological variations, of Windward Islands marae structures were the results of this decade in Society Islands archaeology. Again the Kellum family had a hand in facilitating the first stage of investigations. Medford Kellum had bought a great piece of land in the ‘Opunohu Valley on Mo’orea as a wedding gift for his son and daughter in law, who recently had been engaged. When Roger C. Green was sent to Tahiti by Douglas Oliver to archaeologically document the culture Oliver would write about in Ancient Tahitian Society (Oliver 1974), Green conducted his investigations on the Kellum property. The ‘Opunohu work was the first application of settlement archaeology in this area, however, survey of marae structures and test-excavations of selected structures were a major part of these investigations. The main result of the ‘Opunohu project was a greater understanding of the morphological variation of Windward Islands marae structures. In particular it contributed towards making Emory’s concepts of coastal marae redundant, since at least one classic coastal marae was found in the inland setting of the ‘Opunohu Valley. Another important contribution made evident by the ‘Opunohu survey data is the morphological variation and the social importance Fig. 11: Yoshiko H. Sinoto during excavations at Vai’to’otia of the small shrines, or mini-marae structures often found (Courtesy of Y.H. Sinoto). built attached to larger marae (Descantes 1990; Descantes 1993, see also Cochrane 1998, 2002). In These findings received further support when Yosihiko addition, Green developed a new typology of Society Sinoto and Patrick McCoy undertook a project of survey Islands marae attempting to model social important and test-excavation on the island of Tetiaroa. Two season features (Green 1961). However, this typology has not of survey and test-excavations of marae structures and 21

habitation sites produced the first radiocarbon dates from marae structures on one of the small atoll islands in the Society group. Six 14C dates from three marae structures supported Gérard’s theory that marae was a late development in the Society Islands (Gérard 1978a) and that these structures were not built before AD 1450 to 1500.

on ritual structures found on Polynesian Islands was quite comprehensive by the end of the 1930s. In retrospect, one of the more important surveys and studies of ritual structures in the region was Emory’s Stone Remains in the Society Islands from 1933.

In the 1980s a big research project began in the Papeno’o Valley in Tahiti with mainly French, but also some English, archaeologists. The Kellum family once again made its contribution to the research into the origins and development of marae in the Society Islands, when the granddaguhter of Medford Kellum, Marimari Kellum, who had studied archaeology at University of Hawaii and excavated the Hane dune site with Yosihiko Sinoto, participated in the project. Unfortunately, most of the results from the Papeno’o project, and in particular those relating to marae investigations, have not been published. In many cases no analysis has been made on the material collected during these excavations.

Fig. 12: B.P. Bishop Museum, the center of Polynesian researches during the first decades of the 20th century.

Much work has been done on the marae structures in the Society Islands, and their morphological variation and type division are well known (see Wallin 1993, 2001, Descantes 1991, Eddowes 1991, Green 2000). The chronological framework of the Windward marae could have been securely established, but three weaknesses in the data have prevented this. First, most of the radiocarbon dates from Windward marae were analysed in the 1960s and age assays from this decade, as well as those from the proceeding decade, can be unreliable. This is due to both problems with laboratory procedures, in particular relating to pre-treatment of sample material, and the poor understanding of sampling strategy in archaeology during the 1950s and 1960s. Secondly, much material from later investigations are unpublished or not even sent in for analysis. Thirdly, no marae structures have been analysed from the Leeward Islands, which is exactly the gap in the data that the present project is designed to fill.

This field of research opened up by Emory and his contemporaries like R. Linton and Te Rangi Hiroa saw Polynesian ritual space as having a common origin in the formative period of Polynesian culture. Through comparative studies, the origins and development of these structures could be discerned, providing information about the development of other segments of Polynesian culture. One modern work following in the footsteps of Kenneth Emory is William Ayres’ The Cultural Context of Easter Island Religious Structures (1973), in which the author argues for the close stylistic and symbolic association between Easter Island ahu structures and the marae complexes of Central East Polynesia. Ayres (1973:39), however, recognized the need for diachronic data to be introduced into the largely synchronic comparative models established by Emory and his successors, putting the emphasis on excavated archaeological data. “Archaeological researchers of Polynesia are now faced with the need to synthesize recently accumulated field data in order to clarify what is known of the marae type religious centers” (Ayres 1973:1).

2.3 Society Islands marae and their significance for theories of origins on ritual spaces in Polynesia

An important component in Emory’s comparative approach was the extensive use of ethnographic and linguistic data in addition to his survey records (Solsvik n.d.). In recent years these latter elements have been reinforced in the study of cultural phenomena through the approach of linguistic paleontology (i.e. Goodenough 1997; i.e. Kirch and Green 1987; Ross, Pawley, and Osmond 1998). Models of the origin of Polynesian ritual space(s) have been pieced together by reconstructing the phonological and semantic histories of terms used to characterize religious structures and ritual spaces in contact-period island cultures (Green 1986, Kirch 1989). The most recent contribution advocating this approach can be found in Patrick V. Kirch’s and Roger C. Green’s

On the Pacific science congress in Honolulu in 1910 it was recognized that the Polynesian island cultures would be a priority target for coming research. The key instrument in gathering this knowledge and organizing this research was going to be the Bernice P. Bishop Museum (Fig. 12), and during the next three decades this institution conducted a large number of surveys, most of them focusing on ritual structures on Hawaii, Marquesas, Society, Tuamotu, Line, and the Tongan groups (Emory 1943). In addition, ethnologists studying other island cultures sometimes included detailed information on ritual sites. The database on the morphological variation 22

comprehensive work Hawaiki, Ancestral Polynesia. An Essay in Historical Anthropology (2001). Taking as their point of origin Raymond Firth’s work on early 20thcentury Tikopia society and the spatial organization of the Tikopian fare with an attached marae, the authors argue that the Ancestral Polynesian Societ(y, ies) ritual space “to have been architecturally simple affairs, consisting of an open, cleared space (*malaqe) lying seaward of a sacred house (*fale-[qatua]), the latter constructed upon a base foundation (*qafu)” (Kirch and Green 2001:255). The two researcher claim that their reconstruction is based both upon comparative ethnographic, archaeological, and lexical evidence, but this statement needs to be modified. In discussing the variability of ritual structures in East Polynesia, the two authors write: “But for our purposes of reconstructing the nature of Ancestral Polynesian ritual spaces, it is not necessary to trace every transformation among these Eastern Polynesian forms, and we will restrict our survey to selected examples from central Eastern Polynesia” (Kirch and Green 2001:251). The effect of such a policy is to remove from consideration the only two areas in which diachronic data, in the form of radiocarbon dates and architectural sequences, are not rudimentary or scarce: Easter Island and Hawaii. We believe that Polynesian ritual structures can tell us a great deal about Polynesian culture, but, like Emory, we also believe that “our problem is to interpret them rightly” (Emory 1970:91).

23

Previous discussions on temporal aspects of the Society Islands’ marae complex have centred on the often huge coastal marae of both the Windward and Leeward groups because genealogical data have been recorded as to the founding of these structures (Emory n.d.). Traditional history of the Society Islands claims that the first marae in these islands was consecrated either on Raiatea or Borabora (Wallin 1993:100-103) and that the marae, or even Polynesian culture (Hiroa 1938), spread outward from the cult center of Taputapuatea at Opoa, Raiatea. In Maeva there are two marae structures reported to be of the “national” (or most important) class. Marae Mata’ire’a rahi, located on the summit of Mata’ire’a Hill, was said to be the national marae of the whole of Huahine and marae Manunu, opposite the lagoon from Maeva Village, and is reported to be the national marae of Huahine Nui (Wallin and Solsvik 2005, Henry 1928). We had the opportunity to do test-excavations at both sites.

3. Research design and methodology The main aim of our research in Huahine is to contribute to the understanding of the origin and development of the marae complex in the Society Islands. In the Windward Islands several projects have provided data on architectural variability and temporal developments (Emory and Sinoto 1965; Garanger 1964; Garanger 1975; Garanger 1980; Green, Green, Rappaport, Rappaport, and Davidson 1967; Sinoto and McCoy 1974, 1975). Data on architectural variability exists from the Leeward group (Emory 1933, Gerard 1978b, Wallin 1993, Sinoto 2001), however, on temporal developments the material is scant. Only one radiocarbon date, from marae Taputapuatea on Raiatea, had been reported (Emory and Sinoto 1965:96) prior to the beginning of our investigations; collecting samples for radiocarbon dating, therefore, becomes important to compensating for this paucity in the data. The Leeward Island marae have very simple architectural constructions and thus are not very easy to date accurately. With limited funding we decided to focus our attempts on dating initial construction at a number of sites rather than conducting more extensive excavations of only a few structures. In this way our project will contribute substantially to the discussion on when Society Islanders began constructing marae and less to evaluations of developmental sequences.

Following the first three field seasons in 2002 and 2003, bone and charcoal samples were sent for radicoarbon age assays at the Waikato Laboratory in New Zealand. We already suspected marae Manunu to have been constructed fairly late in Huahine prehistory, but from both marae Mata’ire’a rahi and from the complex on land Te Ana did we hold the possibility open for earlier dates, however, none of the dates seemed to indicate marae construction prior to AD 1500. Marae Mata’ire’a rahi, as the national temple of the island, was claimed to be the oldest marae in the area, and testing in the Te Ana area showed that this settlement was established perhaps as early as around AD 1300 (Sinoto 1996; Sinoto and Komori 1988:80). These results forced us to rethink our strategy and initially question the age of the Maeva as a chiefly and ritual centre. The possibility that earlier marae structures existed outside the the chiefly centre at Maeva would have to be examined. Three sites were eventually investigated; one along the coast in the southern part of the Maeva district and two in the district of Fare, but only two of these latter structures could be dated.

3.1 Site Selection The archaeological surface remains found at Maeva village on the northeast coast of Huahine Nui are recognized as the vestiges of a traditional chiefly settlement during protohistoric and historic times (Wallin 2000). It was chosen due to its high density of marae structures which was the main focus of this study. The Te Ana Site Complex has previously been described by Sinoto and Komori (Komori and Sinoto 2002:3; Sinoto 1996), and is located just West of Maeva village, extending from the coast and uphill along the western part of Mata’ire’a Hill, the eastern boundary is marked by a small gully. The upper part of this area is a small slope toward the south. It has been acquired by the Government of French Polynesia for a cultural park. Sinoto and Komori have carried out test-excavation of habitation terraces in this complex (Sinoto 1996; Sinoto and Komori 1988), and their 14C dates fall into two phases: the first spanning A.D. 700 – 1000 and the second A.D. 1300 – 1700. Dating marae structures in this area, then, means that we would be able to place them within the context of the whole settlement. The marae structures in this area may also include a transitional marae type, consisting of a courtyard enclosed by a stone wall with an ahu made of a mix of coral/limestone and basalt slabs (Sinoto 2001). We therefore decided to test-excavate all five marae structures in this area (Fig. 147) and thus obtained a dataset that would gives us a better understanding of developments of the settlement in this part of Mata’ire’a Hill.

3.2 Site location Huahine is part of the Leeward group of the Society Islands, French Polynesia and situated at 16° 5´ south latitude and 151° 2´ west longitude, about 160 km northwest of the island of Tahiti, and consists of two main volcanic islands with about 112 square km of dry land. Huahine Iti, the smallest, is located to the southsoutheast of the slightly larger Huahine Nui (Figs. 5 and 13). The district of Maeva comprises the north and northeastern part of Huahine Nui that surrounds the ‘sacred’ mountain Moua Tapu. The area with the most important archaeological remains is really a headland stretching out towards the northeast, where Mata’ire’a Hill figuratively forms the ‘seat’ and Moua Tapu is the ‘backrest’. The western boundary is made up of a ridge of Moua Tapu coming down to the coast at this point.

24

Fig. 13: Map of Huahine and the excavated/dated sites.

Maeva village is located on a strip of land, 100 to 200 m wide along the eastern end of the extensive lagoon lake Fauna Nui, with the steep northern slope of the c. 60 m high Mata’ire’a Hill to the South.

The current project investigate structures and settlements at the western end of the village at the base of Mata’ire’a Hill and on the hill itself. The field seasons of 2003 focused on the Te Ana Site Complex and the Tehu’a land division on the Mata’ire’a Hill and one coastal site on the motu Ovarei at Maeva. 25

Mata’ire’a Hill – Te Ana and Tehu’a The Te Ana Site Complex is located on land sections just West of the Maeva village, extending from the coast and uphill along the western part of Mata’ire’a Hill (Fig. 14). A small gully makes the eastern boundary of this land division. Sinoto have defined this area in archaeological terms (Sinoto 1996; Komori and Sinoto 2002:3) and divided it into three zones. Zone 1 and 2 are made up of a c. 200 m long strip of low lying, occasionally flooded, coastal land that contains submerged cultural deposits. Zone 3 is a small slope going up towards the South, with a high density of marae structures and house terraces, part of which have been acquired by the Government of French Polynesia for a cultural park. Centrally located on top of Mata’ire’a Hill, just above Maeva village, is Tehu’a a piece of land sloping from W to E. According to local tradition we find the national marae of Huahine, marae Mata’ire’a rahi, once dedicated to the god Tane at this spot.

Motu Ovarei Motu Ovarei is part of a low coral islet that has formed a fringing reef on the whole of the North end of Huahine Nui, from the district of Fare to the end of Maeva district. The part of this islet that we have worked on is just opposite of Maeva village. Marae outside Maeva district Marae on land Tiamaue: This marae is located behind the village of Fare in the valley of Tepua, on the property of Richard Lai, named Tiamaue (Cf. Fig. 13). This property is located on the left side of the valley. No name was associated with this structure, so we named it atfter the piece of land on which it was located. Marae on land Tuituirorohiti: This marae is located on land Tuituirorohiti, which is said to be one of three parts of the Fa’ahia land division (Cf. Fig. 13). It is located midway between the fire station and the town of Fare,

Fig. 14: Map of the Mata’ire’a Hill and Maeva area with excavated and sampled marae structures located.

26

just towards the coast from the road. It is on the property of Chez Lovina. Mark Eddowes has recently claimed that this is marae Tahuea (Eddowes 2003:58-59) an important mare of proto-historic Huahine.

To expand the choice of materials for dating the initial construction and use phases of these marae structures, samples of shells and pieces of coral was taken from structures outside excavated context. We will here give two examples: First, shells found in cavities of huge coral/limestone slabs in some marae were sampled in order to test whether these shells might date the time the slabs were quarried or if they have been trapped within the limestone / coral at the time the coral was formed. Second, pieces of coral that was found as part of the fill, of slab-enclosure ahu, were sampled to be dated based on the assumption that these enclosures were filled with fresh corals from the sea during construction.

Marae on land Haupoto: This marae is located a few kilometres to the South of Maeva village (Cf. Fig. 13), just besides the road on the mountain side. On the opposite side of the lagoon is the Heiva Hotel of Motu Ovarei. It is next to the house of Jean-Marie Faatauira, on a land called Haupoto. No name was associated with this structure, so it is named after the piece of land on which it is located.

3.3 Excavation methodology All structures were mapped in detail using a plane table, alidade, and measuring tape, in scale 1:50 or 1:100, and trenches and units were located on these plans. Trenches were placed perpendicular to constructional elements of the marae in order to expose constructional sequences and search for dateable material related to the construction of the marae. Excavation proceeded in 10cm spits when natural layers could not be identified, and the soil was dry-screened through ¼-inch mesh screens. Restoration of slanting slabs in ahu walls were undertaken in areas affected by the excavations. We re-buried most human bones encountered during excavations when re-filling the unit or trench. Teeth and bone fragments were examined in the field by an osteological trained archaeologist before re-deposition. A few places, excavations were discontinued due to the frequency of human skulls, and their deteriorated state, which made it impossible to retrieve them without damage or meticulous and time consuming excavations. A few human teeth and bone fragments was collected when they were found in a context that was not clearly associated with burials.

Fig. 15: Legend of symbols used in the plan and section drawings below.

27



4. Excavation of marae ScH H-2-62-1, Te Ana 4.1 Description of structure This marae is c. 26 m long and 177 m wide, and the courtyard is enclosed by a c. 1.5 to 2 m wide wall of irregular basalt stones. The courtyardd is roughly paved and at the centre divided by a terraace, which is only distinct on its W side. The marae is situated s on a slope slanting from S to N. The ahu is locaated on the upper S inland end of the courtyard.

and ScH-2-66-1). There are twoo c. 80 cm wide entrances to this marae. One is located at the front end of the marae terrace/enclosing wall. A stair must have been attached from the outside for people to be able to use this entrance, since the wall is c. 2 m highh on this side. The other entrance is situated on the W side s of the wall enclosure, and leads directly in to the uppper terraced area of the courtyard. At the outside of thhe front wall enclosure to the N is another small semi-cirrcular attachment located, and attached to the NE end is structure 2-62-2, a burial ground, shrine, or simple maraee (Fig. 17).

4.2 Location of trenches Two trenches were excavateed inside the courtyard. Trench I, 6 by 2 m, was placedd perpendicular to the ahu on its W end, which in this spot s was partly destroyed since the basalt front slab had faallen forward and some of the inside stone fill had come out. Trench II, 1 by 1 m, was placed perpendicular to the base of the terrace dividing the courtyard. In addition, three 0.5 by 0.5 m test-units were excavated outtside the marae terrace. Trench III and IV were placedd at the base of the front wall of the marae terrace, and trench t V was placed close to the E long side of the maraae on a terraced area (Fig. 17).

4.3 Trench I Fig. 16: Ahu of marae ScH-2-62-1, taken from NE. N (Photo: P. Wallin)

The ahu is c. 6 m long and 2,3 m widee. The front wall of the ahu is built of 10 slabs 0,4-0,655 m high, the NE corner stone is a 0.9 m long and 0.65 high basalt slab. These are overlaid by two to three laayers of flat basalt stones (Fig. 16). The NW corner had fallen out, but was originally faced by a basalt slab. The W end is built of 3 coral slabs, of which one is broken in several pieces, and the ahu is about 0,3 m high at this reaar corner. The rear wall of the ahu is constructed of tw wo layers of basalt stones one on top of the other. The E end is built of 4 basalt slabs/boulders overlaid by 1-2 layers l of flat basalt stones. One upright stone (c. 50 cm higgh) can be seen in a central position on the court about 500 cm from the ahu. Just in front of the slabs in the fronnt wall, flat basalt stones are laid on the ground, almostt like a small step. This was particular evident along the E part of the ahu. A terrace dividing the courtyard is about 80 cm high. It is attached to the enclosing wall at the W side of the marae and covers 2/3 of the width of the courtyard. c Here, an entrance is found leading up onto the terrace. t The terrace is not quite as distinct to the E of this entrance. The enclosing wall is, on the rear side of the marae, built in a stepped manner that makes it highh on the inside, but level with the ground on the outside. All A along the S end of the enclosing wall, behind the ahu, there t are areas with scattered small stones. This might haave been part of a semi-circular feature (Cf. the descripttion of ScH-2-65-1

Trench I was six meter long annd two meter wide. It was divided into 12 units, each 1x11m in size, with unit 1 in the SW corner of the trench, and square 12 in the E corner (Figs. 18-19). The orienntation was approximately N-S, but it was placed perpenddicular to the long-axis of the ahu. The main objective of o trench I was to obtain datable material from inside thee ahu, which would reflect the use period of the structuure, and secondly to get datable material from under thhe foundation layer of the ahu, which would pre-date the construction c of the marae. Although trench I covers a largee part of the W part of the ahu, we decided to only excavvate down into the ahu in parts of the trench, mainly unnit 8, where a fallen slab necessitated some restoration off the front wall. Material from the fill inside thee ahu was ascribed to one of two areas, as it came upp during the process of removing the stones of the fill. Several samples of charcoal shells and corals weree collected, as well as two soil samples (Figs. 20-21). A human ulna and radius (left), both broken were foundd among the stones inside the ahu. These were left insiide the ahu. No internal construction or earlier ahu was detected by this excavation (Fig. 22). The general stratigraphy of this trench consisted of a c. 20-25 cm thick layer of dark brown soil. It contained scattered charcoal, shell fragments and scattered pieces of corals, which probably camee from fragmented coral slabs. The squares in and in froont of ahu also contained some bone materials (both humaan and pig bones).

Ϯϴ 



Fig. 17: Marae ScH-2-62-1 plan drawing.



Ϯϵ 



Fig. 20: Photo of Trench 1, unit 2, N seection through the ahu. Scattered charcoal found at far right in picture (Photo: P. Wallin)..

Fig. 18: Trench 1, plan drawing prior to excavaation.

Fig. 21: Photo of Trench 1, unit 2,rear SW corner of ahu (Photo: P.Wallin)

Fig. 19: Trench 1 during excavation from N (Phooto: P. Wallin).



ϯϬ 



 6F+7UHQFK,6WUDWLJUDSKLFDOVXPPDU\  Unit 7 1RWH[FDYDWHG

Unit 1 /HYHOFP7KLVOD\HUFRQVLVWHGRIGDUNEURZQYHJHWDWLYHVRIWVRLO,WFRQWDLQHGVFDWWHUHGFKDUFRDO DEDVDOWIODNHQXWIUDJPHQWVDQGVRPHVKHOOIUDJPHQWV /HYHOFP7KLVOD\HUFRQWLQXHGZLWKWKHVDPHGDUNEURZQVRLODQGVFDWWHUHGFKDUFRDO /HYHOFP7KHVRLOFRQVLVWHQFHFKDQJHGDWDERXWFPGHSWKWRDUHGEURZQFOD\H\VRLO LQFOXGLQJURFNVRIFFPGLDPHWHUVRPHODUJHU ,QWKLVOD\HUZHDOVRIRXQGWZRURXQGHGDUHDV FPLQ¡ZKLFKFRQWDLQHGVRIWEURZQVRLOWKHVHSRVVLEOHIHDWXUHVZHUHODEHOOHG3RVWKROHDQG 3RVWKROHDQGWKHLUFRQWHQWZHUHFROOHFWHGDVHDUWKVDPSOHV6FDWWHUHGFKDUFRDOZDVIXUWKHUPRUH IRXQG /HYHOFP7KLVOD\HUFRQWDLQHGHQWLUHO\RIUHGEURZQFOD\H\VRLODVDPSOHRIVFDWWHUHG FKDUFRDOZDVKRZHYHUFROOHFWHGEXWWKHVRLOVHHPHGWREHTXLWHVWHULOHWRZDUGVWKHERWWRP

1RWH[FDYDWHG 1RWH[FDYDWHG

1RWH[FDYDWHG 1RWH[FDYDWHG

/HYHOFP7RVHFXUHWKDWWKHUHZHUHQRXQGHUO\LQJFXOWXUDOOD\HUVWKLVXQLWZDVH[FDYDWHG IXUWKHUGRZQZLWKDVSDGH7KHFOD\H\VWHULOHVRLOFRQWLQXHGPL[HGZLWKODUJHUVWRQHVDQGWKHYROFDQLF URFNERWWRPZDVIRXQGDWFFP

Unit 8

Unit 2

2QO\WKHVRXWKHUQSDUWRIWKLVXQLWZDVH[FDYDWHGEHKLQGWKHDKX ,WFRXOGEHREVHUYHGWKDWWKH DKXVWRQHVFRQWLQXHVGRZQDERXWFPXQGHUWKHSUHVHQWVXUIDFH

7KLVXQLWZDVH[FDYDWHGGRZQWRDGHSWKRIFP7KH6:FRUQHURIWKHDKXLVORFDWHGLQWKH1(SDUW RIWKHXQLW7KLVSDUWZDVQRWH[FDYDWHG+RZHYHULWZDVREVHUYHGWKDWWKHDKXFRQWLQXHGGRZQWRD GHSWKRIFFPXQGHUWKHSUHVHQWVXUIDFH

/HYHOFP7KHVRLOZDVGDUNEURZQYHJHWDWLYHVRLO,WFRQWDLQHGVFDWWHUHGFKDUFRDOFRUDO SLHFHVDQGVKHOOIUDJPHQWV /HYHOFP7KLVOD\HUFRQVLVWVRIGDUNEURZQYHJHWDWLYHVRLODQGFRQWDLQHGVFDWWHUHG FKDUFRDODQGFRUDOV /HYHOFP7KHUHGEURZQFOD\H\VRLOFRXOGEHREVHUYHGDWDGHSWKRIFFP 6FDWWHUHGFKDUFRDOZDVIRXQGDQGFROOHFWHG 1RWH[FDYDWHG

/HYHOFP7KLVOD\HUFRQVLVWHGRIGDUNEURZQYHJHWDWLYHVRIWVRLO,WFRQWDLQHGVRPHSLHFHVRI FRUDOVL[SLHFHVZHUHFROOHFWHGDVDVDPSOHIRUGDWLQJSXUSRVHV /HYHOFP7KLVOD\HUFRQWLQXHGZLWKWKHVDPHGDUNEURZQVRLODQGFRQWDLQHGVFDWWHUHG FKDUFRDORQHVDPSOHZDVIRXQGMXVWXQGHUUHDUZDOORIDKX /HYHOFP7KHUHGEURZQFOD\H\VRLOPL[HGZLWKVRPHURFNVEHFDPHYLVLEOHLQWKLVOD\HU 6RPHVFDWWHUHGFKDUFRDOZDVIRXQG1RIXUWKHUH[FDYDWLRQZDVXQGHUWDNHQLQWKLVXQLW 1RWH[FDYDWHG

1RWH[FDYDWHG

1RWH[FDYDWHG

Unit 9

Unit 3



2QO\WKH(KDOIRIWKHXQLWZDVH[FDYDWHGVLQFHWKH:SDUWLVRFFXSLHGE\WKHDKX)XUWKHUPRUHRQO\RQH OHYHOZDVH[FDYDWHGWRQRWULVNWKHDKXWRFROODSVHRQWKHVLGH

1RWH[FDYDWHG

1RWH[FDYDWHG

/HYHOFP(SDUWRIWKHXQLW7KHVRLOFRQVLVWHGRIWKHGDUNEURZQYHJHWDWLYHVRLO,WFRQWDLQHG VFDWWHUHGFKDUFRDODVZHOODVVKHOOVDQGFRUDOV6DPSOHVRIWKHVHZHUHFROOHFWHG6HYHUDOVPDOOVWRQHV ZHUHREVHUYHGDWWKHEDVHRIWKHVLGHVODEV,WLVQRWFOHDULIWKH\DUHRULJLQDORULIWKH\KDYHEHHQ SODFHGWKHUHGXULQJDQHDUOLHUVWDELOLVDWLRQRIWKHDKX$SRVVLEOHEDVDOWXSULJKWFDQDOVREHREVHUYHGDW WKLVVLGHRIWKHDKX 1RWH[FDYDWHG

1RWH[FDYDWHG

1RWH[FDYDWHG

1RWH[FDYDWHG

1RWH[FDYDWHG 1RWH[FDYDWHG

1RWH[FDYDWHG

Unit 10

Unit 4



2QO\OHYHORQHZDVH[FDYDWHGLQWKLVXQLWVLQFHWKHVLGHVODEVRIWKHDKXLVSODFHGLQWKHFHQWUHRIWKH XQLW7KLVZDVGRQHWRQRWULVNDFROODSVHRIWKHDKXVLGH,QWKLVXQLWWKHLQVLGHRIWKHDKXZDVH[FDYDWHG WRPDNHLWSRVVLEOHWRUHVWRUHWKLVFRUQHURIWKHDKX

1RWH[FDYDWHG 1RWH[FDYDWHG

/HYHOFPRXWVLGHDKX7KLVOD\HUFRQVLVWHGRIGDUNEURZQYHJHWDWLYHVRLO,WFRQWDLQHG VFDWWHUHGFKDUFRDODQGVDPSOHVRIVKHOOVDQGFRUDOVZHUHDOVRFROOHFWHG 1RWH[FDYDWHG

1RWH[FDYDWHG

1RWH[FDYDWHG

1RWH[FDYDWHG

1RWH[FDYDWHG

1RWH[FDYDWHG

1RWH[FDYDWHG

Unit 11

Unit 5



7KLVXQLWZDVFRYHUHGE\DKXVODEVDQGRXWIDOORIDKXVWRQHV7KHVHVWRQHVZHUHUHPRYHGEHIRUHLW FRXOGEHH[FDYDWHG

/HYHOFP7KHOHYHOFRQVLVWHGRIGDUNEURZQVRLO7KLVOHYHODOVRFRQWDLQHGDORWRIFRUDO IUDJPHQWVVFDWWHUHGFKDUFRDOVKHOOVDQGVRPHSLHFHVRIERQHVERWKKXPDQDQGSLJERQHVRQH SLJWRRWKZDVLGHQWLILHG  /HYHOFP7KHOHYHOFRQVLVWHGRIGDUNEURZQVRLODQGILQGVRIVFDWWHUHGFKDUFRDOVKHOOV FRUDOVDQGERQHVKXPDQDQGSLJ ZHUHUHFRYHUHG7KHUHGEURZQFOD\H\VRLOFDPHDWWKHERWWRP RIWKLVOD\HU/HYHOZDVQRWH[FDYDWHGVLQFHZHZRXOGQRWULVNDFROODSVHRIWKHIURQWDKXZDOO %LJEDVDOWVWRQHVZDVIRXQGLQWKHXQLW 1RWH[FDYDWHG

/HYHOFP7KLVOHYHOFRQVLVWHGRIGDUNEURZQYHJHWDWLYHVRLO6FDWWHUHGFKDUFRDODQGDORWRI FRUDOSLHFHVZHUHIRXQGLQWKLVOD\HU7KHFRUDOVDUHSUREDEO\WKHUHVXOWRIDIUDJPHQWHGFRUDOVODE$ VDPSOHRIWKHVHZDVFROOHFWHG /HYHOFP7KLVOHYHODOVRFRQVLVWHGRIGDUNEURZQVRLO6FDWWHUHGFKDUFRDODQGDVDPSOHRI FRUDOSLHFHVZHUHFROOHFWHG

1RWH[FDYDWHG 1RWH[FDYDWHG

/HYHOFP7KHUHGEURZQFOD\H\VRLOZDVUHFRYHUHGDWDGHSWKRIFFP6FDWWHUHG FKDUFRDODQGDVDPSOHRIFRUDOSLHFHVZDVFROOHFWHG7KHUHZHUHDOVRVRPHELJEDVDOWERXOGHUVLQWKH XQLWDWWKLVOHYHO 1RWH[FDYDWHG 1RWH[FDYDWHG

Unit 12

Unit 6

/HYHOFP7KHOHYHOFRQWDLQHGGDUNEURZQYHJHWDWLYHVRLOZLWKVFDWWHUHGFKDUFRDODQG FRUDOSLHFHV /HYHOFP7KLVOD\HUFRQVLVWHGRIGDUNEURZQVRLOZLWKVFDWWHUHGFKDUFRDO

/HYHOFP7KHOHYHOFRQWDLQHGGDUNEURZQYHJHWDWLYHVRLOZLWKVFDWWHUHGFKDUFRDODQGFRUDO SLHFHV /HYHOFP7KLVOD\HUFRQVLVWHGRIGDUNEURZQVRLOZLWKVFDWWHUHGFKDUFRDO

/HYHOFP7KHOD\HUFRQVLVWHGRIPL[HGGDUNUHGFOD\H\VRLO6FDWWHUHGFKDUFRDOZDV IRXQGDQGFRUDOVZHUHFROOHFWHGDVDVDPSOH 1RWH[FDYDWHG

/HYHOFP7KHOD\HUFRQVLVWHGRIPL[HGGDUNUHGFOD\H\VRLO$FKDUFRDOFRQFHQWUDWLRQZDV IRXQGDWDGHSWKRIFP&RUDOVZHUHFROOHFWHGDVDVDPSOH 1RWH[FDYDWHG

1RWH[FDYDWHG

1RWH[FDYDWHG



ϯϭ 



Fig. 22: Trench I, plan drawings.

Fig. 23: Trench I, E section.

The next level consisted of red brown clayey soil with mixed volcanic stones, c. 5-10 cm diameter, from c. 2530 cm depth down to the yellow brown volcanic rock bottom that in unit 1 was found at c 70-80 cm depth (Fig. 23).



ϯϮ 

 found in level 20-38 cm b.s. with w a clear lens of burned soil underneath. It cannot bee related directly to the construction of the terrace, but it must predate it because it was sealed by a layer that weent under the terrace. This might be a ceremonial umu / fire, used in a ceremony m (Fig. 24, 20-38 cm, before the establishment of the marae and Figs. 25 and 28).

4.4 Trench II Trench II was located at the base of o the terrace that divides the courtyard (Figs. 17 andd 24). One small posthole, F3, with sides of stones and charcoal in the fill was found in the section just under the terrace stones (Figs. 26-27).

Fig. 25: Trench II, E-section drawing.

Fig. 24: Trench II, plan drawings.

Another feature (F1) found in level 0-110cm b.s. It was an area of dark-brown soil with scatteredd charcoal (Fig. 24, 0-10 cm). In the NE corner of trench II I an umu (F2) was

Fig. 26: Trench II, photo of S-section, showing the end of platform dividing court in two parts (Photo: P. Wallin). W

ϯϯ 



Fig. 27: Trench II, S-section drawing.

Fig. 29a: Trench III, S-section draw wing.

Fig. 28: Trench II, 20-30 cm below surface, botttom of earth oven (F2) (Photo: P. Wallin)..

4.5 Trench III and IV Two small, 0.5 by 0.5 m, test-units weere excavated at the base of the down-slope end of the marae terrace. They produced only a few fragments of shelll and a fragment of what possible is human bone. The thiick layer of topsoil indicates also that the layer with scatteered charcoal found under the ahu, might be found under the t whole length of the marae (Figs. 29a+b, and 30).

Fig. 29b: Trench III, picture taken from m N prior to excavation (Photo: P. Wallin).

ϯϰ 



Fig. 30: Trench IV, photo of S-section (Photo: P. P Wallin).

4.6 Trench V One small, 0.5 by 0.5 m test-trench, was excavated to the E of the marae, located on a possiblee habitation terrace (ScH-2-63-6) attached to the marae. It was excavated down to a depth of c. 70 cm, when thhe small size of the trench made it impossible to excavate

Fig. 32: Trench V, plan drawings.

Fig. 31: Trench V, a layer of soil with rich charccoal mixed in was found at 60 cm below surface (Photo: P. Wallin).

p reached at this further, but sterile soil was probably depth. The first 0-50 cm consiisted of very dark brown soil mixed with smaller stones (c. ( 5 cm large). This layer contained bone fragments of pig, fish and human. At c. 50 cm b.s. concentrations of chharcoal mixed with black soil were encountered. This might m be an umu rake-out, but because of the small size off the trench interpretations are difficult. No layer of burned soil was found underneath. At c. 60 cm b.s. largger stones about 10-20 cm in diameter became visible. Thee colour of the soil shifted

ϯϱ 

 at this depth, and was mixed with brown soil. Under the stones and down to c. 70 cm, the soil was clayey and brown, and it contained no more charcoal or bones. Sterile soil was probably found at this depth (Figs. 3133).



Fig. 33: Trench V, E-section drawing.

Fig. 34: S to N transect drawing through the center of the marae.

Fig. 35: E to W transect drawing through the center of the ahu.

ϯϲ 



5. Excavation of marae ScH H-2-62-3, Te Ana 5.1 Description of the structuree This is a platform marae situated in thhe lowest portion of Zone 1, on a S to N slanting sloppe, in the Te Ana Complex (Fig. 36). The platform is coonstructed of 3 – 8 layers of basalt stones, and is c. 8 m lonng and 6 m wide. It is about 20 cm high at the rear side annd c. 1,8 m high on the N front side. The ahu is a rectangular enclosure partly filled with basalt stones, c. 4.5 m long and 0.8 m wide and 0.6 m high, entirely built of basalt slabs, fivee in the front wall, four in the back wall, and one at eaach end. There are terraces, probably habitation terracess, in front of the marae and on the W side. A possiblee fallen upright can also be observed inside the NE side off the ahu. Two flat coral pieces are to be seen just in front of the ahu, u part of the E somewhat off centre. Attached to the upper side there is a c. 1.5 m long semi-circuular enclosure with a 0.35 m high pointed upright stone insside. It was found that the marae was built directly on topsoil, H-2-61-1), and it is and on top of habitation debris (ScH probably a very late feature at the site.

Fig. 37: Plan drawing indicating the loccations of excavated trenches.

5.3 Trench I: This 1 by 1 m unit was excavvated at the N end of the platform, where the E end of a house h platform, ScH-2-626, was built at the side of the maarae platform (Fig. 38). A retaining platform, or a habitatiion platform, ScH-2-61-1, is located just to the N or the maarae platform.

Fig. 36: Overview of marae, taken from S (Photto: R. Solsvik).

5.2 Location of trenches Trench I was located at the down slopee N short end of the marae courtyard platform. Trench II was w cutting into the semicircular attachment located on thee E long side of the marae court. Finally trench III was placed p at the NW corner of the marae platform (Fig. 37).

Fig. 38: Location of Trench I at the N end of the marae platform (Photo: R. Solsvik).

Two test trenches (Trench I and II) werre excavated at this marae by Solsvik in August 2002 (S Solsvik 2003). One 14 C sample from this excavation came out at 500+-60 BP (Beta-177605), or Cal. A.D. 1320-13400 and 1390-1500 at 2 sigma. Trench III was excavated laterr in April 2003.

The trench revealed that the marae was built on top of the soil without foundation stones buried in the ground, and most probably on top of the haabitation debris, with high density of shells and charcoal, found in the top layer of the trench, and related to ScH--2-61-1. Large rocks were found in the ground, but thhey are either occurring naturally in the soil or used to build b up a flat area on the slope prior to marae constructioon.

ϯϳ 

 Three layers were uncovered duringg excavations, and they probably reflect the levelling of the area under the structure. No artefacts were uncovered during excavation. The excavated layers can be described in this way:

Layer 3: r brown, fine sandy, It consisted of a light brown to reddish or clayish, soil, and contains no charcoal or shell. A lot of small yellowish, brittle stones were found in the layer (Fig. 40).

Layer 1: It consisted of a dark brown to black sandy soil, with a high density of carbon and tuai shells. Encountered in a the size of a this layer were packed small stones, about small fist.

5.4 Trench II:

Layer 2: It consisted of a light brown to reddishh brown fine sandy soil with inclusions of lumps of greyy clay. Many small stones (about 3x3 cm) of a yellowish colour c were found, and they were easily broken. It contaained no carbon or shells. The soil gradually got more clayish c with depth (Fig. 39).

One unit, 1.3 by 1 m, was placeed alongside the E side of the marae platform, exposing a small feature of three stone slabs and one upright. The unit exposed the base of m platform, as well as the stones in the side of the marae the base of the stones makinng up the small feature attached to the marae (Figs. 41--42).

Fig. 41: Feature at the E side of the marrae platform (Photo: R. Solsvik).

Fig. 39: Trench 1, plan draing of Layer 2.

The feature seems to have beeen build in relation to the marae platform, and thus shouuld post-date it, but there are no conclusive stratigraphical relations to prove this, only the general form and loccation of the feature. Not more than one layer could be defined, although the soil N artefacts were found. gradually changed with depth. No

Fig. 42: Trench II. Plan drawing of Layer L 1.

Layer 1: Fig.40: Trench 1, E-W Section with layers I, 2, 2 and 3 indicated.

ϯϴ 

 Layer 1: A brown sandy soil, mixed with charrcoal and packs of small stones (fist size), no shells annd no artefacts. It contained high quantities of charcoaal, some evidently from fired roots. The soil gradually blends b into a grey clayish and yellowish-brown sandy soill (Fig. 43).

T III was therefore construction of the marae. Trench placed on the Northwest cornerr of the structure in order to see if any refuse layer actuallly was to be found under the marae platform (Figs. 45-511).

Fig. 43: Trench II, S-N Section. Fig. 45: Plan drawing, trench III, 0-10 cm b.s.

5.5 Trench III Trench III is a 1 by 1 m unit located att the NW corner of the marae platform. During fieldworkk in August 2002 (Solsvik 2003: 5-7) two trenches were excavated, trench I just in front of the North end of the plaatform and trench II by the East side of the platform. In trench t I, what was interpreted as a midden refuse layer with charcoal and shell (mostly Gafrarium spp., or tuai as they are known locally) was found just underneath the level of the platform foundation stones.

Fig. 46: Plan drawing, trench III, 10-200cm b.s.

Fig. 44: Trench 3 at the base of the W side of thhe marae platform (Photo: R. Solsvik).

We were inclined to believe that thee refuse layer was earlier than construction of the marae, and that a date for the layer would give a terminus-ante--quem date for the construction of the marae. However, the marae is built on a slope, with trench I being on the down-slope end of the platform, and the structure have beeen restored at least once in historical times. So, it could be that foundation stones of the marae had slid down thee slope and that the refuse layer was contemporary, or evven later, than the

At c. 20 cm depth a midden reffuse layer of charcoal and shells were found in between hand h sized stones, some of which were fire cracked (Fig. 44). 4 During excavations, it seemed that there were two concentrations of shell midden. However, it may be thhat in those two areas, the shells were deposited deeper beetween the stones, and that they all belonged to the sam me event. We found only smaller specks of red-burned sooil, and hence we interpret the shell midden as an umu rakke-out. In the lower part of the trench, larger stones (headd size) were encountered, which indicates a second habbitation platform situated underneath the reconstructed habitation h platform on the surface. The shell-midden / um mu rake-out was found on top of this second habitation plaatform and in between the stones used to construct it.

ϯϵ 



Fig. 47: Plan drawing, trench III, 20-25 cm b.s.



Fig. 50: Plan drawing, trench III, 40-50 cm b.s.



 Fig. 48: Plan drawinf, trench III, 25-30 cm b.s.



Fig. 51: Plan drawing, trench III, 50-60 cm b.s.



Fig. 49: Plan drawing, trench III, 30-40 cm b.s.

The layer with shell midden and charcoal are clearly found underneath the marae platform, and must therefore predate the construction of the marae (Fig. 52). One 14C dating (Wk-13176) on a sample from this layer yielded a date of 244+-38 BP.

 Fig. 52: Trench III, N-S section.

ϰϬ 



6. Excavation of marae ScH-2-65-1, Te Ana 6.1 Description of the structure The Marae is located on a slope that slants from S to N, it is c. 22 to 26 m long and c. 19 m wide, and is enclosed by a 0.8 to 2 m wide stone wall on three sides. Two ahu are located on the S upslope part of the courtyard. The W ahu is c. 4.5 m long and 1.5 m wide and from 30 to 50 cm high. Three coral/limestone slabs in the front wall have fallen out, the rest are made of basalt. On top of these slabs, basalt stones are stacked vertically. The ahu is somewhat poorly defined on its W and E ends, and the rear wall is disturbed. One upright basalt stone, 50 cm high, is found in the centre of the rear wall of the ahu.

The E ahu is c. 6.4 m long and 2.2 m wide, and is c. 50 cm high, have five coral slabs in the front wall, and the E end is somewhat poorly defined. The ahu is filled with basalt stones and boulders. The rear wall of both ahu is about at ground level. Between the two ahu there is one coral slab in line with the rear walls, and scattered around are flat basalt stones. This probably has been a terrace, possibly an ava’a. Just in front of these stones, there is another small terrace, clearly defined, but some offset from the long-axis of the two ahu. What probably is the remains of a terrace, with an entrance in the middle, is found at 1/3 of the length of the marae, from the N end. Just S of this, on the E side of the marae, a huge basalt stone is located. To the W of this stone, is an area paved with basalt flag stones. Whether this is remnants of a more extensive paving of the courtyard or it has once been a special

Fig. 53: Plan drawing of marae ScH-2-65-1, with the location of trenches I-III.

ϰϭ 

 purpose platform could not be determ mined. Behind the two ahu there is a semi-circular area fenced with large a and attached to basalt boulders. In the middle of this area the inside of the back wall of the maraee, there is a smaller semi-circular feature of basalt stones capped c with a huge flat basalt slab. Due to its location behiind the two ahu we are inclined to interpret this as a buriaal, but the area was not tested to determine whether or not this t was the correct interpretation.

6.2 Location of trenches Three trenches were excavated on thiis marae. Trench I was 3 by 1 m, and cut through the ahu, perpendicular to b 1 m, was placed the long-axis of the ahu. Trench II, 1 by at the base of the terrace dividing thee courtyard, just to the W of the entrance. Trench III, a 0.75 0 by 0.5 m test unit, was located at the base of the front wall of the marae terrace (Fig. 53).

Unit 1 was divided into two sections: One, Outside Ahu, s in the rear wall of the which were to the S of a coral slab ahu; and the second, Inside Ahhu, to the N of the same coral slab (Figs. 54-55). Anotheer basalt slab was found at a depth of 10 to 20 cm b.s. slantting inwards, on the inside of the coral slab. This may bee part of a double walled ahu. Human bone fragments weere found in Outside Ahu, and during excavation of Insidde Ahu fragments of three human skulls were encounteredd, two of them between the two slabs. Both sections producced charcoal and some pig bone fragments. Excavations weere discontinued when the human skulls were encounteredd, because of their fragile state. Unit 3 was located N in the trench just in front of the ahu. It was excavated downn to a depth of c. 70 cm. Scattered charcoal as found inn the upper layers. At a depth of 26 cm b.s. an adze fragment was discovered (Fig. 56, 54 and 57).

6.3 Trench I A 3 m long and 1 m wide trench was placed through the E part of the W ahu, perpendicular to its long-axis, with unit 1 in the S-end of the trench. Onlyy unit 1 and unit 3 were excavated, and unit 2 was unprodductive due to a big burned tree root that blocked further excavation of this unit.

Fig. 55: Trench I, Unit 1 (Photo: P. Wallin). W

Fig. 56: Trench I, WNW section.

Fig. 54: Trench I, plan drawings.

ϰϮ 



Fig. 57: Trench I, E section.

The trench was, however, filled with large boulders and coconut tree roots. It was only excavated down to -10 cm b.s., and produced nothing except some scattered charcoal. Sterile soil was not reached (Fig. 58).

6.5 Trench III Trench III was a 0.75 by 0.5 m test trench excavated at the base of the front wall of the marae terrace (Figs. 53 and 59). Only a shallow layer of topsoil (c. 5 cm) was excavated before the sterile red-brown clayey soil appeared. This indicates that no activities had taken place at the downward side of the marae platform before construction.

Fig. 58: Trench II, plan drawings.

6.4 Trench II Trench II was located at the base of the terrace dividing the courtyard, just W of the entrance (Fig. 53). Due to bad weather and an abundance of coconut trees, which made it dangerous to excavate, trench II was one of a few areas that could be excavated.

Fig. 59: Trench III, plan drawing of surface.



ϰϯ 



7.2 Trench 1:

7. Excavation of Marae ScH-2-65-2, Te Ana 7.1 Description of the structure The marae has a terraced court c. 17 x 15 m in size, with the ahu on the up-slope S end (Figs. 147 and 61). The ahu consists today of four upright basalt slabs and is about 0,5 m high (Fig. 60). The central and NW part of the ahu is today destroyed by large coconut trees. Each end are marked by one basalt block each about 80 cm long and 0,5 m high. The SE rear side of the ahu has three standing slabs slanting forward. The rest is almost completely destroyed or covered by the palm trees. The terraced pavement in front of the ahu is more solid about 3-4 m out from the ahu. SE of the ahu natural outcrops could be observed.

This trench, 1x2 m in size, was placed perpendicular to the ahu on its E end, and cut through the ahu in front of it (Fig 62). The contents of the trench were divided up into two areas, Inside ahu and Outside ahu. The top layer consisted of a very fine soil, almost dust, which must have been deposited after activities ceased at the site. The layer could not be separated, visually, from the layer underneath, but it contained no charcoal (Figs. 63-64) Layer 1: It consisted of a brown to dark brown sandy soil with humus. A small amount of charcoal was found in the top part, but the amount of charcoal increased further down. Layer 2: The layer consisted of a light brown to yellowish brown clay, very hard packed and contained no humus or charcoal.

 

  Fig. 60: Plan drawing of the ahu of marae ScH-2-65-2.

ϰϰ 



Fig. 62: Marae ScH-2-65-2, trench 1, bottom of layer 1, 0-10 cm (Photo: R. Solsvik).



Fig. 61: Overview of marae ScH-2-65-2. Maraee ScH-2-65-1 is seen behind. From NW (Photo: R. Solsvik).



Fig. 63: Trench 1, South section.

Fig. 64: Trench 1 East section.

ϰϱ 



8. Excavation of marae ScH-2-66-1, Te Ana 8.1 Description of the structure The Marae is located on a S to N slanting slope, and is c. 19.5 m long by 15 m wide. The courtyard is enclosed by a stone wall from 1 to 2.1 m wide, on three sides and open on the N end. The marae has two ahu on its S upslope end (Figs. 65-66). The W ahu is c. 3.7 m long and 1.7 to 2.1 m wide, but it is only the front and rear sides that are well defined.

A basalt stone terrace, 45 to 75 cm high, divides the courtyard in two. A semi-circular feature outlined by large basalt boulders, is attached to the inside of the rear enclosing wall of the marae terrace. In the centre of this feature, attached to the rear wall of the marae terrace, is place one large flat basalt boulder. There might also be a similar, but smaller feature to the E of the first semicircular feature. Two terraces is attached to the outside of the E side of the marae terrace at the S end, the upper terrace is c. 40 cm high. A third terrace, c. 65 cm high, is attached to outside of the marae terrace on its W side, almost at the centre of this side. In the centre of the lowermost courtyard there is a huge basalt boulder.

Fig. 65: Plan drawing of marae ScH-2-66-1 with excavated trenches indicated.

The front wall consists of 2 large basalt slabs and 2 large coral slabs and is c. 50 cm high, and a coral slab defines the E end. The rear wall of the ahu is today made up of three basalt stones. The E ahu is c. 5.5 m long and 1.8 m wide, but is poorly defined. The two ends of the ahu are only seen through one slab at each end.

Two trenches, both 1 by 1 m, were excavated at this marae (Fig. 65). Trench I was placed inside the W ahu, and trench II in the NW part of the lowermost courtyard.

ϰϲ 



Fig. 66: Marae ScH-2-66-1 covered by jungle veegetation (Photo: P. Wallin).

8.2 Trench I Trench I was a 1 by 1 m unit inside thee W ahu excavated down to sterile red-brown clayey soil and a volcanic stones at between 45 to 55 cm (Figs. 68-699). The findings in trench II may be divided into two generral levels:

The lower levels probably predate the construction of the marae or may be contemporaneeous with the construction of the marae. One 14C sample from c. 40 to 50 cm b.s. was dated to 552+-100 BP (Wk--13178).

Level 1 and 2 (0-20 cm): The upper 5 cm was a vegetative layeer with much roots and humus. A lot of coral pieces c. 5 cm c in diameter was found in these layers. They probably originated from a fragmented coral slab. The soil consissted of dark brown soil and some stones c. 5-20 cm in diam meter. In these two layers it was also found scattered chharcoal shells and human bones. The remains of human cranial c bones and a mandible of a c. 5 years old child were w found. These bones were redeposited between two stones s in the S part of the trench (Figs. 67, 70-71). Level 3, 4 and 5 (30-50 cm): Layer 3 and 4 consisted of red brown clayey soil, which contained some scattered charcoal, shells, coral pieces and bones (fish bones). The volcanicc rock bottom was visible at a depth of 45-55 cm. It I contained some charcoal, shell and coral pieces.

Fig. 67: Trench I during excavation. Huuman bones were found inside but also around the stone heap inn the right corner of the picture. It was left unexcavated (Photo: R. Solsvik).

ϰϳ 



Fig. 70: Upper stone fil linside ahu, levvel 1. From N (Photo: P. Wallin).

Fig. 71: Human remains, a mandibulaee from a child found in level 2 (Photo: P Wallin)

Fig. 68: Trench I, plan drawings.

Fig. 69: Trench I, E section.

ϰϴ 



8.3 Trench II Trench II in the NW part of the low wermost courtyard (Figs. 65 and 73), was excavated dow wn to c. 50 cm b.s. The top 20 to 30 cm contained darrk-brown soil with charcoal, pieces of coral, and a few frragments of human and pig bones. The human bone fraggments, teeth from one child and one adult, were not colleected, but re-buried in the square (Figs. 72 and 74) .



 Fig. 73: Location of trench II on maraee court (Photo: P. Wallin). 

 Fig. 74: Trench II, E section.



Fig. 72: Trench II, plan drawings.

ϰϵ 

a 40 x 6 x 3 m, with an Marae Manunu consists of an ahu ava’a. There is no clearly definned court, and there is no paving in front of the ahu. Alonng the front there is an area strewn with fine coral gravel, 5 to 6 m, into the courtyard a The ahu itself is built and a undefined grass-covered area. in two steps, with large coral limestone-slabs set on end with smaller coral and basalt slaabs stacked on top of each other horizontally in between the t slabs. The first step is about 2.3 m high, and its front wall w consists of 24 slabs, a few of them reach a height of abbout 3 m. The second step is about 1 m high, and is construucted in the same manner. Some of the blocks are refittedd by using cement. At the SE end bedrock is visible. Thee rear wall is built in the same manner but it curves som mewhat out towards the SE end. In the centre of the front wall w there is an ava’a about 7x4,5 m, and about 50cm highh constructed out into the courtyard (Figs. 76-77). It is ouutlined by coral limestone slabs set on end, and filled witth coral pebbles about the size of a hand. The NW part of the ava’a seems to be E it seems more undefined built as a platform, but to the SE except for the coral slabs. On top of the ava’a, close to the front wall of the ahu, staands three slender basalt uprights about 50 cm high. Three T other uprights are placed just in front of the ava’’a at ground level. To the south of the ava’a the grave of Faanui Raiti (died in 1915) is located; and further soouth along this grave there is outlined an enclosure of small slabs.

9. Excavation of marae ScH H-2-18, Marae Manunu, Motu Ovaarei National” marae of Marae Manunu is one of the two “N Huahine Nui, the other being Marae Mata’ire’a M Rahi on the Mata’ire’a Hill. It is an gigantic marae m of the classic costal type where the ahu, in two steeps, is made up of huge coral or lime stone slabs put on ennd and small basalt stones are stacked in between (Fig. 75). 7 Except for an ava’a in front of the ahu and two smalll stone enclosures, the courtyard is not defined in any maanner, but is just a plane area of gravel and grass in fronnt of the ahu. The courtyard, or hoho, is towards the intterior, whereas the “back” of the marae is towards thee sea. The whole complex is built on a motu opposite Maaeva village.

9.1 Description of the structuree Marae Manunu is situated on the flat land of the peninsula called Manunuiterai, or Toerauroa, which l close to the bounds the north side of Faunua Nui lagoon village of Maeva, on the north side off Huahine Nui. The marae is said to be situated directlyy opposite the old Maeva village from the beginning of thhe 20th century, but with Lake Faunua Nui between them.

Fig: 75: Front view of marae Manunu.

50

Comparison with Tyerman & Bennet’s and Emory’s descriptions Emory described Manunu as a two stories ahu, the first story of ahu 23 feet wide at the northern end and 21 feet at the southern end. It is 129 feet long and 8 feet high. Second story 8,5 feet wide at southern end and 11 feet wide at the northern end, 105 feet long and 3 feet high. The ava’a platform was 14 feet wide, 25 feet long and not more than 2 feet high.

Two other, rectangular, and grave-like features are to be found within the courtyard area. One is located close to the SW corner of the ahu. The other is located in line with the NW-corner, about 30 meters out into the courtyard (to the W). The latter structure is oriented NW - SE, and is an enclosure defined by slabs set on end. In the middle of the courtyard, about 15 m out from the ahu wall, there is a round-ended house foundation, 15x6 m, outlined by limestone slabs on end and filled with coral-gravel (Fig. 76). Between the ava’a and the housefoundation there is a possible fallen upright. The second slab from the NW in the front wall has one clear turtle petroglyph, and another possible turtle petroglyph. Just in front of the front wall, at the NW end, there are two old trees growing, and between them there is found a fallen salt slab. A similar three is growing besides the SE end. Other vegetation is 50 - 70 years old coconuttrees. In September 2002, the site was visited again, and at this time all the slabs in the front-wall of the ahu had been incised with graffiti. This consists mostly of names of persons, probably young Polynesians visiting the site, and using the inscriptions as an act of cultural revival (Wallin 2004).

The discrepancies between Emory’s measurements and our own are probably due to the restoration work done by Y. Sinoto during 1967 – 1969. After reconstruction the front wall of the ahu seems to have more coral limestone slabs set on end than was described by Emory. We saw several stones repaired by cement, and these have probably been used to fill in the gaps between slabs in Emory’s drawing. Out on the courtyard area the grave-like feature at the SW-corner still exists as described by Emory, as is also

Fig. 76: Plan drawing of marae Manunu, with the location of trenches I-III,, test –pits and test units indicated.

51

Fig. 77: Transect drawing through marae Manunu along the centre line of the courtyard.

true of the location of the upright found some feet in front of the ava’a. It is described by Emory as a platform, indicating no outlining slabs. However, Tyerman and Bennet describes this as “... the bed of Tane, a stone framed pile, 18 inches above ground, but 24 feet long by 13 wide” (Emory 1933:132; Tyerman and Bennet 1831:266-268).

after which the NW-half of the trench was taken down with a shovel to between 50-75 cm b.s.

Emory describes “... at 70 feet from the face of the ahu is a little structure consisting of two rows of coral slabs, 5 feet apart and 8 feet long, each row having limestone slabs 1 foot high, which were set on end” (Emory 1933:132). This feature can no longer be found, instead there is a round-ended house foundation, described above.

9.3 Test Pit Units on courtyard

After we thus had established the general stratigraphy of the area, three promising areas were extended into areal excavations, but these were excavated only down to c. 20 cm.

Nine test units of 1 by 1 m was excavated in a grid system and produced a consistent picture of the stratigraphy of the courtyard, which can be summed up as indicated below. All instances of charcoal, bones and teeth were found in Layer I in these test units. Generalised Stratigraphy Layer I: The layer consisted of brown to dark-brown vegetative sandy soil / sand with traces of charcoal. The bottom of this layer was a wash-out from the top, forming a podsoil profile.

The grave of Faanui Raiti was also repaired as a part of the restoration by Sinoto. Emory did not describe it, but whether this indicates that he did not notice it or just that he did not consider it a part of the structure is difficult to tell. However, he did describe what he at first had interpreted as a modern grave southeast of the ava’a (Emory 1933:132). Both the small enclosure next to Faanui Raiti’s grave, as well as a little grave-like feature on the NW part of the courtyard area, close to a row of Pandanus trees, were not noticed by Emory. These were discovered and restored by Sinoto.

Layer II: It consisted of Yellow-grey to grey coarse sterile loose marine sand. Layer III: Grey hard marine sand with coral gravel and coral lumps. It was hard packed and Sterile.

9.2 Location of trenches Marae Manunu, or more precisely, the ahu of the complex have been restored several times from 1969 onwards by Sinoto from the B. P. Bishop Museum in Hawaii. This fact, as well as the large dimensions of the ahu, made excavations into the ahu very expensive. This made us decide to investigate the areas outside the ahu itself. The courtyard was therefore the logical option for a limited test-excavation and an arbitrary co-ordinate system was established with X0Y0 just in front of the ahu and 10 m right of the NW corner. A total of 9 test units where excavated along three lines, spaced 10 meters apart, going ENE – WSW (Fig. 76). These were all excavated in 10 cm spits down to a well-defined sterile sand layer, usually reached between 20 to 30 cm b.s.,

All around the ahu of Manunu, and for a distance of c. 5 m from the ahu walls were encountered a layer of coral gravel, or tupiri, lain down in connection with the construction of the marae and only a thin topsoil had established itself on top of the layer. This layer is only found in the two test units TP-X0Y0 and TP-X1Y20, and is described in the following manner: Layer I: The layer consisted of brown vegetative sandy soil with much coral gravel and traces of charcoal.

52

Layer II: It contained sterile white loose coral grravel.

pits, 50 by 50 cm, at the rear-w wall (sea-ward side) of the ahu.

Below, only a stratigraphical summarry, which includes both a description of the soils and whaat was found in the different levels, is given for the test uniits.

TU-I at back-wall of ahu TU-I was located c. 10.5 m froom the NW-corner of the structure, almost in line withh the X0-line of the coordinate system established forr the courtyard. The coral gravel, or tupiri, layer which is also found just at the front-wall of the ahu, is also onn the back of the structure. This was shovelled away and only layers beneath this was excavated in spits and screeened through ¼ inch mesh screens.

TP-X20Y0 This trench was excavated down to c. 30 3 cm b.s. and then shovelled down to 70 cm b.s. in the NW W-half of the unit. TP-X25Y0 This trench was excavated down to c. 30 3 cm b.s. and then shovelled down to c. 70-75 cm b.s. in the t NW-half of the unit. TP-X10Y10 2 cm b.s. and then This trench was excavated down to c. 20 shovelled down to c. 30 cm b.s. in thhe NW-half of the unit. TP-X1Y20 2 cm b.s. and then This trench was excavated down to c. 20 shovelled down to c. 50 cm b.s. in thhe NW-half of the unit. TP-X10Y20 This trench was excavated down to 200 cm b.s., and then shovelled down to c. 50 cm b.s. in thhe NW-part of the unit, without screening the fill from thee shovelling. TP-X17Y20 This trench was only excavated dow wn to 10 cm b.s. before being shovelled down to c. 30 cm c b.s. in the NWpart of the unit. Shovelled fill was not screened. s

Fig. 78: Test Unit I at rear-wall of ahuu, W section.

TP-X18Y6 This trench was located inside the round-ended house on the courtyard. Recent restoration work on the site have outlined this house site with coral slabbs on end, c. 30 cm high, and filled the interior of these corral slabs with coral gravel, or tupiri. This layer of coral grravel was shovelled away without screening and a suurface level was established underneath it, which becaame the level from which excavations proceeded. One corrner of the unit was occupied by a post-hole in coral-concreete, which was part of a re-constructed fare-pote, build byy Sinoto at the end of the first restoration of the marae. Thhe living-surface of the house, 0-15 cm under coral gravell, was excavated as one level. The unit was excavated by trowel to c. 30 cm f this unit was u.c.g, and the dirt screened. The fill from screened to a ¼ inch mesh screened, as with the rest of the excavations.

Fig. 79: Test Unit I. Detail of pig bonee found under ahu slab (Photo: P. Wallin).

m a small pig was found at A fragment of a skull bone, from 34 cm b.s., just at the side of thhe bottom end of the coral slab making up the rear-wall (F Figs. 78-79). It was at the bottom of the brown silt layyer, and must have been interred during construction off the marae. The date of this bone fragment should date the t time of construction of the marae or some unspecifiedd cultural activity prior to construction.

9.4 Test units at the rear-wall or o sea-ward face of the ahu In order to test how deep the coral slaabs, or papa, of the ahu is embedded in the ground, we deecided to dig 2 test

53

TU-II at back-wall of ahu TU-II, a 50 by 50 cm pit at the rear-wall, or sea-ward side, of the ahu, was located 8 m from the E-corner of the structure, almost in line with the X20-line of the coordinate system established for the courtyard. The coral gravel, or tupiri layer, which is also found at the back of the structure, was removed by shovel and only layers beneath this was excavated in spits and screened through ¼ inch mesh screens. Nothing of interest was found in this unit (Fig. 80).

Fig. 81: Trench I. Plan drawing 0-10 cm b.s.

Fig. 80: Test unit II at rear wall of ahu W section.

9.5 Trench I (X-2Y-1 / X-1Y-1 / X0Y-1 / X0Y0) Trench I was an expansion of TP X0Y0 in which we had found an alignment of flat basalt stones, which we interpreted as stones from an earlier pavement of the courtyard of the marae. This, however, was not the case. We also expanded the excavations up to the slabs in the front-wall of the ahu in order to see the stratigraphy underneath the ahu. A total of 4 sq.m. was excavated (Fig. 81). The alignment of stones had three sides (N, S, and W), and might possibly have been a shallow enclosure for sacrificial burials (Fig. 82). Soil samples for phosphate testing was taken, but they showed no higher phosphate values in this area.

Fig. 82: Trench I. Plan drawing 10-20 cm b.s. We found several fragments of human bone and some teeth, and some pieces of pig bone in layer I through IV, which is from 0 to c. 40 cm b.s. One piece of iron was also found (25 cm b.s.), on which we are going to perform further analysis (Fig. 83).

54

In unit X-1Y-1 about 1.30 to 1.40 cm inn front of the coral slab in the front-wall of the ahu we found f part of a pig jaw and some other small fragmeents of pig bone deposited directly on top of layer IV (cc. 32 to 38 cm b.s.). We believe that the marae was build on o top of this layer. Hence, the pig jaw must predate the construction c of the marae (Figs. 84-89).

Fig. 85: Trench I. Plan drawing 30-400 cm b.s.

Fig. 83: Trench I. Plan drawing 20-30 cm b.s.

Fig. 84: Trench I. Detail of pig jaw found on toop of layer IV (Photo: P. Wallin). Fig. 86: Bottom of trench I (Photo: P. Wallin). W

55

Fig. 87: Trench I. N section drawing.

Fig. 89: Square X25/Y0 in trench I. Laayer 2 (Photo: P. Wallin).

Fig. 88: Trench I. E section.

9.6 Trench II (X24Y0 / X24Y1 / X25Y0 / X25Y1)

Unit X25Y0, which was part of the test-pit units, was excavated down to c. 30 cm and theen taken down by shovel to c. 100 cm in the NW-part of the unit. This latter part was not screened. The rest of thhe units were only excavated by trowel down to c. 20 cm (Figs. ( 90-91). Trench II was an expansion of TP X25Y0, and a total of 4 sq.m. was excavated. In TP X25Y0 we had found a lot of pig bones mixed with brown soil and scattered charcoal w encountered in in the top 10 to 15 cm b.s. The same was the other units, with higher concentrration of pig bone fragments in TP X24Y1 and X25Y1. Thhe latter had also a higher content of scattered charcoal. Due D to the quantity of small fragments of pig bone none have been marked on the plan drawings. The reason for thhe concentration of fragments of pig bone in this area mighht be that a fata rau have been located in the vicinity.

Fig. 90: Trench II. Square X25/Y0. NW section.

56

Fig. 91: Trench II. SE Section.

9.7 Trench III (X10Y8 / X10Y9 / X11Y8 / X11Y9)

Fig. 93: Trench III. NE section.

We decided to expand TP X10Y10 because we wanted to see if there could be any traces of rituual activity that had taken place on the courtyard just in front f of the ava’a. Except for TP X10Y10, the units were only excavated by trowel down to c. 20 cm (Figs. 92-94).

Fig. 94: Trench III. Square X10/Y10 NW section.

Fig. 92: Trench III. Plan drawing with finds inndicated.

Fig. 95: Blue/white glass bead found inn trench III (Photo: E. Komori).

9.8 Soil samples for phosp phate testing A total of 60 soil samples from between 5 and 10 cm b.s., in the area between topsoil andd sand, were collected and analysed. This analysis are repported below (see section 15.1: 96-100).

Fig. 93: Trench III. Level 2 (Photo: P. Wallin).

9.9 Conclusions regardin ng the excavations at marae Manunu Traces of cultural activity were ratherr slight. Except for

Preliminary, the findings from the excavations of marae Manunu is rather slight. Future analysis of the iron piece and in particular the glass beead might give additional knowledge regarding early-conntact ritual activity at this place.

one glass bead (Fig. 95) and three hum man teeth, we only discovered some scattered charcoal and a couple of modern nails. The glass bead and teeethes might be an indication that this area was a sppot where human sacrifices were presented to the gods onn the ava’a. 57

Through the findings in TU-I of a pig skull bone fragment under the rear-wall coral slabb and the fragments of pig bones in Trench I on top of a saand layer predating the construction of marae Manunu, we w will be able to date the construction of marae Manuunu. Only one 14C sample has so far been analysed. A pieece of the pig bone found in Trench I (see Trench I, Plaan 30-40 cm) was submitted to Waikato Laboratory forr 14C analysis and returned a date of 306±42 BP (Wk--14603). Since we believe the pig bone to have been deeposited at the site before the construction of the marae, this t would indicate that marae Manunu was built sometim me after AD 1600. However, the isotope values for this sample indicated a possible 32% marine diet, and furtherr investigations are necessary before calibration of the sam mple is undertaken. The findings of scattered charcoal and plenty of pig bone fragments in Trench II indicates some kind of ritual activity at this spot. Most probably ann offering altar, or fata-rau have been located here. We W will be able to securely date this activity. The excavation of TP X18Y6 inside the round ended house, or fare pote, believed to be a fare-ia-manaha is very interesting. We found the remaiins of pig, sheep / goat, cat, rat, fish, and bird in this unnit, which indicates that the house have been used not onlyy for the storage of drums, but for habitation or ceremoniall eating as well. As of yet we have not obtained any datinng of this activity. The sheep / goat and cat bones maay indicate contact period activities or be recent materiaal, however found among the other bones.

Fig. 96: Trench I refilled (Photo: P. W Wallin).

58



10. Excavation of marae SccH-2-19, Marae Mata’ire’a Rahi, Mata’ire’a M Hill Mata’ire’a rahi was the national maraae of Huahine and consequently the most important reliigious structure on the island (Figs. 97,98). It is located on the summit of Mata’ire’a Hill, on land Tehu’a, just above the present m marae Manunu on village and almost directly across from the other side of the lagoon lake Faunaa Nui. Teuira Henry says that the royal investment where performed at this marae (Henry 1928:195) and that it waas also the place for the pa’i atua ceremony (Henry 1928:2221). In a recital by Pati’i, high priest of Mo’orea, the founding mbered: of marae Mata’ire’a rahi is thus remem “I au atu Rua-hatu, ari’i o te tai euea, i Huahinne nui, e ua vahi ihora i na ava, O Apo’o-uhu e o Pe’i-hi; fao ihora i tee Marae, o Mata’i-re’a. Tu’u i te outu i tai o Manunu-i-te-ra’i, o Vai-ta-rraea te vai. Pâ ihora i te atua, o Tane.” “Rua-hatu, king of the mighty ocean, swam to Great-Huahine, G where he broke open the passages, Apo’o-uhu (Aperaturee-of-the-parrot-fish) and Pe’i-hi (Prayer-for-fishing), and he erected the corner stones of the temple Mat’i-rea (Breeze-of-plenty). The cape outside is Manunu-i-tera’i (Benumbed-of-the-sky), and the water is Vai-ta-raea (Water-ofover-exertion. That [region] was given to thhe god Tane” (Henry 1928:452).

There is information about thiss structure from the early 19th century, descriptions by people who was m holding an important accompanied to the site by a man function in the old religion. In thhis case we can follow the general state of the monumentt from the 1820s up until today.

10.1 Description of the sttructure The Matairea-rahi is a complexx structure consisting of a main marae-proper with two or three platforms attached to it. It is located on an eastwarrd slope almost on the top of Mata’ire’a hill, with the ahhu at the uphill end. The “long side” of the courtyard iss oriented E - W, and the attached structures are oriented with their long axis N - S. med A - C (from East to The attached structures are nam West) (See Fig 98). The marae-proper is enclosed on three sides, S, W, and 0 to 1 m high. This wall N, with a wall 1.5 m wide and 0.5 is a double-wall of stackeed basalt stones, with occasionally a slab on end in thhe first course. In the east there is only a retaining terracee, 2 – 3 m in height. The courtyard measures about 31 m from W to E, and 38 m from S to N, and is partially build b slanting upwards, in two steps. There is one limesstone upright in the SW corner of the wall and one alm most in the NE corner, in basalt.

Fig. 97: Excavations at marae Mata’ire’a rahi (P Photo: P. Wallin).

ϱϵ 

 The ahu is built with both limestone slabs on end and with stacked basalt stones. The height is 0.5 m at the back but higher in the front. It is 9 m long and 1.5 m wide. The ahu is built into the wall, but it seems to pre-date it. Limestone slabs making up either end of the ahu can be seen between the basalt stones of the wall. Some slabs, which are intentionally broken off almost at ground level, can also be seen under the stacked basalt stones on the rear-wall of the ahu. The enclosing stone wall is built in line with these broken slabs. On top of the wall there is build a second step on the ahu with both basalt stones, limestone and coral. The filling of ahu, as in the enclosing wall, is mainly basalt stones. In the NW corner there is a small basalt upright 25 x 35-40 cm and facing S. In front of the ahu there is 4 small basalt uprights, the northernmost have fallen, located at the middle of the ahu, 0.2 m wide, 0.3 m high and 0.1 - 0.2 m thick. Just in front of the two uprights in the middle, there is what seem to be an ava’a, about 2 m (NS) and 1 - 1.2 m (WE), made of basalt stones placed on their sides with 5 large basalt slabs as a lid or pavement on top. The largest of these slabs measures about 0.5 x 0.6 m. A short distance to the North of the ahu there is a small enclosure made out of limestone slabs on side, about 4 m (W-E) by 1 m (N-S), and about 0.2-0.25 m high, and filled mainly with basalt stones.

backrest. This is situated on the middle of a kind of pavement/platform-step, which is build on the courtyard (see field drawing for shape). At the very E of this pavement there is 8 uprights at the end, and in N there is one more, placed a little closer to the ahu. At the N end of this pavement there is a huge and old tree growing, and just to the S of this three there is another backrest, but it may be a modern one. There are also 4 uprights on the far side of the courtyard on top of the retaining wall in E. In front of these uprights there are 4 pits (about 0.8 by 0.8 m). Structure A: This is a basalt platform, build 1.5 m to the N and NE of the marae-proper, oriented with its long axis NS, and about 26 m by 10-10.5 m. The sides of this structure seem to curve inwards on all sides. In the middle there seems to have been a kind of a basalt stone pavement, about 1 to 2 stones higher than the rest of the platform. In the “corners” of this pavement there is 4 uprights, and one more in the middle of the W side. Besides these there is also an upright on the S end of this pavement. The pavement has a tree in the middle. Structure B: To the W of this platform, and in connection to it, there is a round-ended terrace, about 1-2 courses high, about the same length as Structure A, but not as wide. This might have been a house platform. No pavement and no uprights on this terrace.

In front of the ahu, offset a little to the S, there is a

Fig. 98: Plan drawing of ScH-2-19. Marae Mata’ire’a rahi. With location of threnches indicated.

ϲϬ 



Fig. 99: Transect drawing through the centre of marae Matai’re’a rahi.

Fig. 100: Drawing of the E front wall of the ahu including excavated and restored SE corner.

has been restored by Sinoto. There are also some uprights and backrests that did not stand when Emory was there.

Structure C: This is a terrace just W of B. It consists mainly of a line of stones on its E side. No particular features found. Comparison with Tyerman & Bennet’s and Emory’s descriptions Tyerman and Bennet describes the marae as 100 [30.48 m] by 80 [24.38 m] feet, while Emory gives the size as about 85 [25.91 m] by 70 [21.34] feet (Emory 1933:136). The real figure is actually closer to Tyerman and Bennet’s figures than Emory’s (Cf. Sinoto 2001:256, fig. 4b). Our own figures are taken as the longest possible length and width. This indicates that the E side of the marae might have been heavily overgrown when Emory visited the site in 1925, at least on the outside of the structure. This is even more evident when the general form of the marae is considered. In Emory’s drawing it is almost square, while it actually is wider in the E than in the W. It seems that Emory measured the length and width of the marae-proper as between the inside of the enclosing stone wall. The rest of Tyerman and Bennet’s description seems to correspond to the present structure, despite some confusion of terminology. The most remarkable is that they does not mention the platforms to the N of the marae, but only describes this area as the place where Tanee’s house was erected. The most evident difference between Emory’s description and the state of the marae today is that he did not map the true form of the structure. He also missed the second enclosure/platform just to the N of the ahu, which must have been overgrown or in bad shape in 1925. Later this

10.2 Location of trenches One large trench 2x6 m (Trench II), was placed at the Send of the ahu, exposing both the rear-wall and the S-end of the ahu, in order to investigate the construction of the ahu and the relationship between the current ahu and the enclosing wall of the marae. This location was chosen to facilitate the restoration of two fallen slabs, one in the front-wall and one in the rear-wall of the ahu at this spot. However, several toa-trees were growing behind the ahu here, and thus made it practically impossible to take the trench right through the ahu, to expose the slabs of the rear-wall. Another trench (Trench I), located some meters to the N, was dug to expose the slabs of the rear-wall. A third trench (Trench III) 0.5 by 0.5 m, was excavated at the NW corner of the enclosing stone wall, and a 0.5 by 0.5 m test unit (Trench IV) was excavated just down slope of the marae platform (Fig. 98)..

10.3 Trench I, at rear-wall of ahu A 1 by 2 m trench was located at the rear-wall of, and perpendicular to, the long-axis of the ahu. Unit 1 is located closest to the rear-wall of the ahu (Figs. 101105). A torso, probably on its back and lying c. NE-SW, was found buried between and below some stones, between – 5 to 20 cm b.s. A few pieces of skull bone was located underneath a flat stone and two teethes (5 to 10 cm b.s.), and they all showed evidence of being fire damaged. Also

ϲϭ 



Fig. 101: Trench I. Plan drawing 0-10 cm b.s. Fig. 103: Trench I. Plan drawing 15-20 cm b.s.

Fig. 102: Trench I. Plan drawing 10-15 cm b.s.

Fig. 104: Trench I. Plan drawing bottom of trench.

ϲϮ 

 We also found out that the botttom of the coral slabs of the ahu were planted about 300 to 40 cm deep into the ground, indicating that the size of the slabs once must have been quite high also at the rear side of this ahu.

Fig. 106: Trench I. N section, with coral slab indicated to the right of the section.

10.4 Trench II, through the t enclosing wall and ahu

This trench was 2 by 6 m in sizze and was located at the S end of the ahu, and oriented E/W. It was placed here since one of the large front slabs recently had fallen forward, which made the trench both an exploratory trench through the ahu, as well as a step in the restoration work of the disturbed part of the ahu. The trench also t ahu and the enclosing covered the junction between the stone wall (Figs. 106-112). Wee excavated down into the ahu in three separate areas, and they are described separately. The ahu was consttructed on ground sloping steeply towards the East. A leveel point was established in the SW corner of the trench, 98 cm above ground.

Fig. 105: Trench I. Observe the broken lime stoone slabs at the base of the ahu (Photo: P. Wallin).

one piece of the ulna was found and paarts of the ribs. The spine / ribs were not totally exposed, and a at the S-half of unit 2 excavations were discontinueed at -15 cm b.s. Several other small pieces of human boones and pig bones were found (Fig. 102). We believe that the torso was buried as such, without a head attached. The fact that we onlyy discovered a few skull pieces seems to support this view w. Furthermore, the skull fragments found at the end of thhe spine all showed evidence of being fired damaged. Thee soil around these fragments also had evidence of beingg burned; however, this might have been caused by a hugee ati-root fire at the base of the ahu rear-wall slabs. In the same levels as this f bones. burial we also recovered pig, dog, and fish It seems that a human torso, possiibly a decapitated human have been buried very shallow at the rear-wall of the ahu, with the upper part of the boddy towards the ahu. A few skull fragments indicate that a skull had been crushed and buried at the same timee. Along with this remains of pig, dog, and fish were depoosited. Both the pig and dog bones are mainly jaw parts of teeth. It seems justified to interpret this as remainns of a sacrifice, possibly at the construction of the maarae or after a rebuilding that took place on this structuure. However, there is no stratigraphical evidence to supporrt this.

Fig. 107: Location of trench II in the SE part of the ahu (Photo: P. Wallin).

Inside Ahu 1 We begun by emptying the ahu of its basalt stone boulders on the E side of the treench just behind the fallen front slab. The filling consisteed of mixed basalt stone material of varied shape and siize. A few pieces of bone were encountered in the fill. Stoone size varied between c.

ϲϯ 

 15-60 cm in ø. A small areaa of 0.5 by 1.25 m was excavated just behind the East front-wall. fr No internal construction was observed. Close to the original ground surface at the boottom of the ahu fill, some human, pig, bird and fish bones were recovered. Under a c. 25x20 cm large flat basalt stoone a human cranium was

Fig. 110: Trench II. Inside Ahu 1. N secction.

Fig. 108: Trench II. Plan draing before excavattion.

found (Skull Concentration I, A on plan drawing) (Fig. 108). This cranium were missinng the jaw bone and all its teeth, and no other bones of thhe body associated to this cranium could be identified,, which implies that it possibly reflects a human offfering placed right at the corner where the front slab and the SE slab of the S short side of the ahu meets (Fig. 1099, 111). When excavating down in to the ground under thhe ahu, scattered charcoal was found in a spot c. 40 x 40 cm large, located about 1 m the front slab (E on plan m inside the ahu measured from drawing). This may belong to an activity at this place before the ahu was built, or an activity that took place when the ahu was erected.

Fig. 109: Trench II. Plan drawing of surface under fill. Fig. 111: Human cranium found under flat stone in ahu corner (Photo: P. Wallin).

ϲϰ 

 that these were quite large when w the ahu first was constructed (Fig. 113). After we w discovered this, we reexamined the paving stones aloong the enclosing wall. All the paving stones were placed into, but not underneath, the enclosing stone wall. Connsequently, the ahu was constructed first, then the encloosing stone wall, and last part of the courtyard was paved.

Fig. 112: Trench II. Inside Ahu 1. W section.

Under Wall t enclosing stone We began by removing the stones in the wall attached to the Southwest corner of the marae. The e length and a S-end of the ahu was exposed in its entire small area of c. 0.4 by 1.3 m was excavvated to understand the temporal relation between the ahuu and the enclosing stone wall.

In the exposed S end of thee ahu we could see that formerly the ahu had been constructed with huge coral/limestone slabs, probably as big and high as the one standing in the SE corner. Orriginally then, the ahu of marae Mata’ire’a rahi must haave had a traditional coral slab ahu of the type found at marae Taputapuatea, although much smaller. The saame might be seen at the rear-wall of the ahu, where cooral / limestone slabs are seen at ground level. In trench I we found that these slabs were embedded very deep in thhe ground, indicating that they formerly were much higherr. During the excavation we encountered occasional fragments of human bone, freequently tucked under or close to the coral / limestone slabs. s In all the levels we also found fragments of pig boones, usually parts of jaws or teethes. Inside Ahu 2 To check further for evidence of an earlier construction stage inside the ahu we emptiedd an area from Inside Ahu 1 and towards the West. And an area of c. 0.5 by 1 m, called Inside Ahu 2, was excavaated. One rough burial cache containning at least 12 long bones and a few fragments of skull boones, were exposed in the N section c. 40-50 cm down in i the fill (Fig. 114). The bones are laid on top of a flaat stone with another flat stone on top as a lid. The top t stone seems to have damaged some of the bones whhich were very fragile. In the process of filling in the treench we reconstructed the exposed side of the cache in order to prevent further damage of the bones. No bonees were removed from the burial, and hence it cannot be daated.

Fig. 113. Extension of trench II at the side of ahu braking through the surrounding wall (Photo: P. Wallin).

The enclosing stone wall was built ass an attachment to the ahu. In constructional terms this means m that the ahu was constructed first and only aftterwards was the enclosing stone wall build. It was alsoo evident from the exposed coral / limestone slabs in thee S-end of the ahu

Fig. 114: Rough bone cache inside ahuu (Photo: R. Solsvik).

ϲϱ 



Fig. 115: Trench II. Inside Ahu 2. N section.

The fill in this part of the ahu contained a surprisingly large amount of small coral limestone lumps and coral gravel, sometimes found in association with fragments of human skull bone or teeth. This coral / limestone waste probably comes from the destruction of some of the coral / limestone slabs in the rear-wall of the ahu, which can be seen to have been snapped off at ground level and substituted by stacked basalt boulders. It was found all the way down towards the original surface on which the marae was build. Consequently, the marae must have be restored or reconstructed during the use of the temple, and this work would have probably removed or rearranged most of or the entire fill at this part of the ahu. It might have been done at the same time as the rough burial cache was made (Fig. 115). Throughout the excavation small fragments of remains of mostly human and pig bone fragments were found, but also bones of dog, fish, and bird. Most human bones were re-deposited within the marae before refilling the trench. Scattered charcoal was also encountered.

10.5 Testing at the enclosing wall and the marae terrace Trench III, at corner in enclosing wall One large basalt slab almost at the N-corner of the enclosing wall had fallen down, facilitating the excavation of a small, 0.5 by 0.5 m, trench under the wall. Except for two small samples of charcoal, nothing was found in this trench. The only modification of the ground had evidently been to dig out some dirt in order to place a standing basalt boulder for the enclosing stone wall.

Trench IV, at downhill end of marae terrace One small trench, 0.5 by 0.5 m, was excavated by shovel at the base of the marae terrace on the down hill side, in order to see whether the slope had been modified during construction. The profile was a natural soil profile, and no modifications of the slope had been done. No profiles were drawn, but photos taken.

10.6 Conclusion regarding the excavations at marae Mata’ire’a rahi The marae has been constructed on an unmodified slope, which either contained some food waste as pig, dog, fish, and bird bones or sacrifices have been spread out prior to the construction of the ahu. The presence of human bone fragments in these layers may be taken in favour of the interpretation of the spread of sacrificial food as part of the construction process. The excavation of trench III and IV indicates that the area which contains human and animal bone fragments is centred on the ahu and behind the ahu. Marae Mata’ire’a rahi have had two distinct construction phases. The first phase saw an ahu of probably the same dimensions as the present one, but as a classic coral slab ahu with large coral/limestone slabs. Whether or not this marae have had a surrounding stone wall or pavement in front of the ahu could not be determined by our investigations. The second phase probably saw a destruction of part of the marae, were many of the large coral / limestone slabs of the ahu was broken at ground level and then crushed. The coral gravel and the coral / limestone lumps was then deposited at bottom of the interior of the ahu and in the general fill. This indicates that the fill of the ahu, today consisting of large basalt boulders, have been emptied and then the ahu was

ϲϲ 

 refilled. It is probable that the buriaal cache found in trench II, Inside Ahu 2, was made at thhis time. In the ahu there is also another burial cache containing numerous long bones that is located at the top of the fill with only a flat stone as cover. This might also havve been constructed during this phase of re-building the marae m or even later. During this re-building the ahu was reemade with stacked basalt boulders and a stone wall was constructed W this enclosed enclosing the marae on three sides. Within space, but mostly in the SW part, basaalt flag stones were used as paving. The paving stones are all laid down touching the enclosing wall and noowhere does these stones go under the wall. It is probablee that the pavement was put down just after the enclosing wall had been constructed. A corpse, probably a torso, was buriedd behind the backwall of the ahu. There is no specific stratigraphical w buried here. In indication telling us when this torso was addition to this the context has also beeen complicated by some big ati-roots growing along thee face of the backwall slabs. Given that it is found with w relative large quantities of pig bones and fragmentss of dog bone, it is likely that it is deposited sometime durring use of, and not prior to construction of, the marae. It is sacrificial in nature. The burial is also very shallow,, probably only c. 5 cm b.s., which might indicate that the torso has just been deposited behind the ahu on the groound, as sacrifices were sometimes cleaned away from the courtyard and removed in this manner as sacred reffuse, mentioned by Emory as “Tiriapera (Rubbish-throw wn), refuse pit or rubbish heap of a marae” (Emory 19933:14). The word Tu-ruma also meant “sacred refusse heap” (Emory 1933:14). An interesting evidence forr ritual praxis was discovered in trench II, Inside Ahu 1. Here H a skull which was missing the jaw bone and all thhe teeth had been crushed under a flat stone. The individdual seemed to be a young adult. Henry describes the practise of burying sacrificial victims under the corner stoone of the marae as part of the construction of a national marae m (Henry 1928: side). The skull fragments in question were w found at what must have been the original surface just inside the SE corner of the ahu.

relation to the re-construction of marae Mata’ire’a rahi. A third sample (Wk-14606) on bone found on top of the surface inside the ahu, Trench II, Inside Ahu 1 (see figure Trench II, Inside Ahu 1, Surfacce under fill, A) returned a date of 301±38 BP. This daate is probably seriously affected by a marine diet, as thhe d13C value of – 16.62 indicate. If the d13C value was the sole source of t individual would have calculations the marine diet of this been 49%, however, the d15N value of 10.11 indicates a lower percentage of marine dieet. This sample is believed to be deposited in connection with w the re-construction of marae Mata’ire’a rahi, an eveent that likely could have taken place in the mid to late 18th century. This might also be indicated by oral historyy (Henry 1928:100-101). In conclusion we believe maraae Mata’ire’a rahi to have been constructed no earlier thann AD 1500 to AD 1550. A re-construction of the marae toook place evidenced by the partial destruction of the coral-sslab ahu and building of a stacked basalt ahu with a surrrounding stone wall. This might have taken place late in the 18th century, but this date is not conclusive.

10.7 Restoration work maade on ScH-2-19, marae Mata’ire’a rahi In refilling trench II, some minoor restoration work on the ahu of marae Mata’ire’a rahi was done. The wall of the ahu had tipped Southernmost slab in the rear-w backwards and was restored. Thhe two coral slabs making up the SE corner were restored. The Southernmost slab in the front-wall had also fallen out and was raised (Fig. 116). Also the slab to the Northh of this one was raised to an upright position. The Easterrn most slab in the S end was dislocated during work duue to the fact that the slab rested on a ati-root. Hence we w had to stabilize it. In addition to this a few basalt bouulders in the N side of the enclosing wall were put in placce, because they had been dislocated probably due to peopple climbing over the wall. Also, the slab in the location of o trench III had to be put back in place. This boulder had been dislocated by an atiroot.

Three samples were submitted to Waiikato Laboratory in New Zealand for age determination. A sample of charcoal from a concentration of charcoal founnd under the fill of the ahu in Trench II, Inside Ahu 1 (seee figure Trench II, Inside Ahu 1, Surface under fill, E). This T returned a date of 387±38 BP (Wk-14604), and it is reaasonable to assume that marae Mata’ire’a rahi was first constructed sometime after this date. Another datee on pig bone that was found in Trench II, Inside Ahu 1 (Wk-14605), ( in the layer under the fill of the ahu (see figurre Trench II, Inside Ahu 1, W Section, Layer II), shouldd be stratigraphical contemporary with Wk-14604. Wk-146605 returned a date of 225±38 BP, with d13C of 20.42. Thhere is a possibility that the wood in sample Wk-14604 have h an inbuilt age and that the samples could be contem mporary. Otherwise, sample Wk-14605 might stem from disturbance in

ϲϳ 

 Fig. 116: The restored ahu after excavaation (Photo: R. Solsvik).

 NE of the marae.

11. Marae Tiamaue, on land Tiamaue, district of Fare 11.1 Description of the structure This is a small marae located next to the house of Romuald Lai and has not been surveyed before. It is situated on the beginning of a slope that must have continued up the valley side, before a terrace was cut for Mr. Lai’s house. A small dry stream is located just to the

The marae, c. 9 x 6 m, is located on a slope with the ahu on the upslope end and oriented with the long-axis of the marae almost SE-NW (ahu at SE, upslope end see Figs. 117-118); the court-yard consists of two retaining terraces of basalt stones filled with earth. The first, which has the ahu located on it, is c. 3-4 by 6 m, and have probably been paved with flat basalt boulders. This terrace/pavement is

Fig. 117: Plan drawing of marae Tiamaue indicating excavated units.

ϲϴ 



Fig. 118: Transection drawing of marae Tiamauue.

a on the SW end. quite distinct on its SE and NW sides and On the NE end there is virtually no stones left in the terrace / pavement, and one can but woonder whether there was a distinct line of boulders here at any time. The ground breaks off quite distinctively at the end of the marae and slopes gently down to a small stream to the NE of the marae. The second retainingg terrace is 5-6 by 6 m and being c. 0.5 – 0.6 m high on the outside downa basalt slab ahu, slope end. The ahu is a classic coral and with 7 coral and 3 basalt slabs remaaining. One of the basalt slab is exceptionally long and thin t (c. 1 m long). The interior of the ahu does not seem to have been filled with stones very high up, although presence of small basalt stones (size of a small fist) inndicates that it has been filled at one point. In the centre of the second terrace, jusst 1.5 – 2 m downslope from the first terrace, there is a cluster of 10-12 stones that either forms the remaininng part of a third retaining terrace or marks the place forr a square structure such as that seen on the marae structurres on land Te Ana (ScH-2-65-1 and ScH-2-66-1). Thesse stones are just further out in the court-yard than wee generally find on marae in the Society Island.

p of the second terrace, Just down-slope from the NE part there is a small shrine or burial structure consisting of six wo side conjoining sides of basalt stones on end, forming tw a square enclosure, with a centtral basalt stone upright c. 21-23 cm high.

11.2 Test-excavation of th he ahu and courtyard Trench I, a 1 by 7 m trench wass laid out perpendicular to the long-axis of the ahu, with thhe first unit inside the ahu. The reference point is the E corrner of the uppermost unit. Units 1, 2, and 6 were excavatedd. 3 cm b.s. and Unit 2 was Unit 1 was excavated down to 30 excavated down to 20 cm b.s.; then the NE part of these trenches was taken down with a showel to c. 40 to 45 cm b.s., where sterile red clay began to appear in the 1 In the first level, 0-10 uppermost part of Unit 1 (Fig. 119) cm b.s. we found a lot of moddern debris resulting from using the marae as a rubbish duump. The rest consisted of a mix of brown soil with red and a grey clayish soil, with stones, decomposing stones and a infrequent specks of charcoal. Unit 6 was excavated down to 10 cm b.s.; then

Fig. 119: Trench I, N section.

ϲϵ 

 

only the N ¼ was excavated down to 30 cm b.s., with the same result as for Units 1 and 2.



No artefacts or cultural waist, nor bone fragments or charcoal samples suitable for dating were retrieved. There was a few pieces of charcoal in the soil, but without any context. The area excavated had in some place clearly been used for agricultural purposes, but most likely in modern times.

  

11.3 Summary of investigations at Tiamaue Based on this lack of cultural deposits, except very modern material in the top layer, excavations were discontinued. The soil of the marae has evidently been used for some agricultural activity, but not to any great extent, indicating that this activity is fairly recent. On the other hand the lack of any kind of bones or shell is interesting. The chemical composition of the soil here should not be different from the ones found in Te Ana, and this clearly demonstrates that deposition of large amounts of bones did not take place on this marae. There can be two reasons for this. One, it might be that the marae was founded quite late during proto-historic times and therefore it was not used much within the ancient religious system. Two, this marae is either a family or agricultural marae and offering of pigs or humans probably was not required on this structure. It might be that only vegetables produce were offered up on this marae, which would explains the lack of bones from excavation of this structure.

           

ϳϬ 



12. Marae on land Tuituirorohiti, Fa’ahia land division, district of Fare 12.1 Description of the structure The marae is situated in an old groove of ati (iron-wood) trees just behind Chez Lovina on land Tuituirorohiti, which is one part of the Fa’ahia land division, in the district of Fare. This structure also has an fare-pote, c. 12.5 by 5.5 m associated with it, South of the courtyard. The marae is a low platform type with a square courtyard, c. 14 by 14 m, outlined by basalt slabs on end, and a few remaining pavement stones of large basalt flagstones, one course high (Fig. 120). The ahu, which is oriented almost N-S and c. 6.5 m long, is constructed predominantly of basalt slabs about 0.5 m high, but two big ati (iron-wood) trees is growing on both ends of the ahu, which makes it impossible to see the whole construction. The fill consists of coral, the size of a small fist, and larger flat basalt boulders.

12.2 Excavations of a fare-pote on the courtyard, Trench I Two major trenches were dug; Trench I through the West-end of the fare pote where units were named with

letters (A, B, C, D,...) going from West to East and numbers (1, 2, 3, 4,...) going from South to North and the south-western corner designates the unit; Trench II, running from the W end of the marae to the E end, cutting the ahu perpendicular to its long-axis. Here, the units were given number designations from West to East, and six units were excavated: Unit 2, 3, 4, and 5, in relation to the ahu itself, Unit 10 out on the courtyard, and Unit 13.70 at the back of the marae platform. Nine square meters of the western end of the fare-pote were excavated in layers of 10 cm. The soil inside the house consisted of soil mixed with coral sand, grey to dark-grey with charcoal dust in some places. Sterile soil was reach between 10 and 15 cm b.s. No postholes nor a clearly defined floor of the house was found and the finds consisted mainly of pig bone / teeth fragments, a few fish bone fragments, and a couple of pieces of pearl shell, one which might have been worked. Consequently, there is no evidence for this house ever being inhabited, the few bone and shell fragments could have been deposited both before or after the curb-stones for this fare-pote were placed in the ground (Figs. 121-122). Pieces of pig bones were found all over the site and in trench II a piece of whale-bone and a piece of pearl-shell fish-hook was found. People have utilized this area, but there is no data tying specific functions to the fare-pote foundation next to the marae.

Fig. 120: Plan drawing of marae on land Tuituirorohiti and the associated round-ended house. Location of trenches indicated.

ϳϭ 



Fig. 121: Trench I. The stones indicating the ennd of the house is visible in the centre of the photo. View from W (P Photo: P. Wallin).

Fig. 122: Plan drawing of trench I indicating endd of the house.

ϳϮ 

 bones, as well as, shells were recovered. One pig bone showed cut marks. In the saame layer it was found scattered umu stones with the size of 5-10 in diam.

12.3 Excavations of the ahu an nd courtyard, Trench II Four square meters, units 2, 3, 4 and 5 from the west end of the marae platform and througgh the ahu were excavated in order to establish a cross-section through the ahu, although without moving the slabbs in the ahu walls (Figs. 123-124). The slabs of the ahu were w set into a layer of sand mixed with small coral lumps,, probably a beachflat. The bottom part of the ahu fill connsisted of a mix of

f 0, at the front end of Unit 13.7 was located 13,7 m from the court yard marked with stonnes on end. The 1x1 m unit was excavated right behind these stones outside the courtyard. The top 0-10 cm coonsisted of strongly mixed vegetative dark brown soil. The soil between 10-25 cm

Fig. 123: Trench II. N section.

sand and coral lumps, with some flat basalt stones on top. The upper part of the fill consisted of luumps and pieces of coral. Some smaller, fire-damaged basaalt stones, probably from an umu were also found in the topp part of the fill. In between the stones, both outside and inside the ahu we found small fragments of pig bone and a few human bone fragments and one tooth.

consisted of brown grey coral sand. At 25-30 cm depth ween 30-40 it consisted of the sand was greyish and betw sterile grey to light brown beachh sand. Between 10-25 cm the sand was mixed with a few bones. The fragment of a pearl shell fishhook was found at a depth of 14 cm b.s. In the same layer a whale bone fragment was recovered (Fig. 126).

Fig. 125: Trench II. Unit 10, N section.

Fig. 124: Excavation of trench II. Units 2-5 (Phooto: P. Wallin).

Unit 10 was 1x1 m large, located 10 m from 0 (origo) in a central position on the marae court.. The top 0-8 cm consisted of dark brown vegetative soill. Only a few shells were found. The soil at the depth of 8--17 cm consisted of brown-grey coral sand. Between 17 annd 25 cm the coralmixed sand was grey, and at a depth off 25-40 cm the sand was a grey to light brown sterile beach sand (Fig. 125). In the layers between 8-24 cm a few scatteered

ϳϯ 

Fig. 126: Trench II. Unit 13,70, W secction.



12.4 Excavations on the courtyyard, Trench III The trench is situated 10 m from 0 andd 3 m to the S. The main trench was 1x1 m, but extended 2x0,5 m in the NE part towards the E (Figs. 127-129). Thhe trench is located in a central position of the marae courrt. The top 0-15 cm consisted of vegetative grey sand. Sccattered shells and pig bones were discovered in this layerr. In this grey sand at a depth of c. 15 cm a concentration of o coral stones c 510 cm in diam. were found in the E parrt of the square.

Among these stones was somee scattered charcoal. The stone concentration was called Feature 1 (F1). A mix of coral and basalt stones continuued down in F1, in the E part of the square, to a depth of about 35 cm b.s. At 30-35 cm a charcoal lens was visiblle and at the base of the feature there was a layer of basaalt umu stones c. 10-12 cm in diam. large. The total size of the feature was discovered by extending the treench 2x0,5 m to the E. By doing this we could see that F1 obviously was a rounded mong the umu stones in F1 umu about 1,5-2m in diam. Am we found the remains of differeent shells and sea urchins. No bones were recovered insiide the umu. Several 14C samples were secured from different levels of this feature.

12.5 Excavation on the coourtyard, Trench IV

Fig. 127: Trench III. East section.

Trench IV was a 1.4 by 0.5 m test-unit at the N side of the marae court, establishing a section through the marae r for the location of court/platform. An additional reason the trench was that the surface soil s was stained black and indicated an area with extensivve burning. Fire-damaged stones and charcoal appeared inn the S end of the trench, that is outside the marae platfform. The excavation was discontinued due to time lim mitations and when we encountered a solid mass of buurned coral at c. 25 cm b.s (Fig. 130). It might be that this trench touched the outskirts of an umu that we could not locate. Bone fragments from pig, dog, birrd, and some sea-urchin spines, mostly collected from ouutside the marae platform.

12.6 Summary of investiggations at marae on land Tuituirorohiti The excavations produced eviddence of the utilization of the area in the form of pig, dog, d fish, whale, and bird bones; pieces of worked shellss and one part of a pearlshell fish-hook, both on the couurtyard, outside the marae, and “inside” the fare-pote locaated S of the marae. Most of these finds, except the pig and a human bones found in the excavation of the ahu, were found in layers situated Fig. 128: Bottom and E section of umu, found inn Trench III (Photo: P. Wallin)

Fig. 129: Trench III. N section.

ϳϰ 

 that the marae was constructed some time after this event, whether it was shortly after or not is not known.

    

Fig. 130: Trench IV. W section.



underneath the courtyard of the marae, and, hence, predating its construction. No finds were connected to use of the fare-pote next to the marae, and it is suggested that either it was not used as a habitation house or it was constructed just before the site was abandoned.

 

Centrally located on the courtyard we encountered an earth-oven that pre-dates the construction of the marae. A variety of bone and shell fragments as well as sea-urchin spines were recovered from this umu. There is three possibilities with regards to the function of this earthoven: 1) It is evidence of settlement of the area prior to the construction of the marae; 2) It was fired as part of ceremonies to consecrate the site when the marae was established; 3) This umu constitutes evidence for early ritual activity unrelated to the marae site.



Two charcoal samples from trench III and one piece of coral from the fill of the ahu were sent to Waikato Laboratory for radiocarbon analysis. The two charcoal samples were first sent to Dr. James Coil, Berkeley, for wood identification and then pieces of short-lived taxa from these samples were AMS dated. The first sample, Wk-17062, from 35 to 40 cm b.s. of the earth-oven found in trench III were composed of hibiscus tiliaceus, and produced a data of 441±31 BP calibrated to AD 14361510, 1554-55, and 1575-1621 at 2 sigma. The second sample, Wk-17063, was also from charcoal found at c. 40 cm b.s. in the earth-oven found in trench III. This sample were composed mainly of hibiscus tiliaceus and artocarbpus sp., or breadfruit tree, and pieces of the hibiscus tiliaceus were AMS analysed and produced a date of 438±32 BP or calibrated to AD 1437-1511 and 1549-1622 at 2 sigma. A third sample was analysed on a piece of coral from the fill of the ahu, returning a date of 2429±36 BP, which must be considered as too old. During excavation of the ahu two pieces of coral were collected, one from the top and one from the bottom of the ahu fill, with the intention of dating one of them to see if this would date the construction of the ahu. The coral sample sent for dating was from the bottom of the ahu and since the original surface under the ahu consisted of sand and coral pieces, it is likely that this piece of coral originates from the natural surface under the ahu. If this is the case, this date would approximately date the formation of this beach flat. Presently we can state that the earth-oven was fired between AD 1430 and 1600, and



   

            

ϳϱ 



13. Marae Haupoto, on lan nd Haupoto, district of Maeva 13.1 Description of the structurre This is a classic “costal” marae withh two ahu of coral slabs and an ava’a structure which iss located between, and not in front of, the two ahu. The courtyard is paved with basalt flagstones. The size of the complex with both ahu is c. 20 by 14 m (Figs. 131, 132). Ahu 1 (to N): The coral slab ahu is c. 8 m long by 1.3 to 1.6 m wide, and have 17 remaining slabs standding, with heights ranging from 0.43 to 0.95 m. Average height of the slabs are 0.7-0.8 m. In the front wall, 0.7 m from the N end, there is a gap, c. 0.95 m wide, which is i filled with about 10 stacked basalt slabs. Inside the ahu, 0.7 m from the N end and 0.4 m from the rear wall, theree is a basalt upright 0.39 m high (dimensions 0.17 by 0.8 m). m About 1.4 m out into the courtyard and 0.9 m from the N end there is a basalt upright 0.17 m high (dimensionns 0.14 by 0.1 m). About 4 m to the South of this seconnd upright, a third basalt upright is found 1.1 m into the coourtyard and this is 0.33 m high (dimensions 0.14 by 0.112 m). Behind this ahu there are five or six upright basaalt stones that may have been parts of boundary markers. Ahu 2 (to S): A coral slab ahu, c. 7 m long and between 1.1 and 1.25 m wide. It has 13 remaining coral slabs standing. At least two slabs are missing in the rear walll of this ahu, and possible one missing slab at the N endd wall. The gaps in the rear wall had been filled with stackeed basalt slabs that

r coral slabs are had fallen into the ahu. The remaining between 0.41 to 0.74 m high. There T is no upright inside this ahu, but one basalt upright is located 0.7 m from the N end and 0.5 m out into the coourtyard. It is 0.11 m high (dimensions 0.15 by 0.12 m). About A 1.25 m to the S of this, another basalt upright is loocated 0.65 m out into the courtyard. This second uprright is 0.19 m high (dimensions 0.23 by 0.13 m). At A the far N end of the ahu, c. 12 m out into the courtyardd, a broad slanting basalt stone is found, 0.65 m across. It may be a backrest for this second ahu, but it couuld also be a dislodged pavement stones. Several were found, but none so close to an upright position. The placiing of this stone, at the far N end of the ahu suggest that it is not an backrest. Ava’a: The ava’a is a small square ennclosure, 1.25 by 1.25 m and between 0.2 and 0.25 m high, built of coral slabs on end and with a layer of fairly laarge basalt flag stones as a pavement on top. It is built in line l with the front slabs of the two ahu structures. Courtyard: b basalt flagstones and The courtyard is paved with big seems to have covered the areea all around the two ahu structures. Behind Ahu 1 theree is evidence of pavement stones next to the back wall and c. 1 m out from it. Behind Ahu 2 pavement stones are found only c. 0.75 m out from the back wall. Thhe southern limit of the courtyard seems to have been inn line with the S end wall of Ahu2. The N side of the couurtyard is more difficult to delimit. It extends at least 1.1 m North of the N end wall of Ahu 1, but a few basalt flagsstones are found on a line c. 2.7 m North of the N end walll.

Fig. 131: Marae Haupoto. Courtyard and doubblle ahu (Photo: P. Wallin).

ϳϲ 



Fig. 132: Plan drawing of marae on land Haupoto. Excavated trenches indicated.

Auxiliary platform: A small, roughly square area paved with basalt flagstones and with one large coral slab, probably taken from Ahu 2, centrally placed at the eastern end of this area, might constitute an auxiliary platform for this marae complex. It is located WNW of the north western corner of the marae and is c. 5 by 3.5 m. It was not possible to clearly define the shape of this structure and therefore not possible to state for sure what function it had. Information from the son of the landowner, Jean-Marie Faatauiro, suggested that it was a historic-period grave. It is also possible that it has been a late period marae structure with the centrally placed coral slab functioning as a backrest.

Grave under coconut tree: About 2 m behind the southern ahu of marae Haupoto human remains were found visible among the roots of a fallen coconut tree. Most of the cranial bones were still in situ, for example frontale, parietale, occipitale, and parts of maxilla and mandibula. Some of the facial bones were missing. The occipital bone had a marked protuberantia which indicates a male individual. The right mandibula were complete with teeth that showed a quite worn surface but they had no caries but some tartar was present. The teeth indicate an adult individual probably somewhere over the age of 30+ years. Other bones found were some cervical vertebraes, a part of the clavicula, some costae and a part of the humerus. In short this find indicates that an adult man around 30+ years of age at

ϳϳ 

 one time was buried/dug down behindd the ahu with the head pointing towards the ahu (or inlannd to the W). These bones were re-buried close to the origginal place under a flat stone behind the same ahu (one bone b fragment was collected for possible 14C determinationn).

13.2 Location of trenches Four trenches were excavated on this structure (Fig. 132). Trench I, a 1 by 4 m trench cut the Norrth end of the ava’a and into the courtyard, with unit 1 in the t East part of the trench. Trench III, a 1 by 2 m trench, was located at the West side of the courtyard at the endd of the pavement. Trench IV, a 1 by 1 m unit, was locateed inside the Southeastern corner of the North ahu; and Trrench V, a 1 by 1.2 m trench, was located in between the two t uprights of the South ahu; Trench II at the back of thhe marae pavement was abandoned due to extreme amoounts of roots and large stones. Modern glass was encoountered in the top five cm in nearly every trench, except for f trench IV inside the ahu, where modern glass fragmentts were found deep in the fill and this trench was therefore discontinued.

13.3 Trench I Trench I was a 1 by 4 m trench locatedd between the north ahu and the ava’a structure, and orienteed east-west and perpendicular to the ava’a.

This trench produced evidennce for two layers of pavement that might be from two t different time periods (Fig. 134). In unit 3, flush withh the top of the lowermost pavement stones a buried uprright was found that had been set c. 40 cm into the grouund (Fig. 133). Under this lowermost pavement a layer off charcoal mixed with soil c. 10 cm thick was found inn units 2 to 4. A few fragments of bones, two basallt flakes, and 1 adze was also found in this trench.

13.4 Trench II The trench was outlined as a 1x3 m EW oriented trench located on the NW part of thhe marae courtyard. The trench was full of court paving stones and big roots, and was abandoned after the removval of the clayey top soil. No finds were detected in this trrench.

13.5 Trench III This trench was outlined as a 1x2 m EW oriented trench. It was placed at the limit of thee courtyard in front of the ahu. Unit 1 was placed on thhe court, and Unit 2 just behind the edge of the pavem ment stones. Unit 1 was finished after the clayey top soil was removed, and contained no find materials.

Fig. 135: Trench III south section.

Fig. 133: Trench I. A buried upright set in a layyer with plenty of charcoal (Photo: P. Wallin).

Fig. 134: Trench I. S section, showing the locations l of

14

The top 0-10 cm of Unit 2 coontained brown vegetative clayey soil with intruding roots. No finds were recovered in this layer. At a depth of about 10-15 cm some scattered umu stones c 10 cm in diam. were found in the clayey soil. At a depth of 15-20 cm more of the burned umu stones of the same size weree found now mixed with spread charcoal fragments in a grey brown soil. At the depth of 20-30 cm there were more m umu stones, scattered charcoal, and at the bottom reddish burned soil was observed. The weather conditionn was very poor with

C

ϳϴ 

 heavy rains, and this trench was filled with w water, and the soil became extremely clayey, which made m more detailed observations difficult. But obviously the remains of an d under the umu and proof for in situ fire was detected courtyard at this spot of the marae. Hoowever, no bones or shells were found in this trench.

13.6 Trench IV This thrench was outlined as a 1 by 1 m unit located at the southeast corner of the north ahu. About half the unit A was located inside the ahu and it was only this portion s for datable that was excavated, in order to search material. Three layers of stone fill innside the ahu were exposed and historic glass and china were found in all layers. Consequently, the excavation was abandoned at this point and the fill of the ahu resstored. One human tooth was found in the fill.

13.7 Trench V This trench was excavated in order to t expose what we believed to be a small localized ava’a structure s in front of the South ahu (both ahu had such feattures) between two uprights found just in front of the ahuu (Figs. 136, 137). The excavation revealed that the stonees had been set on top of the basalt pavement on top of another buried upright in line with the buried uprightt found in trench I (Fig. 138). The top of this upright was also flush with the top of stones in the lowermost paveement stones. The same layer of charcoal mixed with sooil, c. 10 cm thick, was discovered in this trench as in Trennch I.

Fig. 136: Trench V prior to excavation. A smalll basalt upright can be seen in the lower left corner of the picture, while w the buried upright in Trench V is not yet visible (Photo: P. Wallin).

Fig. 137: Trench V. Plan drawings.

ϳϵ 

 406±32 BP or AD 1452-1626 at 2 sigma. These two samples were both from the layer of scattered charcoal and burned clay that was found under the pavement stones of the marae and which was interpreted as a burnoff of the vegetation before the construction of the marae. If this is correct, then the marae must have been constructed sometime between AD 1450 and 1630. A third date was analyzed on a piece of coral collected from the fill of the S ahu and this resulted in a date of 636±38 or AD 1589-1842 calibrated at 2 sigma. These dates, then, points to the construction of the marae on land Haupoto during the 17th century.

Fig. 138: Trench V, E section drawing about 70 cm out (W) from the ahu end of unit. The top layer of this section begins - 30 cm below surface.

 

13.8 Summary of investigations at marae on land Haupoto A layer of mixed soil and scattered charcoal, followed by a layer of burned clay underneath was found in trenches I, III, and V. The top of a similar layer was found in trench II before it was discontinued. This layer of charcoal and burned soil indicates that the whole site was cleared by fire (some time) prior to the construction of a marae. Excavations revealed two layers of pavement stones indicating two phases of construction at this site. Initially, our investigations at the site had to be postponed several days because the entire area was flooded due to heavy rain, and this was probably the case during prehistoric times as well. Marae structures are frequently constructed at sites that are seasonally flooded. This is seen at several of the marae structures located at the lagoon at Maeva Village, in the case of marae Ohiti Mataroa on Huahine Iti, and can be found on illustrations by Tobin from a marae in the Pare district of Tahiti in 1792 (Garanger 1979:9, fig. 5). The swampy ground at the site might be the reason for multiple layers of pavement stones, however, the location of two upright basalt stones buried in the ground with their top flush with the top of the lowermost pavement stones argues against such an environmental explanation. That these two uprights were aligned indicates that they were deliberately buried in these positions. These uprights are not evidence for an reconstruction of the ahu enclosures at this marae because the two uprights would not have been visible even when the lowermost pavement was exposed, but their deliberate concealment points to two phases of pavement in front of the two ahu structures present today. Two samples of charcoal and one piece of coral were sent to the Waikato Laboratory in New Zealand for radiocarbon age assay. The charcoal samples were first sent to Dr. James Coil, Berkeley, for wood species identification, who identified pieces of short-lived taxa that were AMS dated. The first sample, Wk-17064, from trench I, unit 3, 35 cm b.s. identified as morinda citrifolia, which may have some inbuilt age, resulted in a date of 387±34 BP or AD 1460-1627 at 2 sigma. The second sample, Wk-17065, from trench I, unit 4, 15 to 23 cm b.s. identified as coconut husk resulted in a date of

                  

ϴϬ 

PART II RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

millennia AD, the rise of the war god ‘Oro and his heralds from Raiatea and Borabora is probably of a more recent origin. This view has partly been based on local traditions and partly on a 14C date obtained from marine shells found in cavities of the ahu slabs and which suggested a late 17th or early 18th century date for the construction of the last phase at Taputapuatea (Emory and Sinoto 1965).

14. Dating of marae at Huahine

The classic marae of the Leeward Islands are impressive structures, with their huge ahu platforms made of coral and limestone slabs. Located at protruding points along the coast, and sometimes opposite the passage in the reef, they are the first thing that a visitor sees when sailing into port. And, these great temples were made to be seen. Possibly the most important, but definitely the most famous of these marae, is that of Taputapuatea (Fig. 139). The mention of its name stirs emotions in both Maohi, and among archaeologists.

Until recently, this 14C date from Taputapuatea was the only radiocarbon age assay from any Leeward Islands marae. As a result of our recent investigation of marae complexes at several sites on Huahine, there now exists a collection of twenty-three radiocarbon dates, making it possible for us to achieve the first archaeological assessment of the origin and developments of marae structures in the Leeward Islands. During four field sessions in 2002, 2003, and 2004, the authors have been engaged in test-excavating marae structures, in the districts of Maeva and Fare, on Huahine. Ten marae structures ranging in size from very small structures to large temples with an island-wide significance have been excavated and dated. In terms of socio-political importance, we have investigated two key religious complexes, or national marae (Henry 1928:131-138); five medium sized structures that probably were lineage marae; and three small marae/shrines of which two are associated with larger structures. The project is based on surveys initiated by Yosihiko Sinoto, with the help of Eric Komori, Elain Rogers-Jourdane, and Toru Hayashi. Surveys were carried out on Mata’ire’a Hill, in adjacent areas of the Maeva village, and selected structures around the island from 1979 to 1983 (Sinoto and Komori 1988, Sinoto, Komori, and Rogers-Jourdane 1981, Sinoto, Komori, and Rogers-Jourdane 1983, Sinoto and RogersJourdane 1980).

Fig. 139: Marae Taputapuatea at Opoa, Raiatea (Photo: P. Wallin).

The ritual centre of Te Po on Raiatea has been portrayed as Hawaiki, the place of origin of both Polynesian culture (Hiroa 1938) and as the source for marae structures on the islands east of Tonga and Samoa (Henry 1928; Emory n.d.). Local historians claim that marae Taputapuatea was, in AD 1300, the ritual centre of Tia’i-hau-atea, the political alliance that influenced the rule of the Windward and the Leeward groups, and reached west to Rarotonga, south to some of the Austral Islands, and all the way to New Zealand. This last member of the alliance was named the “Light-land of the friendly alliance” (Henry 1928:122-123). The traditions that claim this exalted position for Taputapuatea and the dynasty of Opoa have, in later years, been interpreted as the history of how the influence of the ‘Oro cult spread from Raiatea (and Borabora) to Tahiti and Mo’orea, and beyond (Eddowes 2001; Gérard 1974; Wallin 1993, Green and Green 1968). Although the social origin of the Opoa dynasty and its ritual centre is probably found in the mists of human settlement of these islands, at the end of the first

14.1 Dating stone structures How do we date dry-mason stone structures or dirt-andrubble filled platforms? This might seem like a straightforward question for an archaeologist and not much discussion is needed. Dating a site, layer, or activity is at the heart of modern archaeological practice and done by routine, but it sometimes also breeds heated arguments amongst scholars. The complexity of the matter really rests with two factors: 1) which activity would we like to date at the site and 2) how accurate do we need to date that activity. The more accuracy we need, the more difficult it becomes. In Polynesia, the most intense and interesting development in settlement patterns and social 81

organisation took place during a time period which, if we are using the radiocarbon dating technique, produces the most extended calibrated time spans because of the large wiggles in the calibration curve during the latter half of the second millennium AD producing multiple interception for each date (Aitken 1990). Consequently, accuracy becomes even harder to achieve.

specific sample material that contain the required radioactive substance, like the 14C method might date all organic materials that contain the radioactive substance 14 C and which have been part of an organic life-cycle. That is, what is measured is when the organic entity stoped its intake of fresh 14C, so that remaining amounts of the 14C isotope can decay unaffected. Radioactive decay varies in terms of its half-life – that is the time it takes for a certain amount of radio-active material to reduce itself to half of its original amount – which in turn makes it technical possible to measure only a specific time-range when measuring one particular radioactive isotope. If you wish to keep within practical errormargins for the time period under study, there are usually only a few methods that are at hand. The time-period spanning human occupation for Polynesia as a whole is c. 3000 years, but the Society Islands have been settled only for the last 1500 years, or more to the point, the settlement of island groups east of Tonga and Samoa and in the region of New Zealand did not take place until c. AD 800-1000 (Anderson 1991; Anderson, Conte, Kirch, and Weisler 2003; Anderson, Leach, Smith, and Walter 1994; Anderson and Sinoto 2001; Dye 2000; Kolb 1991; Martinsson-Wallin and Crockford 2001). We also know that, so far, the earliest archaeological dated ceremonial structures in Polynesia were constructed after AD 1000 (Anderson and Green 2001; Martinsson-Wallin 1994; Martinsson-Wallin and Crockford 2001). Consequently, the majority of dates in the current study would be expected to fall within a time-frame of c. 200 to 950 years BP.

The important question to ask when dating simple stone structures is which activity we would like to date at the site. Structures built out of stacked basalt boulders or enclosures made up of limestone slabs with coral rubble filling does not necessarily contain nor do they easily preserve remains of cultural material deposited at the time of construction, except perhaps bones. People might have lived at the site before it became a place for religious ceremonies or the marae or ahu might have been in use during an extended period of time and cultural deposits might belong to either end of the “life” of this structure. In such instances, architectural complexity, like the number of times the structure have been rebuilt would make it easier to piece together a building sequence that would help us define more narrow time periods. The large ahu platforms on Rapa Nui, which might in some instances have been in use for up to five hundred years and the heiau structures in the Hawaiian Islands that might have a similar time depth are excellent examples where architectural complexity makes it possible to narrow the time frame for each construction phase, because each phase produces a terminus ante quem for the preceding phase and a terminus post quem for the following phase. Small and simple pavements with an ahu enclosure on one end, like the marae of the Society Islands, that quite possible have functioned as ritual centres for several hundred years without being extensively nor frequently reconstructed could be much harder to date accurately.

The range of material frequently encountered in archaeological excavations of Polynesian ceremonial complexes feasible for chrono-metric dating is: 1) Charcoal or charred nuts; 2) Human or animal bones, found in context of both burials and sacrifices; 3) Umu stones. More infrequently, coral are used as construction material or fill in several island groups, or both coral and shells can be encountered as sacrifices in a ceremonial context. On Hawaii and on Rapa Nui, volcanic glass/obsidian is frequently part of the finds on archaeological sites and these flakes can be dated. Four methods might be used on this range of materials within a time-frame of 200 to 850 years BP: the 14C method on wood, charcoal, shell, and coral; UTh series testing on

There are a range of chrono-metric dating techniques available to the archaeologist each with its own technical and practical limitations. In general three factors determine how suitable a particular method is: 1) Time depth; 2) Sample material; and 3) Chronological resolution. Most methods utilize the decay of radio-active substances, and consequently they only “work” on

Fig. 140: Various methods for establishing marae chronology.

82

corals; Thermoluminescence dating on oven stones; and Hydration-rim measurements on volcanic glass or obsidian (Fig. 140). Both in Hawaii and on Easter Island hydration-rim analysis on volcanic glass/obsidian have been applied by researchers. Dating through either UTh series testing or TL measurements has infrequently been resorted to in Polynesia.

definition to mean that the samples can not be related to stratigraphic contexts of particular phases of the structure, then nobody would have any problem with such a category, however, it is not likely that all areas of refuse deposition is outside any stratigraphic relationships to architectural phases of a ceremonial structure. In such cases they would possibly date the use period of this particular architectural phase.

Radiocarbon dates and accuracy One of the few explicit discussions on the subject how to date and interpret radiocarbon samples in connection to ceremonial stone structures in Polynesia is to be found in M. J. Kolb’s PhD dissertation Social Power, Chiefly Authority, and Ceremonial Architecture, in an Island Polity, Maui, Hawaii (1991). Here Kolb sort his 14C samples into three categories based upon “which possess the most explanatory power in terms of stratigraphy” (Kolb 1991:203). The three categories are: 1) Bounded samples, 2) Associated samples, and 3) Indirect samples. When taking a critical view to these categories they become more uncertain. The term ‘bounded’ does not only say something about the stratigraphic context the sample comes from, but also implies that they contain informational values regardless of what the sample actually consist of. Kolb furthermore states “If a sample is associated with the construction of a building element it is deemed to be of excellent stratigraphic context” (Kolb 1991:209). Bounded samples are due to this reasoning from excellent stratigraphic context, and are the only samples that directly date the construction of any building elements. Looking closely at Kolb’s table 6.2 (Kolb 1991:211), one can see that such charcoal of “best” (excellent) quality generally comes from charcoal concentrations, but in one case (Beta-40360) it is “a single piece of charcoal recovered from the base of the terrace in Test Unit PL 10 at 23 cm B.S.” (Kolb 1991:224). A single piece of charcoal found at the base of a terrace could very well originate from a natural fire or any other activity in the area. From our point of view it is far from an ideal sample for this purpose. Kolb’s second category is defined in this way: “These are charcoal samples taken from fire pits or ovens, or samples which are appropriately associated with a building element by being within a matrix of paving stones or beneath distinct pieces of rubble fill. Samples of this variety accurately date the use of a building element, but not necessarily the time of its construction” (Kolb 1991:204). Samples from fire-pits or ovens are excellent features and a 14C sample cannot be more securely than as when retrieved from such contexts. However, in this group of associated samples he also includes charcoal that might be of quite uncertain origin, even scattered charcoal found in or under stone fill. Kolb’s third group, the indirect samples, are those samples that lack “reference to specifically defined features or activity areas” (Kolb 1991:204). The definition of this later group is also open to a critical reading, since Kolb have the following definition: “These include samples recovered from general screening processes, from areas of refuse deposition, or from the surface of paved areas” (Kolb 1991:204). If we take the

From this discussion we learned that we have to deal with each collected sample in a quite independent way and make evaluations of stratigraphic contexts continuously during the excavation. Different kinds of samples cannot be lumped together. Charcoal tied to a feature always has a better explanatory value than scattered charcoal. One has to make the decision in the field what a feature actually represents. The same is valid for scattered charcoal/bones/corals. Some can be higher valued, for example, if such dating materials are found within a defined cultural layer they might be good, and if found within fill material it might be more or less useless. It all depends upon the context of the find. Because find context is of central importance when dealing archaeologically with marae structures, we divided the structure and the prehistoric actions associated with the structure into four different phases: 1) Activity that took place prior to the building of the structure 2) Activities carried out during the building of the structure; 3) Activities taking place during the use of the structure, including evidence for re-building; 4) Activities taking place on the site after the structure ceased being used for its original purpose. Activities tied to group one are, for example, cultural layers and clearly defined features located stratigraphically under the marae, ahu, wall, or courtyard. Scattered charcoal in these contexts also dates such earlier activities, but with less explanational value, because such charcoal may indicate a natural fire at the spot, etc. The second category is more complicated; ideally they consist of fires or sacrifices that can be tied to the building phase, for example fires inside ahu (Martinsson-Wallin, Wallin, and Solsvik 1998:6), sacrifices placed under cornerstones, and possibly corals incorporated in the fill of the ahu. The third category is mainly expressed by sacrificial activities and depositions of bones, for example, behind ahu or in pits or heaps, and activities that can be tied to re-building or expansions of the structure; again, charcoal/bones tied to features gives the most secure dates, scattered charcoal in fill, etc., have a quite limited value, since it may belong to earlier activities and brought in during the building of the structure. To category 4 belongs dateable material found in surface contexts on marae courtyard that could have been brought in by later visitors, or been deposited during archaeological restorations, etc. Surface samples or samples found between courtyard stones therefore generally have a very limited value.

83

Age assay on pig and human bones In order to accurately calibrate radiocarbon samples on bones we need to know the percentage of marine diet consumed by the individual human or animal in question. A marine diet would produce an “older” date than expected because of the depleted 14C values (the marine reservoir effect) contained in marine foods, which can be a source of 14C for individuals higher in the food chain.

Although this study is an extensive analysis it is not quite clear whether these middens are evidence from long-term depositions or they are the result of a single event taking place during the construction of house platforms in the area. If the latter situation is correct, then it is probable that these middens give unprecise information on “the Mata’ire’a Hill diet”. A more general argument against this approach is that studies of kitchen middens do not say much about the diet of single individuals nor do they disclose information on the diet of animals, such as pigs. The second way of inferring the amount of marine diet of a radiocarbon bone sample is to analyse the contents of 13 C in the sample itself. A standard d13C value of wood and most plants are -21.0 ‰, while marine organisms have much lower d13C values and thus animals or people that have a high percentage of marine foods in their diet would get a depleted d13C value. The first comprehensive study to demonstrate the relationship between low 13C value in bone samples and the amount of marine foods in the diet of the individual from which this bone came was Henrik Tauber’s analysis of forty-two samples of prehistoric human bones (from BC 5500 to AD 1750 from Denmark and Greenland (Tauber 1983:368-369, fig. 363). Tauber, through analysis undertaken at the Copenhagen Radiocarbon Laboratory, found that samples of bone from two Eskimo living at Angmagssalik in East Greenland before contact with Europeans, had a similar 13 C to that of marine animals which conformed with their almost exclusively marine diet (Tauber 1983:370).

There are two ways of estimating the percentage of marine diet of an individual. First, from an analysis of archaeological excavated midden the general type of diet can be inferred and the percentages of terrestrial and marine meats can be estimated. However, this approach requires a range of optimal conditions to be met. The local conditions for preserving large bones and fish bone, in the soil must be excellent. It requires that careful and specific archaeological excavation and recovery procedures in order to ensure that data on all parts of the diet are retrieved. In particular this is not always the case for remains of small inshore fish, and missing a large proportion of these bones would seriously affect the estimate of percentages of marine and terrestrial foods. This approach also calls for time-consuming analysis not conducted in many cases. Most archaeological locations in the Pacific cannot meet these demands. From the settlement on Mata’ire’a Hill, a study of shell middens have been undertaken (Sinoto and Komori 1988:45-63).

Fig 141: The chiefly centre at Maeva as seen from the summit of Moua Tapu, with marae structures and a fare-pote along the lagoon shore (Photo: P. Wallin).

84

However, there is another factor contributing to enrich levels of d13C besides a high intake of marine food. Plants that use the Hatch-Slack (or C4) photosynthesis, such as maize, sugar cane, and millet, will show similar levels of d13C as marine animals. Consequently, measurements of d13C levels cannot be used independently to estimate percentage of marine diet.

Daniel Tyerman, in their description of the demise of the local pantheon at Maeva in 1817, describe a third marae at the site where the village church is located today. This was marae Orohahaa (Emory 1933:130), where Bennet and Tyerman claims that human sacrifices to Tane were hung in a tree on the courtyard (Tyerman and Bennet 1831:271). From the information given to them presumably by Toumata, the man who used to carry the image of the god Tane between marae Mata’ire’a Rahi and marae Manunu, the image of Tane was also taken to ceremonies at this marae. Marae Anini, on the other hand, was consecrated

Another isotope measured on bone that might reflect the diet of the individual in question is the d15N. A d15N value between +6 to +12 ‰ would indicate a terrestrial diet while a value between +17 to +20 ‰ indicates a marine diet, but nitrogen fixation in coral reefs could possibly produce d15N values in marine samples as low as terrestrial values (Petchey 2004). So, neither d13C nor d15N values of a bone sample that has been radiocarbon dated can give precise information on the diet of the animal or person whose bone has been dated. The d13C and d15N values are the only isotope measurements that have been done on the samples presented below. Consequently, radiocarbon samples of bones from Huahine are calibrated with the best estimate of the percentage of marine diet we have using the two measured variables. Most times we choose to calibrate these samples with less than estimated marine diet due to the possible errors from only using d13C and d15N values.

14.2 Dating marae at the chiefly centre of Maeva, Huahine Nui

Fig. 142: Marae Mata’ire’a Rahi (Photo: P. Wallin).

Maeva is a chiefly center (Figure 141) on the northeast corner of Huahine Nui, surrounding the sacred mountain Moua Tapu. Local traditions claim that, in this area, representatives of every important political grouping or district on the island owned tracts of land and had their own marae. In Maeva, national councils where held and the all important pa’i atua ceremonies took place on either marae Mata’ire’a Rahi or on marae Manunu.

14.3 The two national marae of Maeva Huahine had three marae of the highest order, or national marae: marae Mata’ire’a Rahi (Fig. 142), on top of the Fig. 143: Marae Manunu (Photo: P. Wallin). small hill behind Maeva Village, on Huahine Nui; marae Manunu-i-te-ra’i or Toerau-roa, on Motu Ovarei (Fig. 143), also a part of the Maeva chiefly centre; and at the southernmost extremity of Huahine Iti, on Tiva Point, where marae Anini is located, which was the national marae of Huahine Iti (Fig. 144). Marae Manunu is said to be the national temple of Huahine Nui and was dedicated to the god Tane, who was of paramount significance in Huahine and evidently closely associated with this island. Tane was also the god honoured on marae Mata’ire’a Rahi and here the god had his earthly home in a small house built on stilts on a terrace just north of this great marae. That the abode of Tane was on marae Mata’ire’a Rahi and not on marae Manunu might be interpreted to the effect that the latter was subordinated to the former in the religious hierarchy of Maeva. It is possible that there Fig. 144: Marae Anini, Huahine Iti (Photo: P. Wallin). existed a third marae in this ritual hierarchy that encompassed these two great temples. George Bennet and 85

to the gods ‘Oro and Hiro, and some regards it as an offshot of Taputapuatea on Raiatea (Handy 1930:98), which also spread to Manunu (Tatar 1982:21 Of these three important cult centres we have test-excavated two of them and dated a piece of coral taken from the fill of the third. The results of these investigations are detailed below. Marae Mata’ire’a rahi Entering-of-the-Gods was the traditional name of this marae. Its name today is marae Mata’ire’a rahi, with its archaeological site number ScH-2-19. The marae is basically a large terrace situated on a slope and enclosed on the north, west and south sides with a low broad stone wall (Fig. 142). The ahu is attached to the stone wall at the up-slope end and was built mainly of stacked basalt stones. The front wall has some limestone slabs included. Site ScH-2-19, marae Mata’ire’a rahi was the most important ceremonial ground on Huahine. This was the “national” temple on which each representative of the eight main lineages of the island had their own backrest, chief’s descendants from the legendary chiefess Hotuhiva who established the main chiefly dynasty. It was on this place that the most important religious ceremonies where conducted.

Fig. 145: Trench II, surface under fill of ahu. Provinence for samples Wk-14604 (B) and Wk-14606 (A) indicated.

and last sample, Wk-14606, was a piece of human skull found smashed under a stone at the bottom of the ahu fill, just inside of the southeast corner of the ahu (Wallin, Komori, and Solsvik 2004:99 and 103, Plan “Surface” below fill; Cf. Fig. 144). The skull was missing both its lower jaw-bone and upper teeth. Based on ethno-historic information that human sacrifices were supposed to be buried under the corner-stone of national marae (Henry 1928:132), we make the interpretation that this skull stems from a human sacrifice offered in connection with a re-building of the marae. Evidence for at least one phase of rebuilding at the site was apparent in the construction of the ahu where limestone slabs at the rearwall had been broken off at ground level before the ahu was rebuilt using basalt boulders (Wallin, Komori, and Solsvik 2004:95-111; Wallin and Solsvik 2005). This incident might be linked to the changing of the chiefly dynasties at Maeva, which was instigated after a ritual taking place on this marae (Henry 1928:100-1001). Calibrated at 2 sigma with an estimated 30% marine diet, since earlier investigations at Mata’ire’a Hill suggest a high consumption of marine shells (Sinoto and Komori 1988), this sample produced a date somewhere between AD 1670 and 1900. It is likely that the real date is at the most recent end of this time period. From these four dates we conclude that marae Mata’ire’a Rahi was constructed no earlier than AD 1500 to AD 1550 and a pre-historic re-construction of the marae took place sometime during the 18th century. However, the charcoal in Wk-14604 was not sourced, but a second sample taken from the same charcoal concentration was sent to Dr. Coil at the Archaeological Research Facility at Berkeley for wood identification. The analysed fragments large enough for analysis consisted of 91% Calophyllum inophyllum and 9% Casuarine equisetifolia (see Coil Appendix 2:Table 1

Four samples from test-excavations inside the ahu of marae Mata’ire’a rahi have been submitted for analysis, Wk-14604 (BP 387±38) on charcoal (Fig. 145); Wk14605 (BP 225±38) on pig bone (Fig. 146); Wk-14606 (BP 301±38) on human bone; and Wk-16789 (BP 190±39) on pig bone (Wallin, Komori, and Solsvik 2004; Wallin and Solsvik 2006a). The three samples, Wk14604, Wk-14605 and Wk-16789, the latter two are pig teeth/bone (Fig. 146), were found in deposits stratigraphically below the fill of the ahu and therefore most probably predate the construction of the marae (Wallin, Komori, and Solsvik 2004:99-107; Wallin and Solsvik 2006a). There is a possibility that the two samples on pig teeth/bone are intrusive from a later rebuilding of the structure, although nothing pointed towards such an interpretation during excavation. Under the fill of basalt stones, in the original ground surface soil, a circular-shaped lens of scattered charcoal (Wk14604) was found between 5 and 10 cm thick. No redburned soil was seen, but the charcoal must have been burned or deposited at the site before or in connection with the initial construction phase of the marae. Calibrated at 2 sigma it yields a result of AD 1460-1630. The same layer as the charcoal lens also produced pig bones and two pig jaws (Wk-14605 and Wk-16789) from this have been dated. Wk-14605 has į13C and į15N values that indicate an almost exclusively terrestrial diet and it is calibrated with 0% marine diet. Wk-16789 has į13C and į15N values suggesting a 15% marine diet. Both samples suggest a date in the latter part of the 17th century. Even calibrated with zero marine carbon these two samples most likely dates to the early 18th century, and do not overlap with Wk-14604. The fourth 86

p. 136 in this publication). Both these species are longlived trees and suggest that Wk-14604 could have an inbuilt age and that the correct age for the construction of marae Mata’ire’a rahi would be closer to the ages produced by samples Wk-14605 (BP 225±38) and Wk16789 (BP 190±39) giving a possible date of the initial phase as late as c. AD 1600 to AD 1700.

Fig. 147: Trench I, (just in front of ahu) Level 4. Location of sample Wk-14603 indicated.

Fig. 146: Trench II, N section, Inside Ahu 1. Provinence for samples Wk-14605 (B) and Wk-16789 (A) indicated.

Marae Manunu Marae Manunu, a huge coral-slab-ahu marae (Fig. 75) located across the lagoon from Maeva Village, became the new ritual centre of Maeva after marae Mata’ire’a Rahi, temporarily – at least – lost its importance. So far two samples have been analysed from this site. The first age assay (Wk-14603) was done on a fragmentary pig jaw found at a depth of about 35 cm b.s (below surface) (Fig. 147) on top of sterile beach sand stratigraphically below a standing slab of the ahu front wall (Wallin, Komori, and Solsvik 2004:76-83; Wallin and Solsvik 2005). The į13C and į15N values of this bone fragment indicate a relatively high consumption of marine foods and have been calibrated with a 25% marine diet. Fig. 148: Test Unit 1. Location of pig bone fragment, sample Wk-

Tucked under a slab of the ahu rear wall (Wallin, 16790, found under limestone slab in rear wall of ahu (Photo: P. Komori, and Solsvik 2004:75; Wallin and Solsvik 2005), Wallin). clearly tossed in just before the slab was erected, where a piece of pig skull (Fig. 148), Wk-16790, that was age 14.4 The Te Ana complex assayed at the Waikato Laboratory in New Zealand. This Te Ana is a land division stretching up from the coastal sample has been calibrated with 30% marine diet. The flat next to the road, just where the village of Maeva most likely calibrated age span of Wk-14603 is AD 1650 begins, coming in from the direction of Fare, and going to 1900. Sample Wk-16790 resulted in a even more up the west end of Mata’ire’a Hill. A small gully recent calibrated date. What we can conclude from these separates this piece of land from the main part of the hill. two radiocarbon dates is that the construction of marae During the first survey in 1979, Y.H. Sinoto, Elaine Rogers-Jourdane, and Eric Komori discovered a small Manunu occurred sometime after AD 1650. cluster of platforms, enclosures, terraces and house foundations with at least five marae structures.

87

Fig. 149: Segment of Zone 3 of the Te Ana site complex, showing the location of investigated marae structures (adopted from Sinoto 1996).

the upper part of the slope (Komori and Sinoto 2002:3, fig. 1). All references to Te Ana here are the cluster of structures defined archaeologically as Te Ana, Zone 3 (Fig. 149). Five marae structures (ScH-2-62-1, ScH-2-

Te Ana has later been divided up into three zones, with Zone 1 and 2 on the coastal flat next to the road and Zone 3 made up of the small cluster of structures situated on 88

62-3, ScH-2-65-1, ScH-2-65-2, and ScH-2-66-1) are located in this area, three medium sized and two small structures, and they may be parts of one ritual complex.

The ahu itself was located on a terrace forming the upper, south, part of the courtyard of marae ScH-2-62-1. Wk13175 comes from an umu (Fig. 150) found just downslope of the retaining wall of this terrace, that is, on the lower courtyard. The umu was sealed by a layer upon which the ahu terrace was constructed, and, consequently was fired prior to construction of the marae (Wallin, Komori, and Solsvik 2004:39-41). Both the sample from this umu, Wk-13175, and Wk-13174 date to c. AD 1425 to AD 1630 calibrated at 2 sigma. The most likely intercept for these dates is in the latter part of the 15th century and the marae was constructed some time after these events or c. AD 1500 to 1550.

Marae ScH-2-62-1, with its single ahu, seems to be the central ritual space. This is the lowermost located marae of the three medium sized structures and it is also the largest and most labour intensive of the three. Marae ScH-2-65-1 and ScH-2-66-1 seem to be twin structures. They have the same design; are constructed in similar fashion, and both have two ahu (Wallin, Komori, and Solsvik 2004:52-53 and 58-59). What might be burial platforms are situated close to the down-slope end of both marae. The only major difference is that marae ScH-265-1 has a small marae located at the down-slope end (ScH-2-65-2), a feature lacking at ScH-2-66-1. A similar, small marae is located down-slope of marae ScH-2-62-1, but this, marae ScH-2-62-3, might not be directly related to the larger structure. During fieldwork in 2002 and 2003 all five marae structures in this area were testexcavated and in four of these cases can we were able to estimate the first construction period.

Neither the charcoal from Wk-13174 (BP 439±60) nor from Wk-13175 (BP 409±39) were analysed as to wood species before being sent for age determinations. However, a sample of scattered charcoal from the same stratigraphical layer but another unit was sent to Dr. James Coil at the Archaeological Research Facility at Berkeley for analysis. This sample consisted of 13% Artocarpus sp., 10% Barringtonia asiatica, 12% Casuarina equisetifolia, 6% Cocos wood, 5% Hibiscus tiliaceus, 6% Morinda citrifolia, 38% Pandanus, and 2% Unknown (Coil, Appendix 2, Table 1, this publication). It clearly demonstrates that this scattered charcoal contained a range of various tree species, and thus supports the theory that the scattered charcoal stems from a burn-off of the area prior to construction at the site. Similarly, a second sample from the umu found in trench II were sent to Dr. Coil for wood identification. This sample consisted of 29% Artocarpus sp., 12% Cordia subcordata, 9% Pandanus wood, 44% Pandanus key, and 3% Thespesia populnea (Coil, Appendix 2, Table 1, this publication). Both samples, therefore, might have a medium risk of inbuilt age, but since the data does not seem to be univocal the calibrated age ranges are accepted until new dates can be analysed on charcoal from only short-lived trees.

Site ScH-2-62-1 Two samples (Wk-13174 and Wk-13175), both on charcoal, have been analysed from marae ScH-2-62-1, a medium sized structure located on land Te Ana in the south-western part of Mata’ire’a Hill. Sample Wk-13174 consisted of scattered charcoal found under the southwest part of the ahu, probably originating from a burning of the area some time prior to the construction of the marae (Wallin, Komori, and Solsvik 2004:34-39).

Site ScH-2-65-1 From marae ScH-2-65-1, located a short distance uphill from ScH-2-62-1 on the Mata’ire’a Hill, only one sample (Wk-13177) has so far been sent for radiocarbon dating. A pig tooth recovered from 10 to 20 cm b.s. inside the ahu probably stems from ritual activity which took place sometime during the period the marae was in use (Wallin, Komori, and Solsvik 2004:53-56). Calibration, with a 25% marine diet based upon į13C and į15N values, of this age assay only suggests that the marae was in use sometime between AD 1500 and AD 1900. This suggests to us that it was constructed in the 16th century. Site ScH-2-66-1 Two charcoal samples have been sent for radiocarbon analysis to the Waikato Radiocarbon Laboratory from marae ScH-2-66-1. The first sample, Wk-13178 (Fig. 149), is a scatter of charcoal found between - 40 to - 50 cm b.s. inside the ahu in a layer stratigraphically below the slabs in the ahu (Wallin, Komori, and Solsvik

Fig. 150: Marae ScH 2-62-1. Trench II, E section. Location of sample Wk-13175 indicated.

89

2004:59-61). It dates activity prior to the construction of the marae. A second charcoal sample from a trench in the lower part of the courtyard was also submitted for radiocarbon dating, but it turned out to be 116.7±0.5 % modern. Sample Wk-13178 is calibrated, at 2 sigma to c. AD 1280-1630, which gives a rather broad range. However, marae ScH-2-66-1 is similar in style and size to ScH-2-65-1 and also ScH-2-62-1 and it was probably constructed at roughly the same time. We therefore argue that this marae was constructed sometime after AD 1500. Burials are found in relation to both marae ScH-2-65-1 and ScH-2-66-1, one with European trade goods (Sinoto and Komori 1988:59-60, fig. 18), which indicates that they were in use in the late 18th century.

Fig. 152: Marae ScH-2-62-3. Trench 1, E section. A layer of charcoal and shell was found stretching in under marae platform. From this layer sample Wk-13176 was collected.

Site ScH-2-65-2 Only one sample, Beta-177606, is analysed from marae ScH-2-62-2 located just down slope of ScH-2-65-1. Some pieces of charcoal were found within a layer of fine soil on top of the fill of the ahu and could date the abandonment of this marae (Solsvik 2003). However, the span of the date is quite wide and we can only say that the abandonment of the site took place sometime before the historic era.

14.5 Dating marae outside the Maeva area Fig. 151: Marae ScH 2-66-1. Trench 1, E section. Sample Wk13178 was collected from the lower part of layer III.

Marae on land Haupoto This is a marae complex with two ahu enclosures built exclusively of coral/limestone slabs located on land Haupoto a few kilometres south of Maeva Village on the east coast of Huahine Nui (Cf. Fig. 13). During testexcavations at this site, a layer of scattered charcoal originating from a burn-off of the area some time prior to construction of this marae was found in trenches I, III, and V (Fig. 132). The coral/limestone slabs of the ava’a were clearly set into this layer. Two samples of this charcoal from Trench I, units 3 and 4, 20 and 35 cm b.s. respectively (Fig. 151), were sent to James Coil at the Research Laboratory at Berkeley University for wood species identification. From the first sample, a few pieces of Morinda citrifolia (Wk-17064) and from the second sample (Wk-17065) fragments of coconut husks were chosen, and both were AMS dated. Both samples produced dates calibrated to c. AD 1450-1630, indicating that this marae was built around or sometime after AD 1500. To further nail down when this marae was built a piece of coral from the fill of the southern ahu was sent for radiocarbon analysis. This sample, Wk-16471, calibrates at 2 sigma to AD 1589-1842, suggest that the marae, or parts of it, might have been constructed as late as in the latter part of the 17th century.

Site ScH-2-62-3 ScH-2-62-3 is a small platform marae built of stacked basalt, with a basalt slab ahu, and three test-units were excavated next to the north, east, and west sides of this platform. Two samples, B-177605 from a shell midden and Wk-13176 (Fig. 152) from a layer of shells and charcoal, associated with partly buried house-platforms under the north end and west side, respectively, of the marae-platform has been analysed (Solsvik 2003; Wallin, Komori, and Solsvik 2004:45-51). The marae must have been constructed after the most recent of these dates. Sample Wk-13176 has a likely spread in the 17th century, and we suggest that this marae was built close to the end of the 17th century or sometime during the early 18th century. However, a second sample from the same layer in trench III as Wk-13176 (244±38 BP) were collected from was sent to Dr. James Coil at the Archaeological Research Facility at Berkeley for identification. This sample consisted of 48% Artocarpus sp., 17% Casuarina equisetifolia, 11% Ficus sp., and 24% unknown tree species (Coil, Appendix 2, Table 1, this publication). The Artocarpus sp. is a long-lived tree species while the Casuarina equisetifolia could be a medium-lived tree, and there is a risk that this sample has a certain inbuilt age. 90

Fig. 153: Marae on land Haupoto. Trench I, S section. Indicating the locations of samples Wk-17064 and Wk-17065.

Marae on land Tuituirorohiti Located on Tuituirorohiti land division in the district of Fare, a medium to small sized platform marae with an ahu was constructed of basalt slabs (Fig. 121). Testexcavation revealed a large umu located in the middle of and underneath the courtyard, in Trench III. In other words, this earth-oven must have been fiered prior to construction of the marae. Two samples of charcoal from this earth-oven (Fig. 154) were collected at between 35 to 40 cm b.s.; pieces identified as Hibiscus tiliaceus, by Coil were AMS dated. Both samples, Wk-17062 and Wk17063, calibrate at 2 sigma to c. AD 1435-1625.

marae structures around the island have all given credible dates, and Wk-16470 must therefore be disregarded in relation to the construction of the marae. Dating coral from the ahu fill of marae structures The classical marae of the Leeward Islands with its limestone slab ahu and no defined courtyard is usually located on prominent places along the coast and is frequently vast in size. None of these complexes have been archaeological excavated, although several have been restored, aside from marae Manunu at Maeva. The fact that the fill of these ahu enclosures consists of predominantly coral filling and that coral can be dated both through the radiocarbon and the UTh series measurements made us speculate whether coral samples from the fill of the ahu would date the construction of the marae or not. Recently, Kirch and Sharp dated coral deposited as offerings on Hawaiian heiau complexes and the results fell within expected time frame for the construction or early use of these sites (2005). The key question here is where the builders collected the coral for the fill. If the constructors of the ahu collected living corals from the sea, then the coral would very likely date to the time of construction. However, if the fill consists of old coral found on beaches or cast upon the coast by storms, then it would be a much greater risk that the coral fill had an inbuilt age.

Fig. 154: Umu found in Trench III below courtyard at marae on land Tuituirorohiti. Samples Wk-17062 and Wk-17063 dating this feature (Photo: P. Wallin).

We chose to date pieces of coral from five different marae structures, including the marae on land Haupoto and the marae on land Tuituirorohiti, as a test of whether the fill of classic Leeward Islands marae might reflect the time of construction of the structures. Our method of choice was 14C analysis because of its availability, although it might be argued that UTh series analysis can return more accurate dates on coral. Recently, UTh series analyses on coral from heiau structures on the islands of Maui, Hawaii, have claimed an accuracy of less than a decade for the construction of these temples (Kirch and Sharp 2005). The technical accuracy of conventional radiocarbon dates are in these instances between thirty and forty years, however, due to the need for calibrating 14 C dates on marine organism for local variations of the marine reservoir effect (Stuiver, Reimer, and Braziunas 1998) the accuracy in reality is far less. Adding to this is the fact that there exist very few individual measurements

The most likely time span of these dates, however, is the latter part of the 15th century and they therefore suggest a time of construction around or just after AD 1500. A third radiocarbon date exits from this marae. A piece of coral from the ahu was analysed, Wk-16470, and produced a date of 2429±36 B.P., a date that is clearly erroneous. At the time of excavation it was observed that the natural deposits under the ahu was made up of sand and large coral lumps, a former beach flat. One piece of coral from the surface of the ahu fill and one from the very bottom was secured for future dating purposes, but only the bottom piece was sent for dating. It is likely that the coral picked from the bottom of the ahu fill originated in the beach deposits and that the date actually defines the formation of this beach flat, rather than construction of the marae. Four other radiocarbon dates from various 91

correcting for local variations of the marine reservoir effect in the Pacific. For the Society Islands only one correction, from Mo’orea, exists, and since large local variations have been demonstrated for other islands (Dye 1994) we therefore chose to calibrate all marine 14C dates with the Southern Pacific Regional average (Delta R 33.0±21.0) taken from the Marine Reservoir Database (http://calib.qub.ac.uk/marine/) (Reimer and Reimer 2001).

Calibrated at 2 sigma to AD 1591-1830, gives the likelihood of construction taking place in the latter part of the 17th century or early 18th century. Marae Ohiti Mataroa is another huge limestone slab ahu over thirty meters long and with over three meter-high slabs in the ahu wall, which is located in the neighbouring district of Parea, Tefarerii on Huahine Iti. Although situated geographical close to marae Anini, Ohiti Mataroa did not share Anini’s social significance. Today, this structure is in total ruin with all of the ahu walls having fallen down and the fill lying in a gigantic heap at the water edge. A coral piece was radiocarbon dated to AD 1596-1833 calibrated at 2 sigma. The real date is probably sometime in the latter part of the 17th century or early in the 18th century.

With this in mind five samples of coral collected from the ahu fill of five marae structures around the island of Huahine and of different sizes were sent to Waikato Laboratory for radiocarbon analysis. One sample each from the two test-excavated marae on land Haupoto and on land Tuituirorohiti were chosen in order to compare

Fig. 155: Correlation between excavated sites, marae types and

At the far northeastern corner of Mata’ire’a Hill are the remnants of a medium-sized marae that must have had a coral-slab ahu, today located by the village water tanks. This structure has not been surveyed. A piece of coral from the fill of the ahu was sent for analysis (Wk-16788) and it produced a 2 sigma calibrated date of AD 17111951, suggesting that this marae was constructed in the 18th century.

the radiocarbon dates on coral with those derived from charcoal. In addition, one sample was selected from the most important structure on Huahine Iti, marae Anini; one from the very large coral slab ahu marae Ohiti Mataroa also located on Huahine Iti; and one sample was also selected from a small and almost totally destroyed marae on the north-eastern corner of the Mata’ire’a Hill, in Maeva. Except for sample Wk-16470 from the marae on land Tuituirorohiti which must be deemed erroneous because it is too old, all other dates fall within expected ranges (Wk-16470, Fig. 157). Marae Anini is located at Tiva Point, the south-eastern extremity of Huahine Iti in the district of Parea, and it is said to be the national temple of this part of Huahine. The ahu is build with huge coral/limestone slabs in two steps and both in size, its physical manifestation, and in the way the ritual space is organized it seems like a twin of marae Manunu of Huahine Nui. Were they both build at the same time as the ritual expression of the new ruling dynasty? One small piece of coral from the fill of the ahu was sent to be radiocarbon dated at Waikato (Wk-16786).

Fig. 156: Calibrated age ranges of four 14C dates in pieces of coral collected from the fill of various ahu on Huahine.

92

Fig. 157: List of 14C dates from investigated marae structures on Huahine.

14.6 Development of marae on Huahine So far these investigations have produced twenty-three 14 C dates from nine marae structures close to the Maeva village on Huahine, one in the district of Fare, and two marae structures on Huahine Iti (Fig 158).

diet, have been calibrated with a mix of Marine and Southern hemisphere calibration data set. Percentages of marine diet are a best estimate based upon ð13C ‰ and ð15N ‰ values measured on bone collagen.

Four of them were carried out on pig or human bones, and the remaining on charcoal. As stated above, all dates have been calibrated using CALIB (Version 5.0.1) with the SHCal04 calibration data set (Stuiver, Reimer, and Braziunas 1998). The Southern Pacific regional average (Delta R 33.0±21.0) taken from the Marine Reservoir Database (http://calib.qub.ac.uk/marine/) has been used in all calibration involving the Marine 2004 calibration data set. Bone dates, which are influenced by a partly marine 93

Fig. 158: Calibration box plot of all pre-construction 14C dates from marae structures on Huahine, except for the three samples from marae Mata’ire’a Rahi, which can be associated with a rebuilding of this structure.

Marae structures in Society and nearby island groups are simple dry-masoned architecture and the test-excavations from which these samples derive covered but a small percentage of the total area of these structures. Consequently, we aimed to date the earliest building phase at each site. Frequently we found earth-ovens; scattered charcoal from burn-off; middens; or charcoal / bones in a context stratigraphically below the ahu or courtyard of the investigated marae structures. Admittedly, this does not provide a precise date for the construction of the marae, but it does present an terminus post quem date for the construction.

the site was abandoned either because a new marae was built or because the population converted to Christianity. In Maeva, as well as for Huahine in general, this happened in the year 1817, when the images of Tane were burned and many of the old temples destroyed. Sacrificial remains were generally found only on the larger marae complexes, of the inferred mata’eina and national classes. A box plot of the calibrated age ranges for samples from pre-construction phases, and in the case of marae Mata’ire’a rahi (ScH-2-19) from a re-building of the structure, clearly shows that the first transformation period – when marae structures were first built on Huahine – began between AD 1450 and 1500 (Fig. 158) or just after this period. On closer inspection all these dates are associated with medium-sized marae structures,

Most of the cultural remains encountered in our excavations were human and animal bones that once had been deposited as sacrifices to the Gods during rituals. These samples date the period of use at the site, which began when the marae was initiated and continued until 94

which probably represent family or lineage marae classes. Most, if not all, of these structures are of Wallin’s type 4.1 (marae with ahu as an enclosure with a stone filling lower than 1.5 m) (Wallin 1993:66; Wallin 2001). Smaller, more specialised-function structures of Wallin’s type 4.1 and larger marae structures of Wallin’s type 4.2 (with ahu as an enclosure higher than 1.5 m) seems to have been built between AD 1650 and 1750. These latter structures must be associated with the development of a more complex social stratification on the island or inter-islands level. Small marae structures of more specified functions were probably associated with a differentiation of specialists in the society, or a rise in status for certain groups of tahua’s. They were furthermore built at the same time as larger, more explicit political marae structures. This may indicate that crafts specialisation occurred during this time. However, the evidence for this is slight and the correlation of type 4.2 marae with smaller special-function marae might be an creation of a small data set from the latter structures.

95

phosphates detectable in the soil on the court. Such analysis has not been carried out on marae courtyards/surroundings previoously, and might be a useful tool for indicating acttivities connected to the marae. In this case we used the spot-test method, which is a method that can be used diirectly in a field situation, as a tool to indicate promising areas a for excavations.

15. Tracing ritual activity on Polynesian marae structurres

The investigations at marae Manunu was carried out in m the fall of 2003 (Fig. 159). In short, marae Manunu was traditionally seen as the main temple of o Huahine Nui, at least during the time period c. AD 16650 and up to 1822 when the god images of Huahine was w burned by the missionaries (Tyerman & Bennet 18311:266). The size of the structure is huge, with an ahu platfform that measures c.42x6,5 m, and reaches a height, buiilt in two steps, of about 3,5 m. On the courtyard locatedd at the inland side of the ahu a round ended house wass built about 20 m from the ahu. The house was probabbly built within the parameter of the courtyard. On the coourt also is visible t the centre of the the platforms of an ava’a connected to ahu, as well as, four other platforms, of which one was the grave of Raiti, the last high priiest of the Maeva village, who was born in the early 19thh century, and who died by the age of 90 in the year 19155. The courtyard is about 42 m wide and stretches c 35 m out o from the ahu.

Fig. 159: Test- excavations on the courtyard of marae Manunu

15.1 Phospate analysis The spot-test method This method is originally accredited the German researcher H. Gundlach (Gunddlach 1961). It has been tested extensively at different kiinds of prehistoric sites by b field and laboratory Wallin and his collegues in both situations (I. Österholm and S. S Österholm 1982, 1997, Wallin 1984, I. Österholm 19889). The method is useful for detecting or delimiting setttlements or other human activities, since phosphatess that emanate from animal/human bones, fish and meat m wastes etc. are bound to soil particles and are very sttabile and not insoluble in water, and are therefore ideal as a indicators of prehistoric

activities. The (Photo: P. Wallin).

m Manunu a During the test-excavations of marae systematic collection of earth samplees was collected at every 5 m following the coordinate sysstem that we placed on the courtyard. The aim of this sampling was to conduct an phosphate analysis of thee area, in order to indicate areas of activity that mighht have produced

phosphates bound in soil can however h be released with the help of a strong acid. The principles of the spot-test method is that the phosphates of a small earth sample placed on a filter paper is extraccted by the help of a

96

Fig. 160: Systematic collection of earth samples for the phosphate analysis (Photo: R. Solsvik).

Fig. 162: Illustration of phosphate values (after Österholm and Österholm 1997:145).

Fig. 161: Earth samples were also collected during excavation of test units (Photo: P. Wallin).

added. After further 0,5 minute a blue spot will have radiated from the soil sample, if it contains phosphates. The blueness is proportional to the degree of phosphates in the sample (Österholm and Österholm 1997:139). A five grade scale is suggested (Fig. 162).

strong acid and further indicated by amoniumheptamolybdate and ascorbic acid. The phosphates are indicated by a blue spot that spreads out from the earth sample, which varies in size depending on the phosphate content (Österholm and Österholm 1997:138).

The sampling method The Manunu samples were collected from every five meter in the grid system placed in a rhombic pattern, which provides a good coverage of the area. A suitable depth would be from the bottom of the culturally effected soil. In our case this was at a depth of about 5-10cm, since most of the activities took place on the present surface. The samples may be collected by the help of a probe if the samples are taken from depths deeper than 10-20 cm, in our case small pits were dug with the trowel, and samples were collected in plastic bags with given coordinates.

Gundlach (1961) recommended the following liquids and analysis procedure: Solution 1: 5g amoniumheptamolybdate/(NH4)6 Mo7 O24/ is dissolved in 100 ml cold water and mixed with 35 ml diluted nitric acid (17,5 ml conc. HNO3 + 17,5 ml H2O). Solution 2: 0,5g ascorbic acid (C6H8O6) is dissolved in 100 ml cold water.

The analyse When plotting the result of the phosphate analysis on the map certain agglomerations of areas containing more phosphate became visible. Phosphate values within the range I and II, indicates no or limited activities generating

Method: A pinch of soil (c. 50mg) is placed on a piece of filter paper and a few drops of solution 1 are added from a drop bottle. After 0,5 minute a few drops of solution 2 are 97

Fig. 163: Result of the phosphate analysis plotted on the site plan.

two trenches a low frequency 6-9 fragments per sqm of mainly pig bones and single bones of Polynesian rat and fish were also detected. Pig bone was also found in the smaller phosphate concentration on the south east part of the courtyard.

phosphates. Such values are indicated in front of the ahu and about 15-20 m out on the courtyard. An area about 35 x 20 m in size oriented in a north-south direction at the western corner of the courtyard included phosphate values III, IV and V. Another smaller area, on the southeast part of the courtyard, about 15 x 5 m large (northwest-southeast direction) indicated phosphate values of III and IV. A few other isolated phosphate-tests in spread positions on the courtyard indicated values of III-IV (Fig. 162). The oval shaped house located central on the court is also attached to the large identified spot in the western part of the court. When matching the phosphate analysis with the osteological analysis carried out on bone material found in trenches and test-pits on the courtyard several interesting traits can be pointed out. On the large area in the western part of the court a relatively high frequency of pig bones from all parts of the body were detected (43 fragm./sqm, one fish bone was also identified). In the sqm located inside the round ended house we had the highest frequency of bones found, 157 fragments, representing the most varied bone material found at the site identified to pig, Polynesian rat, fish, bird, sheep/goat and cat. Human bones were also found at the excavations, but not within the high phosphate areas. They were instead located in trench I, directly in front of the ahu, and in trench III, at a central location of the courtyard in front of the ava’a. In these

The areas distinguished on the courtyard indicated three different activities. The area with low phosphate frequency, in front of the ahu and the central parts of the court, indicated low contents of bones. However, specific to this area is that we recovered human bones here. This may suggest that this area was kept relatively clean from sacrificial debris. Only human bones were treated directly in front of the ahu. The bones found within the parameter of the house are the most frequent and complex, and may indicate ritual meals. The area located to the western corner of the marae court may indicate the main sacrificial area for pigs. The limited area on the south east part of the court may as well indicate a smaller sacrificial area in front of the ahu. Ethnohistorical comparisons The higher concentrations of phosphate indicated may be due to sacrificial activities. Such activities have been depicted and described by Cook and other early visitors. One can possibly suggest that the large sacrificial altars may have been located at the western part of the 98

1928:161-164). The representation of sheep and cat, both found in the trench inside the house may be of very recent origin. However these remains were found under gravel mixed with the other bone remains of pig, rat, bird and fish. The sheep and cat bones both came from heads of these individuals. It is indicated that for example captain Cook in different islands gave sheeps/goats and cats to the natives. So, one should not exclude that the bones identified represent European animals sacrificed at this huge marae in the late 18th century or e’ven in the early 19th century during the early contact period.

Fig. 164: Interpretation of phosphate mapping.

courtyard. These altars called fata was an important structure at every marae (Fig. 165 They were normally constructed of rows of pillars with a height of about 2-3 meters, and with a lengt).h of up to about 12 meters. The top of the fata table was covered by matting. The offerings on such altars consisted mainly of pigs, dogs, fish and fruit (Wallin 1998:12-13). Remaining debris of such offerings may have created the high phosphate content in the soil in this area. The pig bones identified may represent sacrifices to the gods, as well as, ritual food for the persons participating in different rituals. Pigs from all different age groups are identified, but most bones came from smaller pigs, from suckling pigs, to individuals 6-9 months old, and some teeth also indicate adult individuals (Wallin 2003). At the age of about 6-9 months pigs are quite full grown and representative to sacrifice. The round ended house centrally located on the courtyard may represent a priest house or fare ia manaha, which was a round ended house (Fig. 166). The function of the fare ia manaha was to house sacred objects, such as the drums, dresses, shell trumpets etc. used at different ceremonies. This was also the place where the priests dressed and prepared themselves for ceremonies (Henry

Just in front of and close to the ahu some human bone remains (mainly teeth) were recovered on the Manunu courtyard. If studying the engraving of a human sacrifice from captain Cooks 2nd voyage, one can clearly see that the sacrifice was probably buried on the court to decompose in front of the ahu. On the ahu in the background there are numbers of human crania. In Fig. 167 a small fata or sacrificial altar with some pigs is also located in front of the ahu. Such an altar may have been located within the small south eastern area of high phosphates at Manunu. A priest house may also be seen to the left in the picture.

99

Fig. 165: A fata, or offering altar at a Tahitian marae, with pigs placed on top of the structure. Detail from engraving in Wilson 1799.

Fig. 166: Priest house situated in connection with a Tahitian marae. Detail from Wilson 1799.

Fig. 167: Human sacrifice and a smaller fata, or offering altar, recorded from Tahiti in the 1770s. (From J. Cook 1818).

100

15.2 Uprights and downrights During the excavation of marae Hauppoto we discovered two upright basalt stones buried in thee ground with their top flush with the lowermost pavementt stones (Figs. 168171). That these two uprights were aliigned indicates that they were deliberately buried in thesse positions. These uprights are not evidence for a reconstruction of the ahu t uprights would enclosures at this marae because the two not have been visible even when the loowermost pavement was exposed, but their deliberate conncealment points to two phases of pavement in front of the two ahu structures present today.

which the priest leaned” (Daviies 1991:14). There were also stone backrests for certain ceremonial participants c turu’i or tuturi. The placed on the court, they were called stones located in front of the ahu a had a special position close to the most holy section of the structure. The nonstepped ahu structures (as Haaupoto) usually had three uprights placed in front of the ahu. a The stone backrest of the first-borne ari’i was called haai h and it was situated in the central position of these stoones, and the backrests to the left and the right of this were called tarahu and marked the seats for his cloosest relatives (brothers) (Emory 1933:14).

Fig. 168: Buried upright in trench I during excavvation (Photo: R. Solsvik).

Fig. 170: Close up of buried upright foound in trench I at marae on land Haupopo (Photo: P. Wallin).

Fig. 169: Buried upright in trench I (Photo: R. Solsvik). S

The uses of uprights on marae structuures were common and the stone material used for uprig ghts was in general T cross-section of basalt slabs or coral limestone slabs. The the stones used was rounded, trianguular or rectangular, and the height was usually in the rangee of 30-90 cm. The uprights were located in different positions on the marae t ahu. The ones courtyard and sometimes on top of the placed on the court were called ahoo and according to Davies the priest set up a rude figure made m from cocoanut leaves there (Davies 1991:11). Other stones s on the court were the faoa-tu-marae described as the stone “agains

mon or completely out of Upright stones were less comm use in connection to the steepped marae types, and generally among the big Leeward Island marae (structures like Manunu in Huaahine). They do exist, but are not arranged in the same way w as on the non-stepped structures. When they occur am mong these types they are usually quite large and only reprresented on the court. a a kind of “uprights” but Unu planks may also be seen as made from wood. They have beeen described and depicted by the early European observeers as fork-like decorated planks, about two metres long and a 25 cm wide, placed on the court yard or close to the ahu. a Sometimes there was an anthropomorphic or zoo-moorphic image on top of the plank. These planks are said to t represent “stars of the heaven” (Henry 1928:134) orr “dead chiefs” (Corney 1913:296), or as indicators of thhat human sacrifices took

101

Two explanations seem to preesent themselves. Firstly, these uprights represents a perrson/god(s) that had been associated with the lineage or one o of the main families in this lineage and this person/ggod had not fulfilled its obligations and had therefore been “cast off” (Henry mily, however, would not 1928:178). The lineage or fam break all bonds between themsselves and the person/god and therefore were these uprighhts kept in front of the ahu, but buried to represent the pootential of a relationship between the humans and their, perhaps ancestor, god. A second explanation would runn along the same lines. Uprights may also represent a family f line itself and their position in relation to other family f lines, or in other words their claim to land and sttatus in the area controlled by the lineage. The buried uprigght, then, would represent a lineage that had “gone missinng” in the sense that it, to everybody’s knowledge, eiither had no living representative or that it had moved m to another district, island, or abandoned their claiims of land and status in this area. For one reason or anotther, the uprights had been buried as a token of their pottential return and perhaps could they still make claims to land. l

Fig. 171: In trench V? another buried upright was w discovered at marae on land Haupoto (Photo: P. Wallin).

place at the marae (Davies 1991:3011). They were also said to have been decorated with feathers and stripes of tapa (Emory 1933:16). As indicated above the uprights haave been used by different persons connected to the ceremonial rites conducted at the marae. Uprights pallced on top of the ahu and some of the uprights on the court indicated the w probably not position of different gods, but were representing the gods themselves. Instead there are indications that the gods were represennted by quite small sennit images placed at these stones by the priests in the same way as other stones indicated the backrests for certain persons or leaning stones for prriests. According to Henry some of the upright stones caalled ofai-manavaari’i also seemed to represent dead chiefs (Henry 1928:135). As we can see, stones were used as representations for both persons and gods, living as weell as dead. Since stones were also seen as containers of mana (Handy m especially 1927:xx) and therefore had certain meanings when included in ceremonial structurees it is certainly an intriguing question what the two buriedd uprights observed in the marae Haupoto represent? As indicated i above an upright stone in front of an ahu onn a marae usually represents the chief, a revered ancestorr or possibly a god of the lineage, so why would anyyone bury such a representation, but still leave it visible on the surface? 102

16. The ritual landscape of Huahine During October 2001 the two authors participated in excavations organized by Yosihiko H. Sinoto, directed by Eric Komori at a waterlogged site close to the Fauna Nui lagoon at the foot of Mata’ire’a Hill. In addition a resurvey of certain marae structures on Huahine and, later, on Mo’orea, in order to form a first understanding of how these structures were located in the island landscapes. In a long-term perspective the purpose was to try to elucidate some of the meanings found in landscape and architecture in the Society Islands. The section below details some of the preliminary data from this work and presents a few tentative conclusions on the ritual landscape of Huahine. The following landscape elements were indicated: •

The Mata’ire’a Hill: The hill itself may symbolically be seen as a seat for the chiefly families located at Maeva, description from Tyerman and Bennett (1831). The site at Maeva may be compared to the chiefly area at marae Taputapuatea on Raiatea, which is placed on the land called Te Po, which is divided from the other land Te Ao. Maeva may be seen as Te Po a sacred place for the island chiefs. During recent surveys by Yosihiko Sinoto (Sinoto et al. 1981, 1983) and Mark Eddowes (2003) no major marae clusters have turned up in the valleys. In this perspective Maeva becomes even more special since we here can find clusters of marae structures also on the inland hill site.

•

The Lagoon: The village located at the lagoonside are possibly community oriented since the marae are not visible from the other side of the lagoon they are not built to be visible at long distances.

•

The sea: Big structures located on the coast are a visible sign to visiting people coming through the reef, and not so much to the village population. In these cases the marae is removed from the settlements.

•

The mountain: Specialized and or community structures of varied size, for example the so called “Dog marae” and marae Ofata, located on the mountain side itself. These structures have a splendid overview but are not visible from below. Structures located at the foot of the mountain are generally oriented towards the mountain itself.

Our survey of marae included structures on Huahine, mainly around Maeva village, in the Leeward Islands, and structures on Mo’orea, mainly from the Opunohu valley, in the Windward Islands. We had two objectives

in initiating this re-survey. The first was aimed at understanding how the Society Islands marae, as a ritual complex, is located in, and relates to, the island landscape. The marae in maohi culture constitutes a sacred space in which humans interacted with ancestors and gods. In this capacity, the marae was an important place which structured what various researchers have named social or existential space. Nature or the natural landscape is a part of our environment, and in this way it contributes to the constitution of social space. Consequently, it becomes important not only to collect information on where a marae is located, or in which environment it is situated. Equally important is it to note features of the landscape which are visible from the marae, and not in immediate contact with the actual structure. Among such features might be mentioned openings in the reef and mountain peaks. Such features might have been essential in the decision to place a marae in a particular location. Moreover, it necessitates a re-survey because this kind of information can only be acquired by being on the location, and previous researchers have not systematically collected such data. Secondly, we aimed to compare earlier descriptions of marae complexes with the present state of the same structures. How do marae structures change in modern time due to restorations? Have tourism, on the scale witnessed in French Polynesia any damaging effect on the scientific integrity of the marae? By which processes do erosion work on these structures? How many have been destroyed by natural disasters, such as cyclones? Is these structures in daily use, and how would this effect them? As a direct consequence of these two objectives, we have focused on marae described by K. P. Emory during his survey in 1925 (Emory 1933). Each marae was described by field notes, slides, digital photos, and by digital video film. The field notes were written down on PC the same, or the next day, and compared with Emory’s survey from (1933). The digital photos were also filed in a computer data base and described. A selection of these pictures is seen in Appendix 5, p. 153-164.

16.1 Marae location in the landscape During the summer of 2000 Wallin and Solsvik initiated a project to study the spatial relations of the Society Island marae and the symbolism of the landscape in which the marae is located. The preliminary findings of this work is published in “The marae temple grounds in the Society Islands – A structural study of spatial relations” (Wallin & Solsvik 2002b) and in “Structure, Spatial Metaphors, and Landscape: A Study of the ceremonial marae temple grounds in the Society Islands, French Polynesia” (Wallin & Solsvik 2006b). It soon became apparent that a closer investigation of the landscape-space of each marae structure would be highly beneficial. Therefore the survey of 2001 was carried out, and it is reported in detail in the Kon-Tiki Museum Field Report Series Vol. 4 (Wallin and Solsvik 2003).

103

On a general note it is quite apparent that to the builders of the marae complexes on Huahine or Mo’orea, the sea and mountains were of paramount importance. Very few structures seen during this survey had not either the sea or a mountain behind the ahu. The exceptions were most numerous in the Opunohu valley, Mo’orea, but here the marae quite often had the back of the ahu towards huge natural boulders, which we may assume symbolized mountains. From most of the sites in the valley, the sea was not visible. Although it must await further work, it does not seem to be the case that rivers substituted for the sea in inland valleys. This indicates that there might have been a symbolical distinction between fresh and salt water. Along the coast, particular in relation to large and important complexes, the ahu “pointed” towards an opening in the reef, as well as generally towards the sea. This might be due to the fact that these marae, national or international (Henry 1928:119) served people from more than one district or one island.

Fig. 172: Restored marae Arahurahu. Today sometimes used as an outdoor theatre (Photo: P. Wallin).

16.2 Concerning restorations, reconstructions, and change This chapter concludes some of the results of our 2001 re-survey, which clearly illuminate that these monuments are constantly changing. There are different reasons behind changes and they are both tied to natural and human processes or a combination of these factors. Natural processes, such as high water levels and tropical storms etc. constantly worn these structures. Some processes are slow other, like hurricanes and tidal waves, make immediate visible damage. Animals can also create damage, for example land crabs that constantly perforate the coastal areas, as well as, pigs and larger ruminants. Other changes are due to human building activities both modern and alternations that were carried out already in prehistoric times. Restorations and reconstructions Restoration work is usually carried out in different ways with different aims, and with different views and basic knowledge on what these monuments are reflecting. Restoration work began in the mid 1950s, when the stepped marae Arahurahu in Tahiti was restored (Fig 172). A few restorations were carried out by Emory in Borabora and by Sinoto at Raiatea in 1964-65 (Emory and Sinoto 1965), and in 1967-1969, Yosi Sinoto developed a restoration program on marae structures at Maeva village in Huahine, and at Taputapuatea in Raiatea. They were followed up by restorations in Mo’orea (Sinoto 1969), and in the late 1980s restorations were carried out by Maeva Navarro in the inland site at Papenoo, Tahiti, and by Claudio Cristino at the inland site at Vahiria, Tahiti, and Maurice and Marie Christine Hardy (Cristino et al. 1988, Harding and Harding 1998 The work continued in the mid 1990s with reconstruction work at Opoa, Raiatea, and at the Maeva site under direction of Maeva Navarro and Joseph Tchong from Musee de Tahiti.

Fig. 173: Marae Oavaura during stabilisation work in 1967 (Photo : Y. Sinoto).

Fig. 174: Marae Oavaura as observed in 2001 (Photo: P. Wallin).

The restorations by Sinoto have been done in a careful way, which means that he only stabilized the structures. Fallen stones were raised, courtyard stones are levelled and placed back in position etc. His aim has been to keep the structures in the shape that they had, in other words, he has tried to stop the continuous destruction and preserve the latest prehistoric phase. Most other reconstructions also include interpretation, which in fact changes the shape of these structures. The court yard at several marae structures in Maeva village has for example been raised about 30 cm and strangely enough,

104

some of the material used was taken from an ancient wall in the close by “Te Ana” area…This means they both did reconstruction of one monument and destroyed another. We therefore argue for that only stabilization and slight restoration should be done on the original sites. If the aim is to do re-construction of a marae, one should build a true copy or model on some other ground, for example in connection to a local museum, and not make interpretative experiments on the original structures. If one combines features found archaeologically at the site, the whole marae may be turned into a strange ‘timemachine’ including different chronological phases within the same structure. Such is neither desirable for science nor for local people nor visiting tourists. Some processes of change Comparing photos of these structures taken decades apart makes it clear that these structures do not look the same, but constantly seems to change. Some change is due to natural processes as can be observed at marae Oavaura (compare photo from 1967 and 2001) (Figs. 173, 174). The court seems to have been covered by silty material during high water flooding of the site. If comparing pictures from 1967 and 1991 with a photo taken in 2001 of marae Vaiotaha (Figs. 175, 176, 177), one becomes astound by the unbelievable changes due to recent restoration work! The latest addition, not confirmed archaeologically or ethnohistorically, at the Maeva site (marae Rauhuru), is the raised unu planks and whatta offering altars (Fig. 178), that were planted directly into the unique not archaeologically investigated low, possibly early, double ahu, situated in front of the ordinary Leeward coastal type ahu and also into the paved court yard. Holes with a diameter of about 50 cm were dug without archaeological supervision. It is to be deplored that archaeological reconstruction work, in this case goes hand in hand with destruction of cultural layers at these sites.

Fig. 176: Marae Vaitotaha in 1991 (Photo: P. Wallin).

Fig. 177: The re-constructed marae Vaiotaha in 2001. (Photo: P. Wallin).

Fig. 178: Unu planks and wooden altars at marae Rauhuru in 2002 (Photo P. Wallin).

Fig. 175: Marae Vaiotaha during stabilisation ork in 1967 (Photo: Y. Sinoto).

105

Fig. 179: Portable graffiti at marae Ofata.

h slab ahu type Some of the marae, mainly of the huge found in the Society Leeward Islands,, has been used for graffiti, probably mainly by young local people (and mes on the slabs. A some tourists) simply writing their nam centre for this activity in later years seems s to be marae Ofata, situated on the Matairea hilll, with the most beautiful view of all marae on the hiill. The location is probably the reason why young boys annd girls go up there and sometimes writes their love testimonies to each other...The graffiti on marae slabs mayy also be seen as if the people of today in this way is seekking a link with the past or expresses their own identity or o rights/ownership of their structure. It was recently pointted out in the local news paper that people should not use u the stones for graffiti. Then some people adopted a new habit, they began writing the name on smaller flaat stones and place them on, or beside the ahu, in other words, w they make a kind of portable graffiti (Fig. 179).

106

17. Ethnohistory of marae structures at Maeva 17.1 The settlement at Maeva Structurally, it can be said that the seettlement at Maeva (Cf. Fig. 14 and 180) consists of three distinct components. First, there is the seriies of ten marae structures that are built along the shorees of the lake Fauna Nui of which four recently have beeen restored. These small to medium sized marae represent the classic Leeward Island coastal marae type andd made up the ritual and ceremonial centre of Huahine during the protohistoric period. The most importantt of these, marae Orohahaa, was located in the grounds of the local church man sacrifices were, and it has been utterly destroyed. Hum according to information received by Rev. Bennett and Tyerman (Tyerman and Bennet 1831:271), hung in a giant tree that stood in the vicinity of this marae. All of these temples conform to the classiic Leeward Island marae types consisting of a limestonee slab ahu without any enclosing stone wall. Along the inland side of the road that runs not more than twenty to thirty meters from the maraae structures, large concave stone platforms with roound-ended house curbings are found. Given the size annd number of these platform houses and their location cloose to the temples across the road, they could be nothingg else than chiefly dwelling platforms, and most likely contemporary c with the nearby temples, and probably belonng to the late protohistoric time in Huahine. The settlem ment on the slopes and top of Mata’ire’a Hill makess up the second component of the chiefly centre of Maeeva. Test-

excavation of house foundationns in the upper parts of Te Ana land division (Sinoto 1996)) shows that in this part of Mata’ire’a Hill the settlement began between AD 1300 and 1400. Our own investigatioons of marae structures on this same land division, reporteed above, in several cases found evidence of habitation stratigraphically below the marae platforms. European tradde goods found in at least one burial platform during the survey in the early 1980s (Sinoto and Komori 1988:59--60, fig. 18) in Te Ana indicates that these marae struuctures were in use up to contact period times. ment at Maeva is the two The third element of the settlem marae structures with island-w wide religious significance, namely marae Mata’ire’a rahi and a marae Manunu. These two temples were of paramountt importance for the ritual cycle on Huahine, and without them the new paramount chief could not been invested into office, nor could the life-giving pa’i atua ceremony be conducted. The former is at the summit of the hill annd the second has its ahu pointing towards the open sea;; between them they hold all ritual ceremonies necessaryy for growth, order, and a new year. A detailed settlement history foor Mata’ire’a Hill has not been proposed on a macro level. Sinoto (1996), based on the survey data, test excavatiions in Te Ana, and, in particular, changes in marae arrchitecture, has suggested that the main settlement of thee hill, inland from marae Tefano, marae Mata’ire’a rahi, and marae Tamata Uporu were not in use during the prooto-historic period. It had been abandoned in favour of thhe settlement down on the coastal flat close to the marae structures along the edge of the lagoon. The main reasson behind this proposed

Fig. 180: Emory’s map of Maeva Village (From m Emory 1933:126).

107

settlement chronology is that, according to Sinoto, the majority of coastal marae structures were rebuilt from an Leeward Inland Type 2 to the classic Coastal Type (Sinoto 1996:549-550; Sinoto 2001) by taking down the enclosing stone wall around the marae court. Marae structures seaward of marae Tefano, marae Mata’ire’a rahi, and marae Temata Uporu had been rebuilt in this fashion. Sinoto further argues that the importance of marae Mata’ire’a rahi, which is known to have been in use up to 1817 (Tyerman and Bennet 1831:217) was the reason why this structure was not rebuilt like the other near-shore marae in Maeva. Evidence for such rebuilding can be observed at both marae Rauhuru and marae Avaroa (Sinoto 2001:255-256) and possibly a third site (Sinoto 1996:549). During our resurvey and excavation of marae Mata’ire’a rahi it became evident that this particular marae had once looked like a classic Leeward Coastal marae type with an ahu of coral or limestone slabs (Figure 5) and lacking a stone wall enclosing the court yard (Wallin, Komori, and Solsvik 2004). Later, this national temple was rebuilt with an enclosing stone wall and an attached ahu of coral and basalt slabs. Sinoto’s suggested typological development is, at this site turned on its head. This is not to say that Sinoto’s observation from marae Rauhuru and marae Avaroa is incorrect, but rather that his suggested settlement sequence for the Maeva area must be checked through targeted test-excavation and dating of individual domestic structures on various parts of the Mata’ire’a Hill. A general trend of abandonment of the domestic and ritual structures on top of Mata’ire’a Hill in favour of coastal settlements late in the proto-historic era is not to be expected (Tatar 1982:129-130)..

17.2 Two national temples Marae Mata’ire’a rahi (Site: ScH-2-19) Marae Mata’ire’a rahi, or Faao-aitu (Henry 1928:100) was recognized as the “national” marae of the island of Huahine, and was consequently the most important religious structure on the island. The marae is located on a slope on the summit of Mata’ire’a Hill, on land Tehu’a. The ahu is placed at the up slope end directed towards Moua Tapu. The marae is enclosed by a stone wall except on the down-slope end where a c. two meter high terrace wall makes it impossible to enter the marae from this side. The ahu is built into this enclosing stone wall. The front-wall of the ahu is composed of limestone slabs on end and with sections of stacked basalt in between, and the court is paved with basalt flagstones (Fig. 98). It was on marae Mata’ire’a rahi where the important pa’i atua ceremony was carried out (Henry 1928:221), in which all the gods of the island were brought out and displayed. It was also on this temple where the investment of a new chief took place as mentioned by Henry (1928:195). Furthermore, the lineage head of each of the eight districts of Huahine had their own backrest on the lower part of the court at this marae.

Historical records and survey In the case of marae Mata’ire’a rahi we are able, through descriptions left by early missionaries and scholars, to get an insight in the general state of the monument from the 1820s up until today and here we will present two of these accounts: On January 8, 1822, Tyerman and Bennet visited marae Mata’ire’a rahi together with the man who was the official bearer of the image of the god Tane. Here follows the description they made from this visit: “The great marae, so dedicated to Tani, stands superior among all these, being nearly a hundred feet by eighty in length and breadth, with walls in some parts nine feet thick. In the centre of this rude edifice, Tani’s bed is seen, on which his idol was laid when prayers were offered to it, and near that another platform, which the dumb stock occupied on special occasions. At the distance of thirty feet, in front of the marae, is the usual raised seat for the priest when he performed his devotions; and, near the same, what may be called the altar, consisting of a flat flag-stone and an upright one, on which the animals, offered in sacrifice, were formerly slaughtered; these were swine and fowls. But the altar on which the bodies of the victims, when slain, were presented, was a frame of wooden piles and planks, sixteen feet long, six wide, and ten high. On these occasions the fowls of the air had plenteous feasting. Near the spot were two large heaps of bones, principally the sculls of hogs. On the declivity, immediately below the marae, are two small terraces, raised to the height of twelve inches each from the ground, and on the lower side of these are stationed eight insulated stones, set up at some distance from one another, designating, by their position in reference to the temple, that part of it which particularly belonged to each of the eight districts of the island; and round which the inhabitants of the same, on public solemnities, congregated in tribes, as we were given to understand. On the north of the marae was Tani’s house (now destroyed), a little wooden chamber, built on posts, twenty-five feet high, and to which there was no access except by climbing one of them. This was the sanctuary where the image was usually kept, and from and so which it was always carried by our companion, Toumata, till the day when the idol, the sanctuary, and the worship of Tani were destroyed. … … … It ought to have been mentioned that on one side of Tani’s house there is a remarkable stone, set on end, which (like the tree on the motu, formerly mentioned,) is said to have caught his long tail, when, from the top of it, he attempted to mount into the air on a journey of mischief.” (Tyerman & Bennet 1831, vol. 2:282-283).

From Tyerman and Bennet’s conversation with Taumati, the man who used to carry Tane’s image, the god of the marae, it is evident that this image was burned around 1817. This act probably marked the end of the use of marae Mata’ire’a rahi as a temple (Tyerman & Bennet 1831, vol. 1, pp. 266-267). During November/December 1925 Emory surveyed marae structures in Maeva including the marae Mata’ire’a rahi (Fig. 181), and he gave the following description: “Marae Matairea-rahi, located on a hill overlooking the central part of Maeva Village (figs. 84, no. 19; 88). The common name is Matairea, derived from the name of the hill on which it stands, but according to Henry (32, p. 101), its own name is Faaoaitu (Faao-aitu). The plan of the marae (fig. 88) shows that it consists of two separate parts. Ellis (sic, should be Bennet) and Tyerman (56, pp. 278-284) visited the marae in 1822, accompanied by the native who had been the official bearer of Tane’s image. Through their account and description of the marae the function of the main divisions and features is learned. Tyerman (56, vol. 1, p. 282) clearly designates the southern part as the marae proper, and reveals the avaa, the position of the turui of the officiating priest, the

108

Fig. 181: Marae Matairea Rahi according to Emory (1933: Figure 88). position of the fatarau, and the turui of the representatives of the eight mataeinaa of Huahine: “Faatau, the only man at Maeva now living who is versed in native traditions, says that the southern half of the marae Matairea was occupied by the eight mataeinaa or their representatives who assembled each month for rites, and that each mataeinaa had a stone denoting its place in the space marked a and b on the plan (fig. 88). Faatau pointed out the northern half of the marae as the abode of Tane. Tane-te-tumuo-te-fenua, he said, was god of the marae, and Tane-tihi-hiohio the arii varua ino (chief of the evil spirits)” (Emory 1933:133-135). Fig. 5. (Emory Figure 88). “Marae Matairea-rahi, Maeva (Site 133): a, front of southern half, roughly paved terrace reaching height of 5.5 feet along front, facing of irregular dike slabs laid up horizontally with either the side or end exposed, northern end of terrace bounded by wall 1 to 2 feet high; b, sloping surface of hillside, slightly terraced on lower (east) side, terrace facing not more than 1 foot high, along back and sides runs wall 1 to 4 feet high, 3 to 5 feet wide; c, stone platform 3 to 4 feet high built up of horizontal dike slabs and paved with flat stones, top flush with top of rear enclosing wall, lower part of court facing concealed by line of coral slabs 3 inches thick set on end or on edge; d, front of northern division of marae, 15 feet high along front, faced in same way as a and paved with heavy, flat stones, northeast corner buttressed by sloping face; e, earth-filled terrace 2 feet above d, faced with single course of boulders, south end clearly rounded; back of e, wall 4 feet high on inside, 1 foot high on upper side, starts from southern division of marae and runs north, disappearing almost completely at north end; f, sloping ground partly paved; 1-3, basalt uprights; 1, 1 foot high, 1 foot wide, 4 inches thick; 2, 2 feet high, 1.5 feet wide, 5 inches thick; 3, 2 feet high, 1.5 feet wide, 4 inches thick; 4-8, basalt uprights; 6, 2 feet high, 2 feet wide, 6 inches thick; 7, 1 foot high; 8, 14 inches high, 10 inches wide, 2 inches thick, before upright is small platform 1 foot high; 9, 10, basalt uprights 1 foot high, 1 foot wide, 3 inches thick; 11-13, uprights; 11, basalt, 20 inches high, 12 inches wide, and 3 inches thick; 12, basalt, 12 inches square; 13, limestone, 27 inches high, 33 inches wide, 4 inches thick” (Emory 1933:134, fig. 88).

Mata’ire’a Rahi was restored in 1969 by Y. H. Sinoto, and the state of the marae has been the same from this time. The most evident difference is that Sinoto discovered more back-rest’s on the lowermost terrace

than Emory did, and today there are as well eight backrests on the main court, as seen by Tyerman and Bennet in 1822. Marae Manunu (Site: ScH-2-18) Marae Manunu is situated on the flat land of Motu Ovarei, formerly called Manunuiterai or Toerauroa, which bounds the north side of Fauna Nui lagoon close to the village of Maeva, on the north-east corner of Huahine Island. Manunu is a huge marae of the classic coastal type where the ahu, in two steps, is made of huge coral or lime stone slabs placed on end (Fig. 75, 76). Except for an ava’a in front of the ahu and two small stone enclosures, the courtyard is not defined, but is just a flat area of gravel and grass in front of the ahu. The courtyard, or hoho, is oriented towards the interior, and the rear wall of the ahu is oriented towards the open sea. Manunu, was also described as the “national” marae of Huahine Nui. It was consecrated to the god Tane the supreme god of Huahine Nui, and it is said it was given its name from the legendary chiefess Hotuhiva, who arrived from Ra’iatea inside a sacred drum at the point where the marae is located. “As she emerged from the drum she found herself crippled with numbness in all her limbs, for which reason the point was afterwards called Manunu (Benumbed)” (Henry 1928:100). This also became the name of the marae. It is also said that the “national” marae of Huahine Nui was moved from Mata’ire’a rahi down to the coast where marae Manunu is located (Handy 1930:97).This great marae was only equalled in rank by marae Anini on Tiva point on Huahine Iti, dedicated to the war god ‘Oro, and by marae Mata’ire’a rahi. As such, Manunu was a marae where human sacrifices were offered to Tane, and was quite

109

possibly the place where the pa’i atua ceremonies were held. Manunu in historical records Marae Maunun was first (to our knowledge) described in some detail by Daniel Tyerman and George Bennet, who visited the site on January 4. 1822. Their short description is given in full: “The weather not permitting us to resume our journey, we made an excursion to the neighbouring motu, to visit the marae of Tani, the chief god of Huahine in the age of idolatry. It stands about a hundred yards from the shore, embosomed among trees of many kinds, which wholly obscure the edifice till the spectator arrives upon the spot. Like most erections of the kind, it consists of two stories, of oblong shape; the lower, a hundred and twenty-four feet by sixteen, and the upper diminished proportionately, with a small wing at the back. The basement is about ten feet in height, and fronted with coral blocks, placed on their edges, some of which are as high as the story itself; these form the walls of an enclosure, which is filled up with earth. The superior but smaller part is faced with coral, and filled with earth, in like manner, but not more than three feet high, having at each end an upright stone of twice that elevation. In the centre of the principal front stands the bed of Tani, a stone-framed pile, eighteen inches above ground, but twenty-four feet long by thirteen wide! Hard by is another and lesser enclosure, not more than half the dimensions of Tani’s bed, yet large enough to hold all the gods beside that belonged to this celebrated grove and temple. All these various structures were exceedingly rude, but massy, in materials and masonry. Not a tool seems to have been lifted up upon any of the stones; the angles are ill-formed, nor are the walls in right lines; but the whole pandemonium is in rare preservation, scarcely a block having been dislodged from its place. Trees of centuries, judging from their venerable and magnificent appearance, overshadow this “dark place,” with meeting arms, and foliage “star-proof.” One of these ancients measured fifteen yards in girth above the root. …” (Tyerman & Bennet 1831, vol. 2:265-266).

Kenneth P. Emory visited marae Manunu sometime between November 19 and December 23, 1925, and described it in detail. He also made a drawing of the front wall of the ahu (Fig. 182). Most of his description is given below: “Marae Manunu, on the flat land of the peninsula called Manunuiterai, or Toerauroa, which bounds the north side of Fauna Nui lagoon (figs. 10; 84, no. 18; 87; pl. 15, A). The marae is directly opposite Maeva Village, but lost to sight in the dense screen of trees, and 100 yards from the seashore. No vertical slabs other than limestone occur anywhere in the ahu facing. The outer face of the ahu is similar to its inner face. The facing warps in and out in a very irregular manner not indicated by the plan. One of the largest slabs of the outer face had fallen forward and had been replaced by a smaller slab whose base rest on the back of the fallen one. One of the natives said that when Raiti, the last Maeva native of the old culture, died at the age of about 90, in 1915, a slab of marae Manunu fell. This old man had left a request that he be buried at the marae. His grave was pointed out in the avaa. The fill of the ahu is composed of basalt and coral rocks. The top of the ahu is paved with basalt flagstones. At both ends the limestone facing slabs rise above the average height of the top step. The court of the marae adjoins the southwest face of the ahu; no pavement or enclosing wall marks the extent. At 70 feet from the face of the ahu is a little structure consisting of two rows of coral slabs, 5 feet apart and 8 feet long, each row having two limestone slabs 1 foot high, which were set on end. A number of toa trees stand on the area before the inland face of the marae; none however grow on the seaward side. There is a complete absence of tamanu trees.” “In front of the avaa, and 12 feet from it, is a basalt upright (fig. 87, no. 4). Petroglyphs could be discovered on only two of the slabs of the ahu; the second slab from the left end of the southwest face, and the single slab closing in the southeast end of the upper story. The carvings are shown in figures 132, d, and 130, d, no. 1” (Emory 1933:131-133). “Figure 87. – Plan and elevations of marae Manunu, Maeva (Site 132): a, first story of ahu, 23 feet wide at one end, 21 feet wide at opposite end, and 129 feet long, 8 feet high; b, second story, 8.5 feet wide at one

Fig. 182: Marae Manunu according to Emory (1933:Figure 87).

110

end, 11 feet wide at other, and 105 feet long, 3 feet high; c, avaa, a platform 14 feet wide, 25 feet long, not more than 2 feet high, built mostly of coral stones; d, unpaved platform 1 foot high framed by coral slabs on edge; e, northwest end; f, southeast end; g, southwest face, drawn to scale; 1, location of cist less than 2 feet square and 1 foot high, containing pieces of an adult male skull, the skull of a younger person, and some other bones, and covered with flagstone; 2, open pit, probably for the discarded coverings of tutelary god; 3, basalt slab on end and flush with top of platform; 4, basalt upright 1.5 feet high, 8 inches square” (Emory 1933:132, fig. 87).

Indication of varied ritual actions have also been detected by finds of scattered charcoal and plenty of pig bone fragments in a trench on the courtyard. This deposition might suggest a ritual activity at this spot. Most probably an offering altar, (fata-rau) has been located there. The excavation inside the round-ended house, or fare pote, believed to be a fare-ia-manaha is very interesting. Here we found the remains of pig, sheep/goat, cat, rat, fish, and bird, which suggests that the house has been used not only for storage of drums, but for habitation or ceremonial meals. The sheep/goat and cat bones indicate contact with early European visitors. For further details on the use of the courtyard of this marae see pages 96100 in this publication. Finally, an interesting re-interpretation of a note by P. Marcantoni (1928:61) that marae Manunu was built first, immediately followed by Mata’ire’a rahi may be possible to do in the light of our excavations. However, it is quite clear that an early phase of Mata’ire’a rahi was built first, but Marcantoni’s information may have been tied to the rebuilding phase of Mata’ire’a rahi. Based on the results the following scenario is suggested: When establishing a new national temple at Manunu around AD 1700, the mana of Mata’ire’a rahi possibly was lowered by destruction of the ahu and its slabs. When this was done Manunu could be built and shortly thereafter Mata’ire’a rahi was re-established, human sacrifices were presented and the ahu and marae re-built as indicated through the archaeological excavations.

111

18. The wider context of the investigations 18.1 Emergence of marae structures in the Leeward Islands During restoration work on marae Taputapuatea, Opoa, on the island of Raiatea in the early 1960s, Yosihiko H. Sinot and Kenneth P. Emory dated some marine shells found embedded in depressions on one of the coral slabs making up the ahu face (Emory and Sinoto 1965). The sample, GaK-299, returned a date of 700±100, which calibrated with a marine calibration curve and the Southern Pacific regional average marine reservoir correction value of ð33.0±21.0 (Reimer and Reimer 2001) at 2 sigma, produce an age span of AD 1503-1722 and AD 1793-1799. About eighty meters west of the ahu is an archery platform located with its front pointing towards the famous marae. Here, Sinoto excavated a test trench between the archery platform and the house foundation next to it. A sample, GaK-403, pre-dating the archery platform produced a date of 360±90, or calibrated at 2 sigma to AD 1417-1697 (Emory and Sinoto 1965-6566, Fig. 67, p. 71; Wallin 1997; Wallin and Solsvik 2006b:27). It is possible, then, to suggest that marae Taputapuatea and the other marae in the area called Te po were constructed after AD 1600. Giving that Te po is the centre for ‘Oro worship in the Society Islands, it fits the data from similar structures on Huahine. What do the above data tell us about the origin and development of marae as ritual space in the Leeward Islands? In the case of Huahine, the data is comprehensive enough to suggest that on this island marae structures were not built until between AD 1450 and AD 1500. Whether this translates to the other islands in the Leeward group cannot be ascertained at the present since comparable data does not exist from the other islands. Huahine is one of the few islands in French Polynesia that established an independent chiefly and ritual centre in Maeva on the northeast coast of the main island, and this could have contributed to a late introduction of the marae concept on this island. However, as radiocarbon dates clearly show that marae structures were built as early outside as inside the chiefly centre of Maeva, we argue that our Huahine data is not a reflection of the establishment of Maeva as a specialised political and ritual centre. Radiocarbon dates of habitation layers at Te Ana also indicates that Maeva was settled a few hundred years earlier than the establishment of the earliest Marae sites in the area. In conclusion, marae construction probably did not take place in the district of Maeva, Huahine, until after AD 1500. All the medium-sized marae on the Mata’ire’a Hill were first built between AD 1500 and AD 1650. Some of the marae in the area, like marae Mata’ire’a Rahi and marae Tefano clearly show evidence of being rebuilt during pre-historic or proto-historic times. In other cases the evidence for reconstruction is more subtle, only consisting of an enlargement of the courtyard. In most cases no

radiocarbon data exists to accurately date such scenarios, but if these structures were in use during a time-span of up to 250 years reconstruction should be expected. A close examination of the architecture together with targeted test-trenching should be the standard procedure for documenting these structures. A second trend in the data is that the large costal marae is associated with the ‘Oro cult, like marae Taputapuatea on Raiatea and marae Anini and possibly Manunu on Huahine (Tatar 1982:21), seem to have been constructed fairly late in Society Islands history. We now have five radiocarbon dates from four such marae in the Leeward group: marae Taputapuatea on Raiatea; marae Anini and marae O’hiti Mataroa on Huahine-iti; and marae Manunu on Huahinenui. All these five radiocarbon dates supports the theory that ‘Oro type marae structures were being built between AD 1650 and AD 1750, or even later.

18.2 New radiocarbon dates from Windward Islands marae In investigating early settlement sites, Polynesian archaeologists have become aware of problems with radiocarbon dates from the 1960s and 1970s (Anderson 1991, 1995; Dye 2000; Higham and Hogg 1997). Two factors in particular might be mentioned. First, there might be a high inbuilt-age in old charcoal samples, due to the fact that sourcing of wood species was, and still are, not routinely applied. Second, early dates up to the 4000-series from the Gakushuin Laboratory in Tokyo have been considered as suspect by some writers (i.e. Spriggs 1989). Since most of the radiocarbon dates from temple complexes in the Windward Islands are from the sixties it would be valuable if samples from previous investigations were re-dated (Fig. 180) (Solsvik and Wallin 2009). One of the most well-known excavation of Windward Islands temple complexes is the investigation of marae Marae Ta’ata by José Garanger, where a series of three superimposed ahu were exposed (Garanger 1975). Three charcoal samples in a stratigraphic series, were sent for radiocarbon analysis to the Laboratoire de radiocarbone du Commissariat à l’Energie Atomique et du Centre National de la Rescherches Scientifique, Centre de Faibles Radioactivités de Gif-sur-Yvette, in France. All these dates came out as ‘modern’ and have never been reported in detail (Garanger 1975; Garanger 2005:53-54, footnote 24). What exactly is meant by ‘modern’ in this context is not entirely clear. Logically, the samples must either have to be truly modern as in containg more than 100.0% 14C in relation to the international standard used, or the ages of the samples were less than the error of the sample (Cf. Green, et al. 1967:139). Unfortunately, no excess charcoal exists from the original samples sent to Sacley Laboratory, so there is no way to check the previous radiocarbon dates. However, one excavation unit outside the marae produced a thick charcoal layer and a sample from this layer was sent by us to Waikato Laboratory for age assay. The calibrated date for this sample Wk-17522 is AD 1653-1951 at 2 sigma (Figs.

112

of Tahiti and a number of sites were surveyed and excavated. Most of these investigations have not been published and data on possible analysed radiocarbon dates are not existent. Marae sites 206, 207, and 208 is part of a complex in the Tahinu section of the Papeno’o Valley excavated by Marimari Kellum in the fall of 1990. Three samples, two from marae 206 and one from marae 208 were submitted by us to the University of Waikato, Radiocarbon Dating Laboratory, for analysis. The two samples from structure 206, Wk-18805 and Wk-18807 returned dates of 260±52 BP and 177±76 BP respectively. The sample from marae 208, Wk-18806, returned a date of 115±37 BP. All these samples probably originate from use-phase context and only indicates that these marae were constructed sometime around AD 1600 or later.

Fig. 183: Plan of marae Marae Ta’ata, Tahiti, showing the location of unit S1 (sample Wk-17522) (Drawing adopted from Garanger 1975:fig. 6).

183, 184) The date only proves that cultural activity took place there in the 17th or 18th century, but could also indicate an early use period at marae Ta’ata in light of other dates from Tahitian temple sites. During his investigations of the district of Tautira, Tahiti, Garanger (1964, 1980) excavated a number of structures and the oldest date was B-747 of BP 410±100 from marae TT14, with a calibrated age range at 2 sigma of AD 1392-1682 and 1730-1802. This sample dated activity prior to marae construction at the site and it indicates that people began constructing marae in valleys of Tahiti between AD 1450 and 1680. However, other radiocarbon age assays produced dates such as BP 0±200 (Gx-1296) and BP 0±240 (GaK-449), indicating problematic aspects of either sample selection or laboratory procedures. After a request from us a number of samples from excavations in the valley of Aiurua, Tautira district, on the island of Tahiti, were received from José Garanger and one of these samples from marae TTA-03-1A was sent for age assaying at the Waikato Laboratory. The sample came from an earth-oven located beneath the enclosing stone wall of the marae (Fig. 184) and, therefore, must have been fired not too long before this stone wall was built (Garanger 1980:88). Wk-17523, the charcoal sample from this earth-oven, produced a calibrated age range at 2 sigma of AD 1485-1646, indicating that this marae was built in the beginning or middle of the 16th century, some time earlier than the 17th- or 18th-century date Garanger assumed (Garanger 1980:84) . In the 1980s and 1990s several major archaeological projects took place in the Papeno’o Valley on the island

Fig. 184: Cross-section of test unit at marae TTA-03-1A, Airua Valley, Tautira district, Tahiti. Umu underneath the enclosing wall of the marae from which sample Wk-17523 was collected (adopted from Garanger 1980:fig. 9).

18.3 Marae in Society Islands

At present we have forty-two 14C dates from marae structures in the islands of Tahiti, Mo’orea, Tetiaroa, Huahine, and one date from marae Taputapuatea on Raiatea. Having data from only four of the twelve main islands in the Society group make this discussion somewhat preliminary. On the positive side, we do have data from the two largest islands in the Windward group. From Huahine, the only island in the Leeward group where many of the major ritual structures were located in one symbolic significant area in which all the chiefs of the island had an invested interest (Wallin 2000), twentythree radiocarbon dates have now been age assayed. From these data, then, a general trend emerges. The same trend observed locally on Huahine is also found on the big island of Tahiti and the small low island of Tetiaroa (Sinoto and McCoy 1974; Solsvik 206:210). No radiocarbon date indicates any marae construction before AD 1400-1450 (Fig. 185, 186). The current temporal data on marae structures from the island of Tahiti is not a representative selection of Tahitian ritual structures, however, the data from this island corresponds to the data from both Huahine and Tetiaroa. On the other hand, it could be argued that Huahine was a special case. On the island, Maeva

113

/DE1R

0DUDH

/LIHSKDVH

$JH%3

$JH$'VLJPD >@

0DWHULDO

:N

6F+

3UHFRQVWUXFWLRQ

“

$'

8QVRXUFHGFKDUFRDO

:N

6F+

3UHFRQVWUXFWLRQ

“

$'

3LJWRRWKERQH

:N

6F+

8VHUHGHGLFDWLRQ 

“

$'

+XPDQERQH

:N

6F+

3UHFRQVWUXFWLRQ

“

$'

3LJWRRWKERQH

:N

6F+

3UHFRQVWUXFWLRQ

“

$'

3LJWRRWKERQH

:N

6F+

3UHFRQVWUXFWLRQ

“

$'

3LJERQH

:N

6F+

3UHFRQVWUXFWLRQ

“

$'

8QVRXUFHGFKDUFRDO

:N

6F+

3UHFRQVWUXFWLRQ

“

$'

8QVRXUFHGFKDUFRDO

:N

6F+

8VH

“

$'

3LJWRRWKERQH

:N

6F+

3UHFRQVWUXFWLRQ

“

$'

8QVRXUFHGFKDUFRDO

:N

6F+

8VH

“0



6RXUFHGFKDUFRDO

%HWD

6F+

$IWHUDEDQGRQPHQW

“

$'

8QVRXUFHGFKDUFRDO

:N

+DXSRWR

3UHFRQVWUXFWLRQ

“

$'

6RXUFHGFKDUFRDO

:N

+DXSRWR

3UHFRQVWUXFWLRQ

“

$'

6RXUFHGFKDUFRDO

:N

+DXSRWR

8VHIURPILOORIDKX 

“

$'

&RUDO

:N

7XLWXLURURKLWL

3UHFRQVWUXFWLRQ

“

$'

6RXUFHGFKDUFRDO

:N

7XLWXLURURKLWL

3UHFRQVWUXFWLRQ

“

$'

6RXUFHGFKDUFRDO

:N

7XLWXLURURKLWL

8VHIURPILOORIDKX 

“

%&²$'

&RUDO

%HWD

6F+

3UHFRQVWUXFWLRQ

“

$'

8QVRXUFHGFKDUFRDO

:N

6F+

3UHFRQVWUXFWLRQ

“

$'

8QVRXUFHGFKDUFRDO

:N

$QLQL

8VHIURPILOORIDKX 

“

$'

&RUDO

:N

2KLWL0DWDURD

8VHIURPILOORIDKX 

“

$'

&RUDO

:N

:DWHU7DQNV

8VHIURPILOORIDKX 

“

$'

&RUDO

:N

0DUDH7D·DWD

8QNQRZQ

,“

$'

8QVRXUFHGFKDUFRDO

:N

77$

3UHFRQVWUXFWLRQ

“

$'

8QVRXUFHGFKDUFRDO

:N

0DUDH

8VH

“

$'

8QVRXUFHGFKDUFRDO

:N

0DUDH

8VH

“

$'

8QVRXUFHGFKDUFRDO

:N

0DUDH

8VH

“

$'

8QVRXUFHGFKDUFRDO

Fig. 185: New 14C dates from excavated marae structures in the Society Islands.

constituted a kind of political and ritual centre (Wallin 2000), where all chiefly family on the island had invested interest. If this chiefly area was established relatively late in history it may be that earlier marae structures can be found in other places on the island. However, two marae structures were excavated outside the central Maeva area and these two sites produced similar dates as the Maeva cases. In addition, two larger marae sites were dated by pieces of coral found as part of the rubble fill of the ahu. These samples produced similar dates as from comparable structures in Maeva. To us this suggests that our data from Huahine are representative. Also, the settlement site of Vaito’otia/Fa’ahia on Huahine dates to between AD 1000 and AD 13-1400. This site has no ritual space that can be said to be architectural similar to the classic Society Islands marae. However, Sinoto found a single upright stone placed into a carved coral pedestal close to a round-ended house during his excavations of the Vaito’otia site. This could very well be a ritual site, but in that case it was not of the classic Society Island marae type. This only support the fact that the classic marae was not constructed until after AD 1450. The earliest dates on midden-material found in the Te Ana section of the Mata’irea Hill indicate that settlement here began between AD 1300 and AD 1400. Before the surface structures, including the marae complexes were built. Based on our own investigations at Maeva and the

additional dates from Tahiti and Tetiaroa marae construction began around AD 1400 to 1450 at the earliest in the Society Islands, and began at the same time in both the Leeward and the Windward groups.

18.4 Broader East Polynesian Perspectives ‘Marae’ is a word that has many cognates in Polynesian languages and most often it designate some type of religious site or assembly place. The morpheme can be reconstructed back to Proto Polynesia PPn*malaqe with a possibly meaning as “meeting place” (POLLEX). On the Polynesian Outliers and in the island groups of Samoa and Tonga, malae is used to designate an open cleared space within or at the side of the settlement where people gather to held meetings or certain social and religious ceremonies. On other islands, like Tokelau and Kapingamarangi, the meetings and ceremonies take place inside a special house, while the general area around the house is known as malae. On Alofi, the malae has a row of upright stones or backrests at one end. In all of the East Polynesian island groups, except for Hawai’i, Easter Island, and New Zealand, the word ‘marae’ refers to a particular group of ritual structures with many common architectural characteristics. It is a rectangular space with a low stone platform or enclosure at one side. On Hawai’i it is the word ‘heiau’ that designate religious architecture. One class of these structures have some of the general

114

Fig. 186: Box-plot of 14C dates on charcoal from Society Islands marae sites dating a pre-construction context.

features characterising the marae in the Society and Tuamotu groups. The Maori language use the word ‘marae’ to characterise the courtyard in front of the meeting house, or in a more modern usage it designates the whole complex of buildings and activity ground which also includes the meeting house. In the Marqesas Islands the situation is more complex than in other island groups. There are one communal dance ground, where social ceremonies are conducted. This is named tohua. There are also several classes of me’ae, a cognate of ‘marae’, with different architectural design, often built as common dwelling platforms. On Easter Island religious architecture consists of huge platforms with statues on top, termed ahu platforms. These are architecturally very similar to the Tahitian, Tuamotuan, Cook Islands, and Austral Islands ’marae’, with a flat rectangular area in front of a platform or a stone enclosure. This stone platform or enclosure is in many island groups referred to as ‘ahu’. The stone statues are generally missing on ‘marae’ in the Cook Islands and French Polynesia.

This similarity in architectural design of ritual sites and the fact that they on many island groups are termed by a cognate of PPn*malaqe have caused the definition of an architectural complex in archaeological literature often referred to as the marae-ahu complex or the East Polynesian marae complex has caused researchers to view such structures as variants of a common concept. They have generally been thought to have a common history in early Polynesian societies. The first to present such a theory based on archaeological data was Kenneth P. Emory. After two decades surveying ritual architecture on various Polynesian islands he wrote a paper entitled Polynesian Stone Remains (1943). Here Emory argued that ‘ahu’ and ‘marae’ had existed as separate spatial structures in early Polynesian culture. ‘Ahu’ was uprights, like the afu found historically on the Ellice Islands, erected in commemoration of deceased loved ones. Later this single upright developed into a series of uprights, and, then, to a platform or enclosure. This was the first ritual structure in Polynesia. ‘Marae’ had all the

115

time existed alongside this ‘ahu’ structure, as an open cleared area where people met and sometimes had formal “village” meetings. At some point in time this open cleared space was spatially associated with the ‘ahu’ and the Polynesian malae / marae-ahu-heiau complexes were born. In 1986 Roger C. Green published a paper entitled Some Basic Components of the Ancestral Polynesian Settlement System: Building Blocks for more Complex Polynesian Societies. Here he used data from the POLLEX project to develop an idea on early Polynesian settlement structures, following papers by Andrew Pawley who used similar methods to discuss the linguistic evidence for existence of ‘chiefs’ in early Polynesian societies. Green defines the PPn*malaqe as "a public meeting place with apparently strong religious connotations" (Green 1986:53-54). Such an ancestral space or institution was clearly in existence based upon “linguistic and ethnographic” data, although the form and function may prove difficult to demonstrate through archaeological excavations. Green believed this PPn*malaqe to be a cleared space located next to the PPn*qafu, defined as a raised place or mound made for a god-house or an unspecified religious structure. The religious connotations for this latter term is evident in the linguistic and ethnographic data from East Polynesia, however, Green is uncertain of the antiquity of both its presence and function in the West Polynesian area.

design continued more or less unchanged on the Polynesian Outlier islands and some of the islands in West Polynesia up to the time when people converted to Christianity. This early Polynesian ‘marae’ was found on all the East Polynesian islands, prior to the development into the stone structures we can see on the surface today. When this transformation from open spaces to monumental stone architecture occurred is not pinpointed exactly, but the authors assumed it must have taken place sometime after the settlement of New Zealand c. AD 1200. The latter argument is based upon the observation that the classic ritual architecture of the Society Islands (or, really, the marae-ahu complex) is not known in New Zealand. The people who settled New Zealand must therefore have left the islands around Tahiti prior to the development of this classic architectural expression of the common PPn*malaqe space. From this cursory and general subjective overview of the research history on the Polynesian marae-complex there are, both explicit and implicit, a few reoccurring tenants used to construct models of how this complex originated and developed.

A few years later the model has developed and most of the uncertainty had evaporated. This more detailed model of an early Polynesian ritual site developed through a series of writings by Roger C. Green and Patrick V. Kirch from the mid-1980s (Green 1986, 1998, 2000; Kirch 1984, 1989, 2000; Kirch and Green 1987). Their most recent and co-authored statement of this theory is to be found in the book Hawaiki, Ancestral Polynesia. An Essay in Historical Anthropology (2001:249-256). Here Kirch and Green describe their interpretation of ritual space in a proto-Polynesian speech community in this way: “We infer these to have been architecturally simple affairs, consisting of an open, cleared space (*malaqe) lying seaward of a sacred house (*fale-{gatua}), the latter constructed upon a base foundation (*qafu). The sacred house may sometimes have been the actual dwelling of the priest-chief (*gariki), and may at times have contained the burials of ancestors (*tupunga or *tupuna). But we are confident that one or more posts (*pou) within the sacred house were ritually significant” (Kirch and Green 2001:255). The main reference point for their interpretations is the marae Matautu on Tikopia, and it is fairly easy to isolate an implicit development of Polynesian ritual spaces in their discussion of the data. In early Polynesian societies there existed an open cleared space named PPn*malaqe which had a god house at one side and possible one or several uprights out on the courtyard. This architectural

1.

The East Polynesian marae-complex is just a development of a religious space existing, or developing, in Proto Polynesian communities.

2.

On East Polynesian islands, prior to the classic marae of the Society Islands or the classic ahu of Easter Island, we would find religious sites more similar to West Polynesian malae-sites.

3.

The classic stone architecture of this maraecomplex developed after the settlement of New Zealand.

4.

The open, cleared spaces in Western Polynesia, called malae, have (more or less) remained architecturally unchanged since its first conception in Proto-Polynesian times, although the connotations of these places became more explicit religious.

All researchers, from the time of Emory have adhered to one or another version of this model for how the East Polynesian marae-complex has developed. Our work in the Leeward Society Islands was designed to fill a gap in the data by investigating the time depth of the Leeward Society marae-complex. Was it an invention occurring after the settlement of New Zealand? When did it develop?, and, did there in these islands exist open cleared spaces similar to the West Polynesian malaecomplex prior to the construction of stone terraces and platforms named marae? Data had amassed since the late 1980s from research projects on Easter Island, Hawai’i, and in the Cook Islands that told a different story. Taken together these data argues that we need to adjust our model for how the East Polynesian marae-complex

116

developed and at the same time these new data created new predictions. The main argument is that the first conceptions of the Polynesian marae-malae complex might be based on major transformation in social organization and in the belief system, perhaps tied to a change in self-perception amongst early East Polynesian communities, rather than just a development of ProtoPolynesian concepts. Currently it seems that this transformation began in the northern and south-eastern corners of the Polynesian triangle. Only later did this complex appear or became adopted in the central islands of East Polynesia and in the western islands. The new model developed by our research and the earlier investigations in the Cook Islands (Yamaguchi 1990), Norfolk Island (Anderson and Green 2001; Anderson and Higham, and Wallace 2001), Hawai’i (Kolb 1991) and on Easter Island (Martinsson-Wallin 1994, MartinssonWallin and Crockford 2001, Wallin, Martinsson-Wallin and Possnert 2009 ) have three important implications that will be the basis for future research: 1.

The open cleared spaces of Western Polynesia and the Polynesian Outliers are a fairly late development occurring only after AD 12-1400, and perhaps even later.

2.

The ritual space of Polynesian communities up to AD 12-1300 was not an open cleared space with an upright or a god-house, but something that need to be archaeologically identified and defined.

3.

It is also possible that there existed several different types of ritual spaces, and that the conformity seen in the proto-historic period in Polynesia, attested by ethnographic, linguistic and archaeological research, came into existence at a later date and for quite different reasons than hitherto assumed.

117

19. References Anderson, A. 1991. The chronology of Colonization in New Zealand. Antiquity 65:767-795. Anderson, A. 1995. Current Approaches in East Polynesian Colonisation Research. Journal of the Polynesian Society 104(1):110-132. Anderson, A and R. C. Green 2001. Domestic and Religious Structures in the Emily Bay Settlement Site, Norfolk Island. Records of the Australian Museum, Supplement 27:43-51. Anderson, Atholl, E. Conte, P. Kirch and M. Weisler 2003. Cultural Chronology in Mangareva (Gambier Islands), French Polynesia: Evidence from Recent Radiocarbon Dating. Journal of the Polynesian Society 112(2): 119-140. Anderson, A, T. Higham, and R. Wallace 2001. The Radiocarbon Chronology of the Norfolk Island Archaeological Sites. Records of the Australian Museum, Supplement 27:33-42.

Danielsson, B. 1967. Kia Ora Keneti. Polynesian Culture History. Essays in Honor of Kenneth P. Emory. G. A. Highland, R. W. Force, A. Howard, M. Kelly and Y. H. Sinoto. Honolulu, Bishop Museum Press. 56: 1-36. Davies, J. 1991. A Tahitian and English Dictionary ith Introductory Remarks on the Polynesian Language and a Short Grammar of the Tahitian Dialect: with an appendix. Oroginally printed in 1851, at the London Missionary Society’s Press. Papeete, Tahiti. (Facsimile 1991 edition, Papeete, Haere Po No Tahiti). Descantes, C. 1990. Symbolic Stone Structures. Protohistoric and Early Historic Spatial Patterns of the 'Opunohu Valley, Mo'orea, French Polynesia. MA Thesis, Unviversity of Auckland. Descantes, C. 1993. Simple marae of the ‘Opunohu Valley Mo’orea, Society Islands, French Polynesia. Journal of the Polynesian Society 102(2):187-216. Dye, T. S. 2000. Effects of 14C Sample Selection in Archaeology: An Example from Hawai'i. Radiocarbon 42(2):203-217.

Anderson, A., Leach, Smith and R. Walter 1994. Reconsideration of the Marquesan sequence in East Polynesian prehistory, with particular reference to Hane (MUH1). Archaeology in Oceania 29(1): 29-52.

Eddowes, M. 1991. Ethnohistorical Perspectives on the Marae of the Society Islands: The Sociology of Use. Master of Arts, University of Auckland.

Anderson, Atholl, and Yosihiko H. Sinoto 2001. New Radiocarbon Ages of Colonization Sites in East Polynesia. Asian Perspective 41(2):242-257.

Eddowes, M. 2001. Origine et évolution du marae Taputapuatea aux îles Sous-le-Vent de la Société. Bulletin de la Société des Études Océaniennes (289, 290, & 291):76-113.

Aitken, M., J. 1990. Science-based Dating Archaeology. London and New York, Longman.

in

Ayres, W. S. 1973. The Cultural Context of Easter Island Religious Structures. Unpublished PhD. Diss. Tulane University. Cochrane, E. E. 1998. The chronology of social groups: seriations of marae from the windward Society Islands, French Polynesia. Rapa Nui Journal 12(1):3-9. Cochrane, E. E. 2002. Separating Time and Space in Archaeological Landscapes: An Example From Windward Society Islands Ceremonial Architecture. In Pacific Landscapes: Archaeological Approaches in Oceania. T. Ladefoged and M.W. Graves, eds. Pp. 191208. Los Osos: Easter Island Foundation. Corney, B.G. (ed) 1913. The Quest and Occupation of Tahiti by Emissaries of Spain during the years 17721776. Vol. I. London. Cristino, C., P. Vargas and J.L. Lieu 1988. Fouilles archéologiques et restauration du site VAI-1 Valle de la Vaihiria, Tahiti. Département Archéologiques, Centre Polynésien des Sciences Humaines. Tahiti.

Eddowes, M. 2003. Prospection archéologique de l'ile de Huahine dans les Iles de la Société. In Bilan de la recherche archéologique en Polynésie francaise 20012002. H. Marchesi, ed. Pp. 55-68. Dossier d'Archéologie polynésienne, Vol. 2. Punaauia: Ministère de la Culture de Polynésie francaise, Service de la Culture et du Patrimoine. Emory, K. P. 1933. Stone Remains in the Society Islands. Bishop Museum Bulletin, Vol. 116. Honolulu: Bishop Museum Press. Emory, K. P. 1943. Polynesian Stone Remains. In: C.S. Coon and J.M. Andrew IV (eds). Studies in the Anthropology of Oceania and Asia. Peabody Museum of American Archaeology and Ethnology. Paper 20. Cambridge. Emory, K. P. 1970. A Re-Examination of EastPolynesian Marae: Many Marae Later. In Studies in Oceanic Culture History, Vol. 1. R.Green and M. Kelly, eds. Pacific Anthropologcial Records, Vol. 11: 73-92. Bernice P. Bishop Museum. Honolulu. Emory, K. P. n.d. Traditional History of Maraes in the

118

Society Islands. Unpublished Manuscript In B.P. Bishop Museum Archive. Honolulu. Emory, K. P., and Y. H. Sinoto 1965. Preliminary Report on the Archaeological Investigations in Polynesia. Field Work in the Society and Tuamotu Islands, French Polynesia, and American Samoa in 1962, 1963, 1964. Unpublished Report. Honolulu: Bernice P. Bishop Museum. Garanger, J. 1964. Recherches archéologiques dans le district de TAUTIRA (Tahiti, Polynésie Francaise). Rapport preliminaire. Unpublished Report. Papete: O.R.S.T.O.M. - C.N.R.S. en Plynésie. Garanger, J. 1975. Marae Marae Ta'ata. Travaux effectués par la mission Archéologique. O.R.S.T.O.M. C.N.R.S. en 1973 et en 1974. Unpublished Report. Paris: Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique. Garanger, J. 1979. Sacred Stones & Rites. Paris, Société des Océanistes. Garanger, J. 1980. Prospections archéologiques del'îlot Fenuaino et des vallées Aiurua et Vaiote à Tahiti. Journal de la Société des Océanistes 36(66-67):77-104. Garanger, J. 2005. Letter, May 23. 2005. To R. Solsvik. Noisy le Grand. Gérard, B. 1974. Origine traditionnelle et rôle social des marae aux îles de la société. Cah. ORSTOM, série Science Humaines 11(3/4):211-226. Gérard, B. 1978a. L'epoque des marae aux Iles de la societe. Docteur en Ethnologie (Archéologie), Universite de Paris X - Nanterre. Gérard, B. 1978b. Le Marae: Description Morphologique. Pp. 407-448. Cah. Sci. Hum., Vol. 15. Papaete: O.R.S.T.O.M. Goodenough W. 1997. Phylogenetically Related Cultural Traditions. Cross-cultural Research 31: 16-26. Green, R. C. 1966. Linguistic subgrouping within Polynesia: The implications for prehistoric settlement. Journal of the Polynesian Society 75:6-38. Green, R. C. 1986. Some Basic Components of the Ancestral Polynesian Settlement System: Building Blocks for more Complex Polynesian Societies. In: Island Societies. Archaeological Approaches to Evolution and Transformation. P.V. Kirch ed. New Directions in Archaeology. Cambridge University Press. Green, R. C. 1998. From Proto-Oceanic *rumaq to ProtoPolynesian *fale. A Significant Reorganization in Austronesian Housing. Archaeology in New Zealand 41(4):253-272.

Green, R. C. 2000. Religious Structures of Southeastern Polynesia: Even More Marae Later. In Essays in Honour of Arne Skjølsvold 75 Years. P. Wallin and H. Martinsson-Wallin, eds. Pp. 83-100. The Kon-Tiki Museum Occasional Papers, Vol. 5. Oslo: Institute of Pacific Archaeology and Cultural History, The Kon-Tiki Museum. Green, R. C., et al. 1967. Archaeology on the Island of Mo'orea, French Polynesia. Anthropological Papers of the American Museum of Natural History, Vol. 51(2). New York: American Museum of Natural History. Green, R. C., and K. Green 1968. Religious Structures (Marae) of the Windward Society Islands. The Significance of Certain Historical Records. New Zealand Journal of History 2:66-89. Gundlach, H. 1961. Tüpfelmethode auf Phosphate, angewandt in prähistorischer Forschung (als Feldmethode. Mikrochimica Acta 5:735-737. Handy, E. S. C. 1927. Polynesian Religion. Bernice P. Bishop Museum Bulletin 34. Honolulu. Handy, E. S. C. 1930. History and Culture in the Society Islands. Bernice P. Bishop Museum Bulletin 79. Honolulu. Hardy, M. and M.-C. Hardy 1998. Mise en Valeur des Marae du Bord du Lac Fauna Nui, Maeva-Huahine. Report to the Departement Archeologie, Centre Polynesien des Sciences Humaines “Te Anavaharau”, Tahiti, French Polynesia. Henry, T. 1928. Ancient Tahiti. Bishop Museum Bulletin, Vol. 48. Honolulu: Bishop Museum Press. Higham, T. F. G., and A. G. Hogg 1997. Evidence for Late Polynesian Colonization of New Zealand: University of Waikato Radiocarbon Measurements. Radiocarbon 39(2):149-192. Hiroa, Te Rangi 1938. Vikings of the Sunrise. The University of Chicago Press. Kirch, P. V. 1984. The Evolution of the Polynesian Chiefdoms. Cambridge University Press. Kirch, P. V. 1989. Prehistory. In: A. Howard and R. Borovsky (eds.) Developments in Polynesian Ethnology. University of Hawai’i Press. Honolulu. Kirch, P. V. 2000. Temples as “Holy Houses”. The Transformation of Ritual Architecture in Traditional Polynesian Societies. In: Beyond Kinship, Social and Material Reproduction in House Societies. R. A. Joyce and S. D. Gillespie eds. Pp. 103-114. University of Pensylvania.

119

Kirch, P. V. and R. C. Green (1987). History, Phylogeny, and Evolution in Polynesia. Current Anthropology 28: 431-443.

Sinoto, Y. H. 1969. Restauration de Marae aux Iles de la Society. Bulletin de la Société des Études Océaniennes XIV(7 & 8):236-244.

Kirch, P. V. and R. C. Green (2001). Hawaiki, Ancestral Polynesia. An Essay in Historical Anthropology. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

Sinoto, Y. H. 1996. Mata'ire'a Hill, Huahine. A Unique Settlement, and a Hypothetical Sequence of Marae Development in the Society Islands. In Oceanic Culture History. Essays in Honour of Roger C. Green. J. Davidson, G. Irwin, B.F. Leach, A. Pawley, and D. Brown, eds. Pp. 541-553. New Zealand Journal of Archaeology Special Publication. Dunedin: New Zealand Journal of Archaeology.

Kolb, M. J. 1991. Social Power, Chiefly Authority, and Ceremonial Architecture, in an Island Polity, Maui, Hawaii. Ph.D., University of California, Los Angeles. Komori, E. and Y. Sinoto 2002. Archaeological Research: Mata’ire’a Project, Te Ana Complex, ZoneI, Area 2. Report to the Ministry of Culture, Governrnment of French Polynesia. Honolulu, B.P. Bishop Museum, Department of Anthropology: 60. Ladd, E. J. 1987. Excavations at Site A-27. Archaeology at Pu'uhonua o Honaunau National Historical Park. Tucson, Western Archaeological and Conservation Center. Marcantoni, P. 1928. Historie de Huahine. Societe Etudes Oceaniennes 25,26. Papeete. Martinsson-Wallin, H. 1994. Ahu – The Ceremonial Stone Structures of Easter Island. Analysis of Variation and Interpretation of Meanings. Aun 19. Uppsala. Martinsson-Wallin, H. and S. J. Crockford 2001. Early Settlement of Rapa Nui (Easter Island). Asian Perspectives 40(2):244-278. Martinsson-Wallin, H., P. Wallin, and R. Solsvik 1998. Archaeological Excavations at Ahu Ra'ai, La Pérouse, Easter Island. Oct-Nov. 1997. The Kon-Tiki Museum Field Report Series, Vol. 2. Oslo: Institute for Pacific Archaeology and Cultural History, The Kon-Tiki Museum. Oliver, D. L. 1974. Ancient Tahitian Society. Ethnography. 3 vols. Volume 1. Honolulu: The University Press of Hawaii. Pawley, A. 1966. Polynesian Languages: A subgrouping based on shared innovations in morphology. Journal of the Polynesian Society 75:39-64. Petchey, F. 2004. Personal communication with the authors. May 2004. Reimer, P. J., and R. W. Reimer 2001. A Marine Reservoir Correction Databse and On-Line Interface. Radiocarbon 43(2A):461-43. Ross, M., A. Pawley et al. 1998. The Lexicon of Proto Oceanic. The Culture and Environment of Ancestral Oceanic Society. 1 Material Culture. Pacific Linguistics Series C. Canberra, Research School of Pacific and Asian Studies, The Australian National University.

Sinoto, Y. H. 2001. A Case Study of Marae Restorations in the Society Islands. In Pacific 2000. Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Easter Island and the Pacific. Hawai'i Preparatory Academy Kamuela, Hawai'i August 7.-12., 2000. C.M. Stevenson, G. Lee, and F.J. Morin, eds. Pp. 253-265. Sinoto, Y. H., and E. K. Komori 1988. Settlement Pattern Survey of Mata'ire'a Hill Maeva, Huahine, Society Islands, French Polynesia, Session IV, 1986. Unpublished Report In Bernice P. Bishop Museum Archives. Pp. 82. Honolulu. Sinoto, Y. H., E. K. Komori, and E. H. Rogers-Jourdane 1981. Settlement Pattern Survey of Matairea Hill Maeva, Huahine, Society Islands, French Polynesia, Session II, 1980. Unpublished Report. In B. P. Bishop Museum Archive. Pp. 17. Honolulu. Sinoto, Y. H., E. K. Komori, and E. H. Rogers-Jourdane 1983. Settlement Pattern Survey of Matairea Hill, Maeva, Huahine, Society Island, French Polynesia. Session III. Unpublished Report. In B. P. Bishop Museum Archives. Honolulu: Department of Anthropology, B. P. Bishop Museum. Sinoto, Y. H. and P. C. McCoy 1974. Archaeology of Teti'aroa Atoll Society Islands. Interim Report No. 1. Volume 74-2. Honolulu: Department of Anthropology, Bernice P. Bishop Museum. Sinoto, Y. H., and P. C. McCoy 1975. Report on the Preliminary Excavation of an Early Habitation Site on Huahine, Society Islands. Journal de la Société des Océanistes 31:143-186. Sinoto, Y. H. and E. H. Rogers-Jourdane 1980. Settlement Pattern Survey of Matairea Hill, Huahine, Society Islands, Session I, 1979. B. P. Bishop Museum Archives. Honolulu. Sinoto, Y. H. and P. Verin 1965. Gisements Archaeologiques Etudies en 1960-1961 aux Iles de Societe par la Mission Bishop Museum - O.R.S.T.O.M. (Avril 1960 - Décembre 1961). Bulletin de la Société des Études Océaniennes:567-597.

120

Skjølsvold, A. 1994. Archaeological Investigations at Anakena, Easter Island. KTM Occasional Papers, Vol. 3. Oslo: Institute of Pacific Archaeology and Cultural History, The Kon-Tiki Museum.

International conference on Easter Island and the Pacific. Hawai’i Prepatory Academy, Kamuela, Hawai’i, August 7.-12. 2000. C.M. Stevenson, G. Lee, and F.J. Morin, eds. Pp. 239-246.

Solsvik, R. 2003. Test Excavation of Marae ScH-2-62-3 and ScH-2-65-2, Te Ana, Maeva, Huahine, Society Islands, French Polynesia, in August 2002. Institute for Pacific Archaeology and Cultural History, The Kon-Tiki Museum, Field Report Series, No. 7, 2003. Oslo: The Kon-Tiki Museum.

Wallin, P. 2004. How Marae Change: In modern times, for example. In Indo-Pacific Prehistory Assocition Bulletin. The Taipei Papers, Volume 2. Volume 24:153158 Canberra: Australian National University.

Solsvik, R. 2006. Space, Religion, and Movement. Changing perception of identity in Far Eastern Oceania A.D. 1000 to A.D. 1500. Manuscript with the author. Spriggs, M. 1989. The dating of the Island Southeast Asian Neolithic: an attempt at chronometric hygiene and linguistic correlation. Antiquity 63: 587-613. Stuiver M., P. J. Reimer and T. F. Braziunas 1998. Highprecision radiocarbon age calibration for terrestrial and marine samples . Radiocarbon 40(3) 1127-1151. Tauber, H. 1983. 14C Dating of human beings in relation to dietary habits. PACT 8: 365-375. Tatar, E. 1982. An Ethnohistoric Survey of Fare and Maeva Districts, Huahine Nui, French Polynesia. Department of Anthropology, Bernice Pauahi Bishop Museum. Honolulu. Tyerman, D. and G. Bennet 1831. Journal of their Voyages and Travels. Vol. 2. Compiled by James Montgomery. London: Westly and Davis. Wallin, P.1984. Den gropkeramiska boplatsen i Hemmor i När socken på Gotland. En studie av topografi, resursområde och fyndmaterial. Unpublished BA thesis. Stockholm University. Wallin, P. 1993. Ceremonial Stone Structures. The Archaeology and Ethnohistory of the Marae Complex in the Society Islands, French Polyneisa. Aun, Vol. 18. Uppsala: Societas Archaeologica Upsaliensis. Wallin, P.1997. Archery Platforms (Wahi te'a) in the Society Islands, Polynesia. Current Swedish Archaeology 5:193-201. Wallin, P. 2000. Three Special Places in East Polynesia. In Essays in Honour of Arne Skjølsvold 75 Yeras. P. Wallin and H. Martinsson-Wallin, eds. Pp. 101-114. The Kon-Tiki Museum Occasional Papers, Vol. 5. Oslo: The Kon-Tiki Museum. Wallin, P. 2001. “The times they are a-changing”… or … “Something is happening here” – Some ideas on chage in the marae structures on the Society Islands, French Polynesia. In Pacific 2000. Proceedings of the Fifth

Wallin, P. E. Komori, and R. Solsvik 2004. Excavations of One Habitation Site and Various Marae Structures on Land Fareroi, Te Ana, Tehu'a, Tearanu'u, and Tetuatiare, in Maeva, Huahine, Society Islands, French Polynesia, 2003. Report from the Project "Local Developments - Regional Interactions" to the Service de la Culture et du Patrimoine, Punaauia, Tahiti. Unpublished Report. In Archives of the Institute for Pacific Archaeology and Cultural History. Oslo. Wallin, P., H. Martinsson-Wallin and G. Possnert 2009. Re-dating Ahu Nau Nau and the Settlement at Anakena, Rapa Nui. Paper held at the VII International Conference on Easter Island and the Pacific. Gotland University, Sweden, 20.-25. August 2007. Wallin, P. and R. Solsvik 2002a. Marae Survey 2001 (Huahine and Mo'orea). The Kon-Tiki Museum Field Report Series, Vol. 5. Oslo: Institute for Pacific Archaeology and Culture History, The Kon-Tiki Museum. Wallin, P. and R. Solsvik 2002b. The Marae Temple Grounds in the Society Islands, French Polynesia: A Structural Study of Spatial Relations. Rapa Nui Journal 16(2):69-73. Wallin, P. and R. Solsvik 2003. Test Excavation of Marae Structures in the Te Ana Complex, Zone 3; Maeva, Huahine, Society Islands, French Polynesia, April and May 2003. Preliminary results and find list. Unpublished preliminary report to the Service de la Culture et du Patrimoine, Punaauia, Tahiti. Wallin, P., and R. Solsvik 2006a. Structure, Spatial Metaphors and Landscape : A study of the Ceremonial Temple grounds in the Society Islands, French PolynesLa. In: BAR International Series 1523:53-58. %$5 3XEOLVKLQJ. Oxford. Wallin, P. and R. Solsvik 2006b. Dating Ritual Structures in Maeva, Huahine. Assessing the development of marae structures in the Leeward Society Islands, French Polynesia. Rapa Nui Journal 20(1):9-30. Verin, P. 1964. Notes sur les plateau de Mahina. Journal de la Société des Océanistes. No. XX. Paris.

121

Yamaguchi, T. 2001. Cook Island Ceremonial Structures - Diversity of Marae and Variety of Meanings. Ph.D., University of Auckland. Österholm, I., and S. Österholm 1982. Spot test som metod för fosfatanalys i fält – praktiska erfarenheter. RAGU:Nr 6. Österholm, I., and S. Österholm 1997. Spot test as a phosphate survey method in the field:practical experiences. In G. Burenhult (ed). Remote sensing Vol. 1. Theses and Papers in North-European Archaeology 13a:137-152. Stockholm University. Österholm, I. 1989. Bosättningsmönstret på Gotland under stenåldern. Theses and Papers in Archaeology 3. Department of Archaeology. Stockholm University.

122

APPENDIX 1-5

APPENDIX 1: Findlists from the Huahine excavations 2002-2004 APPENDIX 2: Report on Charcoal Sourcing by James Coil APPENDIX 3: Radiocarbon reports Fiona Petchey & Alan Hogg, Radiocarbon Dating Waikato Laboratory, The University of Waikato, New Zealand. Darden Hood, Beta Analytic Inc. Florida, USA APPENDIX 4: Osteological analysis form Marae Matairea rahi och Marae Manunu Paul Wallin, Department of Archaeology and Osteology, Gotland University, Sweden APPENDIX 5: 2001 photo survey of marae structures from Huahine Paul Wallin and Reidar Solsvik

ϭϮϯ 

ϭϮϰ 

APPENDIX 1: Findlists from the Huahine excavations 2002-2004 

List of samples found during excavations in Te Ana, marae ScH-2-62-3 and ScH-2-65-2, August 2002 Sample No:

Island

1

Huahine

2

Huahine

3

Huahine

4

Huahine

5

Huahine

6

Huahine

7

Huahine

8

Huahine

9

Huahine

10

Huahine

11

Huahine

12

Huahine

13

Huahine

14

Huahine

15

Huahine

16

Huahine

17

Huahine

18

Huahine

19

Huahine

20

Huahine

21

Huahine

22

Huahine

23

Huahine

24

Huahine

25

Huahine

26

Huahine

27

Huahine

Land Structure Trench: Te Ana Te Ana Te Ana Te Ana Te Ana Te Ana Te Ana Te Ana Te Ana Te Ana Te Ana Te Ana Te Ana Te Ana Te Ana Te Ana Te Ana Te Ana Te Ana Te Ana Te Ana Te Ana Te Ana Te Ana Te Ana Te Ana Te Ana

Level:

Description

ScH2-62-3

1

10-20 cm 02-08-09 Carbon sample, marked C1

ScH2-62-3

1

10-20 cm 02-08-09 Carbon sample, marked C2

ScH2-62-3

1

10-20 cm 02-08-09 Carbon sample, marked C3

ScH2-62-3

1

20-30 cm 02-08-09 Carbon sample, marked C4

ScH2-62-3

1

10-20 cm 02-08-09 Carbon sample, 10-20 cm

ScH2-62-3

1

20-30 cm 02-08-09 Carbon sample, 20-30 cm

ScH2-62-3

1

30-40 cm 02-08-12 Carbon sample, 30-40 cm

ScH2-62-3

1

10-20 cm 02-08-08 2 pieces of wood in general context

ScH2-62-3

2

0-10 cm

02-08-12 Carbon sample, marked C5

ScH2-62-3

2

0-10 cm

02-08-12

ScH2-62-3

2

0-10 cm

02-08-12 Carbon sample, marked C7

ScH2-62-3

2

0-10 cm

02-08-13 Carbon sample, marked C8

ScH2-62-3

2

0-10 cm

02-08-13 Carbon sample, marked C9

ScH2-62-3

2

0-10 cm

02-08-13 Carbon sample, marked C10

ScH2-62-3

2

0-10 cm

02-08-13 Carbon sample, marked C11

ScH2-62-3

2

10-20 cm 02-08-13 Carbon sample, marked C12

ScH2-62-3

2

10-20 cm 02-08-13 Carbon sample, marked C13

ScH2-62-3

2

10-20 cm 02-08-13 Carbon sample, marked C14

ScH2-62-3

2

10-20 cm 02-08-14 Carbon sample, marked C15

ScH2-62-3

2

10-20 cm 02-08-14 Carbon sample, marked C16

ScH2-62-3

2

0-10 cm

ScH2-62-3

2

10-20 cm 02-08-13 Carbon sample, 10-20 cm

ScH2-62-3

2

20-30 cm 02-08-14 Carbon sample, 20-30 cm

ScH2-65-2

1

0-10 cm

ScH2-65-2

1

10-20 cm 02-08-20 Carbon sample, indside ahu, 10-20 cm

ScH2-65-2

1

0-10 cm

ScH2-65-2

1

10-20 cm 02-08-20 Carbon sample, inside ahu, 10-20 cm

ϭϮϱ 

Date:

Carbon sample, marked C6, partly carbonized nuts

02-08-12 Carbon sample, 0-10 cm

02-08-19 Carbon sample, indside ahu, 0-10 cm

02-08-19 Carbon sample, inside ahu, 0-10 cm

28

Huahine

29

Huahine

30

Huahine

31

Huahine

32

Huahine

33

Huahine

34

Huahine

35

Huahine

36

Huahine

37

Huahine

38

Huahine

39

Huahine

40

Huahine

41

Huahine

Te Ana Te Ana Te Ana Te Ana Te Ana Te Ana Te Ana Te Ana Te Ana Te Ana Te Ana Te Ana Te Ana Te Ana

ScH2-65-2

1

30-40 cm 02-08-21 Carbon sample, inside ahu, 30-40 cm

ScH2-65-2

1

?

ScH2-62-3

1

0-10 cm

ScH2-62-3

1

20-30 cm 02-08-08 1 piece of mo'a

ScH2-62-3

2

0-10 cm

ScH2-62-3

2

10-20 cm 02-08-13

ScH2-62-3

1

40-50 cm 02-08-12 Sample of clay-inclusions in the soil

ScH-2-65-2

1

40-50 cm 02-08-21 Sample of clay-inclusions in the soil

ScH2-62-3

1

Layer I

02-08-22 Sample of the soil in the layer

ScH2-62-3

1

Layer II

02-08-22 Sample of the soil in the layer

ScH2-62-3

1

Layer III

02-08-22 Sample of the soil in the layer

ScH2-62-3

2

Layer I

ScH-2-65-2

1

Layer I

Sc-H-2-65-2

1

Layer II

ϭϮϲ 

02-08-21 Carbon sample, marked C17 02-08-08 General sample of shell (Tuai; Coral; Mo'a)

02-08-12 General sample of shell (Mo'a) 3 tiny shells from under flat stone, marked Shell A

Sample of the soil in the layer, 50 cm below level Sample of the soil in the layer, 60 cm below 02-08-22 level Sample of the soil in the layer, 80 cm below 02-08-22 level 02-08-22

/LVWRIERQHVIURPH[FDYDWLRQVRIVLWHV 6F+6F+6F+DQG6F+ ([FDYDWLRQV$SULODQG0D\ District Land Site No. Tr. Un. Lev. Cm Description

No.

Island

1046

Huahine

Maeva

Te Ana

2-62-1

I

11

1

SLHFHVRIERQHVDQGRQHSLJWRRWK

1050

Huahine

Maeva

Te Ana

2-62-1

I

11

2

SLHFHVRIERQHVSLJ 

1075

Huahine

Maeva

Te Ana

2-62-1

II

1

2QHKXPDQWRRWK

1083

Huahine

Maeva

Te Ana

2-62-1

II

2

1096

Huahine

Maeva

Te Ana

2-62-3

III

1

0-10

6RPHSLHFHVRIEURNHQERQHVQRW GHWHUPLQHG +XPDQWRRWK

1102

Huahine

Maeva

Te Ana

2-62-3

III

2

10-20

1103

Huahine

Maeva

Te Ana

2-62-3

III

2

10-20

1109

Huahine

Maeva

Te Ana

2-62-3

III

3a

7ZRVPDOOSLHFHVRIERQHVXQGHWHUPLQHG

1110

Huahine

Maeva

Te Ana

2-62-3

III

3a

SLHFHVRISLJERQHVDQGWRRWKV

1116

Huahine

Maeva

Te Ana

2-62-3

III

3b

1117

Huahine

Maeva

Te Ana

2-62-3

III

3b

1123

Huahine

Maeva

Te Ana

2-62-3

III

4

30-40

1129

Huahine

Maeva

Te Ana

2-62-3

III

5

40-50

7ZRSLHFHVRIERQHQRWKXPDQSRVVLEOH SLJ SLHFHVRIERQHIURPVKHOOFRQVVRPH ILVKERQHV 7ZRVPDOOSLHFHVRIDQLPDOERQHV XQGHWHUPLQHG 2QHILVKERQHXQGHWHUPLQHG

1136

Huahine

Maeva

Te Ana

2-65-1

I

1

2

1142

Huahine

Maeva

Te Ana

2-65-1

I

1

2

OAHU I-AHU

2QHSLJWRRWKLQVLVLYH

1153

Huahine

Maeva

Te Ana

2-65-1

I

3

2

10-20

2QHSLHFHRISLJVNXOOIRUGDWLQJSXUSRVHV 

1164

Huahine

Maeva

Te Ana

2-65-1

I

3

5

40-50

7ZRSLHFHVRISLJWRRWK

1181

Huahine

Maeva

Te Ana

2-62-3

III

5

40-50

1194

Huahine

Maeva

Te Ana

2-62-1

IV

1

0-10

2QHILVKERQHXQGHWHUPLQHGERWWRPRI OHYHO:KDOI 2QHSLHFHRIERQHXQGHWHUPLQHG

1196

Huahine

Maeva

Te Ana

2-62-1

IV

2

10-20

1203

Huahine

Maeva

Te Ana

2-62-1

V

3

10-20

1206

Huahine

Maeva

Te Ana

2-62-1

V

4

20-30

1209

Huahine

Maeva

Te Ana

2-62-1

V

5

30-50

1221

Huahine

Maeva

Te Ana

2-66-1

I

2

10-20

1227

Huahine

Maeva

Te Ana

2-66-1

I

4

30-40

2QHSLJERQHDQGSLJWRRWKVRQHPRODU RQHFDQLQL 2QHSDUWRISLJMDZZLWKWRRWKVPRODU

7ZRVPDOOSLHFHVRIERQHVRQHSLJWRRWK

SLHFHRIVKHOODQGRQHSLHFHRIKXPDQ VNXOOIUDJPHQW 6DPSOHRISLHFHVRIERQHSLJWRRWKDQG XQGHW 6L[SLHFHVRIXQLGHQWLILHGERQHV SLHFHVRIERQHVKXPDQWLELDIUDJPHQWV KXPWRRWK 2QHSLHFHRIFRUDODQGWZRSLHFHVRIKXPDQ ERQHV 6DPSOHRISLHFHVRIILVKERQHIRUGDWLQJ SXUSRVHV 

/LVWRIDUWHIDFWVIURPH[FDYDWLRQVRIVLWHV 6F+6F+6F+6F+6F+ DQG6F+ No. Island District

([FDYDWLRQV$SULODQG0D\ Land Site Tr. Un. Lev. Cm No.

Description

1003

Huahine

Maeva

Te Ana

2-62-1

I

1

1

0-5

%DVDOWIODNH

1060

Huahine

Maeva

Te Ana

2-62-1

I

4

I-AHU

Top of flat stone

ϭϮϳ 

6KHOOSRVVLEOHSHHOHU)RXQGRQ WRSIODWVWRQH,$+8

1099

Huahine

Maeva

Te Ana

2-62-3

III

2

10-20

1150

Huahine

Maeva

Te Ana

2-65-1

I

3

0

Surface

1154

Huahine

Maeva

Te Ana

2-65-1

I

3

2

10-20

1156

Huahine

Maeva

Te Ana

2-65-1

I

3

3

20-30

7XUERVKHOOSHHOHU[FP EG 3LHFHRIDG]HRYDOFURVV VHFWLRQIODWXQGHU 2QHIUDJPHQWRISROLVKHGEDVDOW DG]H $FUXGHDG]HGEODQNIODWRQRQH VLGHRWKHUURXQGHG

([FDYDWLRQV$XJXVWDQG6HSWHPEHU Island

Area

Land

Site No.

Tr. Un. Lev.



+XDKLQH

0RWX2YDUHL

7HWXDWLDUH

6F+

,



+XDKLQH

0RWX2YDUHL

7HDUDQX X

6F+

,,,

;