Monumentality and Ritual Materialization in the Society Islands: The Archaeology of a Major Ceremonial Complex in the 'Opunohu Valley, Mo'orea 1581781261, 9781581781267

Citation preview

MONUMENTALITY AND RITUAL

MATERIALIZATION IN THE SOCIETY ISLANDS: The Archaeology of a Major Ceremonial Complex in the ‘Opunohu Valley, Mo‘orea JENNIFER G. KAHN and PATRICK VINTON KIRCH

Bishop Museum Bulletin in Anthropology 13

Bishop Museum Press Honolulu, 2014

Dedicated to the memory of

Roger Curtis Green (1932-2009)

Mentor and pioneer in the field of Polynesian archaeology

Genera! Library System University of Wisconsin - Madison 723 State Street / Madison. W1 53706-1494 U.SA

Sculpted stone god image {ti’i) discovered at the ScMo-124 complex by Dr. Roger Green in 1960. Redrafted from Green’s photo by Diana Izdebski.

Published by Bishop Museum Press i 1525 Bernice Street Honolulu, Hlawai'i 96817-2704, USA

Copyright © 2014 Bishop Museum All Rights Reserved Printed in the United States of America

ISBN 978-1-58178-126-7 ISSN 0893-3111

&a/

8^5 56^ /3S3-

lOOkm

Z5km

loStion.'^'

the ‘Opunohu Valley and the ScMo-124/-125

complex

we situate the Society Islands within the broader context of

Polvn'^"'

[16]

MONUMENTALITY AND RITUAL MATERIALIZATION IN THE SOCIETY ISLANDS

ing shifts in social organization at the community scale, focusing on the role of monumental temples. Finally, we introduce the research setting of the ‘Opunohu Valley, where our mentor, Roger Green, to whom this book is dedicated, first mapped and described the ScMo-124/-125 complex some fifty years ago.

Society Islands Chiefdoms in Polynesian Context The chiefdom remains a key concept in archaeological research on social com­ plexity in various parts of the world (Beck 2013; Blitz 2010; Chabal et al/2004; Cobb 2000; Drennan 2006; Earle 1991a, 1997, 2011; Emerson 1997; Gibson 2012; Junker 1999; Pauketat 1994; Pauketat and Emerson 1997; Read 2002; Redmond and Spencer 2012; Stein and Rothman 1994; Wright 2006). Moving beyond simple “neoevolutionary” models that reify chiefdoms as a static category, recent theoretical models and archaeological case studies demonstrate substantial variability within chiefly societies. The diversity inherent within chiefdoms offers a productive avenue for approaching fundamental issues of long-term historical change within complex societies (Cobb 1996, 2003; Curet 2003; Drennan and Petersen 2006; Earle 1997; Junker et al. 1994; Kristiansen 1991; Redmond et al. 1999; Roosevelt 1999). Within Polynesia, investigation of chiefdom variability has emphasized variation in social stratification and hierarchy (Burley 1994a; Cordy 2004; Endicott 2000; Goldman 1970; Kirch 1984,1991; Sahlins 1958; Taomia 2002). Much Polynesian research has privileged the Hawaiian case (Allen 2004; Bayman and Dye 2013; Earle 1991b; Graves et al. 2002; Hommon 2013; Kirch 2010; Kirch et al. 2004, 2005; Kolb 1994a, 1999; Kolb and Dixon 2002; Ladefoged and Graves 2006). Unfortunately, this Hawai‘i-centric emphasis fails to represent the wider variabil­ ity evident in Polynesian social formations.- Thus, one goal of our research has been to extend the study of Polynesian chiefdoms to the Society Islands, which offer exceptional opportunities to explore the historical pathways of change in economic and sociopolitical structure in complex chiefdoms. Ethnographers and prehistorians classify the Society Islands, along with Tonga and Hawai'i, as among the most highly stratified of Polynesian chiefdoms (Cordy 1981; Goldman 1970; Kirch 1990a; Sahlins 1958), based on such criteria as: (1) the presence of at least three socially ranked echelons (commoner, low chief, high chief); (2) evidence for a strict social hierarchy heavily affecting everyday life and access to resources; (3) degree of intensification of production and economic specialization; (4) overall population size; and, (5) polity size. Late prehistoric Tongan society was unique in its geographic integration of numerous islands into a maritime chiefdom” that used elite exchange as a key mechanism of integration

[17]

BISHOP MUSEUM BULLETIN IN ANTHROPOLOGY 13 (2014)

(Burley 1994b, 1998; Clark 2004; Kirch 1984; Sand 1993,1996,1999) and some have characterized Tonga as an ancient state (Hommon 2013; Kirch 2010:27-28). Late precontact Hawaiian society is widely viewed as the apogee of social stratifi­ cation and hierarchy within island Polynesia. With the emergence of an endogamous chiefly class, replacement of a kin-based land use system to one based on territory, and extensive use of corvee labor and collection of surplus and tribute (Cordy 2000; Earle 1997; Kirch et al. 2004; Kirch and Sharp 2005) the Hawaiian chiefdoms were arguably transformed into “archaic states’* (J. Allen 1991; Hommon 1976,1986, 2013; Kirch 2010,2012). Based on such indices as scale of the chiefly polity, complex nature of the political hierarchy, rigid social strata permeating all spheres of daily life, and evidence for status specialization and elite control over surplus production (through ownership of land, levies, and tribute), the late pre­ historic Society Islands societies should also be counted with Tonga and Hawai‘i as among the most complex Polynesian sociopolitical formations, although unlike the latter two, Ma‘ohi polities had not yet become true states (Cordy 1985; Earle 1978; Goldman 1970; Kirch 1984, 1990; Peebles and Kus 1977). In contrast to Tonga and Hawai‘i, however, the Society Islands have remained under-researched from an archaeological perspective; most work to date has focused on culture-historical problems and the restoration of monumental architecture (Cristino et al. 1988; Eddowes 1991; Emory 1933; Garanger 1964, 1980; Sinoto 1969, 1996; Sinoto and Komori 1988). Yet, the Society Islands provide a key case study for the development of rank and status hierarchies in the transformation of smaller-scale heterarchical chiefdoms into larger scale hierarchical ones (on the con­ cept of heterarchy, see Ehrenreich et al. 1995), which we outline in more detail below.

Ideology as a Source of Elite Power Our analysis of increasing social complexity in the Society Islands focuses on tem­ ples {marae} as material symbols of both the economic and ritual power of Ma'ohi chiefs. In ranked societies, sources of sacred and secular power contribute to the political power of ruling elites. While control over the economy can stabilize and restrict long-term access to other media of power (Earle 1997), ideology allows for these patterns of control to be ritually operationalized and legitimized (Swenson 2008). Ideology is strategically materialized in the form of monuments, ceremonial rituals, and symbols. In public spaces where rituals are enacted, ideology becomes a critical source of social power that can be owned and used to institutionalize social hierarchies and political status (Demarrais et al. 1996). The choice of particular power strategies by ruling elites has significant implications for social evolution. In the late precontact Society Islands, the materialization of ritual served to promote

[18]

monumentaltty and ritual materiauzation in the society islands

elite power and hegemony, in part by formalizing rank and status differences between elites and commoners. As we will argue, Ma'ohi chiefly lineages demonstrated their social power by competing in cyclical rituals enacted in large temples where tribute was displayed and feasting took place. We hypothesize that through time this strat­ egy intensified as a key source of political power. But first we need to define the “house society” concept, and review the ethnohistoric evidence for rank and status in protohistoric Ma'ohi society, as these are essential to understanding the ways in which a chiefdom with simple ranking was transformed into one with rigid, hierar­ chical ranking. J

“House Societies,” Hierarchy, and Chiefship In ranked societies such as chiefdoms, where the institutionalization of authority had not reached the level seen in states, sources of power were ultimately rooted in small-scale domestic relations, whether through the control of household sur­ plus production, patronage of craft specialization, the ability to call on a broader labor force, and/or the legitimacy of authority based on ideologies of ancestry and descent. In such societies, competition among domestic units organizing resource ownership and procurement played a critical role in promoting social change (Drennan and Peterson 2006; Read 2002). A key concept in the understanding of social dynamics in such societies has proved to be that of the “house society” {soci^is d maison), originally defined by Claude L6vi-Strauss (1979). This model has been applied by archaeologists to explain processes of social change in com­ plex societies in Oceania (Chiu 2005; Kahn 2005a; Kahn and Kirch 2003, 2013; Kirch 2000; Kirch and Green 2001) and elsewhere (Beck 2008; Chesson 2003; Gonz^ez-Ruibal 2006; Hodder and Cessford 2004; Joyce and Gillespie 2000; among others). We follow the L6vi-Straussian concept of the house, as outlined by Gillespie (2000a:27): “houses” are “corporate bodies, organized by their shared residence, subsistence, means of production, origin, and ritual actions or metaphysical essence.” Houses differ from households in that they are socially reproduced through the actions of their members and are not predetermined by kinship relations, nor are they necessarily exclusively co-residential groups. While kinship is one form of affiliation, the house society model highlights archaeologically visible forms of affiliation, such as shared labor and ritual practice, and postulates that social and economic investments in the landed estate allowed certain houses to grow and prosper vis a vis others. How investments in the house estate were materialized through time (in constructing and rebuilding dwellings and ancestral temples, or through exchange, access to specialist labor, etc.), forms the archaeological basis for

[19]

BISHOP MUSEUM BULLETIN IN ANTHROPOLOGY 13 (2014)

the investigation of house societies and the long-term development of status difference (Gillespie 2000b; Joyce 2000). Ethnohistoric reconstructions for contact-era Ma‘ohi society suggest a fluid and contextual nature to descent reckoning. Members of ‘utuafare^ the social grouping of the house (and gloss for dwelling), were not exclusively linked by kinship ties (Oliver 1988:42-43). Non-kin related members (servants, attendants, specialists) were attached to houses, particularly high-ranking houses, through varied social mechanisms, including patron-client relationships, marriage, and the creation of fictive-kin (Oliver 1974:966-967). Non-kin members of high-ranking houses could enjoy “family-like privileges” (Henry 1928:299), indicative not only of social fluidity, but of the substantial benefits of attaching oneself to a ranked house (Kahn 2007). This subversion of kinship relations (L6vi-Strauss 1987:152,187) in Ma‘ohi social reproduction echoes that found in other ethnographically and archaeologically studied house societies (Gillespie 2000a, 2000b; Gonzdlez-Ruibal 2006; Joyce and Gillespie 2000; Kirch and Green 2001:205; McKinnon 1991:265-275). The dynamism in house social relations, including exploitation of non-kin social relations, opens up the social formation as a competitive device which can be used to acquire access to resources, wealth, and power and to promulgate social difference (Gillespie 2000a; Waterson 1995); the historical result can be the formation and elaboration of hierarchy and inequality (Gillespie 2000b; Gonzdlez-Ruibal 2006; Kirch 2000; Marshall 2000). Within Polynesia, the house society model has considerable utility for studying the emergence and elaboration of internal social ranking and difference within and between domestic units (Anderson 2001; Kahn 2008; Kahn and Kirch 2004,2013; Kirch 1996; Walter 2004). Here we apply a version of the “sod^t^s d maison” model adapted by Kirch and Green (2001) for Austronesian Oceanic and Polynesian societies, in which the role of houses as social groups is well-documented ethnographically (Carsten and Hugh-Jones 1995a; Fox 1993, 1995; Macdonald 1987; McKinnon 1991, 2000; Reuter 2002; Waterson 1990, 2000). Through analysis of architectonic manifestations of Society Islands ceremonial temples or marae (e.g. “holy houses,” see Kirch 2000), our aim is to investigate the material correlates of mechanisms used by competing houses to ensure their continuity and growth through time.

Rank and Status in Protohistoric Ma^ohi Society Although highly stratified, the Society Islands chiefdoms retained some of the social fluidity in shifting social institutions and social organization seen in less complex Polynesian chiefdoms. Douglas Oliver, the premier ethnohistorian of the

[20]

monumentality and ritual materialization in the society islands

Society Islands, notes that ancient Ma'ohi society was centered around kin­ congregations, social units with cooperative ownership of lands where residences, gardens, fishing areas, and subsistence gathering zones were located (1974:624). Such kin-congregations correlate well with an anthropological model of “houses” in “house societies.” In this monograph we will use “kin-congregation” and “house” interchangeably to refer to this social grouping.'* The rights of kin­ congregations were hereditarily passed down through house names associated with temples, which served as material manifestations of the house’s rights to the landed estate. In the Society Islands, where primogeniture was practiced, the first born son of the highest-ranking male served as the head of the kin-congregation, while the highest-ranked chiefs served as the head of the most prominent kin-congrega(ions. These roles involved leading ceremonies associated with rites de passage^ and for the highest-ranking houses, rituals linked to first fruits and the offering of tribute to the elites, thus reinforcing the hierarchical nature of Ma‘ohi socioeconomic systems. Oliver (1974:624; see also Descantes 1993) argued that kin-congregations proliferated, segmented, or fissioned over time as new kin-congregations or houses developed. This process was accompanied by the construction of new temples, materializing the new kin-congregation’s or house’s rights and obligations within the landed estate. The waxing and waning of kin-congregations, as well as the competition among and between them, introduced an element of fluidity in Ma‘ohi social organization, one that was exploited fruitfully by certain house groups. Ultimately, this led to a concentration of social, political, economic, and ritual power in the hands of a few high-ranking houses. At the time of European contact, the broadest social division in Ma‘ohi society was between iti, persons of low status, and rahi, persons of high status (Orsmond, cited in Oliver 1974:749). One’s status was defined on a continuum from sacred (ra'a) to common (noa). The spirits and’the^ods were considered sacred, as were persons in direct line of descent from the gods, the ari'i or chiefs. In the Ma‘ohi worldview, women and commoners were profane, excluded from eating sacred foodstuffs or participating in sacred activities, including ceremonies carried out at community-level and royal temples. A series of cultural prescriptions served to protect the mana, or power, of the sacred, by keeping persons or items that were ra‘a separate from persons or items that were noa. For example, in the presence of ruling chiefs who had the greatest mana, the rest of the Ma‘ohi populace had to

4 While we use the term house to refer to the social grouping, we use the terms dwelling, residential site, domes­ tic site, or habitation to refer to the physical dwelling structure.

[21]

BISHOP MUSEUM BULLETIN IN ANTHROPOLOGY 13 (2014)

keep their heads (the seat olmana} lower than those of the chiefs; they also had to bare their bodies to the waist as a sign of respect (Cook 1784:170; Morrison 1935*168 192-193). As a corollary, elites and their dwellings were sacred (ra a) and off limits to those of lesser status (Ellis 1831(3):101; Orliac 1982:122-124) If a commoner’s residence was entered by a chief, the dwelling had to be burned down because the earth that the structure stood on was now sacred and could not be walked on by a commoner. Tapu restrictions also included the exclusion of women and commoners from eating sacred foodstuffs, and the separate preparation, storage, and eating of male and female foods for the elite class. The ethnohistoric documents reveal three main social classes in Ma ohi society: the ari‘i (chiefs), the ra^atira (subdistrict and district level economic leaders), and the tnanahune (commoners) (Oliver 1974). Varied gradations in rank and status existed within each social class. Ma'ohi oral traditions codified aspects of the rank­ ing system, illustrating that social rank had ramifications with respect to access to goods and materials such as foodstuffs (as discussed above) and marriage partners:

The types of men are three. Take a breadfruit. When it is cooked, take off the skin—that is for the

people [middle class?]. The meat, that is eaten by the ari‘i. The core is given to the tnanahune. (Handy 1930:42, bracketed text by Oliver 1974:759)

Oliver’s bracketed annotation of Handy’s text, glossing “the people” with “the middle class,” speaks to the complexities of class hierarchies in ancient Ma ohi society. While it is clear that the ra^atira held important economic roles as land managers and were overwhelmingly viewed as being higher m status th^ tlie t^nahune, the dividing lines between lesser-ranked chiefs and higher ranked ra attra are somewhat obscure in the ethnohistoric records. An important distinction of the ari‘i is that they held hereditary, tided offices m their kin-congregations. As in other complex Polynesian polities (Burley 1998; Hommon 2013; Kirch 2010, 2012), the Society Islands had several gradations within the ari^i class. First were the ari^i rahi (or ari‘i nui), principal or paramount chiefs. Ari‘i rahi were the highest title holders of prestigious kin20 60±40BI Bcta-258 25 3(k40Bl Beta-258 26 30±40BI

——tffe—{4 - A > --- ----- Ki

lOOOCalAD 1200CalAD 1400CalAD IdOOCalAD IgOOCalAD 2000CalAD Calibrated date

Figure 5.1. Oxcal plot of AMS radiocarbon dates.

[178]

[6ZI]

Site

Site "type

Beta257353

1240

Beta257354

Provenience

Taxon Dated

Conventional 14C Age Years B.P.

513C o/oo

Calibrated Age A.D. (las)

Calibrated Age A.D. (2os)

Marae

N102.73 E 109.87 C4, 169 cmbd, obj 3, dates construction fill of marae enclosure.

Hibiscus tiliaceus

160 ± 40

-26.2

1668-1694 (12.9%) 1727-17&2 (29.4%) 1797-1812 (7.6%) 1854-1866(3.1%) 1918-1950(15.2%)

1662-1710 (17.0%) 1717-1890 (61.3%) 1910-1952 (17.1%)

124-0AH

Terrace fronting warae

N99.65 El 00.94 B2, 192 cmbd, obj 5, dates construction fill of terrace fronting the marae.

Hibiscus tiliaceus

150 ± 40

-29.7

1669-1696 (11.6%) 1726-1780 (24.4%) 1798-1814 (7.0%) 1836-1845 (3.4%) 1850-1877 (9.7%) 1917-1944 (12.1%)

1665-1784 (46.0%) 1795-1893 (32.6%) 1906-1952 (16.9%)

Beta257355

124A

Shrine

TPl N.70 E.58 B4, obj 9, 34 cmbd, dates construction fill.

Cocos nucifera endocarp

170 ± 40

-24.5

1665-1692 (13.5%) 1728-1784 (31.0%) 1794-1812 (8.1%) 1920-1952 (15.7%)

1655-1707 (18.4%) 1719-1826 (46.5%) 1832-1886(12.9%) 1912-1954 07.5%)

Beta257356

124S

Marae

N104.84 E100.52 Cl, 178 cmbd, dates ahu construction.

Cocos nucifera endocarp

170 ± 40

-21.6

1728-1784 (31.0%) 1794-1812(8.1%) 1920-1952 (15.7%)

Beta257357

1655-1707 (18.4%) 1719-1826 (46.5%) 1832-1886(12.9%) 1912-1954 (17.5%)

124S

Marae

N105.89 E100.70 DI, 207 cmbd, dates construction ^11 of marae enclosure.

Aleurites moluccana endocarp

490 * 40

-23.5

1410-1444 (68.2%)

1324-1345 (5.1%) 1392-1464 (90.3%)

Beta257358

124H

Marae

N99.66 E89.14 Bl, 175.5 cmbd, obj. 4. From base of stone at bottom of marae enclosure wall, in construction fill. Dates ttwwe enclosure construction.

Aleurites moluccana endocarp

280 ± 40

-25.4

1521-1575 (36.8%) 1582-1590 (3.7%) 1623-1662 (27.7%)

1482-1666 (90.3%) 1780-1798 (4.5%) 1946-1952 (0.6%)

MONUMENTALITY AND RITUAL IvIATERIALIZATION IN THE SOCIETY ISLANDS

Table 5.1. Radiocarbon Age Determinations, ScMo-124/-125 Site Complex Ub#

Lab#

Site

Site Type

[0 8 1 ]

258315

Beu258316

124AF

*r

4n

258317

Deta258318

124N

258319

1 T/f

258320

Ibp of construction fill (Cl), dates construction of structure.

Taxon Dated

Conventional 14C Age Years B.P.

513C o/oo

Calibrated Age A.D. (las)

Calibrated Age A.D. (2as)

Hibiscus tiliaceus

150 ± 40

-24.6

1669-1696 (11.6%) 1726-1780 (24.4%) 1798-1814 (7.0%) 1836-1845 (3.4%) 1850-1877 (9.7%) 1917-1944 (12.1%)

1665-1784 (46.0%) 1784-1893 (32.6%) 1906-1952 (16.9%)

120 + 40

-25.9

1684-1733 (20.7%) 1807-1891 (38.4%) 1908-1928 (9.1%)

1677-1778 (36.0%) 1790-1960 (59.4%)

Terrace fronting ffwrae, partially paved

N102.39 E105.68 Cl, 185 cmbd, obj. 5, base of large prismatic basalt paving stone, dates construction fill and construction of the structure.

Terrace fronting marae, partially paved

N112 E92 B3,obj. 5, dates bottom of Feature 5, cleaned-out earth oven.

Aleurites moluccana endocarp

220 ±40

-23.S

1645-1680 (28.6%) 1764-1800 (29.2%) 193i-1952 (10.4%)

House terrace, disturbed roundended house

N102.52 E99.22B1, obj. 3, t 27cm E of base of curbstones, dates cultural deposit.

XtfocarpMs atilis wood charcoal

220 -^1- 4Q

1525-1558 (3.1%) 1631-1694(33.1%) 1726-1814(43.6%) 1838-1842 (0.2%) 1853-1867 (0.6%) 1918-1954 04.9%)

-25.3

1645-1680 (28.6% 1764-1800 (29.2%) 1938-1952 (10.4%)

1525-1558 (3.1%) 1631-1694 (33.1%) 1726-1814(43.6%) 1838-1842 (0.2%) 1853-1867 (0.6%)

House terrace, disturbed roundended bouse

N103.33 E99.15 C3, 112 cmbd, obj. 2, under stone in N. retaining wall, dates house terrace construction.

cf. Ittocarpus wood charcoal

290 +/- 40

-24.8

1520-1592 (46.4%) 1620-1652 (21.8%)

1482-1666 (93.5%) 1784-1795(1.9%)

Paepae! Council Platform

Dates earth oven on the associated terrace, dates useofsiK.

Aleurites moluccana endocarp

60 + 40

-24.9

1696-1725 (20.1) 1814-1835(14.4%) 1877-1917 (33.7%)

1684-1733 (25.4%) 1806-1928 (70.0%)

tiliaceus

BISHOP MUSEUM BULLETIN IN ANTHROPOLOGY 13 (2014)

Paepae! Council Platform

Provenience

Lab#

Site

124M

Beta258322

124M

Beta258323

I24M

Bcta258324

124AE

Beta258325

124BX

Beta258326

124BX

Beta263460

124J

Beu263461

124T-G

Provenience

Taxon Dated

Conventional 14C Age Years B.P.

813C o/oo

Calibrated Age A.D. (los)

Calibrated Age A.D. (2as)

-26.0

1641-1680 (32.3%) 1764-1800 (26.7%) 1938-1953 {9.2%)

1521-1574 (7.4%) 1584-1590 (0.4%) 1626-1692 (36.9%) 1728-1811 (38.3%) 1921-1954 til 4%^

1529-1540 (3.8%) 1634-1678 (35.9%) 1766-1800 (21.4%) 1940-1953 (7.1%)

1520-1592 (14.5%) 1619-1684 (40.1%) 1732-1808 (31.3%) 1928-1954 CQ

Paepae with pavement, tesidendal

N90 E97 B4, obj. 5, oven rake out, dates cultural occupation.

Artocarpus altilis wood charcoal

230 ±40

Paepae with pavement, residential

N91.58 E100.90 B3, obj. 8, dates Feature 11 posthole and cultural occupation.

Artocarpus altilis wood charcoal

240 ± 40

Paepae with pavement, residential

N93.00 E99.02,150 embd, obj. 4, shallow dark soil srain, dates construction fill just above sterile deposit.

cf. Inocarpus wood charcoal

360 ± 40

’2S.6

1464-1522(36.1%) 1574-1628 {32.1%)

1450-1635 (95.4%)

Terrace fronting tnarae

N99 E97 C3, obj. 1, dates construction fill of terrace.

Pandanus key (fruit)

250 ± 40

■2S.6

Terrace fronting marae

1526-1555 (13.3%) 1632-1670 (35.7%) 1780-1798 (15.1%) 1944-1952(4.1%)

N94.85 E91.01, 271 embd, obj. 5, dates bottom of Feature 7 (cooking feature) and the cultural occupation.

1512-1600 (24.2%) 1616-1684 (41.5%) 1735-1805 (23.3%) 1933-1954 (4 4%)

Artocarpus altilis wood charcoal

30 ±40

-23.8

1700-1720 (15.4%) 1818-1833 (11.3%) 1880-1915 (41.5%)

1690-1730 {22.9%) 1810-1924 (72.5%)

Terrace fronting marae

N94 E90 B3/C1, Feature 8, obj. 6, dates earth oven and cultural occupation.

Cocos Nucifera endocarp

30 ± 40

-23.0

1700-1720 (15.4%) 1818-1833 (11.3%) 1880-1915 (41.5%)

1690-1730 (22.9%) 1810-1924(72.5%)

Marae

N103.45 E120.00 C4, obj. 1, dates construction fill of marae enclosure.

Hibiscus tiliaceus

350 ± 40

-25.0

1475-1524 (29.2%) 1558-1564 (3.0%) 1570-1630 (36.0%)

1455-1637 (95.4%)

N113.2 E90.52 B2/C1 interface, 210 embd, dates initial use of site.

Cocos nucifera endocarp

200 ± 40

-24.2

1654-1682(18.3%) 1738-1756 (^.9%) 1762-1802(29.0%) 1937-1952 (11.0%)

1641-1698 (25.3%) 1724-1815(48.0%) 1834-1878 (4.7%) 1916-1954 (17.4%)

Terrace fronting a marae

MONUMENTALITY AND RITUAL MATERIALIZATION IN THE SOCIETY ISLANDS

[181]

Beta258321

Site Type

Ub#

Site

S:te Type

Taxon Dated

Conventional 14C Age Years B.P.

513C o/oo

Calibrated Age A.D. (lets)

Calibrated Age A,D. (2cs)

N99 E108 Cl, dates construction All associated with temple enclosure construction.

Hibiscus tiliaceus

180 ± 40

-24.4

1664-1685 (12.1%) 1732-1808 (42.5%) 1928-1952 (13.6%)

1648-1706 (20.4%) 1720-1820 (47.6%) 1832-1882 (9.6%) 1914-1954 (17 8%)

Beta263462

124T

Beta263463

iZ41-AI Terrace underneath a marae

N99.69 E105.18 B2, dates AT wall. Charcoal taken below the base of wall stone, dates terrace that 124T is constructed on.

Hibiscus tiliaceus

170 ± 40

-25.5

1665-1692(13.5%) 1728-1784 (31.0%) 1794-1812 (8.1%) 1920-1952 (15.7%)

1655-1707(18.4%) 1719-1826 (46.5%) 1832-1886 (12.9%) 1912-1954 (17.5%)

Beta278686

Visa

N0.10E.32 TP-C, C5,116 cmbd, obj. 1.

Pandanus Key (fruit)

370 + 40

-23.9

1446-1635 (95.4%)

Beta278688

124Y

Rectangular house with pavement

1452-1521 (44.5%) 1575-1582 (3.7%) 1590-1622 (20.0%)

N97J5 E101.23, obj. 2,153 J cmbd. Ai interface with construction fill, just above Cl

Cocos nucifera endocarp

300 ± 40

-24.9

1520-1592 (49.3%) 1619-1648 (18.9%)

1474-1662 (95.4%)

Beta278689

124Y

Rectangular house with pavement

N97.72 E101.38 B2 154.5 cmbd, obj. 6, feature 11 posthole, dates cultural occupation.

Hibiscus tiliaceus

270 ± 40

-26.7

1522-1572(31.7%) 1630-1666(31.0%) 1784-1795 (5.5%)

1486-1676 (85.4%) 1777-1800 (7.9%) 1941-1954 (2.1%)

Beta278690

124AF

Terrace fronting a marae

N100.99 E106.22, 167.5 cmbd, Feature 1, posthole fill, dates cultural occupation.

Hibiscus tiliaceus

200 + 40

-26.4

1641-1698 (25.3%) 1724-1815 (48.0%) 1834-1878 (4.7%)

Beta278691

124AE

Terrace fronting a marae

1654-1682 (18.3%) 1738-1756 (9.9%) i762-iS02 (29.0%) 1937-1952 (11.0%)

N99 E97, Feature 3, posthole fill, dates cultural occupation.

Cocos Hucifera endocarp

160 ± 40

-23.8

1662-1710(17.0%) 1717-1890 (61.3%) 1910-1952 (17.1%)

Beta278692

124N

House terrace, disturbed roundended house

1668-1694 (12.9%) 1727-1782 (29.4% 1797-1812 (7.6%) 1854-1866 (3.1%) 1918-1950 (15.2%)

N97 E99, obj. 5, Feature 1, posthole fill, dates cultural occupation.

Hibiscus tiliaceus

160 ±40

-25.7

1668-1694 (12.9%) 1727-1782 (29.4% 1797-1812 (7.6%) 1854-1866 (3.1%) 1918-1950 (15.2%)

1662-1710 (17.0%) 1717-1890 (61.3%) 1910-1952 (17.1%)

Marae

Marae

ilSHOP MUSEUM BULLETIN IN ANTHROPOLOGY 13 (2014)

Provenience

Site 124D

124H

1241 124J

124Q 124S 125A 125B

i— t 1-^ oo CM

Sample Number’

124D-1 124D-3a 124D-3b 124D-3C 124 H-CSl 124 H-CS2 1241-1 1241-3 124J-2a 124J-2b 124J-3 124Q-2 124S-1 124S-2 125A-2 125B-1 125 B-2 125B-3 125B-4 125B-5 125B-6a 125B-6b 125E-3_____ 125F-1 125F-2 125F-3

Genera

Form^ Surface Present

(wt%)

Pontes Porites

1 1

Yes No

1.9 0.0

Acropora Acropora Porites Porites Porites

2 2 1 1 1

No No Yes Yes Yes

0.0

Porites Porites Porites Porites Acropora Acropora Acropora Acropora Porites Porites Porites

1 1 1 1 3 2 2 2 1 1 2

Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No Yes Yes Yes

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0

Acropora Porites Porites Acropora

3 2 2 4

No Yes Yes No

0.0 0.0 2.3 0.0

0.0 0.3 0.2 0.0 0.0 4.7 0.0

pg/g

223 879 1464 2928 116 106 668 1995 866 1950 538 420 764 4258 48 141 256 246 312 153 84 290 71 4850 465 44

(A.D.) 1690 1585 1574 1579 1691 1690 1687 1694 1733 1726 1713 1686 1684 1694 1637 1666 1629 1605 1710 1706 1712 1707 1708 1706 1711 1453

Enor {Yt,2a}

Preferred Date(A.D.)

Error

11.9 10.3 11.5 21.8 4.3 4.8 14.3 16.3 12.4 21.4 7.7 5.7 9.7 26.6 19.2 5.9 7.3 13.5 9.2 7.5 8.9 9.0 10.1 30.0 12.0 12.8

1690

12

1691

3 1

1690

14

1723

16

—

—

1686 1694

57 27

1637 1708

19

1708 1706

10 30

—

’ Suffixes -a, -b, or -c denote replicate analyses of a single coral sample. ‘ “ “'-“d-dressed Forites block (wid. „o„-worfced inner faces) forming nin facade; 2 = non-architec rural offering of Acropom placed on ahu-, 3 « fan