A Re-Examination of the Bird Bones from Archaeologi- cal Sites Excavated in 1952 on New Caledonia David W. Steadman] E. W. Gifford and R. Shutler, Jr. conducted pioneering excavations at numerous archae- ological sites on New Caledonia in 1952 (Gifford and Shutler 1956). Their descriptions and interpretations of the excavated materials, especially the ceramic assemblages from site 13, were fundamental in defining what has become known as the "Lapita Cultural Complex" (Green 1979; Kirch and Hunt, eds., 1988; Kirch, this volume). Among the materials obtained on New Caledonia by Gifford and Shutler were bird bones from seven different sites that were sent to Alexander Wetmore of the Smithsonian Insti- tution for study. (Unfortunately, site 13 itself seems to have yielded no bird bones.) Most of the bird bones were regarded as being too fragmentary for refined identification, although Wetmore did identify nine of the specimens, representing six species. The purpose of this paper is to present the results of my re-examination of the same set of bird bones that Wetmore examined. My identifications are based upon comparisons with modem skeletons of birds from the Florida Museum of Natural History, New York State Museum, U. S. National Museum of Natural History (Smithsonian Institution), and the University of Washington Burke Museum. The comparative material I used was of much greater quantity and quality than that available to Wetmore more than 40 years ago. Of the 119 specimens that Gifford and Shutler and/or Wetmore regarded as certainly or possibly representing birds, 25 specimens actually represent either crab, fish, lizard, flying fox, or rat (Tables 1 and 2). Among the 94 bird bones, 33 are too fragmentary to identify beyond being a bird of some sort. I identified the remaining 61 bird bones to the level of family (4 specimens) or species (57 specimens). Wetmore's identifications and mine agree for the nine specimens that he identified to species. (The difference between his Pterodroma leucoptera and my P. nigripennis is only nomenclatural.) The 61 bird bones represent three species of seabirds and nine species of landbirds (Table 3), none of which is extirpated on New Caledonia. Each of the species of landbirds still survives on the island. The goshawk Accipiter haplochrous is the only species in these assem- blages that certainly is endemic to New Caledonia, although the single columbid bone is of a size that would suggest the endemic pigeon Ducula goliath. The three bones identified as Anatidae sp. are juvenile specimens that lack provenience. Their fresh appearance suggests that they may not be prehistoric, but may represent a duck or small goose, perhaps even a domesticated species, that died within the past two centuries. The remaining eight species of landbirds are all widespread in the tropical Paciflc. 1. Editor's note: Prof. Steadman kindly agreed to re-analyze the bird bones collected by Gifford and Shulter at my invitation. His current affiliation and address are: Florida Museum of Natural History, University of Florida, P. 0. Box 117800, Gainesville, FL 32611. Telephone 352-392-1721, FAX 352-846-0287, email: dsteadman@flmnh.ufl.edu. (PVK) Bird Bones Any interpretations of this set of bones are tempered by small sample size. Neverthe- less, I must question whether most or all of these bones were deposited during the first millenni- um of human occupation in New Caledonia. The prehistoric avifauna of New Caledonia is characterized by numerous extinct species (Balouet and Olson 1989), none of which occurs in these sites. In lacking bones of extirpated species of birds, the assemblages from New Caledonia differ markedly from those of Lapita sites in Fiji, Tonga, or Samoa (Steadman 1989, 1995). I suspect that most or all of the bones examined in this paper are less than 2000 years old. Only sites 20 and 26 have enough depth and bird bones to suggest some tentative strati- graphic trends (Tables 4, 5). In both cases bones of the chicken (a non-native species) are confined to the upper strata, this conforming to the general trend in Oceania of increased use of domesticated species with time (Dye and Steadman 1990). Acknowledgements I thank Patrick V. Kirch for the opportunity to study the bones. For laboratory assis- tance I thank Lenora J. Justice. Access to comparative skeletons was facilitated through J. P. Angle, S. L. Olson, S. Rohwer, and C. S. Wood. Steadman 39 Kroeber Anthropological Society Papers Ce CX Cd C) C) .0 i c' .0 0 .o (65~~ coe I. r- Cq t 1- ce ~ ro G ; w w Io co o 22 t GI Q SC $|tOJQib$ 0_ 0O 0 o o i o .D .U r/S > Q *U i v $ A , "0 cL .!: m C q ~ Cr " 0 " 0 " " 0 0 " " " " " " " z Q Q Q G z z z z s fN 00t -r N o o ^? (b 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 N N N N t t ?. \0 N N N N N N N N N N N N N 'n Ir IJ: If Ir If If m Ir I/ Ir) I* I Rm If I* If If If If If If If If If If) If I If) lf If If If) I ? _____ 0 0N 0 N N N N _ Oc O O I -O O o I ? ? ? ? ? -? - - -D 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 6 6 6 6 ,6 , oN oC oN all oN ON 0i ON 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 - - - - -4 - - N N N N N N N N N N N N N 40 No. 82 Cu PCu co C *a rm 4 0* t S0 s 4- Cu 3 u; C , u- "a Ou .0O PC._ C- E* I Cu o U, z *a co Q Bird Bones 41 Cd =I ceco : u e - -s r nt r~ rJ r - CA CA (A CA CA C A - 4 cda - cu~~ -cu CA Uq C* S fi S @ t. g S~co w CA = (An la ' Q '0 ' .0 .S 0 ' *' U *. X. v. v v v v * * - b * . . v . . . - E t t t t t ,;, S tE t E, P X X CD -G 'g 's ' .0 "IO le,_ ._4 ._- -_ (L 4) ( m m m -0 .r v '0' 0 0 z z z Cu 0 z ._ . ._ . 4 0 . 0 ._ . 4 0. ._ .'0 .'0 .' ' m m m m m m m m m m m m m m - - - O e 00 m N 1- Rt 0 0 N N N N O% 0A t' - - M M N N N N I . t .' r-? r- (N N N m It t . '- t- m t 'n U r 'r tr ir 'r tn 'r In WI WI in in ir 'n 'n 'n in in mn Rn Rn Rn Rn R n WI W n In Rn In In i n i n R In In Rn In Rn Rn Rn tn -p 7- 1- -p P- V- 1- 1- r- - V- V- V- r- V- V-4 '- - -4 V- V- -. V. c( (N C( (N4 N (N C( (N cs e cs 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 ' a ? W ? ? ? S ? ? \ ? v(N (N (N (N (N (N (N (N (N 00 00 "- "4 . V4 - I -4 - 94 4-4V -4 V-- r- V- -4 W- V- V- V- - A o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o IN N N N N N N N N N N (N N N N N N N N N N N N Steadman 4-b rw 4) 9 m .o C S s I PO I as SW B 1 C 'U z U .5 co o w lz 42 Kroeber Anthropological Society Papers C e C C C~ K~ CI n C C EH c Cf E , H C~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~~~~C CSC E . v = - l. Q C 0 2 PC 'Z~~~~~~~~~~~' zz W ) O W) W W N N N 0t 0 e c 'I 'I t 00 0 ( ^ It 0 . W W) W) '. r- 00 00 00 e ' t t It W F '. '. W W 00 U . m. m m m m 8 o o 0 0 0 00 a '. '. '. e o o o. u? m? ei em em n eF f e f n f W) ' . '. '.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~ b 00 0 0 0 00 W ~ 0 0 0 0 ze_ *_ *- 0N 0 N0 0 60 0 60 0 60 0 N0 60 0 0N 0 0 60 60 60 '. '. '. ' No. 82 Bird Bones rq co) = 0 O L.X - 'S .o . F- E- ~~ * E ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ E "0 H- I-, I-~~~~~~~~~~~~I Q .Z m rA m2C 3 ts Q C-4. 10 'R a a "0 "0 "0 "0 ._ ._ ._ . m m m m "0 "0 "0 "0 "0 "0 "0 "0 "0 "0 "0 * cr o i y I I In o I I I - - - - - - - - - - -n? o o o o o _ - - _ - o o o o _ _ _ _ _ _._ ???????????? ? 6 6 6 6 6 Steadman 43 I ' ri I 0 t a 9 3 0 :U Cs z 'U z z .A ?c z ?c ?o A ?o A ?o A ?o A A A ?o A?o N N N N N N Cq C14 A N A A A A Kroeber Anthropological Society Papers C we = u) CA cX 0 o 0,0, 0, 0, Y 0,m H ff m a Y tCs 0 0 - 0 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~0 00 reH * . . m m im "0 .!: m "0 "0 "0 "0 "0 .m m .m .m . .6 .. 0, 0 , COI C0 0C0 C 0 , , 5 0~~ 0 " 0 ~ ~ 0 . " 0 0~c "0 m IQ "TZ 'IO "0 "0 "0 "0 0 "0 "0 "0 C' "0 "0 k2m m m m m m m m m m m m m E,^ n , t- ^ C t- - 00 00 - t- N F 0% 0 %0 0% r 0 Rn 0 0 00 0 0 t- s e M R n t N _ N N 0% 0 0 r - - - - - ? - - '- - - - - - - - - - 4 N 00 N~~~~ ~ ~ ~ N N t t >s N N0 0 %Q ?o ?o ?. ?o %c ?Q ?0 ?c %0 %O ?. qt t "t 0 0 0 - - N N N N N N N N N N N N N lt It l 'n 'n In in in i n 44 No. 82 C~- . .=o Cu co PC m, "0 4 c 0 ci rmq Q 3 Q o CA 0 oL) c v .0 x, - .E .z .Q 0 k 4 * * 6 O Q; C.U m .Q m z CA4 C5 z do u *t1 Steadman " 0 E ._ ._ t S ^,., 00 ~~~~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ cd cis C's PC 0- o 0 o : Cutn m m t N o ND N i _ _ - - N = = = = g: l g:0 Cii , <, * -a - C. C. C. C. C. Bird Bones 45 Kroeber Anthropological Society Papers Table 2 Summary of Specimens Identified in Table 1 Taxon Crab Fish Lizard Pteropus sp. (flying fox) Rattus sp. (rat) Pterodroma nigripennis (Black-winged Petrel) Sterna bergii (Crested Tern) Anous stolidus (Brown Noddy) Egretta sacra (Pacific Reef-Heron) Anatidae sp. (duck/goose) Accipter haplochrous (Blue Goshawk) Gallirallus philippensis (Banded Rail) Porphyrio porphyrio (Purple Swamphen) Pluvialis dominica (Lesser Golden Plover) Columbidae sp. (pigeon) Tyto alba (Barn Owl) Gallus gallus (Chicken) Bird sp. Number of Identified Specimens 1 4 1 17 2 1 2 2 2 3 2 6 19 1 1 8 14 33 46 No. 82 Bird Bones Table 3 Site Distribution of Identifiable Bird Bones, New Caledonia Site Species 19 20 26 44 50 51 52 Other Total Seabirds Pterodroma nigripennis 1 1 Sterna bergii 2 2 Anous stolidus 2 2 Landbirds Egretta sacra 1 1 2 Anatidae sp. 3 3 Accipiter haplochrous 1 1 2 Gallirallus philippensis 1 5 6 Porphyrio porphyrio 12 5 1 1 19 Pluvialis dominica 1 1 Columbidae sp. (large) 1 1 Tyto alba 4 4 8 Gallus gallus 4 4 4 2 14 Total 7 29 15 0 0 2 3 5 61 Table 4 Summary of Bird Bones from Site 20, New Caledonia Depth (inches) Species 0-6 6-12 12-18 18-24 24-30 30-36 36-42 Pterodroma nigripennis 1 Egretta sacra 1 Accipiter haplochrous 1 Gallirallus philippensis 4 1 Porphyrio porphyrio 1 3 2 2 2 2 Pluvialis dominica 1 Tyto alba 1 1 1 Gallus gallus 2 2 1 Total 4 5 3 9 5 2 1 Steadman 47 Kroeber Anthropological Society Papers Table 5 Summary of Bird Bones from Site 26, New Caledonia Depth (inches) Species 0-6 6-12 12-18 18-24 Egretta sacra 1 Accipiter haplochrous 1 Porphyrioporphyrio 2 1 2 Tyto alba 2 1 1 Gallus gallus 4 Total 7 3 1 4 48 No. 82