Hanamiai: Prehistoric Colonization and Cultural Change in the Marquesas Islands (East Polynesia) 091351618X, 9780913516188

Citation preview

Hanamiai Prehistoric CoknizMion and Cultural Change in the Marquesas Islands (East Polynesia)

Barry Vladimir Rolett

Tale University Publications in Anthropology Huntber Eighty-one

New Haven: Department ofAnthropology and The Peabody Museum: Tale University: 1998

LEOPOLD J. POSPISIL, Editor STEPHEN J. MAYER,

ComTight © 1998 by Yale University. . ^ . . • AU rights reserved. This book may not be reproduced, in whole or in part, in any form (except by reviewers for the public press), without written permission from the publishers. International Standard Book number: 0-913516-18'31^ Composition: A. W. Bennett, Inc. Printing St Binding: BookCrafters

To Richtird ^Scotty^ McuNeish, who sparked my interest in archaelc^y and who has helped me every step of the way

Contents

Preface xv

1. Voyaging) Colonization, and Cultural Change in East Polynesia Colonization, Experimentation, and Expansion 4 Human Impact on Island Environments 8 Drforestatwn 8 Transported Landscapes 9 Faunal Depletions and Extinctions 10 The Dynamics of Cultural Change 12 The Hanamiai Investigation 17

1

2. The Marquesan Enviroiipient 19 Geology and Geomorphology 19 Climate 23 Vegetation 25 Xerotropical Vegetation T7 Transitional-Zone Vegetation 29 Pluviotropical-Zone Vegetation 32 Anthropogenic Forests and Gardens 32 Animals: Native and Introduced Species 37 TerrestrialAnimals 32 Marine Animals 38 Summary 40 3. The Marquesas in Polynesian Prehistory 41 The East Polynesian Homeland 41 Emergence of a Uniquely Marquesan Culture 44 Feasting and Famine 45 Interaction between Chiefdoms 48 The Marquesan Archaeological Sequence 49 Revision of the Ha’atuatua Archaeological Sequence 52 Retieit of Evidencefor a First-MiUennium-AD. Occupation 5 3 The Expansion and Classic Periods 37 Discussion 60 Contributions of the Hanamiai Research 61

vii

viii Contents 4. Archaeological Investigations 63 Excavation Methods and Aims 65 Stratigraphy 69 Dating 83 Definition of Stratigraphic Zones and Cultural Phases Geomorphological Interpretation 88

85

5. Changes in Subsistence and Ecology: Analysis of the Hanamiai Nonfish Vertebrate and Molluscan Remains 90 ' Nonfish Vertebrate Remains 90 Identification Methods 90 Nonfish Vertebrate Faunal Catt^ories 92 Interpretation -95 Trends in the Data 95 Human-caused Avifaunal Extinctions and Depletions 103 Pi^ Husbandry 106 Molluscs 107 Land Snails as Evidence for Environmental Change 115 Summary 117 6. Fishing Strategies: Ethnographic Observations and Analysis of the Excavated Fish Remains 118 The Ethnographic Context 119 Introduction 119 Documented Fishing Strategies 124 The Archaeological Fish Remains 132 Family Accounts 135 Interpretation 141 Discussion: Relationship to Other Research 145

Fishing Technology 147 Fishhook Classification 147 One-Piece Fishhooks 150 Composite Fishhooks: Lure Shanks and Points Fishhook Analysis 159 Reconstruction of Fishing Strategies 171 Intersite Fishhook Comparisons 172 Anchors and Fishing Weights 176 Summary 177 8.

154

Basalt Adzes and Other Chipped-Stone Artifacts Adze Classification 183 Gouges 187

182

Contents ix Geochemical Sourcing of Basalt Adzes 188 Dcbirage 198 Retouched Cobble and Flake Tools 209

9.

Other Artifacts 215 Coral Files and Abraders 215 Sea-Urchin-Spine Abraders 218 Shell Chisels and Gouges 219 Worked kea kiva. Cobbles 219 Beach-Rock Artifects 221 Ornaments 221 Miscellaneous Artifacts 229 European Artifacts 235 Discussion 236

10. Synthesis: The Hanamiai Cultural Sequence and Marquesan Prehistory 241 Hanamiai Phase I (A. D. 1025-1300) 241 Hanamiai Phase II (A. D. 1025-1300) 244 Hanamiai Phase III (A. D. 1300-1450) 245 Hanamiai Phase IV (A. D. 1450-1800) 247 Hanamiai Phase V (A. D. 1800-1850) 248 11. Conclusions 250 Colonization 250 Cultural Transformation 252 Central East Polynesian Voyaging Spheres 257

References

263

Figures 2.1 Location of the Marquesas Islands in Polynesia 20 2.2 Map of the Marquesas Islands, showing locations of the major archaeological sites discussed in the text 22 2.3 Topographic map of Tahuata 24 2.4 View of Vaitahu and Hanamiai Valleys from Resolution Bay 26 2.5 Topographic map of the Hanamiai Valley area, showing stream channels, cliffs, and the location of Site THl 28 2.6 Average monthly rainfall for windward (Hatiheu) and leeward (Taiohae) valleys ofNukuHiva 30 2.7 Yearly variation (in %) from average annual rainfall for Atuona, Hiva Oa 30

X Contents

2.8 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.5

4.6 4.7 4.8

4.9 4.10 4.11 4.12 4.13 4.14 4.15 4.16 4.17 4.18 5.1 6.1 6.2 7.1 7.2 7.3 7.4 7.5 7.6 7.7 7.8

7.9

View of Hanamiai Valley from Resolution Bay 31 Site THl in Hanamiai Valley, showing the tohua, mahiet, and excavated areas 64 Transects across Site THl, Hanamiai Valley 65 View of Site THl showing the tnahia platforms and the start of the Q-m^ areal excavation 66 Extent and dates of excavation at Hanamiai, Site THl 68 Southwest and northwest profiles of Squares L13, L12, Lll, Mil, and . Nil 70 Northeast and southeast profiles of Squares Nil, N12, N13, M13, and L13 72 Southeast and southwest profiles of Squares K12, J12,112,111, and 110 73 View of the completed 9-m2 areal excavation, looking from the north toward the intersection of the southeast and southwest walls 74 West profile of transect squares L23, K19, L16, M12, L6, and L4 76 North profile of transect squares B13, E13, H13, L13, P13, R13, U13, and X13 76 Spatial distribution of chipped whale-bone fragments in Zone GH/H 77 View of the 11-m^ areal exca\^tion from the north, showing the stone pavement in Layer G and excavation of the associated living floor 78 Spatial distribution of pierced Cypmea shells in Layers GH and G 79 View of the 9-m2 areal excavation from the east, showing the upper surface of Layer E 80 View of the south tnahia platform from the north platform 82 Distribution of terracing fill (Layer B') in Zone AB 83 Radiocarbon dating of the Hanamiai cultural sequence 86 Schematic stratigraphic profile of the Hanamiai areal excavation 87 Relative frequency of nonfish vertebrate remains through the Hanamiai sequence 104 ' Representative fish bones from the Hanamiai faunal assemblage 136 Size distributions of fish vertebrae from Phases I and TV of the Hanamiai sequence 142 Marquesan one-piece fishhooks 152 Hanamiai trolling lure points and a reconstructed composite fishhook 155 Hanamiai trolling lure shanks 156 Hanamiai trolling lure shanks 157 Hanamiai trolling lure shanks 158 One-piece fishhooks from Phase I of the Hanamiai sequence 162 One-piece fishhooks from Phase II of the Hanamiai sequence 163 One-piece fishhooks from Phase III and Phase III or IV of the Hanamiai sequence 164 One-piece fishhooks from Phase IV of the Hanamiai sequence 165

Contents xi 7.10 7.11 7.12 7.13 7.14

7.15 7.16 7.17 8.1 8.2 8.3

8.4 8.5 8.6 8.7 8.8

8.9 8.10 8.11 8.12 8.13 8.14

8.15 8.16 8.17 8.18 9.1 9.2 9.3 9.4

9.5 9.6 9.7

One-piece fishhooks from Phase V of the Hanamiai sequence 166 The Hanamiai unfinished one-piece fishhooks 167 One-piece fishhook blanks from Phase I of ±e Hanamiai sequence 168 One-piece fishhook blanks from Phase II of the Hanamiai sequence 169 One-piece fishhook blanks from Phases III, ly and V of the Hanamiai sequence 170 Hanamiai anchors 178 Fishing weights from the Hanamiai excavation 179 Fishing weights from Phase IV of the Hanamiai sequence 180 Basalt adzes from Phases I and II of the Hanamiai sequence 185 Basalt adzes from Phases I and II of the Hanamiai sequence 186 Map of the Marquesas showing location of the Eiao adze quarry and divisions between the northern, central, and southern island groups 190 Chronological distribution of Hanamiai adzes by geological source groups based on chemical composition 197 Declining access to imported lithic resources during the Hanamiai sequence 199 Distribution of adzes and adze flakes in the Phase I deposits 201 Distribution of debitage flakes in the Phase 11 deposits 202 Distribution of adzes and adze flakes from the early Phase II occupation (below pavement) 202 Distribution of adzes and adze flakes from the late Phase 11 occupation (associated with pavement) 203 Distribution of debitage flakes in the Phase HI deposits 204 Distribution of adzes and adze flakes in the Phase III deposits 204 Distribution of adzes and adze flakes in the Phase IV deposits (below pavement) 205 Distribution of debitage flakes in the Phase IV deposits 205 Distribution of adzes and adze flakes in the Phase IV deposits (above pavement) 206 Chipped-stone flake tools from Hanamiai 210 Chipped-stone artifacts from Hanamiai 211 Chipped-stone artifacts from Hanamiai 212 Chipped-stone tools and hammer stone from Hanamiai 213 Coral files from Hanamiai 217 Urchin-spine abraders from Hanamiai 220 Chisels and gouges from Hanamiai 222 Worked kea kiva cobble and beach-rock abrader from Phase IV of the Hanamiai sequence 223 Beach-rock anvil from Phase IV of the Hanamiai sequence 226 Ornaments from Hanamiai 228 Carved bone tiki from Hanamiai 229

xii Contents

9.8 9.9 9.10 9.11 9.12 9.13 9.14 9.15 9.16

Ornaments from Hanamiai 230 Bone adze from Phase I of the Hanamiai sequence 232 Bone adze from Phase I of the Hanamiai sequence 233 Turtle-bone adze from Truk, Micronesia 234 Turde-bone adzes and other bone artifacts from Hanamiai 235 Worked whale teeth from Phase I of the Hanamiai sequence 236 Pearl-shell scrapers from Phase I of the Hanamiai sequence 237 Pupurapersica-she^ peeler from Phase II of the Hanamiai sequence 238 European artifacts from Phase V of the Hanamiai sequence 239

Tables 2.1 Surface Area and Maximum Elevation of the Marquesas Islands 22 3.1 Radiocarbon Dates for the Ha’atuatua Dune 51 3.2 Radiocarbon Dates for the Hane Dune 54 3.3 Radiocarbon Dates for the Hanatekua (MHIO) Rockshelter 56 3.4 Radiocarbon Dates for Archaeological Sites Attributed to the Expansion Period in Marquesan Prehistory 58 4.1 Radiocarbon Chronology for the Hanamiai Cultural Sequence 84 5.1 Identified Bird Remains from the Hanamiai Excavation 96 5.2 Vertebrate Remains from the Hanamiai Excavation (Bone Counts) 98 5.3 Vertebrate Remains from the Hanamiai Excavation (Weight in Grams) 99 5.4 Concentration Indices of Vertebrate Remains from the Hanamiai Excavation (Bone Counts) 100 5.5 Concentration Indices of Vertebrate Remains from the Hanamiai Excavation (Bone Weights) 100 5.6 Relative Frequency of Nonfish Vertebrate Remains through the Hanamiai Sequence (Based on Bone Counts) 102 5.7 Relative Frequency of Nonfish Vertebrate Remains through the Hanamiai Sequence (Based on Bone Weights) 102 5.8 Sample Size and Relative Abundance 103 5.9 Endemic Species of Land Birds from four Marquesan Islands 105 5.10 Habitats of Identified Molluscs from the Hanamiai Excavation 108 5.11 MoUuscan Remains from the Hanamiai Excavation (Weight in Grams) 110 5.12 Concentration Indices of Molluscs from the Hanamiai Excavation 112 5.13 Shellfish Subsistence Data 114 5.14 Land Snails Recovered from the Hanamiai Site 116 6.1 Fishes from 31 Catches by Tahuata Fishermen, Grouped by Method of Capture 120 6.2 Identified Hanamiai Fish Remains Grouped by Habitat 133 6.3 NISP and Relative Frequencies of Hanamiai Fish Remains Grouped by Habitat 138

Contents xiii

6.4 The Hanamiai Inshore Fish Remains Grouped by Fishing Strategy 143 6.5 The Hanamiai Fish Remains: Relationship between Sample Size and Relative Abundance 144 6.6 The Hanamiai Inshore Fish Remains: Relationship between Sample Size and Relative Abundance 144 7.1 Distribution of the Hanamiai Fishhooks by Cultural Phase 160 7.2 Stratigraphic Distribution of Worked Pearl Shell, Fishhook Tabs, and Fishhooks from the Hanamiai Areal Excavation 171 7.3 The Hane (MUH 1) Fishhooks from Area B 174 7.4 The Hanatekua (MH 10) Fishhooks 175 7.5 Distribution of the Hanamiai Anchors and Fishing Weights by Cultural Phase 177 8.1 The Hanamiai Adzes 184 8.2 The Hanamiai Basalt Gouges 188 8.3 Geochemical Compositional Data for Reference Specimens and Excavated Hanamiai Artifacts Attributed to the Eiao Quarry 192 8.4 Geochemical Compositional Data for Excavated Hanamiai Artifacts Attnbuted to an Unknown Quarry ("Unknown A”) Probably Located in the Southern Marquesas 193 8.5 Geochemical Compositional Data for Excavated Hanamiai Adzes and Adze Flakes Attributed to Probable Marquesan Sources 194 8.6 Geochemical Compositional Data for Geological and Archaeological Specimens of Marquesan Phonolite 199 8.7 Distribution of the Hanamiai Debitage Flakes by Cultural Phase 200 8.8 Distribution of the Hanamiai Retouched Cobble and Flake Artifacts by Cultural Phase 207 8.9 Geochemical Compositional Data for Selected Nonadze Basalt Artifacts from the Hanamiai Excavations 208 9.1 Distribution of the Hanamiai Coral Files and Abraders by Cultural Phase 216 9.2 Distribution of the Hanamiai Sea-Urchin-Spinc Abraders by Cultural Phase 219 9.3 Distribution of the Hanamiai Shell Chisels and Gouges by Cultural Phase 221 9.4 The Hanamiai Worked Cobbles 224 9.5 Distribution of the Hanamiai Ornaments by Cultural Phase 227

Preface

This is a study of long-term cultural change in the Marquesas Islands of East Polynesia. Fieldwork and most of the analyses for this project were conducted as research for my dissertation (Rolett 1989), completed at Yale University under the direction of Profes­ sor Leopold Pospisil. The initial focus was on the dynamic interplay between subsistence and ecology in Polynesian prehistory. This monograph represents an expanded study and interpretation of the original data. My ideas concerning the relative isolation of the Mar­ quesas in prehistory, and the nature of the East Polynesian homeland, have changed sig­ nificantly since 1989 and this monograph reflects these new directions in my research. Fieldwork for this project began with an initial archaeological reconnaissance of Tahuata, carried out from September 21 to October 25,1984, with a travel grant from the Augusta Hazard Fund of Yale University. My test excavations during this reconnais­ sance led to the discovery of the Hanamiai site, and a National Science Foundation doc­ toral dissertation improvement grant (BNS-8514067) allowed me to return for two field seasons (March 25-May 15 and October 10-December 21, 1985) to conduct transect and areal excavations. I am grateful to Leopold Pospisil, Irving Rouse, and Patrick Kirch, whose guidance during planning stages of the project and continued interest in my work have been a constant source of inspiration. I thank the government of French Polynesia for permission to excavate, and Maeva Navarro, director of the Ddpartement Archeologie. Centre Polyndsien des Sciences Humaines, for constant support and encouragement. During most of the reconnaissance I lived in Vaitahu with the family of Fata and Fiu Teiefitu, with whom I had stayed for three weeks in 1981 and who once again cor­ dially invited me into their home. During the two later field seasons I again stayed with the Teiefitu family, and it was not long before I learned from others in the village that I was considered their “adopted son.” Having a family away from home, with five broth­ ers and a sister whom I could always count on for companionship and parents who were masters of Marquesan lore, helped turn what might have been a difficult field stay for me into a wonderfully exciting and enjoyable adventure. Not only am I grateful to the Teiefitus for having so graciously accepted me into their family, I am indebted to Fata for serv­ ing as my chief informant on traditional fishing practices, and to his sons So and Teaiki, who worked with me as ever-enthusiastic and extremely skillful excavators. So and Teaiki worked—as did my other excavators, Tana Timau, Jacky Tetahiotupa, Teavau Aniamioi, and Koki Vaki—as if this project were their own, and I will always remember their ded­ ication and friendship. The mayor of Tahuata, Tehaumate “Tetahi” Tetahiotupa, and his wife, Teani, also actively supported my project, and their interest in it stimulated me to plan a small mu­ seum exhibit for the Vaitahu town hall, to display artifacts from the excavation and to explain their significance in relation to Marquesan prehistory. This idea was enthusiast!-

xvi Preface

cally embraced by Jerry Loveland of the Institute for Polynesian Studies (Brigham Young University, Hawaii), who provided funds for me to return to Vaitahu in May 1987 to mount the exhibit, which is now a permanent display. Phil Bruner of Brigham Young University, Hawaii, accompanied me during this last trip to pursue his own research on Marquesan birds, but he was also an enormous help to me in mounting the exhibit. Yosihiko Sinoto of the Bernice P. Bishop Museum made it possible for me to con­ duct comparative analyses of the Hanamiai artifacts by kindly offering access to Mar­ quesan archaeological collections from his own excavations. In addition, he shared infor­ mation in his field notes and spent many hours educating me in the nuances of Marquesan material culture. Morp^rccently, I have also had the pleasure to meet and work with Robert Suggs. I am grateful to both Sinoto and Suggs for encouraging me to build upon their own research. Between field seasons and following completion of the excavations, I spent nearly a year in all carrying out laboratory analyses at the Bishop Museum. David Steadman (zoologist, Florida Museum of Natural History) assisted me by initially sorting the ver­ tebrate faunal remains and by later making detailed identifications of the bird remains. In Hawai’i, Alan Ziegler helped me make final identifications of the nonfish vertebrate remains, and Carl Christensen helped by identifying the land snails. I feel fortunate to have benefited from their wealth of experience. I also wish to acknowledge help I have received from colleagues at my home insti­ tution, the University of Hawai’i. I am particularly indebted to John Sinton, who helped add an entire new dimension to this study by working with me to conduct geochemical analyses of the Hanamiai stone tool assemblages. I am also grateful to Ben Finney and Douglas Yen for the many and varied insights I obtained from them. The manuscript was read in first draft by Richard Walter, in New Zealand, and I have profited greatly from his criticisms. The manuscript also benefited through the addition of ink drawings By David Kiphuth and Richard Rhodes. Finally, I wish to thank the Cooke Foundation and the Atherton Family Foundation who generously supported the publication of this work.

Voyaging, Colonization, and Cultural Change in East Polynesia

Human colonization of the Pacific Islands required voyages reaching thousands of kilo­ meters across uncharted waters, and the ability of fledgling populations to survive land­ falls on islands often quite different from their homeland. Islands within the culture area of East Polynesia lie at the farthest limits of prehistoric expansion into the Pacific. Colo­ nization of these geographically remote and environmentally diverse islands (including the Marquesas, Societies, Cooks, Australs, Hawaii, New Zealand, and Easter Island) be­ tween around 100 B.C. and A.D. 1000 represents one of the most remarkable achieve­ ments in the history of humanity. The nature of this expansion from West Polynesia (the Tonga-Samoa area) into East Polynesia is a subject of much controversy. Some scholars have suggested that the first step was to the Marquesas, where a uniquely East Polynesian ancestral culture developed in isolation prior to a later series of migrations from the Marquesas to other islands (c.g., Suggs 1961a; Sinoto 1983a). Another view is that all of the central East Polynesian arch­ ipelagoes were settled in rapid succession (Finney ct al. 1989; Irwin 1990,1992; Walter 1990). Tliis model further suggests that interaction through systematic two-way voyag­ ing linked these distant archipelagoes, creating a regional homeland from which the more geographically remote islands were later settled. Changing interpretations of the East Polynesian homeland, from the concept of a single isolated archipelago to one of an expansive regional entity, reflect important devel­ opments in our understanding of prehistoric Polynesian voyaging. Until the 1970s, views of Polynesian voyaging varied widely in the degree of intentionality attributed to the initial voyages of discovery and colonization. Some scholars interpreted the discovery and colonization of Polynesia as accidental, the result of fortuitous landfalls by islanders whose canoes had drifted off course or who were randomly searching for new islands after being forced to leave their own (Sharp 1957). Other scholars believed that, although intentional, successful voyages of colonization must have been rare because of the diffi­ culty encountered in sailing long distances east against the prevailing winds (e.g., Buck 1938; Emory 1968). In this context, there was wide agreement that following coloniza­ tion, whether intentional or accidental, settlers of East Polynesia would have been highly isolated both from their place of origin and from other islands outside their archipelago. A high degree of cultural isolation is an integral element of evolutionary studies that view

1

2 Voyttging, Colonization, and Cultural Change

Polynesia as a laboratory-like setting for investigating the independent development of separate cultures descendant from a common ancestral tradition. A key element of the single-archipelago East Polynesian homeland model is the notion of innovation in isolation. Migrations radiating from the single archipelago would explain the widespread distribution of certain cultural and linguistic traits present throughout East Polynesia but absent in West Polynesia (Emory and Sinoto 1965). At the time the model was proposed, excavations in the Marquesas had revealed a cultural sequence much longer than that documented for any other islands in East Polynesia (Suggs 1961a). In addition, artifacts from foe Marquesas excavations yielded limited but convincing evidence for direct setdement from West Polynesia. It seemed logical, there­ fore, to identify foe Marquesas as foe hypothesized East Polynesian homeland. Emory’s rationale for this assumption was stated unequivocally: "Whichever group (foe Marque­ sas or foe Societies) was inhabited first would, of course, be foe locale, because foe two archipelagoes are too for apart (1500 km) to have been a joint center” (1979:201). Fol­ lowing upon this assumption and his interpretation of the arrifactual evidence, Emory concluded: "The succession of artifacts and their distribution in East Polynesia have left no doubt in Sinoto’s mind or mine that foe northern Marquesas Islands were settled before foe other groups in East Polynesia” (1979:219). In recent years, experimental long distance voyages and computer simulation stud­ ies have stimulated a growing debate over foe a priori assumption of a single archipelago homeland in East Polynesian prehistory. There is now compelling evidence that Polyne­ sian voyages of exploration and colonization were successfully planned, and that they were quite intentional rather than accidental. One line of evidence is based on the exper­ iment^ voyages of Hokulea, a reconstructed twin-hulled Polynesian canoe. The Hokuloa voyages clearly demonstrate that Polynesian canoes were capable of sailing against foe wind (Finney 1977). They also show that although easterly trade winds prevail in the Southeast Pacific, there are important periods of intermittent westerly winds that could have greatly facilitated ancient Polynesians’ long-distance voyages of discovery (Finney et al. 1989, Finney 1994). Adding to results of foe experimental sailing trials, computer simulation studies suggest that long distance two-way voyaging was a practical and rela­ tively safe means of discovering and colonizing even foe most remote parts of Polynesia (Irwin, Bidder, and Quirke 1990). The essence of this argument is that by sailing east against foe prevailing winds while searching for new land, it would have been relatively easy for unsuccessful exploring parties to return, with foe wind, to their point of depar­ ture (Irwin 1992). The notion of successful two-way voyaging is foe central aspect of recently pro­ posed models for the exploration and colonization of East Polynesia (Finney ct al. 1989; Finney 1994; Irwin 1989, 1992; Kirch 1986; Rolctt 1996; Walter 1990). These new models suggest that in addition to allowing systematic colonization, two-way voyaging also created a network of interaction among newly settled islands and others with larger, established populations. Irwin (1992:74) envisages foe colonization period as one of dynamic interaction between “small communities scattered through a number of archi­

Voyaging, Colonization, and Cultural Change 3 pelagoes some hundreds of miles apart. Groups separated, but remained in touch with one another, according to changing patterns of contact, as settlement expanded.” There is limited but significant evidence that voyaging networks established dur­ ing the colonization of East Polynesia continued to support varying forms of long­ distance interaction until relatively late in prehistory. At present, the best archaeological evidence is from the southern Cook Islands, where long-distance exchange of pearl shell is documented for Ma’uke (Anai’o site) at around A.D. 1300-1400 (Walter 1990:22627) and roughly contemporaneously for Mangaia (Kirch et al. 1992:175). The Anai’o site also yielded substantial quantities of imported basalt, including some of Samoan ori­ gin (Best et al. 1992:66), and a single pottery sherd of West Polynesian origin, most likely from Tongatapu (Walter and Dickinson 1989). The imported pearl shell derives from elsewhere within the southern Cooks, or from the Societies, Tuamotus, or north­ ern Cooks. For both Ma’uke and Mangaia, the local archaeological sequences show a shift over time to the use of other materials for manufacturing fishhooks, possibly re­ flecting a late-prehistoric inaccessibility of pearl shell due to increasing isolation. Kirch (1991a: 140) suggests that large specimens of pearl shell present in Marquesan archaeo­ logical sites were most likely obtained through long-distance exchange with the Tuamo­ tus or Societies, but this is difficult to demonstrate because pearl shell also occurs natu­ rally in the Marquesas, although in lesser abundance. Imported pottery, represented by small numbers of sherds found in the southern Cooks and the Marquesas, is among the most difficult evidence to interpret. In the Mar­ quesas, three exotic sherds were recovered from the Ha’atuatua dune (Nuku Hiva Island), and petrographic analyses clearly identify their point of origin as the western Pacific, ap­ parently Fiji (Dickinson and Shutler 1974). While Green (1974:274) argued that these imported sherds may represent evidence for the founding settlement of the Marquesas, it seems statistically unlikely that limited archaeological investigations could discover arti­ facts introduced by the first settlers. An alternative viewpoint is that imported pottery from the Ha’atuatua site represents one landfall during a period of multiple contacts between the Marquesas and archipelagoes to the west. This degree of contact with other islands is contrary to the idea of isolation following initial setdement but fits quite well with voyaging models hypothesizing long-distance interaction following the coloniza­ tion of East Polynesia. For nearly a century, isolated discoveries of stone adzes on coral atolls in the Tuamo­ tus and Cook Islands have been interpreted as evidence of long-distance exchange. Around 1900, Caillot (1909, Pl. LXXXUI) collected a Duff Type 2 nephrite (“cspccc de jade vert”) adze on Aitutaki, in the southern Cooks. He presumed that this specimen reached Aitutaki from New Zealand during prehistoric times, a reasonable interpretation but unfortunately unverifiable without both a-secure archaeological context and geolog­ ical analysis of the material. In the Tuamotus, Emory (1975:100-108) collected and recorded thirty-four basalt adzes from thirteen atolls throughout the archipelago, and an additional thirty-six from Makatea, a raised coral island. All of the adze forms represented are ones typical of the Societies, although some of these arc also known from the Mar-

4

Voya^in^, Colonization, and Cultural Change quesas. In addition, Emory (1975:20-21) recorded eight basalt food pounders collected during mining for phosphate on Makatea, interpreting these as further evidence for pre­ historic contact between the Tuamotus and other islands. X-ray fluorescence methods for geochemical characterization have recently proved effective in securely documenting cases of long-distance exchange in Oceania, with re­ markable results (Best et al. 1992; Weisler 1993). In the most extensive study to date (Best et al. 1992), archaeologically recovered adzes from islands as distant as Fiji and the southern Cooks are traced to a common origin in Samoa, providing dramatic evidence for the prehistoric long-distance exchange of stone tools from a single quarry source (sec also Weisler and Kirch 1996; Walter and Sheppard 1996). These findings strongly sug­ gest that the full exteflt of prehistoric long-distance cultural exchange in Polynesia is only now coming to light. Contact-period travel narratives give a far more restricted impression of long­ distance cultural exchange in East Polynesia, suggesting that the only regular two-way interarchipelago voyaging at this time was between the Societies and the Tuamotus. By contrast, however, the contact-period geographical knowledge held by certain Polyne­ sians extended far beyond the limits of documented sailing ranges. For example, Tupaia, a Raiatean from the Society Islands, not only gave Cook an extensive list of distant islands but also drew a schematic map to show their locations (Finney 1994:31-34, Fig. 3). Additional geographical information was collected in the Marquesas by William Crook (Sheahan 1952:CXXI), the first missionary, and can also be found in Marquesan legends about feather-collecting expeditions to Aotoka (Rarotonga?), an island said to be located some twelve days sailing distance from the Marquesas (Handy 1930:127-30). Irwin (1992) and Finney (1994) suggest that this far-reaching geographical knowledge was based on information retained from an earlier period of more extensive overseas voyaging. Thus contact-period voyaging such as that between the Societies and the Tua­ motus may only represent “the shrunken core of once-wider central East Polynesian con­ tact spheres” (Irwin 1992:183). As argued by both Finney (1994) and Irwin (1992), the net result of combined evidence from experimental voyaging and computer simulation studies, along with the limited archaeological and ethnohistorical data, makes it difficult not to accept the role of long-distance intercommunication as a significant factor in the development of Fast Polynesian cultures. While the frequency and circumstances of interaction remain largely unknown, it is nonetheless important that archaeological investigations of long-term cultural change in the Marquesas be approached in the context of this evidence for inter­ archipelago contact.

Colonization, Experimentation, and Expansion The environmental context is also important for interpreting processes of cultural change in Polynesia. Recent interdisciplinary research throughout this region reveals a dynamic interplay between prehistoric cultural developments and rapidly changing island

Colonization, Experimentation, and Expansion 5 ecosystems. What were once viewed as isolated examples of human impact on island land­ scapes and their biotas are now recognized as part of a distinct pattern of increasingly well documented events. Evidence for the development of Polynesian subsistence economies demonstrates a series of transformations that both influenced and was influenced by envi­ ronmental changes. Thus an important aspect of understanding cultural change in island settings involves documenting the relationship of changing paleoenvironments, prehis­ toric subsistence economies, and human-induced environmental change. On any island, this series of events began with a Polynesian landfall and the inten­ tional introduction of economically important cultigens, including tree crops, farina­ ceous annuals, and, in many cases, domestic pigs, dogs, and fowl. Ethnobiological knowl­ edge introduced by the settlers was also highly significant, because “with hunter-gatherers as well as agriculturalists, familiarity with elements of wild biota and their environmen­ tal associations expedited the process of colonisation and adaptation in volitive direc­ tions” (Yen 1990:258). In order to understand the formative developments in island cultural sequences, it is useful to employ a terminology that distinguishes between the ancestral culture, the introduced culture, and the derived settlement culture. I will refer to the culture intro­ duced by a group of colonists making a landfall as founder culture. The ancestral cul­ ture is that of the homeland from which the colonists originated. If the colonizing party was unable to transfer all elements of the ancestral culture, the founder culture would represent an impoverished version of it. For the purpose of this discussion, the ancestral and founder cultures can be conceptualized as static entities because they represent cul­ tures at a single point in time. However, beginning at the time of the initial landfall, the founder culture began to change as settlers adapted to new environmental and social conditions. Yen discusses this process of colonization and transformation as it relates to the development of agricultural systems: "This initial phase of colonisation involving the introduction of transported agricultural elements depended firstly on successful transport (with the greater number of canoes, the greater the chances), and secondly on subsequent adaptive success. This experimental stage based on earlier ethnoscientific knowledge may have lasted less than a century to build up stocks of planting material of crop plants, and especially of trees. But it would account for the directions of develop­ ment of subsistence systems.. ..” (1990:266). Following the assumption that experi­ mentation and change were inherent in the colonization process, I define the settlement culture as one in a state of flux, characterized by these elements of transformation. If the first settlement of a previously unpopulated area is defined as initial colo­ nization, we may refer, as Yen (1990:258) proposes, to secondary colonization as an ex­ ogenous process involving "the foundation j^f a new population where earlier popula­ tions are already in occupation.” Cultural exchanges occurring in cases of secondary colonization will be mediated by the social environment. For example, in the case of subsistence systems, cultural exchanges during secondary colonization may involve the introduction of new economically important plants or animals, or changes in eating habits linked to the adoption of new food restrictions (1990:258). Following initial col­ onization, population growth led inevitably to range expansion, the endogenous process

6 Voyaging, Colonizationy and Cultural Change by which Polynesians progressively moved into and settled increasingly larger land areas of their insular environments. Interpretations of whether particular East Polynesian cultures derive from a single party of initial colonists or from multiple colonization events are largely tentative. This is because although current voyaging models based upon computer simulations, sailing experiments, and traditional knowledge now offer an excellent framework for such inter­ pretations, archaeological data for testing the proposed hypotheses are still quite limited. Nevertheless, the evidence for long-distance two-way voyaging in central East Polynesia presents a compelling argument for multiple colonization events throughout this region, so that the principal uncertainty lies in interpreting colonization histories of geographi­ cally marginal islands such as New Zealand, Easter, and the Hawaiian archipelago. One valuable'method for estimating the number of colonization and two-way voy­ aging events in the prehistory of different East Polynesian cultures is to analyze the geo­ graphic distribution of introduced plant species. In the most comprehensive study of Polynesian plant introductions, Whistler (1991) classifies seventy-two species as “inten­ tional introductions.” Whistler’s study documents a clear pattern of reduction, from west to east and from central to marginal Polynesia, in the total number of introduced species present in different archipelagoes. Of the total, forty-five introduced species were diffused to the Cooks, forty-three to the Societies, and forty-one to the Marquesas. By contrast, only twenty-eight of the species reached Hawaii. Certainly in the case of centralEast Poly­ nesia, the highly even distribution presents “strong evidence for this diffusion (of plants) being a process rather than an event, involving many craft over time, different tracks, different destinations” (Yen 1991:90). The marked discrepancy between tlie number of recorded intentional introductions in central East Polynesia and Hawaii is probably re­ lated to three factors: 1) the comparatively small size of colonizing parties reaching Hawaii and/or the lesser incidence of secondary colonization; 2) the comparatively long voyages involved in the colonization of Hawaii and the presumably decreased chances for plants propagated by stem or root cuttings to survive under such conditions (Whistler 1991:46-47); and 3) the possibility that certain species (e.g., Tahitian chestnut [Jwc»rOtaheite apple \Spondias dulcis\ and ironwood \Casuarina c^uisetifolid}} present in central East Polynesia were not introduced to that area prior to the colonization of Hawaii (Whistler 1991:46). The plant distribution data for New Zealand and Easter Island arc not directly rel­ evant because climatic factors would have greatly inhibited the successful transfer of many species co these islands lying outside the tropical Pacific. However, the distribution of three species native to South America is of significance. The bottle gourd {Lagenaria. siceraria} was introduced throughout East Polynesia (Whistler 1991), the sweet potato (Iponiosa. batatas) was introduced throughout all of Polynesia (Yen 1974; Hather and Kirch 1991), and the distribution of Solanum repandum reached from the Marquesas to Fiji (Whistler 1991). In contrast to initial or secondary colonization, range expansion is an endogenous colonization process. Various models have been proposed to explain the timing, pattern,

;
■ -

-

3

210 22

1

2

•

4 1

285 75

• • •

• 2 • 1 1 •

17 30 25 41 1 8 1

• • •

-

-

1 *24 1 2

•

• 1 -

-

7

-

(Continued)

Table 6.1. Continued

Fishing Method and Number of Catches

Taxon

Lutjetnus bohar Lutjanus kasmira Lutjanusfitlvus Lutjanus^ibbus Lethiinidae Lethrinussp. Gnathodentex aureolineatus Kyphosidae » E^hosusfiiscus Mullidae Earupeneus sp. Parupeneussp. Mullidae sp. Sphyracnidae Sphyraenufnvteri Carangidae Alectis dliaris Caranx sef^cMtus Caranx aecensionis

Marquesan Name*

Offshore Deep-Sea M: 1 W: 4 3

tdupe onau

ovivi ttdakihi

• -

5

rente

Day Inshore Bottom 3 11

1 78 1

Night Inshore Bottom (bait) 4 2 10 1 4

Night Inshore Bottom (lure) 5 3 6

Inshore Intermediate Depths 7 5

Surface Casting 8 1

■

Speargim 26 4 2 1

-

Seine Net 13 1

Total

31

A. 06 5

151 1

1*^6 1

«

1

4

-

-

1 2

-

ttPau makomako oi^oi

-

1 31 33

tapatu

-

-

-

17

•

paero popoiani uhi

■ 7

1

• • -

-

1 1

-

3 11

1X 1 ^9

17

1 4 19 (Continued)

Table 6.1. Continued

Fishing Me±od and Number of Catches

Taxon

Scomberoides lysan Selur crumenophthalmus Selur crumenophthalmus Trachinotus bailloni Scombridae Gymnosardu unieolor Pomacentridae Abundefdufsordidus Abund^ufvaigiensis Scaridae Scarus sp. Scarus sp. Scarus rubroviolaceus Acanthuridac Acanthuridae sp. Acanthurus bleekeri Acanthurusglaucopareius Naso unicornis Naso brevirostris

Marquesan Name*

Offshore Deep-Sea M: 1 N: 4

Day Inshore Bottom 3 11

Night Inshore Bottom (bait) 4 2

pakakai etue papahu hoke va^u

Night Inshore Bottom (lure) 5 3

Inshore Intermediate Surfece Depths ‘ Casting 7 8 5 1

Speargun 26 4

Total

31

47 1

1

1

-

5 39 47 2

-

1

-

2

1 2

1 2

2 1 3

2 1 3

7 26 5 4 1

. 7 26 5 4 1

1

papaka^au omamo

oputea ‘ofit^a fanatatue maha peani mahapuafii 4 ume nutukeo

Seine Net 13 1

-

4 39

(Continued)

Table 6.1. Continued ______________________ Fishing Method and Number of Catches

Taxon

Balistidae Balisridae sp. Unidentifiable

Totals

Marquesan Name*

Offshore Deep-Sea M: 1 N\ 4

humu heputu t^atai pre^e opapahoina tukoma mamaena ta^anui tutatio tata

Day Inshore Bottom 3 11

43 3 1 1 1 • 1

Night Inshore Bottom (bait) 4 2

Night Inshore Bottom (lure) 5 3

Inshore Intermediate Depths 7 5

Surface Casting 8 1

Speargun 26 4

43 3 1 1 1 3 2 1

3 1

1 2 63

-

-

436 160 286 s>tote: M, fishing method (numbers refer to methods described in text); N, number of catches. * Tahuata dialect.

Seine Net Total 13 1 31 —

2 45

2

70

50 1112 —

124 Fishing Strategies

twenty-six methods, which documents the full range of known contemporary and his­ torically recorded fishing strategies. As employed here, “contemporary” refers only to the current use of a fishing method and is not meant to imply that the method is a post­ contact-period innovation. To the contrary, it is likely that most of the contemporary methods are based on traditional fishing strategies. Linguistic evidence supports the antiquity of some methods that are listed in Dordillon’s dictionary (1931), compiled in the mid-nineteenth century. Documented Fishing Strategies 1. Offihore deep-seafishitg: contentporary method^ catches recorded. Offshore fishing for

benthic species living at depths of around 100 to 200 m is undertaken during the day at designated fishing grounds along the leeward side of Tahuata. This method is spe­ cifically oriented toward the exploitation of marine environments created by the under­ water shelves surrounding Tahuata and other islands of the Marquesas (see Chapter 2). T(Fa locations are known by reference to topographical landmarks, especially mountain peaks, and arc found by offshore triangulation between two such points. Triangulation to situate offshore fishing grounds was once employed widely throughout Polynesia, including Hawaii, where the locations were known as ko^a, and Easter Island (Metraux 1940:172), where the locations were known as kona. The Mar­ quesas, along with Anuta, a Polynesian outlier in the Solomon Islands (Patrick Kirch, personal communication), arc one of the few places where this apparently ancestral method is still practiced. This is particularly significant because Anuta is also surrounded by an underwater marine shelf that is exploited by hand-line methods similar to those documented here for Tahuata (Kirch and Rosendahl 1973:92). Older fishermen of Ta­ huata retain detailed knowledge of t(Fa locations and their particular characteristics. This hitherto unstudied subject merits far greater attention than I was able to give during my fieldwork. The typical hand line used in offshore deep-sea fishing consists of heavy nylon cord wrapped around a wooden spool and fitted with two hooks spaced about 40 cm apart. The baited line is looped around a small round beach cobble (ca. 8-12 cm in length) so that tension from the weight of the cobble holds it in place. When the weighted line is dropped overboard and sinks to the bottom, a sharp jerk releases the stone. Upon feel­ ing a bite, the fisherman sets the hook with a sharp pull and raises the fish with a rapid, continuous hand-over-hand movement, taking care not to relax the tension of the line and give the fish an opportunity to escape. The general Marquesan term for this manner of hand line fishing is hahe. This term, which is included in Dordillon’s dictionary, ap­ plies to all of the hand line methods listed here and serves to distinguish them from other angling methods, such as those that employ bamboo poles or trolling. The fishes caught in deep offshore waters are mostly large serranids and lutjanids (ca. 50-70 cm in length) but also include large optti {Lethrim^ sp.), Caranx ascensionisy and Gymnosarda unicolor. Significantly, this is the only method for catching large ser-

The Ethnographic Context

raaids and lurjanids; other fish of these families, caught in shallower inshore waters, are much smaller (usually 20-25 cm in length, and rarely longer than 30 cm). Although smaller fish also inhabit the deep offshore waters, the hooks used in this method (usually #8 or #10) are too large for them. It is unproductive to catch smaU fish at a to’a. because they are taken more easily in the shallower inshore waters. Tuna can also be caught by offshore deep-sea fishing at night, but this method is much less common than offshore trolling for tuna (method 2). 2. Offihm-s trolling: contemporary method, catches not recorded. Bonito {Katsuwonus pelamis} and small tuna {Thunnw albacares} are caught with a bamboo pole fitted with a nylon fishlinc and a composite hook consisting of a pearl-shell shank and a steel point. Bonito schools {hakahua} are identified from a distance by the flocks of birds feeding among them. When the boat reaches the school, the lure is cast among the fish and drawn across the surface of the water with the jiggling feu motion also used in fishing for etue (method 10). This method, once widespread in Polynesia, is well described by Nordhoff (1930), who observed it in Tahiti. Larger pelagic fish, including Thunnus albacares, Acanthocybium solandri, Sphyraena barracuda, and Cotyphaena hippurus, are usually caught with larger hooks, often fitted with imported resin lures on a line trolled from a canoe or motorboat. 3. Daytime inshore bottomfishing: contemporary method, catches recorded. Hand lines are also used to catch diumally feeding benthic fish in shallow waters close to the rocky shoreline. This method is practiced along the leeward coast, in sheltered bays, and in the channel between Tahuata and Hiva Oa. Fishermen usually go to their favorite spots, moving along the coast from one to another, visiting several during a typical outing. The distance of these spots from the coast varies from about 3 to 30 m, and the depth of the water from about 10 to 50 m. Typically, this method is practiced only 3 to 5 m from the rocky shoreline, with waves rebounding off the coast preventing the canoe from being thrown on the rocks. The hand line consists of medium-strength nylon line rolled on a wooden spool. A weight, usually a short piece of iron rebar, is tied to the end of the line, and one or more hooks (usually #2 or #4) are attached above it. The baited line is dropped to the bottom, then raised slightly. The hook is set with a quick jerk when a fish strikes, and the line is hauled in rapidly, as in offshore bottom fishing. A large variety of fish are caught with this method, but the catches consist pre­ dominately of ovivi {Lethrinus sp.), Lul^anus kasmira, mullids, balistids, and small serranids. In all, twenty-three species from at least eight different families are represented among the 436 recorded fish caught by this method. As in offshore bottom fishing, the species caught by this method are rarely caught by any other recorded method. However, some of the same species are also taken at night, in the same waters in which they are caught during the day. The only large luqanid caught by this method {Lutjanus bohar} is commonly poi­ sonous when taken inshore and thus usually discarded, but the same species caught in deep offshore waters is safe to eat, and indeed, a preferred fish. Epinephelus irroratus is

125

126

Fishing Strategies

r caught both inshore and offshore, but those taken inshore are usually small fish in the size range of 18 to 25 cm in length {o^cuipau\ while the larger caught more com­ monly in deep offshore waters, is around 50 cm in length. 4. Night inshore bottomfishing with baited hook: contemporary method, catches recorded.

Inshore fishing along the coast and in sheltered bays is practiced at night with the same hand line (usually fitted with #2 fishhooks) used in those waters during the day. This method is most productive during bright phases of the moon. It is specifically oriented toward two noctumally feeding holocentrids, meaukiFa {Myripristis sp.) and ta.’ata^a {Adiotyx caudimacuUttus}, which heavily dominate the catches, comprising 122 out of a total of 160 fish caught by this method. Both species are preferred food fishes, but^wryx caudimaculatus is considered troublesome to catch because of its venomous spines. Some small serranids.and lutjanids are also caught by this method, as well as occasional mullids. Crabs {toetoe} obtained on the rocky coast are often used as bait until fish are caught and cut up for that purpose. 5. Night inshore bottom fishing with lures: contemporary method, catches recorded.

Another method for catching the noctumally feeding holocentrids, similar to method 4, involves the use of unbaited fishhooks (#2) fitted with lures. The lures, made today with either white or yellow thread, were formerly made using white feathers Qndu manu) of the white-tailed tropic bird [Phaethon lepturus'}. The fish caught by this method consist almost entirely of Myripristis sp. and Selar crumenophthalmus (in the papahu growth stage) if it is season. When schools ofpapahu enter the bay, they are fished nearly every night by several canoes. The less dcsirablcAdiotyx caudimaculatus and small lutjanids and serranids are caught very rarely wth lures. For the two catches recorded when Selar cru­ menophthalmus was not in season, Myripristis sp. accounted for 198 of the total of 224 fish caught. 6. Inshore trolling (tavere): contemporaty method, catches not recorded. A specialized method for catching meauku^a (Myripristis sp.) is trolling at night during bright phases of the moon. A hand line fitted with five or more small hooks decorated with thread lures, like those also used for inshore bottom fishing at night (method 5), is pulled behind the canoe while the fisherman is paddling slowly in calm water along the leeward coast or in a sheltered bay. This method, tavere te meauku^a, is not practiced often but is said to be a very productive technique that catches only meauktPa. 7. Inshore angling at intermediate depths: contemporary method, catches recorded. In­ shore hand line fishing at intermediate depths is a method particulariy directed toward catching tapatu, a medium-sized nocturnal-feeding sphyraenid (Sphyraena fbrsteri}. This method, practiced during nights when the moon is absent or dim, involves angling from a canoe fitted with a pole-mounted Coleman lantern. Fishing takes place in sheltered bays and along the coast, using a weighted hand line with two or more hooks (usually size #7). The prefered bait is cut-up flying fish (Cypselurussimus), and catching such fish (method 12) is preliminary to fishing for tapatu. Observations on the feeding habits of Sphyraenafirrsteri, based on examination of stomach contents, indicate that flying fish are a major part of their diet (Jack Randall, personal communication, 1987). Two species of

The Ethnographic Context

“ unidentified lutjanid (matuono, Afhamis unicoUn^ also occSonally aught by this meth^. Ibe same method has been documented by Conte (1988 -46773) on Napuka, in the lhamotu Islands. 8. Sutfiice caainj with hand lint: amttmpomty method, catches recorded. During the ^on when schook ^olSelarcramenophthalmus in the {etae, up tl 12 SutlX” ''' feh feeding on the L are X?^/a h^'lTh