C'HA]P'ER 1
INTRODUCTION: MANC-GAREVA AND
E,xSTEJRN     POLYNESIAN        PREHISTORY

1. 1'. Kirch and Li. C'onte

Archaeological research in Polynesia   Project, oUr goals and objectives were influenced
J   had its beginnings during the late 19th  bv tle results of previous research in the islands,
i   and earlv 20th centuries, vith pioneer-  andl bv ongoing debates concerningl key aspects

\  ing work in Hawaiw'i, Aotearoa, and    of Polvnesian prehistorv. In this chapter we sum-
';1  Rapa Nui. As we enter a secondi cen-   marize some of these major research issues, as

turv of continuingr modern investiga-  well as the results of prior research in Manoareva.
tions, the (,oals and aims of archaeol-  WSe conclude with a statement of the specific
ogy in Polynesia have evolved a long wax' from  objectives that we defined for the first two sea-
those which motivated our predecessors (kirch  sons of our project.
20(0)Oa:12-41). Similarlv, the substantive knowl-

#   .  .    .                1~~~~~~SSUIES IN EASTE-RN
edgre base upon whichi Polynesian prehistorv is

constructed hias expanded exponentiallv. Yet,         P()I'NESIAN ARCHAE()L()GY

some of the same questions remain \vith us:       /t a time w. hen archaeologicallv based knowl-
when did Polvnesians first arrive in the islands  edge of time depth and cultural change was vir-
of the eastern Pacific? W\ere their voyag(es made  tuall nonexistent, Edwin GI. Burrows (1938)
at random or did thex' follow planned strategies  used the classic comparative method of ethnog-
of colonization? To) what extent and for how  raphv to infer the historical relationships betwTeen
long did the earl' settlers continue to maintain  Western and Eastern Polynesia (Kiirch andi Green
contacts between far-flung islands? What w\as  2001:70-73). Noxx, with the benefit of many de-
the culture of the earliest settlers, and howr did  cades of excavation and radiocarbon-dated se-
this change over the centuries that they occu-  qcuences, we know, that Western Polvnesia QFonga,
pied particular islands and archipelagoes?    Samoa, and adjacent smaller islands) was the im-

Historians of science nev!er tire o)f pointing  mediate hlomeland of those people-descended
out that all research is conceiv ed and conducted  from the E1arls' Eastern Lapita colonizers-who
within a broader social and intellectual contex;t.  from the Solomons movred eastwards to Fiji
in the case of our Mtang;areva Archaeological  around 1()000 X.C By13 the late first-millennium B.C.

2

ARCHAEOLOGICAL INVESTIGATIONS IN THE MANGAREVA ISLANDS, FRENCH POLYNESIA

thes occCUpants o the Tonga-Sanioa regftion Iladi  Niangareva in terms of wvhat is emerCring, from
beCome the speakers of the lroto Polynesian    parallel investigations else\vhere in Elastern
(PPN) dialects, vhic, were alr-eady differenti-  lRolvnesia. This is particularly so now that archae-
ating into Proto Tongric and Proto Nuclear     ologv has demonstrated that man! earld central
Polvnesian branches (Nlarck 1996).             E' astern Polvnesian communities were in contact

Sometime during the first millennium A.1).  and maintained complex long-distance interac-
andi the timing here has been an issue of con-  tion and ex-change networks.
tention (see below)-Polvnesian speakers once

again began to move eastxwards bey ond the West-  Qi Iis )NS O; (HROV )L( )C. .4DI f&UI71 Ii

ern Polynesian archipelagoes, moving succes-       Pioneering stratigraphic archaeolo(gy in East-
sivelv into teic core archipelagoes of E-astern  ern Polynesia in the 1950s and earlv 1960s (Suggs
Polynesia: the C(ooks, Society Islands, Australs,  1961a; Lmorv and Sinoto 1965; Sinoto 19666,
Nlarq1uesas, Tuamo ttus, and Mangareva. 1'rom this  1970) led to a model of Polynesian "dispersals
centr-al region, voyagres extendedi to the margginal  and migrations" in which the Mlarquesas and
peripheries of the Polynesian Triangle: to     Society lslands played a primary role. Initial
Hawai i, Rapa Nui, and Aotearoa (Ne\v Zealand).  movement of people from WVestern Polynesia to
What Burrows recognized so clearly, however,   the Nlarquesas was thought to have occurred as
was that all of the 1Eastern Polynesian cultures  earlk as 150 B.C. (Su(ggS 1961a), with settlement
whether- in the tropical core or at the subtropical  of such remote islands as Haawai i and Rapa Nui
to temperatc margins-share a sig,nificant num-  by the first few centuries A.D. Bv the early 19980s
ber of lingLuistic anti cultural innovations (it mig,ht  it was no longer possible to support such a simple
be more precise to say lexicallv-marked cultural  model on the emerging archaeological evidence
innovations) that set them off collectively from  (Ktirch 1986; Irwin 1981, 1992), which amongJ
the WVestern Polvnesian societies. (learlv, these  other complexities displayed serious inconsisten-
innovations had to have arisen and been "fixed"  cies in radiocarbon dates from the earliest sites.
in the ancestral Eastern Polynesian culture at an  E.fforts to "cleanse" the radiocar-b3on database
early stagre, prior to the ultimate dispersal to the  (the so called "chronometric hygiene" approach)
margins of the Triangle, and prior to subsequent  led to the proposal that initial human settlement
isolation and independent cultural change.     of E-,astern Polynesia had ()ccurred more recently

WXe make the above points to underscore the  than originallv thought, towards the close of the
fact that E-astern Polynesia is fundamentally a cul-  first millennium A.D. or even well into the sec-
tural and historical construction, rather than a  ond millennium in the case of New Zealand
strictly greographic entity. Our Ma ngarevan re-  (Spriggs and Anderson 1993). A debate ensued
search project seeks to understand the prehis-  over a "long" versus "slhort chronology for
tory of tthe Mlangyareva Islands within this cul-  Eastern Polynesian settlement (Anderson 1995,
tur-e-historical concept of Eastern Polynesia.  2003; Conte 1995; 1irch and Ellison 1994). Sev-
That is to say, we seek to enhance the broader  eral investigators have now attempted to resolve
understanding of cultural history and cultural  these chronological issues through r-e-dating, of
ev olution within E astern Polynesia by focusing  key sites, and excavation of new sites thoucrht to
our investiPrative "lens" on one particular mani-  represent earlx colonization (Anderson et al.
festation of the Lastern Polynesian cultural pat-  1994; Anderson and Sinoto 2)2002; (Conte 2002;
tern. A\lthlough1 we are working w!ithin a local get)-  lKirch et al. 1995; Rolett 1t998; Rolett and (Conte
graphic anti cultural context, it is essential to)  1995; WCalter 1998; Weisler 1994). Our MIangarex'a
maintain a bar( ader comparativ e perspectiv e, co)n-  research co)ntinues this effort.

ti nual lv as se ssi ng th e local ev id ence from  E.stabulishing,, on empirical ar-chaeologrical ev i-

INTRODUCTION

dence, a late fotr initial Poly nesian col onization  Proto Southeastern Polynesian as an carly split
of NMangrarevea is cr-itical in this continUingr de-  off of Proto I Eastern PolRynesian, at the same timc
bate over lastern Polnesian settlemcnt clhro-  as an(i parallel with Proto (Central l,astern
nologv, l)ecause Mlangareva occupies a central  Polynesian. One implication of Fischer's pro-
geographic position, at the soutlheastern       posal, if corrcct, is that MIangareva is the most
confluence of the Tuamotu and Austral island    probable immediate homeland of the people
chains, poised as the most likely take-off point  who settled Rapa Nui. However, Fischer's pro-
for voywages further eastwards to Pitcairn,     posed terminological changes are rejected by
Henderson, and ultimately, Rapa Nui (Fig. 1.1).  NMarck (2002), and the complex subgrouping re-
Based on a lagrge series of radiocarbon dates from  lationships (wlich inv(olve a network-break-ing
his excavations on Henderson Island, \X'eisler  model of language change) are best portrayed
(1995:388-39(), table 2, fig. 5) suggested that  byC Green (1999, figs. 5 and 6). Green and
Henderson max' have been settled "as early as  \Wieisler (2002:236) have suggestedI that the early
the 8th century \.n."1 A more cautious analysis  speech community in southeastern Polynesia
of the Henderson radiocarbon date corpus is that  was comprised of an inter-archipelag,o network

... colonization of Henderson clearly took place  including the occupants of Henderson and
by u.). 1050," leaving open the possibility of  Pitcairn islands, along with Mangi,areva and some
slighth' earlier dates (1995:389). Reviewing the  of the Eastern Tuamotu atolls. Fischer (2001)
available dlata from  Mangareva, Green and      presents evidence that sometime after the em-
\Veisler (2002:237) felt that the attested basal  placement of this early speech communitx, there
dates of ca. I.I. 1100-1200 from Green's 1959   was a significant period of linguistic "invasion"
rockshelter excavations on Kamaka and Aukena    of Mangarevan by Nlarquesan speakers, suffi-
islands deriv,ed from a period sometime a//er initial  ciently changing Mangarevan so that it now falls
colonization of that island grroup. Referencing  within the Marquesic subgroup. This putative
Weisler's Henderson Island chronologyy, theN, pro-  phase of linguistic contact and influence from
posed that the Mangarevan sequence might ex-    the Marquesas to Mangareva also has implica-
tend back to u.). 80(). One of the goals of our  tions, need we point out, for cultural interac-
current project is to test this temporal hvpoth-  tion between these two Eastern Polynesian
esis for initial settlement of Mangareva.       groups.

The   historical  relationship   of   the       The question of the date of initial human
NIan g arexvan langruage  to  other Easter-n    colonization of Mangarevaisalsolinkedtowider,
PolRnesian langtuag,es is relevant to this discus-  more theoretical issues. In particular, w lhether the
s510n of Mlangareva's position within the larger  Mlangarev-an prehistoric sequence (as with other
history of human expansion into Eastern         cultural sequences in Elastern Polynesia) was rela-
Polynesia. Although it has never been adequately  tively lo()nger or shorter in duration, has implica-
studied or sufficiently documented, enough ev i-  tions for the Irate of cultural change after coloni-
dence exists to place Mangarevan within th-e    zation. As (Conte put it:

NIarquesic branch of Fastern Polynesian lan-        Si la pr&scncc humiaine dans ces iles s'avralit plus

gluages (Green 1966; Nlarck 2000), ah)ng \Vith      rceentc, il fauLdrait Soit supposer unle eVOlution pius
Ntarquesan, Hawaiian, and Rapan. Based1 on a        rapide, cc qui re-me-ttrait en cause toLut l'agenccmcnt
studx of lexical doublets in NManrareva, however    dLu mociclC, Soit admnettre quc certaines chlefferics
Fischer (200(}1) has proposed c     however,       &taient iniltialeent d6, plus dhveloppees heue Ie

that what he calls  stadeC de "chefferie simp)le" ...(2(-)()- :224).
'O)riginal Nl\ang,arevran' fcormedl a sLlbgroup, to-

gether wxith Rap)anui, which he labels 'Proto      In short, time itself is a critical vTariable in
Southeastern Poly nesian'. Fischer \vouldl regard  our models of cultural changte in Poh' nesia, and

4

ARCHAEOLOGICAL INVESTIGATIONS IN THE MANGAREVA ISLANDS, FRENCH POLYNESIA

o        .0                  ......____.._.__._..__

o                  0-                                                  ()              c/i 0- .Ef.;0;;;X0 :; - ...........:         ;0, :;,;:-      ;.........S-;;W0 -       ;  --:;     S

.S:E~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

:  --f   fff  -  t- -i:   ;  Cd -  ;DD  -,  0  0--X-;  t;- ff;   0  0  -d  ; t  0

~~~~~~~~~~~(- -)-- 0:: 0f :; X V0 0;00 f 0 0

4 - . .j)                                                            U              .........................  Ti.  ......D  . _

170   : X s0NSAi0d0000;0000 tt  E  f7ffL; t   004  :   I:0: 0 L 0

, C 0                                             zy   00006ATlWEk 0ilBSFS         4:C        0   0;!?0       0   0
.~~~ i                                    -      .     .      a-i - .2j

... f.;f - t - f ;; .;Of-                                                   (.)

|f-0  i t"0 i:'0y 2t  < D ?  i2 ''3 ;'20 0 00 ;'  0  00 ' :  ': 04   : t: 1  i i' t  0 0  ;  ;  :   0:  0  0   00 0   0 a(

W ;0.A 00S ........ : .:.  js t t0*  s 4zD4 $wt $ ..............................t 0O9 0t

;  ;  L  t0  ; 00t  #  O -f  lilUJ  }0;  - i>;0o 0 0  X00 S ;  O l0;i  i              o0 i; 0

~~~~~~~~-                                0

t ':^  ef y ;' a'' ;f:;t ;;kSO0;.EiDdkt'Si:; + '0                      SSi ;02.0  .;  -4-t ;0:

F  a !  jO0g :la ga, J50j0fi00 000 0 O( q t7  a<Sv^0<  g                            000 0
1~~~~~~ ~~~ ~ )*  0  ,Sf XY' ,.2't|.2lSfU  l, S: f  C E   > t,,t   ;f,0 000

. . , . .  k    :   .   .   .~~~~~~   -                                       0 ~- D e -

b tlk};i rk. .0                         .iSza;ai  a gS :::: ;0;t IP& l ;l>l ;00; 0 t0 ;0' ; 000

20"! 0hi & g  0 tcuSli}(Qi!0t0V;  00;}fi5-O;t  tlli;fiX>S    00t(U)S0000;     C

I;; f; ; ;: 0. I ......... 't185, ,;, i t ty : i F S0a . . . . 0 t % * . ; S iSS S O X 2 i2t ; 0 2 l A ;: O f iLi;E i.; iS ;;;. > C i i I

,''0~~~~~~~~ ~ 0''':''''''':"''"'''''"''''""""""'"'"

[0 t; C  a  f V00 i S 92eatttA6  t>  iSiN  Sk'0i t0S   f 000'  SS0Sed 1  t0'd'Ct ? @'S  E '  00  t  0 fa  C |

L                                                  i  ,  ;   j; }:t   ;;tj,  o  ,,   j4;t0 ,,.^'1,00itit 0'; gii;E0S i" :010 ;;0; g2 gg400 t0..   ...   .j;   -t0;00ti |,=

F  f   0g f  00. l0  O 102,; , 00, ,  W  0 ,00 00 C00  00t  f N0  0  00  S  il00  CD 00  S  ta  f  0  t<0t f0g0 0 0 000  i  00'D0  0

10f :'H 'Q  EW  l ;C? '''!'':f :  S^, Sl!2 ; t; VSSi; i tE ttS:SSk;k '| 00;A i;;z  0! ;;S

.";' ~ ~ ~ ~    ~   ~    ~   4   0. ', 0''                                     00)''' -',.','  '' '"'

ip A  ktWa  i AWS  i<   z  i.  .  0i; 0aW  AigA000000Xf:  0  St  lU000  t   ' it00TSt i; 0f ;000000  ll000  ff:0 00  0
'"~~~~~~~ ~ '''''',...'"'0"'"  "''i'"''';''"'"" ""

k ~ ~ ~  ~   ~    ~   ~   ~   -   U) 0$; taS:, ;;;Q ;0;;;;  0;-W0  CXE  5:T 7

_   _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _  _ _ _ _ _    -  , - ' -,' ' " ''  ' '  ' '-'    ' ' _ _'""",.","''''"'""""'""'"-: U)t

[gYlli  gjW;  fl  "lf,,'>O A !0;00  A000200 SSiUt   {S,<fEi<:o-0gfat'";'e'$" 00-;00;W00  001 v

::  :::::  ::::  .---:  :::::  ::::::  :::.:.::::::::::.:::::::.:::: :::::.-  :::::..:::  ':::: :::::::   ::   :  :   ::D .

1 a  C  aSE  0f0000aat  t  'f  0   :0W  0 00000  00LU   .  =  000 AVt0f  0  00W Z   01 -

F  0tStaXt  tt  ;gga:  SSSti0iS00g'l000  0'D  I  AC:  f fr  :S 00  000At5  0  00  0lE ;c:E X: <  CE g

[,  tXtt0:0: V  a0  tttttatVtAt} fX  !0  f  :: t.:.tp!f0  0   00  X0 ;  S0';D':;  SSg4  E;D :1 u

I  g  ;  ;  g  %.0'  . 0tA t0:00  g00f ffS0f ; Sj0 0 0S ffX0C) .  -I        0f0   0;0f 00  :S

1s'0  :;;t  C'ga';  jS      i    ;00   i0;d10   lt5E|i?    ;0;0 C

L  'SSi  tt8%00.  ai=tata'aat '  ' U,A  iC  d  V 4;iX Cd SttSA  S';,S  l  X ,'f00 00 ,$,00S SS f4000  '  0 0 0'

INTRODUCTION

thus it is incumbent Upon us to refine our clhro-  R 7 1- 1\ <l LiNIx).vCAPIK.4   L'Io 'Ol

nol(o)ies as clh)selV as possiblc, within the con-

(   -                               ,\~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ma'(or tlieme emrnerlgrng(w ser tl-ie Past two) to
straints of available radiomnetric techniques.  three (lecades in Polynesian archaeoh)''s the role
Vz A1R-Ilo'1.\' ix'N A ,I S.-1.                of hiuman populations in shaping their island eco-
EA.$''i7-'1RN\ J)OI.JYN\I'S'I,'I.\ A8'O(.-II''I/I'.'  systenms. No longer seen- merely as passive actors

Equally critical  and as refractive to scien-  on a largely static environmental canv-as,
tific inquiry-as the question of chronology is  Polynesians actively transformed island land-
the nature of the earlh societies which emplaced  scapes from pristine associations (of plants and
themselves on the islands of southeastern       animals w-hich had evolved slowly over lon,g peri-
Poly nesia, and the range of variation among them.  ods of b)ioev olutionarv time, into frequently highly
Kirch and G;reen (2001) hav,e applied \vhat they  anthropogenic landscapes, managed for a vari-
call the "triangulation approach" in historical  etv of economnic purposes J<irch 1983, 1997a).

anthropology, which draws upon archaeology!,       Akrchaeological and linked paleoecolo,gical re-
historical lingruistics, and comparative ethnog-  search on a number of Eastern Polynesian is-
raphv, to reconstruct the maj(-)r contours of   lands has yielded a plethora of direct and indi-
Ancestral PolyNnesian culture in the \Western   rect evidence for several kinds of Polynesian in-
Polynesian homeland, prior to the dispersal of  fluence and impact on island landscapes. Amoncg
populations into Eastern Polynesia. It was be-  these are: clearance and replacement of original
vond the scope of their exercise to trace the vari-  forest cover, either with managed arboriculture
ous changes which set off early Elastern Polynesian  (as in the '()punohu Valley, Nk)'orea fLepofsik

culture from its immediate Ancestral Polynesian  et al. 19961), or with fernlands, grasslands, or
predecessor, although theN' point to so ke yev  other pyrophNtic Negetation (as on Nlan,aia
transformations in the lunar calendar and in reli-  IlEllison 1994], Rapa Nui IlFlenley et al. 19911,

ious practice (Kirch and Gireen 2`)001:273-76).  or in Haxwai'i lAthens 19971); erosion, and sub-

A maj(-)r effort is now r equired to build upon  sequent deposition of sonmetimes largce quanti-
lKirch and Green's baseline for Ancestral       ties of sediment in valley bottoms and onto
Polvnesia, by outlining the key changes which   coastal plains (Lepofskv et al. 1996); the intro-
led to differentiation of the early Eastern     duction of a varietv of domestic and commen-
Polynesian cultures and societies in the centu-  sal species, including not only crop plants but
ries immediately following, tlheir arrival in the  also pigs, dogs, chickens, and rats; and the fre-
Eastern Polvnesian archipelagoes. UInderstand-  quent decimation and often extinction of in-
inr the nature of these earlk societies-includ-  digenous and endemic biota, especially land
incr their tlentiites, their social an(l political struc-  birds (Steadmnian 1989, 1 995, 1997a).

tures, economic basis, and material modes of       The degree to \vhich such human-induced
existence-is essential if xwe are to be able to  environmental changes should be regarded as
trace their later histories o f change and social  "degradation" (of the landscape, and the extent
ev olution. Eor this effort to be successful, how-  to which such changes xw ere deleterious to the
ever, the archaeolog(Yical "leg" of the trian<gula-  islandi cultures, is a matter for empirical inxvesti-
tion approach must be fully eNe]elpedl throughl  gation and must not be simply assumed. Cer-
adequate sampling of sites dating to the eark,  taink, the implantation of intensive horticultural
phase of E,.astern Polynesian settlement. Thus,  systems on islands, and their progressive spatial
another longr-term goal of the MNan,rareva Ar-  extensification ovTer timne wsere inevTitable conse-
chaeologvr Project is to find and samp)le strati-  quences o)f successful cultural adaptation and
graphic deposits dating,  th le early Eastern   p   ulto,roh.exasiofed,g-
Polynesian time period,                         dens, and orchards, even to the extent that on

6

ARCHAEOLOGICAL INVESTIGATIONS IN THE MANGAREVA ISLANDS, FRENCH POLYNESIA

manv islands tlhese dominated the lowland       period descriptions otf MlanCarev,a, as well as
zones, max' have resulted in serious reductions  ethnohistorical accounts (Hiroa 1938a), stress the
or replacements in nativxe flora and fauna, yet  deoraded nature of the terrestrial environmnent,
wiotho ut maj or negative consequience for the  wxith hillslopes dominated by a pvrophv,tic asso-
human populations. On the other hand, some      ciation of Ali'scanth,s caneland, I)icra;iopteris
islands reveal instances where overlv intensive  fernland, and scrub 1Panidanus (see Chapter 2).
or expansive application of land use practices  Horticultural activities were confined to the nar-
on vulnerable or fragile substrates led to sern-  rowk coastal plains and valley bottoms (Hiroa
ous land degradation, inhibiting or prevTenting  1938Sa:226), where colluvial and alluvial accumu-
later use of these areas. MIangaia appears to be  lations offered the only soils with sufficient nu-
such a case, w!here the interior volcanic slopes  trient regimes to support sustainable cultivation
wvere stripped of f(-)rest cover soon after    (Tercinier 1974). To read Hiroa's reconstruction
Polynesian settlement, and where as a conse-    of traditional Mangarevan society, these con-
quence later Polynesian agriculture was inten-  straints affected many aspects of Mangarevan
sivelv focused on limited areas of valley bot-  life, and led to a condition of endemic competi-
tomland (Kirch 1996, 1 997b; Kvirch et al. 1995).  tion between social groups over limited economic

One variable (-f possible significance in as-  resources. L)etermining when such landscape
sessing the relative vulnerability of particular is-  transformations first arose, in what waxs humans
land ecosystems to human impact is geolo]gical  were (or were not) resp(-)nsible for them, and
a e and its corollarv, degree of xweathering and  tracking the linked pathways of enxvironmental
leaching of soils and soil nutrients. E-colo(gist Pe-  change and economic adaptation, are tasks that
ter Vitousek (2004) has shown through exten-   require careful field and laboratory invrestigation,
sive work on the age gradient ()f the Hawaiian  invtolving collaborativre research between archae-
Islands that natural ecosystem parameters are   ohlo)gy and the natural sciences.
closely linked with biogeochemical gyradients con-

trolled fundamentally by a combination of ag,e  I )NGD1ViAX(J   ILR   T )XN
and climate. Applying Vitousek's model in a com-  X LAsITIEi(x  IENI)

parative way, Kirch (1997c) ar,gued that the rela-  The extent to Nvhich the various societies of
tive vulnerabilitv  and consequently the impact  Eastern Polynesia were  throughout the course
of human land use  wvas much greater on 20-mil-  of their respective histories-more or less iso-
lion-vear- 1d MSan,gaia than on the yoruthaful (<80)  lated from each other is a matter on which an-
kyr) surface of Tikopia. f\lore recentlv, Vitousek et  thropological opinion has changed considerablv
al. (2(-)(4) and lKirch et al. (200(4) hav e demonstratedl  ovrer time. C,ertainly, at the mo)ment of initial Eu-
how such b)io,geochemical gradients directly influ-  ropean contact, there is no evTidence that the
enced patterns of human settlement lispersion and  societies at the marginal extremes of Polynesia
farmiing p)ractices on Hawxai'i and M\aui islands.  (Hawai'i, Rapa Nui, and Aotearoa) had been in

If this maodel of island age/vrulnerability has  regular contact with the central archipelagoes in
'vider potential, it needs to be tested on a num-  the near past. To the Haxwaiians, for example,
ber of other comparativ e cases. Niangrarev a of-  IKahikii wxas an ancestral homelandl ovrer the hori-
fers an excellent opportunity to ex;amine a set of  zon, to and from wrhich the deified gwod-chief
small islands with geolog-,ical agres of 5-6 million  Lonoikamakahiki "voyaged" annuallv, bringing
x'ears (see Chapter 2), w:hich g,iv!en a relativek'  fertilitx' to the land. The real Ksahiki (Tahiti) wZas
high annual rainfall re,gime, should put them at  no long,er a place vrisited by Ha\vaiians, although
or past the threshold of nutrient weathering, ev i-  thex' continued to recount o)ral traditions of long-
denced on the older Hawvaiian Islands. Historic  departed ancestors, such as Pa 'ao, MIo ikeha, and

7
INTRODUCTION

Kila who had, it was said, madie return voyages   Izatlon and sourcing of artifacts    especially
between Hawaii and Kahiki (Finney 1994). In       adzes or other tools madie of Oceanic basalts-
contrast, at the same time in the central archi-  has likewise fueled interest in the question (-)f
pelagoes (of Eastern Polvnesia the first European  )ngm-distance interactions in Polynesia (X`eisler
observers encountered abundant evidence of        1997; Rolett et al. 1997). Weisler and Kirch
regular inter-island and inter-archipelago contact.  (1996), for example, demonstrated that stone
The most famous case is surely that of Tupaia,    adzes originating from the Tatangamatau quarrv
the Raiatean priest-navigator who dictated to     on Tutuila Island in the Samoa group had been
Captain C(-)ok the names of more than 1()( is-    imported to Mangraia in the southern (Cook Is-
lands known to him, and pointed out sailing di-   lands. Several studies within the southern (Coo)k
rections and canoe-travel distances, which Cook   Islandis have shown substantial inter-island trans-
converted into a Western navigational map         fers (-f basalt artifacts, and pearl-shell is likely
(Salmond 2003:11 0-Il1).                          also to have been moved in this manner

W'estern perspectives on Polvnesian vovag-     (Sheppard et al. 1997; Allen and Johnson 1997).
ing abilities have ranaed from the romantic vTiews  Rolett et al. (1997) have do-)cumented the move-
of 19th century scholars such as Percy Smith,     ment of Eiao lsland basalt artifacts in the
who invoked vast "fleets" of canoes, to the mid-   Nlarquesan archipelago. Subsequentlv, Weisler
20th century opinion of Andrew Sharp (1956)       (1998; W\eisler and Green 2(0:)1) has demonstrated
who held that Polynesian discovery of the is-     the mo)vement of adzes of Nlarquesan (Eiao Is.)
lands had largely been a matter of random drift.  origin to both Mlo'orea and Mangareva, as well
Thor Heverdahl's Kon-Tiki raft adventure, and     as the movement of an earIx' Type la adze from
the beginnings of stratigraphic archaeology in    the leeward Society Islands to Mlangareva. These
the 1950-60s, began to bring the question of      discoveries have prompted a reconsideration of the
voyaging into shiarper relief. Earl computer      de,ree of long-distance interaction among earlv
simulations (Levison et al. 1973) suggesting that  Eastern Polvnesian communities. Even the previ-
random voyages could not explain the pattern of   oush' supposed "total isolation" of remote Rapa
Polynesian settlement were so0on followed bv the  Nui is now open to question, as (Conte avers:

experimental voyages of the replicated canoe

I  e   o                             On peut rncmc se dcnmander si Il'le de 1Paques, entre
Hoku/e'a and others to follox  (Finney 1994).        t(utesSVf( nvmediS()leiintCtccdescSf
From this work a much mnore sophisticated view        peuplement initial si l'on en croit l'opinion

of Polvnesian seafaring capabilities and of settle-   couramment adrnise, a tou jours ete aussi isolee qlu'on
ment strategies has emerged (Irwin 1992). Many        Ic pr)tend. Les condlitionsdie navigation sont diftcilces

sch(-)lars n(-)o agrec that early PolRynesian canoes  niais non insurmontables, notamment depuis Pitcairn,

9  I    I                    ~~~~~~~~~~et dlans le- sc-ns iles de Paques Tuamotu e11es semblent

were capable of sustained upwind voyages of           met  e      Isen les Ic s Taot lles semblent

memeassz aieesSi 'on en croit irwin (1 992 :162).

discoverv and colonization, and of maintaining

I~~~~~~~ Penser a une cokonisation umqee asrtu,e

contacts betxveen distant archipelagoes.2 It seems    mume nier la possibistC de contacts a rec l'ext5rieur
likely, on the evidence of prehistoric introduc-      apr&s la colornisation, est-il conforme a la logitque

tion of the sweet potato (Ipomoea batatas) into       commc aux connaissances disponi'bles sur l'ancienne
central Eastern Polynesia by ca. A.D. 1 000 (Hather   culture pascuane, ou est-ce c6der une fois de plui au

-  <  #                       ~~~~~~~~~~mx the tie l'ile is016C . bouit .lu mo nde,c d6rivrcntvxers

and Kirch 1991), that at least one group of              t t

un chaos ma,q    peuiqic tCLple dc geants de pierre? N'est-
Polnesians ventured as far as the coast of South                 a c     t' (         D

4                                                   ce pas o)ublier la chainc cI'ilcs (Henderson, Ducle,

America and returned.                                 Pitcairn) qui, depuis leCs G;ambier, Ctaient autant

The deveelopment b)x' archaeologists of ac-       d'escales, de foyers depeuplement etde contacts
curate methods of spectro:-chemical character-        ulterieurs possible (200)0:264-65).

8

ARCHAEOLOGICAL INVESTIGATIONS IN THE MANGAREVA ISLANDS, FRENCH POLYNESIA

Based primarily on his extensive reseal-ch  erv and settlenment. Al though the E.a astern
on Henderson Island, \X'eisler (1997) outlined a  lholvnesian societies share much in common, and
specific model for a "Mangareva-Pitcairn inter-  clearly can be traced  trom a phvlogenetic or
action sphere" that maN hav e operated between  cladistic perspective-to a shared Ancestral East-
these far-flung islands over a period of 400-50()  ern Polynesian culture during the earls' phase of
y ears; the model xvas further elaborated by   Polynesian expansion out of \estern Pol! nesia,
Weisler and Green (2()() 1). Archaeological evi-  the!, are by, no means all simple "clones" of each
dence for imports from Mlangareva to Pitcairn/  other. In contrast, while sharing certain common
Henderson include volcanic oven stones of      features, they display an amazing degree of varia-
Nlangarevan provenance, as well as pearl shell  tion, in subsistence economy, social structure,
which is abundant in Mangareva but does not    political organization, and religion. Accounting
grow in the Pitcairn-Henderson group. From     for these differences, and explaining how- and
Pitcairn to Henderson, there is additional evi-  whv thev have arisen, has engaged the efforts of
dence for importing of oven stones, fine-grained  both comparative ethnographers (Sahlins 1958;
basalt, and volcanic glass, as well as of pig and  Goldman 1970) and prehistorians (Kirch 1984;
crop plants which mIight have come from either  Kirch and Green 1987, 2(X01; Conte 2000).

Pitcairn or Mlangareva. \Wieisler's model for this  This is not the appropriate venue to review
Mangareva-Pitcairn interaction sphere is graphi-  the range of theoretical perspectives on the "evo-
call-N depicted in Figure 1.2. As can be seen, he  lution" or "transformation" of Polynesian soci-
infers the movement of other kinds of goods,   eties (but see C-onte 2000 for one critical per-
such as turtles and red feathers from Henderson,  spective). However, we do wish to comment on
but these need to be tested on direct archaeo-  the possible sig,nificance of MIangareva within
logical evidence.                              such tlheoretical constructions. Sahlins advanced

In a detailed application of a "holistic ap-  a model in which the varied Polynesian cultures
proach" to interaction studies (i.e., one incorpo-  were seen as exemplifying, "members of a single
rating multiple lines of evidence, including those  cultural genus which has undergone adaptive dif-
of historical linguistics as well as archaeolog,y),  ferentiation" (1958:248). In his model, social
Weisler and Green (2001) further develop the   stratification (hierarchy) was seen to be directly
case for Mangareva as a central locality in south-  correlated to the environmental potential of a
eastern Polynesian interaction networks. The!'  particular island or archipelago and to economic
write that "NMangarev a held a pivotal position in  productivitv; as regulated through Polanvi's con-
long-distance interactions not only involving the  cept of "redistribution" (Polanvi 1944). Sahlins
Pitcairn group, but including the more distant  classified Polynesian societies into four catego-
archipelagoes of the eastern Tuamotus and the  ries, ranked in order of their degree of stratifi-
MIarquesas" (\Weisler and Green 2001:440). One  cation, with Mangareva included in Group Ila
aim of our Mangareva Archaeological Project is  (along with Nlangaia, Rapa Nui, and 'Ulvea),
thus to obtain additional empirical evidence to  which "had stratification systems structurallyN di-
help test this h!ypothesis.                    visible into two status levels" (1958:68). Distinc-

tions betwveen the elites (vho were marked by
several lexical categories) and commoners were
Finally, a topic of long-standingy interest  pervasive, ranging from houses and material in-
xvhich has stimulated a divrersity of theoretical  sig?r,nia, to special life-crisis rituals, to control o)f
perspectives is that of the differentiation and di-  economic production and craft specialization.
versification among the E,astern Polynesian so-  WXithin his Giroup hla, "M\angarevTa appears to
cieties in the centuries fo-llowin<g initial discov-  havre been the most stratified" (1958:70)). As

9
INTRODUCTION

Oven stones
Medium-grained basalt

Slab-lined vault burialss
F /GURE 1.Wute recurved point fishhooks   o t  M        i          s

/             ~~~~~~~Pearl shell-\               _\

/   _,         ~~~~~~Aieurites                                             \

commodities echanged (acoe Grenadrestr202lfges)

Sablins was working  vitinaexpimCocs        G       ' S         c    Red fea   neers p

r      Cyrtosperma                         \lsognomon fishhoo s\

ni   ata    pct Mangarevan                                eenderson

MuJsa,,_,,
Marriage partners                                 \       0
Rattss  exuifans a                    s

Sus scrofa          t                           #

a  Shape   d Poritescoral abraders &          fi    les                           sm

a dfery acute Vibend oabbing fishhooks                                       rts

l  pLarge 1 ircular rotating fishhooks        c  b e        o                     I
s   Obtuse recurvedpoint fishhooks  p        s       If M      i

Bucktype4&e5Aradzes                                       i i      coprs
te pnSidenhafled ea-                        e a     g hv acomn      a   o n

Fine-grained basavt no praesta

FIGURE 1.2 Weisler's hypothetical model of the Mangareva-Pitceirn interaction sphere with
commodities exchanged (afler Green and Weisler 2002u fig. a 1).

Sahlins ' oas working ()ithin an explicit model e(dfrman's Stratified categorv . ( oldman empha-
of "multilineal cultural etolution" (see Sah.ns  sized scarcith , rather than abundant resturces, in
and Sermnice 1M 6), the impwicatsa n m f  his clas-  assessindc thegrolemfenvironmenthand economic
si    tratifie  society  (1970:150); indeed,    proluction in social erv-)utaon, with  siangareta
s(ciety represents the endpoint o)f an ev olution-  as a kev wxitness:

arv trajectorvr towvards increased hierarchvr and-                     .

Mangarea is by farthesmallestinstance(bot      fThe a"pearanc" of a Stratified sncliet on these sMeall

social differentiation oareer time.                 ana isolat, d Islands that resemple atolls reftifi at

Goldman (I197()) wxho, like Sahlins, depended   once the conventio-nal thesis that political e,- olution
ga,elv upon I 9th and 2()th centurv ethnographic  can be explainecl fromi condlitions of econ )mi

sources for h's analv s's, adopted a theoretical po-   FuylsI Inaer lutae n     cnmctei

at all, it is; rather the opposite-the stlimulus o-f
sition emphasizing; social agencv1, dowvnplaving

t     '-               '   ~   ~~ econnmlc scarcitv. Th-c four isicl Islands comtiirising
the primacv o-f envilronmental and econo-mlc fac-   th  riel,oa eacmndar          fnooe

tors (in MSarxist terms, o)ne mi,ght say that wvhere  tlhan six'qur milcs ..mo)st of 't rockl andi barelv
Sahlins insisted (:)n the primacN, of infrastructurce,  cultiN able. The islands ha-ve nO pern-anent streanms,

Gioldman 1lokled to superstructure for the de-      no secure w-atcr suppIlx other tlian a feax spring,s, rain
terminant forces of change). Goldman classifiedl    rnf,adsca        h  ml ra ffricSi i

'-                   ~~~~~~~~~in scattcred patc}les alono, coastal flatlanids and xv ithin
Polvnesian societies into three groups, rantgint

l- w         ~~~~tilc short m-ioutitain valleys (1 97():15()).

from 'Tra(3itional', to-) 'O~pen', to 'Stratified', fokrm-

ing an implicit evrolutio)nary sequence. To         Alth(-)ugh1 placing lSlangarevra in the Strati-

10

ARCHAEOLOGICAL INVESTIGATIONS IN THE MANGAREVA ISLANDS, FRENCH POLYNESIA

o f social statuises (hereditarv chief, warrior,  wide spectrum of theoretical positions, ranging
priest). Summarizing the oral traditions of     froin the cultural evolutiolnary stance of lKirch
Nlanlgare\an political histor-, G(oldman writes:  (1984) or K<irch and GJreen (1987), or the

We see.. all otf Iangarevan history as a record of  4 "selectionist" evolution exemplified by Allen
political utinrcst ancd of acute rivalries for power. In  (1996), to Conte's (2000) critique of evTolution
the coursc of these strugg,,lesC the principles of  and emphasis upon agency and identity as un-

tracbtionall status ,xvre never realiv ovXerrcome- or

traditional status wederIv-ing principles of social differentiation. This

abandoned:. Thev x^-ere strctclhed, and even re-   .Ct

a-andoned . The. were stretchedandeven-is not the place to argue for or against particular

shapedi to imeect the actualities of po:ltical life

(1970:154).                                theoretical paradigms. The point we wvish to make

is that it is archaeologists, who-unlike the com-
((larx  )odman stru,gr(ded with the

r    o                                parativ-e ethnographers  are able within the lim-

Mangrarevan case, putting, it in his Stratified cat-  i

.      .>                       s~~~~~~~~~~~ts o)f material evrldence to directIlx access the past

ego-rN- wxhile recogrn'zing that it perhaps shared.

egorv while recognizing that it perhaps shared  and can therefore studv' cultural change over time.

more in common w ith the NI\arquesas o)r-

more ic m wtThe societies of Eastern Polvnesia, as their mndi-

Nlangaia. Recent historical and anthropological  vdual histories are painstakinglv revealed

analvrses of Nlarqluesan s-cial chang,e (Thomas.

analyses of N larquesan social change Qfhomas  throughl detailed archaeological investi-ration,

199(0); Kirch 1991) have pointed to the emergent  hv e        p

hav e enormous potential to test a %,ariet-\ o)f an-

tensu)ns between traditional status groups and

thropDo-lourgca1 models and theories. MIancrarevTa

to the breakdown of hereditarv chiefship. Kirch  t           m

has already been pointeti to, by Sahlins and

(199t1) has ar rued that the Nlarquesas exemplifv

(Goldman, as a case studv' of great interest within

a case of "competitive involution"; a similar ar-  t

1     '    ~~the Polvnesian sp ectrum. As o)ur archaeolo 'lcal
(rument mi(,ht perhaps b)e advsanced foi-             I                                .^

n        m    t                                 knowledge of the Mangarevan past continues to

MIangarev a

* I angareva.                        expand, we expect that Mlangareva will continue

The t-nodels o)f Sahlins and Cwol)dman hoxv-

T m eoS i,w-  to stimulate intellectual debate about the course

ever interesting, were b(otlt beset by a fundamen-

I                ()of the PolvTnesian longue dulte.

tal problem of being in essence ev(-)lutionary                    < s

models that were dependent upon atemporal,             PREI()US ARCHAEOILOMGICAL
etlhnographic depictions of societies at the point      RESEARCH IN MANGAREVA

of, ()r even after, European contact. The soc'iet-  The early explorers and missionaries (includ-
ies classified by GJoldman as Traditional, (pen,  ing Beechev 118311, MIoerenhout [18371, and
and Stratified (or by Sahlins as Groups I to 111)  Laval 119381) briefly described some of the reli-
cannot in realitv form a true evolutionary sequence.  gious structures and burial sites then still in use,
Rather thev are contemporary, static endpoints of  but archaeolog-ical investig-rations per se did not
lengthN' sequences (-)f cultural change. The meth-  commence until the early part of the 20th cen-
ods of comparative ethnogrraphy can suggest hy-  tury. From  late 1921 until the end of 1922,
potheses of how differences between such re-    Katherine Routledge-best known for her pio-
lated groups mav have arisen, but they cannot  neeringr archaeological and ethnographic researcl

directly unravel the real /longue duiire of history. In  on Rapa Nui  carried out fieldw%vork on
the absence of written records, only archaeol-  Mang-areva, assisted bv her husband William

(t\r anti prehistorv have that privilege.       Scoresbv Routled e (Van Ti1buqg 2003:209-212).

As archaeologists in Polvnesia have moved   Routledge's MNangareva research appears to have
from early effo)rts at establishing cultural sequences  been fo)r the most part ethnographic and linguis-
and documenting and describing material culture  tic, althzough Scoresbvt evTidently photographed
changIe ovler time, theh havIe increasingly beg,tun to  and mapped some stone ruins. Unfortunately,
look to their arch1aeologrical data to) test models of  due to Ksatherine's tragic illness, her results wvere
cultural and social change. Predictably, there is a  never written up for publicatio)n.3

1 1
INTRODUCTION

The first si(rnificant archae)l()4gical x(rkl,  hlis metho(ds were shockingly crude. Presumiably
thereforc, did inot cotlmnenCC until the arrival of  in-spired by the recoxvery of adzes and other arti-
the Bishop NlLSeuLlIll'S 19-34 Nlangarev\,an Elxpe-  facts from "bluff shelters" on the northwestcrn
dlition, during whlicll 1K.enneth P. E mory andi Te  Hlavaiian islands of Nihoa and Necker during
Rangri Hiroa (Pcter H. Buck) spent several         the Tanager Expeditions (of the 192t)s (Emory
montlhs based in Rikitea Village (Hiroa from  12    192 8), Emory Inade a similar effort to locate and
September to November 20, limory from        12    dig in the floor deposits of rockshelters, espe-
September to November 5; see Gregory 119351        ciallv on Agakauitai Island, xhere he was assisted
for- details of the Miangrarevan E*xpedition).     by a local American expatriate named Stephen
Enmory and Hiroa were disappointed with xvhat      Garwood:

they coul(l fin(d of surface archaeological remains;   We camped ()n the little isladtd (of Agaklau-i-trai for

in Hiroa's words: "Every mzanie has been obhter-       se-eral days andcl were able to expl(ore it thorougIlly.
ated and thougrh the sites and the names of an-          The site otf Niarac Te Aga-()-Tanc is at the

cient relietious structures wxTere k;nown, there were  northlern cend otf the level land directl in front of a

littlc shelter- cave formed bv the overhang of thc
no renmnants that couldl assist lnmory in recon-                                       a       t

-                   rbluff.  In the shalllow earthi (of the flo(or (;ar\x()o)d

structincr tlhe ny1za,t! pattern" (in Gare<gory 19t35:59).

structin(. the ;i~  (in ~JIL~A()L?  ~           and I luu ftor an hour and a half, but found no

Hiroa concentratedl on "salvage ethnographv,           artifacts.

producingr a monogrraph (Hiroa 1 938a) which           Several yards SoLuth of the hidinr cave fof Te

renmains the key wxxork on Mangarevan traditional      Akariki-tea, at the ver foot ()f the (oerhanging

s(0cletv.                                              bluff, is the largest shelter seen on the island, called
lmorx made a rapidl sursr of the isl'inds in  bv thc natives Te Ana-vchivcli.   Discovering
Fli-nor, i-nade a   surid  vrey                                                   is thceover ndi
the main group, locatin, the remnan-ts of sev-         part o a pearl-shell fishhook on the floor, we

9         .-.                   dveermed thlis site worthy of thorough excavation

eral vtlal/( and other structures (including the

and in thC course of) ()ur stay sifted half the soil of
"royal nurseries" on the slopes of Nlt. I)uLff, and     the floor and comlvbed throughl the othcr hialf
summarlizing relevant information from the ac-          j1m(m)ry 1939:28-30).

counts of early explorers an(d missionaries, re-

'       ~~Their "thaoro~uo.yh excavTatMon" (whalch lackied
ported in his mono(graph (Emory 1939). Emory,       a          o

- -. ' any spatial or stratigraphic control, and did not
Illkc Hiroa, made it clear that he wais deepIlx cbs-              *    <*

l H a d t a ad-  make use of sieves) yielded a few! objects includ-
appointedi with what traces were left o-)f Suirface  ing some scrapers and a "tinv fishhoolk of pearl
archaeoh)gv:                                        shell". Regrettably, Emory's di(gging in a num-

After my expericnce in investigating ancient stone  ber of rockshelters on Agakauitai and Taravai

,w()r in the Societv Islainds and( the Tuaninltuls

work in th SocityIsandsndthTuamtusprobably destroyed some of the best stratigYraplic
where ancient rulins alb )und, thec )omplete dlsap-

pearance otf all important structures iti tht   deposits on these islands.

Mamarcx-a lll roLup VS i-i )st discouragrinr Th-    In April, 1956, the Norwegian Archaeologi-
destruction is accountecd for by the immiense  cal E xpedition to Easter Island and Elast Pacific,
amount of~ stone reuired for the great cathedral at  having conmpleted its workl on Easter Island,

Rikitea and the numierouLs stonc bUildings set up ill

>          . cspnt a w eel; at M\angarevsa, to alloxw the

tilt firs;t dlavsF (dt tilt  missiosnary rc'()itllt (1939) 5) .

th rsdysofthmsson r-ge (   expedition's four archaeolo,gists "to become per-

The situation on the isolated atoll of Temoe    sonallv acquaintedi xwith sites already described
provxed to be different, for here the remains of    in the literature" (Heverdahl and Smith 1961:17).
numerous tiiaitic were found intact, andi Elmorv    They "verified" FEmor's statement c(-)ncerning
therefo-re concentratedl most of his wxork; on re-  the destruction of   "all important structures",
cordlinr these structures.                          but did note thle pro)bability that "future wrorki in

E;mory dlid, how)Xever, carry out scome "ex;ca-  these islands wvill locate unobtrusive sites from
v ation" in the main N\iangrarevra grroup, although  xvhich an archaeologrical sequence may be derived."

12

ARCHAEOLOGICAL INVESTIGATIONS IN THE MANGAREVA ISLANDS, FRENCH POLYNESIA

just thirece vear-s later, Roger ( . Green ar-  lbetween Green's excavated sites and tlheir clhro-
rived in Niangrareva under the spolnsorshlip of  nologv based on eight available radiocarbon
the American Ni Luseum of Natural History (New  dates (for the '4C dlates, see Green and \eisler
'YOrk), \vith a foCuS on stratigraphic archaeol-  2002, table 1). The olldest deposits are those of
ogvIN Which enabled hiinm to locate precisely the  the 1Kamakia Island rockslhelters (sites (G I-1 and
kind ()t "unobtrusive sites" from wihich a cul-  -2), followed by the G-FA-1 rockshelter on
tural sequence could be constructed. (Accom-    Aukena Island.

panied by his wife lsav, Green \xvorked in         IFUrther details of (GJreen's 1959 excavations
Mangareva fronm July 2 to I)ecember 6, 1959;    are now finally appearing in print. Steadman and
thev were assisted for part of this time by Tihon l ustice (19 98) reported on bird bones recovered
Reasin.) Green found that rockshelters were     from Green's 1959 excavations, Xwhile Green
common in the low\ basaltic cliffs of the islands,  and WX'eisler (2()()4) recently summarized the
and hie carried out stratigraphic excavations in  zooarchaeological evidence for chickens, dogs,
six of these, three mn Kaamaka, two on Aukena,  pigs, and rats, based on the 1959 excavations.
and one on M1anr,areva. Green's work was con-   Aspects of the material culture record from the
ducted \vithin the dominant North American      rockshelter sequences, such as the fishhoolks,
culture-historical paradigS>rm current at the time,  adzes, octopus lure rigs, harpoons, and orna-
hence the focus on well-stratified sites that could  ments, are presented in Gyreen (1998) and in
produLce a "cultural sequence" exemplified by   \XIeisler and (;reen (2001).

material culture. Nonetheless, his emerg),ing in-   Despite the promising results obtained 1by
terests in thle "settlement pattern approachl",  G(reen in 1959, no further fieldwork was carried
so00n to be de-veloped in hiis subsequent xwork  out in Mangareva for three decades, until 1990-
on NIlo'orea Island, were retlected in M\langarevaa  199I2 when Niarshall \Xeisler made twv(o v-isits to
by dletailedl mapping of a surface archaeolog>i-  M\ang(areva in connection writh his archaeolog,i-
cal complex at Tokani Bav, on Ai\amaru Island   cal research on the Pitcairn and Henderson is-
((;reen and \Veisler 2000, fig. 2).             lands (Weisler 1996). However, \Wieisler's

Initial radiocarbon dates from Green's ex-  Miangareva worlk was restricted to reconnais-
cavations at "Kitchen Cave" and a second        sance-level survey and to the collection of rock
rockshelter at "Sanchio's Cove" (IKamaka Is.),  samples for geochemical analysis. Weisler re-
and from Te Ana Pu (Aukena Is.) were reported   p(-)rted 2() archaeologrical sites, including
by SuIgg(s (I 961)), who noted that resemblances  rockshelters, buried midden deposits, agricultural
betwveen artifacts types from the Man(rarevan   features (terraces), and stone structures. Many
sites and early sites in the NMarquesas "[ledi  of these sites ha(d prevR)uslv been reported by
(Green to believe that Miangareva mav have been  Emorv and/otr Green, but several new sites were
settled by Nlarquesans" (196113:92). Green pre-  included. These 1hinted that the earlier claims for
pared a preliminary report and an incomplete    "complete destruction" of the archaeological
manuscript account of the excavatio)ns (wxith   recordi were indeed orverstated.

copies (leposited in the B3ish1op MLuseum and       Immediately prior to (-)ur own project, in
Nlus6e de Talhiti),l bLtthese regrettably remained  A\pril-Mav 20011, a C.N.R.S. team  headed by
unpublished for several decadies. A summary of  Nlichel Orliac carried out field researclh osten-
the 1959 excavations, including stratigraphic de-  siblN focusedi on the "composition and ev)olu-
scriptions and radiocarbon dates, but not includ-   tion of the flora" ((rliac 2002). The team car-
ing, the artifactual or faunal materials? was ev en-  nied out worki primarily in the coastal or littoral
tuallv pubulished by! Green and \Vteisler (2000)().  zone, in the vicinity of GwatavTake, Rikiitea, and
Figure 1 .3 showss the stratigrraphic correlations  Atirikiigaro on Nl\angrareva island. The worki at

13
INTRODUCTION

Kamaka                 Aukena      Mangareva
GK1       GK2      GK3      GA1      GA2      GM1

Clay layer  Surface  Beach  Roadway & Abandoned  A

A       Bed 12    sand  disturbance
Floor I

B        A         A    Abandoned Abandoned Abandoned
A. D. 1800       :           * -   am---  Abandoned Abandoned  B

.A  d  o :-:IV .  ....  .. ....7;00 :;

; - 00~~~~~~~~~~.0.f  -  0.f  :-:f :':f'   S;.......  ...   ...   ....  ... ..  .,X .. --,

FIGURE~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~. . .3 ..............

(after Green and WeislerDA.D. 1700 L

Floor~~~~foo Ill... .

C    C

A.D. 1600                               /

Floor /VH lorIl

H

A.D. 1500                                C

A.D. 1400

A.D. 1300.
FIGURE 1 .3  Stratigraphic

correlations and time

sequence for the six
rockshe.ters excavated
by Roger Green in 1959

(after Green and Weisler     A. D. 1200

2000,  fig.  24).   - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _  _ _  _ _ _  _ _ _  _ _ _  _ _

Giatavake has been ciescribed in greater detail     turv,. Test excavation in a buried cultural deposit',
by, O)rhac (03,wherec stratified deposits wvere      which yielided fishhook fragments, a serrated
discovered in the subtidal zone, associated with     coconut grater, and worked pearishell along with

and C)rliac proposes that ne/atiz'e sea level mnax  this level wvere identified and included tyTpical
have risen as much as 0).5 m since the 12th cen-     coastal trees (Thespesia populnea, ca/op 4yllum

14

ARCHAEOLOGICAL INVESTIGATIONS IN THE MANGAREVA ISLANDS, FRENCH POLYNESIA

Inopbh)1u//m, Guettardlal speci.sosa) along with  large marae or other ceremonial structures-are
Polvnesian introduced trees (Cocos niuc/t/ra,  wvorthv of archaeological attention. Despite the
A/cur/kes molucrcana, Casualina equiset.fo/ia).  evident destruction of the principal marac by

To sum up, prior archaeological studies in  the Catholic missionaries, we suspected that it

the Mlangareva Islands had been fairly limited

-           might still be possible to find intact archaeo-
in scope; wvhere significant results had been ob-

.t-  .         .        I~~~~~ogical landscapes, especiallyT on the outer lS-
tained thev remained in large part unpubllshed.           ,

tamedItheyemained inlarge partnpublished  lands, as Weisler's brief reconnaissance had sug-

Emory felt that most of the important surface    e     (

gested (WYeisler 1 996). Thus a primarn goal w as
architecture had been destroyed bv the mission-

*           , <   '               ~~~~~~~~SimInlx that of reconnaissance surveyT to assess
aries, and his "excavations were so crude as to  s     t   o  r              u      t

be more destructive than contributing to ar-   the potential for settlement pattern studies.

chaeological   knowledge. Green's      1959 O5iective 2: To obtain new i;gtrmation relative to
rockshelter excavations v-ielded time depth and  the chronology of human settlement of the arrcipelago.
an important artifact sequence, but remaining   Locating the earliest sites in any Polynesian ar-
unpublished these results did not begin to in-  chipelago has met with much controversv, and
fluence broader discussions of Eastern         archaeologists actively debate the date of colo-
Polvnesian prehistory until recentlv. Fortunatelv,  nization for particular island groups. Finding the
wvith the collaboration of Mlarshall Weisler,   earliest sites for a particular island or archipelago
Green's pioneering work has now begun to ap-    is of extreme importance for it "starts the clock"
pear in published form   (Green and Weisler     for examining cultural differentiation and evo-
2000, 2002, 2004; Weisler and Green 2001).     lution of island societies. From excavations on

THE 2001-2003 MANGAREVA                 Kamaka Island, Green established a first culture-
ARC-HAEI10G( )GI(CAL PR( )JE(CT        historical sequence for Mangareva beginning at
PwxJiARc!(- I ILATRIIEC.YAVND (i-c 7 1         A.D. 1200 (Green and Weisler 2000). However,

basalt adze material and volcanic oven stones
In the research proposal submitted bv our

from Mangareva may date to as early as A.D). 800-
team to the Ministry of (Culture in January 2001,         ta       s    o

-i                   .    '   1000 in habitation sites on Henderson Island
we outlined four major objectives for our project  s

in te Nangrev Isand. Teseobjcties ere some 400 km east of Nlangareva (Weisler 1995).
in theMangarevaslands. Theseobjective e We therefore hxpothesized that perhaps 200 to
influenced bv the major research themes de-     4

. # .  .                   ~~~~~~400 vTears of the earliest period of IVlangareva
scribed earlier in this chapter, but were some-  p       a        d                   t

'  .    .     ~~prehistory! awsaited discovery. We proposed to ad-
what more focused and modest, givsen the lim-   dc
ited time and resources available to us.

ment chronology through the use of transect
0/jyective 1: To contt;ibute to thet inventoryZ o/ ar^-

chaeolo-il scoring in locations Judged likely for early settle-
chaeolo<>gical sites in1 Allangaeilt, especi'al/ly stonte struc-  ..'

ment (such as the Rikitea Village area), combined
tures w)hich had ntot been previously recorded. As noted  t      .

-               xvl~~~wth test excavatdons.

above, Emory had set the tone for virtually all    Objective 3: To contribute to the evoliWug archaeo-
archaeologists Worrking in Mangareva when he   lqgica/ understandi<n of prior interactions or exchanges

lamented "the complete disappearance of all

bh;tveen AXlain,areiv and otl)er islan1ds and arrhipe1qa,oes

important [stone] structures in the Mlangarevan  of Eastern Polynesia. As discussed above, the na-
g>roup" (1939:5). Howevrer, settlement pattern ar-  ture of long-dtistance interactions or exchange
chaeolo)gy in Polytnesia has advranced a great deal  between islands and archipelaKgoes in Eastern
since Emory's time, writh the realization that en-  PolyTnesia has emerged in recent years as a ma-
tire settlement landscapes-and not just the jor theme of archaeological research. The use