Identification of Carbonized Breadfruit (Artocarpus altilis) Skin: Refining Site Function and Site...

BioOne sees sustainable scholarly publishing as an inherently collaborative enterprise connecting authors, nonprofitpublishers, academic institutions, research libraries, and research funders in the common goal of maximizing access tocritical research.

Identification of Carbonized Breadfruit (Artocarpus altilis)Skin: Refining Site Function and Site Specialization in theSociety Islands, East PolynesiaAuthor(s): Jennifer G. Kahn and Diane RagoneSource: Journal of Ethnobiology, 33(2):237-258. 2013.Published By: Society of EthnobiologyDOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.2993/0278-0771-33.2.237URL: http://www.bioone.org/doi/full/10.2993/0278-0771-33.2.237

BioOne (www.bioone.org) is a nonprofit, online aggregation of core research in thebiological, ecological, and environmental sciences. BioOne provides a sustainable onlineplatform for over 170 journals and books published by nonprofit societies, associations,museums, institutions, and presses.

Your use of this PDF, the BioOne Web site, and all posted and associated contentindicates your acceptance of BioOne’s Terms of Use, available at www.bioone.org/page/terms_of_use.

Usage of BioOne content is strictly limited to personal, educational, and non-commercialuse. Commercial inquiries or rights and permissions requests should be directed to theindividual publisher as copyright holder.

http://dx.doi.org/10.2993/0278-0771-33.2.237

http://www.bioone.org/doi/full/10.2993/0278-0771-33.2.237

http://www.bioone.org

http://www.bioone.org/page/terms_of_use

http://www.bioone.org/page/terms_of_use

IDENTIFICATION OF CARBONIZED BREADFRUIT(Artocarpus altilis) SKIN: REFINING SITE FUNCTION AND

SITE SPECIALIZATION IN THE SOCIETY ISLANDS,EAST POLYNESIA

Jennifer G. Kahn and Diane Ragone

Using systematic flotation, we recovered small carbonized fragments of breadfruit skin (exocarp) from a house

site dated to the late prehistoric period on the island of Mo’orea in the Society Islands archipelago (EastPolynesia). Our find is the first record of the fruit of breadfruit from Oceanic archaeobotanical material.

Utilizing direct ethnographic analogy, our analysis of the archaeological breadfruit remains, including their

context and morphology, and their comparison with experimentally charred modern reference samples of

breadfruit exocarp, suggests that these remains resulted from the practice of roasting breadfruit. Taken as awhole, these data provide evidence for the practice of breadfruit roasting in the past. More importantly, the

evidence contributes new information on site function in the context of a larger study concerning late prehistoric

household variability. The case study broadly supports how paleoethnobotanical data can provide supporting

evidence for inferring site function and site specialization.

Key words: archaeobotany, breadfruit, East Polynesia, Oceania, household archaeology, site function,

site specialization

Utilizando la flotacion sistematica, hemos recuperado pequenos fragmentos carbonizados de la piel de panapen(Artocarpus altilis) de un sitio domestico (de casa) fechado al periodo prehistorico tardıo en la isla de Mo’orea

en el archipielago de La Isla Sociedad (en el oriente de Polinesia). Empezamos con un resumen de la informacion

actual sobre la cultivacion, el acto de cocinar, la preparacion y el consumo del panapen prehistorico en el este de

Polinesia y los factores que conducen a la escasez de restos tanto micro como macro botanicos del panapen portoda Oceanıa. Nuestro encuentro es uno del los primeros records del material arqueobotanico de panapen, debido

en parte por que las variedades sin semillas de panapen que son comunes en el este de Polinesia producen poco o

nada de polen. Utilizando la analogıa etnografica directa, nuestro analisis de los restos arqueologicos de panapen,

incluyendo su contexto y morfologıa y su comparacion con muestras carbonizadas experimentales de referenciamoderna del exocarpio del panapen, sugieren que estos restos resultaron de la practica de asar el panapen. Estos

datos recientes proveen evidencia tentativa de la antiguedad de la practica de asar panapen y contribuyen nueva

informacion sobre su funcion en el sitio, en el contexto de un estudio mas amplio acerca de la variedad domestica(casa) del periodo prehistorico tardıo.

Grace a un usage systematique de la technique de flottaison, nous avons isole des petits fragments de peau

carbonises du fruit de l’arbre a pain (Artocarpus altilis), provenant d’un site d’habitat datant de la periode

prehistorique tardive de l’ıle de Mo’orea, archipel de la Societe (Polynesie orientale). Nous resumons, en premierlieu, les donnees disponibles sur la culture, la preparation culinaire et la consommation du fruit de l’arbre a pain

en Polynesie orientale. Ensuite, nous analysons les facteurs a l’origine de la rarete des vestiges micro et macro-

botaniques de fruit de l’arbre a pain a travers l’Oceanie. Nos donnees constituent l’un des premiers ensembles

d’echantillons de fruit de l’arbre a pain au sein de collections archeobotaniques oceaniennes. Notons laparticularite des varietes sans graines de fruits de l’arbre a pain, tres repandues en Polynesie orientale, de

produire peu ou pas de pollen. Grace a une analogie ethnographique directe, notre analyse des fragments

archeologiques du fruit de l’arbre a pain, tenant compte de leur contexte et morphologie, demontre l’usage d’une

Jennifer G. Kahn, Anthropology Department, College of William & Mary, Washington Hall, Room103, 241 Jamestown Rd., Williamsburg, VA 23185 ([email protected])

Diane Ragone, Breadfruit Institute, National Tropical Botanical Garden, 3530 Papalina Road, Kalaheo,HI 96741 ([email protected])

Journal of Ethnobiology 33(2): 237–258 Fall/Winter 2013

cuisson rotie. Ces nouvelles donnees soulignent l’anciennete de ce mode de cuisson et contribue a une meilleure

comprehension de la fonction des sites dans le cadre d’une etude plus large sur la variabilite des sites domestiquesde la prehistoire tardive.

Introduction

Ethnohistoric and archaeological evidence demonstrate that intensivesubsistence production provided a foundation for economic, social, and politicalcontrol by the ruling elites of Polynesian chiefdoms. In the most complexEastern Polynesian societies, household labor integrated with the regionalpolities, as elites, and particularly elite feasts, were provisioned by commonerlabor and tribute, including copious amounts of subsistence goods (Hamiltonand Kahn 2007; Kahn 2005; Kirch 2010; Lepofsky and Kahn 2011; Oliver1974). Ethnohistoric documents illustrate that arboriculture (i.e., intensive treecropping) was a key component of many Oceanic cultivation systems and aneconomic foundation of many Polynesian chiefdoms (Athens et al. 1996; Kirchand Yen 1982; Latinis 2000; Lepofsky 1992; Yen 1974). Among the tree crops,breadfruit (Artocarpus altilis Parkinson Fosberg) (Fosberg 1941) was a mainstayof Oceanic societies, bearing a profuse amount of fruit that served as a starchystaple.

Archaeobotany has served as an important method for directly studyingplant-people interactions in the past. Analysis of wood charcoal macro-remains isa key tool for reconstructing paleo-environmental sequences and subsequenthuman impacts upon them (Asouti and Austin 2005). In Oceania, wood charcoalanalyses have been used to reconstruct precontact vegetation and to documentand date the timing of vegetation changes (Coil 2004; Lepofsky 1994; C. Orliac1998, 2000a, 2003; M. Orliac 1997, 2003), in addition to providing data on thetiming and intensity of introduced cultigens and agricultural practices (Athenset al. 1996; Lepofsky et al. 1996; Murakami 1992). Despite the well-documentedethnohistoric importance of Polynesian cultigens, few direct remains of fruitsfrom tree crops or tubers have been recovered in the archaeological record (e.g.,Coil and Kirch 2005; Lepofsky 1992, 1996). This has limited our ability to developfine-grained interpretations about the role particular cultivars or particularsubsistence regimes played in local contexts.

Extant fruit and seed studies from Oceania have been instrumental inrecording the presence of specific cultivars, their translocation during thecolonization process, and shifts in fruit size along the wild to domesticatedcontinuum (e.g., Fairbarn 2005; Jones et al. 2013; Lepofsky 2003). In EasternPolynesia, the identification of wood charcoal is most commonly used to identifydiachronic changes in arboriculture (Lepofsky 1994; Millerstrom and Coil 2008),as many species which were tree cropped represent Polynesian introductions andlack local wild progenitors. Hence, wood charcoal remains of Polynesian plantintroductions which have known usage as components of arboriculture systems(as inferred from ethnohistoric and ethnographic accounts) provide evidence fortheir cultivation.

Paleoethnobotanical studies in Eastern Polynesia have much to contribute tosocial interpretations of prehistoric lifeways, particularly with respect toquestions concerning site function and household status. Archaeological and

238 KAHN and RAGONE Vol. 33, No. 2

ethnohistorical data emphasize how differences in the morphology and locationof cooking features within houses can be used to infer household rank. Thesedifferences are likely related to the fact that elites and commoners haddifferential access to foodstuffs and, thus, varying frequencies and types ofcooking features (Van Gilder and Kirch 1997). Most notably, in the SocietyIslands, the elite used large earth ovens to cook starchy foods and tubers, whilethe commoners used smaller cooking hearths with more varied morphologies tocook fish and to reheat foodstuffs (Kahn 2005, 2007). These differences in featuresize and function may also correspond to different types of combustibles used,but this research theme has rarely been explored (for an exception see Huebertet al. 2010; Orliac and Wattez 1987). Documenting the presence of cooked fruitsand tubers in sub-surface features associated with prehistoric house sitesrepresents an important line of direct evidence for cooking practices, which arerelevant to reconstructing aspects of daily life, household status, site function,and site specialization.

Differences in the morphology of cooking features and the foodstuffscontained therein can also be used to differentiate habitation structures used assleeping houses from those used as specialized structures, especially incombination with paleoethnobotanical analyses. Specialized structures docu-mented in Society Islands ethnohistoric accounts include community houses, godhouses, men’s houses, and craft production locales, among others (Green 1986;C. Orliac 2000b). The common expectation is that sleeping houses had a smallhearth in the interior for providing light or warmth, but that cooking featureswere exterior to the house, as food preparation and consumption was considereda tapu (forbidden) activity that had to be segregated from sleeping (Shore 1989;see Kahn 2005; Sutton 1990). In contrast, many specialized houses have cookingfeatures in their interiors or lack evidence for cooking entirely, either inside oroutside the house (Kahn 2005; Orliac 2000b). The recovery of paleoethnobotanicalremains (such as tubers and other starchy foodstuffs including breadfruit) fromfire features would provide more accurate determinations of function than thosebased on morphology alone. However, this line of evidence has not beenexplored in Eastern Polynesia.

Here we present new archaeological data on charred skin (exocarp)fragments of breadfruit recovered adjacent to a small sub-surface fire featurelocated within a prehistoric specialized house site (ScMo-120B). The house sitehas elaborate architecture and is associated with a marae (ritual temple site,ScMo-120E) deep in the upper reaches of the ‘Opunohu Valley, Mo’orea, SocietyIslands. This paper provides the first example of an identified fragment ofA. altilis fruit from a prehistoric archaeological context in Eastern Polynesia. Ourdiscussion begins with a background on breadfruit cultivation in Oceania.Despite the cultigen’s widespread use, direct evidence of breadfruit cultivation israre in the region’s archaeological record. We discuss the diverse factors thathave led to the paucity of micro- and macro-botanical remains for this cultigen.Our recovery of breadfruit remains from the specialized house provides evidenceof the antiquity of breadfruit roasting as a cooking practice and offers a rareglimpse of everyday mundane activities. More importantly, it serves as asupporting line of evidence for understanding the differing constellation of

Fall/Winter 2013 JOURNAL OF ETHNOBIOLOGY 239

activities found in specialized non-residential houses in contrast to residentialsites. Clearly, more widespread use of flotation, particularly of earth oven andhearth contents, would lead to greater recovery of breadfruit and other botanicalremains. These data would provide additional insights into the specific role ofplants in ancient Polynesian production systems as well as their use in daily life.

Investigating Breadfruit Cultivation in Oceania

Breadfruit is a medium-sized tree, commonly growing 12–15 m high, but canreach up to 20 m tall. Propagated vegetatively, A. altilis is cultivated through rootshoots or suckers spreading out from established trees or from transplanted rootshoots. In the western Pacific, both seeded and seedless varieties are found. After3–5 years, the tree bears round, oval, or oblong fruits, between 9–29 cm long and6–20 cm wide, with varying skin morphology. The fruit’s tough skin is typicallyflat or slightly rough and its specific texture can vary between seedless and non-seedless varieties and with the age of the fruit (Jones et al. 2013; Ragone 2006;Worrell et al. 1998; Zerega et al. 2005). Its distinctive outer epicarp (exocarp) iscomposed of five- to seven-sided polygonal disks (anthocarp apices), with thestigma in the center which can leave a distinct scar when it shrivels as the fruitmatures (Ragone 1997; Zerega et al. 2005).

Ethnohistoric sources, ethnographic and ethnobotanical data, and traditionalhistories suggest that breadfruit has long been an important staple in Oceania(Addison 2007; Pollock 1992; Ragone 1991; Whistler 1991), yet these data derivelargely from indirect evidence. After initial domestication in Oceania (Ragone1997), breadfruit was introduced to the Society Islands and the rest of Polynesiafrom the western Pacific (Zerega et al. 2004, 2005). Breadfruit was cultivatedprimarily for its fruit, which served as an important carbohydrate source, butother parts of the tree also had important uses (Ragone 1991, 1997). Fresh andfermented breadfruit formed a daily mainstay of the diet in many parts ofOceania, including the Society Islands and the Marquesas archipelago in EastPolynesia, where it was fermented and stored in subterranean pits (Addison2007; Handy 1923; Linton 1923; Oliver 1974; Ragone 1991). Kirch and Green arguethat ensiled storage of breadfruit is an old practice in Oceania, certainly pre-dating the settlement of Eastern Polynesia (Figure 6.3 in Kirch and Green2001:159–160).

Clearly, there is strong indirect evidence for the importance of breadfruit as acultivar, even though few remains of Artocarpus fruit have been reported inOceania. The two extant samples derive from the far western Pacific, notablySabah (Borneo) and Sulawesi (Kajale 1989; Paz 2001). The lack of breadfruitremains hampers our ability to study prehistoric food processing practices and toexplore whether storage and consumption of the fruit varied among householdsof differing status or house sites of differing function. In the context of EasternPolynesia, establishing that particular amorphous fire features in the interior ofstructures were used to cook foodstuffs as opposed to providing light provideskey information that a site was not used as a domestic residence. In precontacttimes, cultural rules dictated that food preparation and consumption bekept separate from sleeping activities; thus, evidence for food preparation or


consumption in the interior spaces of structures identified as sleeping housesshould be absent. Therefore, the direct identification of breadfruit remains hasrelevance not just for reconstructing subsistence practices, but for identifying sitefunction and site specialization.

Macro-remains of Artocarpus fruit tend to be rare in the archaeological recordfor a number of reasons. In western regions of the Pacific, many seeded forms ofbreadfruit are cultivated, which presents another potential source of data. Theseeds themselves can be used as a food source, but otherwise should onlypreserve in the archaeological record if charred or in water-logged contexts. Twostudies of preserved seed and nutshell remains from Lapita sites in Near Oceania(Kirch 1989; Matthews and Gosden 1997) failed to recover breadfruit seeds,despite abundant remains of other seeds, inedible shells, or husks. This patternsuggests that seedless varieties were preferred for cultivation, or that breadfruitseeds were commonly eaten. We have personally seen the seeds eaten in Samoa,Temotu Province in the Solomon Islands, Tokelau, and throughout Micronesia,where they are in fact considered a delicacy and are an important source ofprotein and other nutrients (see also Lepofsky 1992). Unfortunately, breadfruitseeds have not, as of yet, been recovered from archaeological contexts in thePacific.

The recovery of breadfruit pollen has proven equally challenging. Seedlessbreadfruit cultivars generally produce little viable pollen compared to fertile-seeded and few-seeded cultivars. In fertile cultivars, the anthers of hundreds offlowers will protrude and dehisce, releasing thousands of pollen grains, so muchso that a dusting of pollen can be seen on leaves under the inflorescence. Only afew flowers in male inflorescences of seedless breadfruit produce and releasepollen (Ragone 1997, 2001). Athens and Ward’s (2004) Guam study (Micronesia)reported pollen from an unspecified Artocarpus species. This is most likely A.mariannensis Trecul, the only Artocarpus species native to Guam and Palau, whichproduces abundant pollen (Ragone 2001; Ragone and Manner 2006; Zerega et al.2004). That Athens and Ward found only a handful of Artocarpus grains in theircore suggests low deposition, poor durability of Artocarpus palynomorphs, orthat there were not many breadfruit trees in the catchment area. In the SocietyIslands, breadfruit cultivars with seeds are so exceptional that the name for theonly known seed-producing cultivar is ‘huero’ which means ‘‘with a seed.’’While this cultivar can produce some viable pollen, most of the Society Islandcultivars are true seedless triploid forms and produce little or no pollen (Ragone2001). Consequently, it is highly unlikely that breadfruit pollen would be foundin the pollen record in the Society Islands, or for that matter, Eastern Polynesia,where seedless forms dominate.

The most common form of data used to infer breadfruit cultivation in EasternPolynesia derives from wood charcoal analysis. Charred Artocarpus woodfragments have been recovered from agricultural complexes and residentialsites in the ‘Opunohu Valley, Mo’orea, Society Islands, demonstrating thatbreadfruit was cultivated in the area. These contexts date to as early as the mid-14th century for agricultural sites and the mid-15th century for habitation sites(Coil 2005, Appendix 1.1 in Kahn 2005:539–543; Kahn 2006; Lepofsky 1994;Lepofsky et al. 1996). Orliac (1997:208, 210) recovered charred breadfruit wood


from an earth oven in the Putoa rockshelter, Papeno’o Valley, Tahiti dating to the14th century, illustrating that Artocarpus wood was used as a combustible.Breadfruit wood has also been recovered at other locales in Eastern Polynesia,including archaeological sites in the Cook Islands, Marquesas Islands, Gambierarchipelago, and Hawaiian Islands dating to the 13th century onwards (Allen andWallace 2007; Conte and Kirch 2004; McCoy et al. 2010; Millerstrom and Coil2008). Given the lack of wild breadfruit taxa in Eastern Polynesia, the presence ofcharred breadfruit wood in archaeological sites indicates breadfruit cultivationacross the region. The recovery of breadfruit wood from agricultural terraces, aswith Lepofsky’s (1994) work in the Society Islands (see also McCoy et al. 2010),suggests the presence of arboriculture (tree gardens). However, none of thesewood charcoal studies provide direct evidence for the preparation orconsumption of breadfruit as a foodstuff.

Most commonly, secondary evidence is used to infer prehistoric cooking,preparation, and consumption of breadfruit in the Society Islands archipelago, asin most areas of Polynesia. Pits recovered in residential contexts have beeninterpreted as breadfruit fermentation pits (Davidson 1967:136–137; Green andGreen 1967:167–168; Kahn 2005; Oakes 1994:84, 108–109; Orliac 1982:275),although the differentiation of pits used for short-term food storage versuslonger-term storage (i.e., breadfruit fermentation) remains difficult. Breadfruitprocessing has also been inferred from the recovery of vegetable peelersfashioned from shell (Rappaport et al. 1967:197; Suggs 1961:128) and poundersfashioned from stone, which were used to process starchy crops into puddings(Lepofsky 1994:203; Rappaport et al. 1967:197–199). Collectively, these indirectlines of evidence, combined with the retrieval of cultivated breadfruit charcoal,particularly from agricultural terraces, strongly suggest that breadfruit wascultivated, processed, and eaten in Polynesia. What is lacking is more directevidence of how breadfruit was processed for consumption. We provide directevidence for this practice here and utilize the contextual data for breadfruitcooking as an alternative line of evidence for interpreting site function.

Breadfruit in the Society Islands: History of Cultivation and Use

Breadfruit (uru), was of significant importance in Society Islands’ arboricultureof mixed fruit and nut-bearing species, which included breadfruit, coconut (Cocosnucifera L.), vi apple (Spondias dulcis Parkinson), and perhaps Tahitian chestnut(Inocarpus fagifer (Parkinson) Fosberg) and candlenut (Aleurites moluccana (L.)Willd.). Both the Tahitian lunar calendar (Henry 1928:332–334; Oliver 1974:266–268) and the annual calendar (Bligh 1789 [II]:46; Forster 1778:504–505; Oliver1988:194) had time periods specifically named for the ripening of particularbreadfruit cultivars and marked the passing of time in reference to periods ofbreadfruit harvest, abundance, and scarcity. Breadfruit could form a dietarymainstay because its many cultivars collectively extended the growing season andalso because some of its cultivars could be stored in underground silos and usedduring periods of scarcity.

During the era of European contact, breadfruit was cultivated in Society Islandhouse gardens, in expansive zones of tree cropping plantations, and within maraeenclosures (Lepofsky 1999:13–14, 19–20; 2003:86). According to ethnohistoric


documents, breadfruit was the primary starchy food eaten in the archipelago(Bligh 1789 [II]:8–9; Ellis 1831 [I]:39–40; Parkinson 1784:19). Wood from the treewas also used in house construction, for fabricating ritual structures on prehistorictemples, and for fashioning ornamental sculptures and canoes (Corney 1918[III]:23; Eddowes 1991:180; Henry 1928:39, 133; Orliac 1984:109; Sparrman 1944:72).The tree’s bark was used in high-quality tapa cloth production, and other parts ofthe tree were used in medicinal practices, cooking preparation, and for othereconomic uses (Henry 1928:39–40; Lepofsky 2003:85; Ragone 1991:213–216).

In both the Society Islands and the Marquesas Islands, the importance ofbreadfruit as the primary starchy staple has been inferred from contact eradescriptions describing varied preparation techniques. Breadfruit was fermentedin the Society Islands in underground pits or silos to create a fermented paste(mahi) (Davies 1991[1851]:8, 124, 147). Stone-lined pits recovered from householdand community contexts in the Society Islands and the Marquesas Islands havebeen interpreted as breadfruit fermentation pits (Addison 2000:271; Green andGreen 1967; Handy 1923:187–189; Kahn 2005; Linton 1923:102–103; Oakes 1994;Oliver 1974; Ragone 1991; Suggs 1961). However, a variety of other cookingpractices are documented in ethnohistorical sources (Beaglehole 1955[I]:120; seealso Pollock 1992:85). These include roasting and steaming of breadfruit in largehearths and earth ovens with interior rocks (umu, ahi ma’a) (Ellis 1831[I]:40–41).Immense communal earth ovens termed ‘opi’o were used to cook copiousamounts of the fruit during feasts celebrated during seasonal harvests (Davies1991[1851]:169; Ellis 1831[I]:42; Morrison 1935:214). Breadfruit was baked or re-baked every day at most households in parts of Eastern Polynesia where the cropwas a dominant staple (Ellis 1831[I]:40). The above review suggests that bothunderground fermentation pits and cooking features in the Society Islands arelikely to yield macro- or micro-remains that can be directly related to breadfruitfood preparation and consumption practices.

As yet there have been no definitive archaeological identifications of breadfruitcooking features in the Society Islands. Shallow hearths with ‘‘grill-like’’ layers ofrocks lining their basal boundary, identified from archaeological excavations onthe islands of Tahiti (Cristino et al. 1988:26; Orliac 1978:26) and Mo’orea (Kahn2005:250–251, 255), are similar to ethnographic examples of features used to cookmeals of starchy fruit and root crops over hot stones (Pollock 1992:66, Figure 9),and could have been used for cooking or re-heating breadfruit. Simple hearths arealso described for cooking or roasting food over an open flame (as with wholebreadfruit) (Ellis 1831[I]:40–41) or for steaming foodstuffs wrapped in vegetableleaves and cooked under the embers of a fire (as with fermented breadfruit or otherpuddings) (Orliac and Orliac 1980). With roasting, termed tunu pa (roasted in theskin), a whole breadfruit was placed in a wood fire to cook and afterwards thecharred rind was peeled off to uncover the cooked flesh (Davies 1991[1851]:288;Rider 1799:11). This simple and quick process of breadfruit cooking is alsodocumented in the historic period (Wilder 1928:14–15) and remains a dominantand preferred cooking method for the fruit today (Figure 1).1

Ethnographic descriptions of breadfruit roasting practices can be used as aform of middle range research to infer what sorts of material remains the activitymight leave in the archaeological record. The process begins with a fire, typically


constructed within the confines of a border of logs, or less frequently rocks.Whole fruit are placed stem side up on the fire to allow steam to escape(Figure 1); the fruit may explode if not oriented this way. Wood and coconuthusks are placed around the fruit and they are carefully tended and turned a fewtimes so they cook uniformly (Figure 2). The skin blackens and cracks and steamescapes from the hole at the stem end. The fruit is considered cooked when ahollow sound emanates from the fruit after it is tapped with a stick. Cookingtakes about 30–40 minutes, depending upon the size and density of the fruit,which is generally cultivar specific (see Ragone and Cavaletto 2006), and thedegree of ripeness. Proper cooking technique is learned through experience; if thefire is too hot the skin will blacken too quickly and the center part will not be

Figure 1. Roasting breadfruit over a fire in Tahiti (Diane Ragone).


sufficiently cooked or orire. After cooking, the fruit is generally removed from thefire with tongs most often made from the midrib of a coconut frond.

The next stage involves preparation of the cooked fruit for consumption. Athick pile of noni (Morinda citrifolia L.) or purau (Hibiscus tiliaceus L.) leaves are heldin the palm of the hand and used to cradle the hot fruit while a flattened, carvedpeeler (pahae uru) is wielded to carefully remove the burnt skin. Native Tahitianterms (paa, pahere) refer both to the external crust of breadfruit and the removal ofits skin after it has been cooked (Davies 1991[1851]:177, 180). Depending upon theskill of the cook, the blackened skin comes off in large sections and is often tossedback into the fire where it is consumed by the flames. One Tahitian informed usthat the skin was returned to the fire to ensure that the next time a fire is made thefruit will cook correctly. The fruit is held in fresh leaves and the central inediblecore is removed and also tossed into the fire. The flesh is gently pounded with awooden tairi uru into a soft doughy mass after which it is ready for consumption.

We may infer that archaeological examples of breadfruit roasting featureswill lack dense amounts of interior cooking stones or fire-cracked rock, but willbe associated with a shallow pit and evidence for combustion (Kahn 2005:159).These simple fire pits or areas adjacent to them may contain small remnants ofcharred breadfruit skin which were removed after roasting. Typically anassortment of fire features, including diverse hearth features in addition tolarger earth ovens, are found at Society Islands archaeological sites (Kahn2005:159; Orliac and Orliac 1982). It may be that some of the smaller hearthfeatures served to roast breadfruit or other foodstuffs; however, without a closeexamination of the macro-botanical remains found in their interiors, their

Figure 2. Close-up of breadfruit roasting. Note the cracked skin (Diane Ragone).


particular function is difficult to interpret. This was one of the impetuses for thestudy presented here.

Archaeological Context of the Case Study

The last two decades of archaeological research in the Society Islands haveoutlined significant functional variation in sites containing house structures.Prehistoric house sites delineated by curbstones are found in both rectangularand round-ended forms. In the past, these archaeological sites housed substantialpole and thatch structures that functioned as sleeping houses or specializedstructures. A range of domestic activities (cooking, storage, tool production, etc.)took place around the exterior of sleeping houses. In contrast, specialized housesites were used for non-domestic purposes, serving as locales for craftproduction, storing of ritual items, feasting or performance, or temporarilyhousing elite visitors (Kahn 2003, 2005; C. Orliac 2000b). Elaborate house sites,most often of the round-ended form, which lack evidence for domestic activitiesin exterior areas, but have evidence for cooking, feasting, or craft activities in thehouse interior, are commonly interpreted as specialized house sites.

During archaeological excavations at inland house sites in the ‘OpunohuValley, on the island of Mo’orea (Kahn 2005), Kahn instituted a systematicflotation program of bulk sediment samples from sub-surface features, housefloors, and house exteriors. The goal was to recover micro-artifacts and botanicalremains to define site function, activity areas, and intra-site activity organization.During the horizontal excavations (60 m2 total) at ScMo-120B (Figure 3), amedium-sized round-ended house, three-liter sediment samples were collectedfrom each 1 3 1 m unit. In addition approximately 50% of the sediment volumeof each sub-surface feature was wet screened or floated (Kahn 2005:216). Wetscreening of sediment samples proceeded through F to P inch screens. Manualflotation with 1/20 inch screen was completed with a simple water irrigation andbucket system.

Multiple lines of evidence demonstrate that there was a single period of siteoccupation at ScMo-120B (Kahn 2005). Sorting and preliminarily scanning ofcharred organic remains recovered from the flotation program yielded abundantAleurites moluccana (candlenut) seed remains and nine types of as yet unidentifiedseeds (Table 1). In addition, in unit N98 E103 (see Figure 3), macro-botanicalremains in the round-ended house interior were suspected to be breadfruit skinbased on their morphology. This was confirmed by comparison with experi-mentally charred modern samples (Figure 4). The comparative samples are skinsamples from a cultivar collected on Mo’orea and another sample, also fromMo’orea, of the cultivar ‘Otea’ (ACC#780327) (Figure 5) grown at KahanuGarden, National Tropical Botanical Garden, in Hana, Hawai’i. This lattercultivar was selected as it is representative of the types of cultivars mostcommonly grown throughout Eastern Polynesia, with a relatively smooth,flattened skin texture. Since the present report pertains to remains from theSociety Islands in Polynesia, where native Artocarpus taxa are absent (Ragone2006), we are confident that the carbonized skin remains are from the cultigenicspecies A. altilis. Macroscopic remains of Artocarpus fruit are unknown from otherarchaeological contexts in Eastern Polynesia.


Figure 3. Plan view of ScMo-120B after excavation. The breadfruit was recovered in the south portionof the house just adjacent to Feature 16—a small fire feature/hearth.


Our comparison of modern and archaeological samples (Figure 4) suggeststhe archaeological samples were carbonized while being roasted. Our photo(Figure 4a) shows two complete ‘‘floral disks’’ (Ragone and Wiseman 2007) thatremain articulated but have broken away from other adjacent disks alongpolyhedral fracture lines. In particular, the articulated ‘‘floral disks’’ in thearchaeological sample have a similar skin-cracking pattern found with breadfruitroasting (see Figure 2). The two reference skin samples (Figure 4b) also fissuredin a similar way, although sometimes along these natural boundaries between‘‘floral disks’’ and at other times bisecting them. These data indicate that thebreadfruit skin was most likely charred as a result of being roasted over an openfire, similar to breadfruit cooking practices used today and recorded for thecontact period era.

Although the breadfruit samples proved too small for AMS radiocarbondating, we were able to date the strata that bracket the remains (Table 2). Beta-193934, an AMS date on a Hibiscus tiliaceus wood charcoal fragment (a short-livedspecies) dates the construction deposit found stratigraphically below the culturaldeposit. This sample dates the initial use of the site prior to the construction of theoval-ended house to a calibrated age span at 2 sigma of AD 1430–1640. Beta-165117provides an AMS date on a Hibiscus tiliaceus sample taken from Feature 16, the insitu fire combustion feature in the house interior located just adjacent to the findspot of the breadfruit remains, and associated with the same cultural deposit as thebreadfruit (Figure 5). The sample has multiple calibrated ages at 2 sigma,including ranges falling into the post-contact period (AD 1520–1600, AD 1620–1690, AD 1730–1810, AD 1920–1950). Because of the absence of historic-periodartifacts at the ScMo-120 complex, we reject the late phase calibrations. The mostlikely date for the occupation of the ScMo-120B house is in the mid-17th century,establishing a prehistoric date for the recovery of the charred breadfruit remains.

Discussion

The ScMo-120B fare pote’e (round-ended house), found in close associationwith the elaborate marae or temple site ScMo-120E (Figure 3), likely had aspecialized function, based on extensive analysis of macro-artifacts, sub-surface

Table 1. General identifications of wood charcoal fragments recovered from flotation samples atScMo-120.

Taxa Count Weight (g.)

Unidentified wood charcoal 7067 79.0Artocarpus altilis exocarp 2 0.1Aleurites molucanna nut

fragment1089 20.4

Unknown Seed A 106 0.4Unknown Seed B 18 0.1Unknown Seed C 2 0.1Unknown Seed D 17 0.1Unknown Seed E 6 0.1Unknown Seed F 127 0.4Unknown Seed G 2 0.1Unknown Seed H 8 0.1Unknown Seed I 2 0.1


feature distributions, and surface architecture (Kahn 2005). The southern part ofthe house was likely used for storage. The recovery of food remains (fish,unidentifiable faunal materials, and the charred breadfruit) in the house interior,in addition to dense remains of craft production, notably extensive evidence foradze use and re-sharpening in the northern part of the house, divergedramatically from patterns recovered in typical sleeping houses (Kahn 2005).

Figure 4. SEM photo of archaeological breadfruit samples from ScMo-120B (a) and charred modernbreadfruit reference collection samples (b) (James Coil).


Taken as a whole, these data indicate that the structure likely served as a fare iamanaha, a multi-purpose locale where ritual objects were sculpted from woodand where sacred items were stored for later use on the adjacent temple site(Kahn 2005:167–168, 288–289).

The charred breadfruit remains were recovered from the southern portion ofthe ScMo-120B house, near sub-surface features interpreted as a storage pit andas a simple fire combustion feature (the latter is designated as Feature 16 inFigure 3; also see Kahn 2005:278–279). The most parsimonious explanation is thatthe charred breadfruit skin was deposited adjacent to Feature 16 after abreadfruit was roasted in this small fire pit and its charred exocarp was peeledoff the cooked fruit.

Figure 5. ‘Otea cultivar of breadfruit (Diane Ragone).


While only a few Artocarpus fragments were recovered, their identification issignificant in providing evidence of food preparation and food consumptionactivities in the house interior. While our evidence points toward the presence ofcooking within this multi-purpose house, the cultural deposits both inside andoutside the house were clean, suggestive of maintenance practices (e.g.,sweeping, cleaning). This is in stark contrast to cook houses typically foundoutside sleeping houses, where charcoal and burned food remains can be foundin abundance, both in cooking features and in the deposits surrounding them(Kahn 2005). Ethnohistoric data illustrate that food preparation and consumptionwere typically considered polluting activities, not to be undertaken inside asleeping house because of ideological concepts related to pure and impureactions, both in the Society Islands and indeed, throughout most of EasternPolynesia (Buck 1934; Handy and Pukui 1958; Kahn 2005; Kirch and Sahlins 1992;Oliver 1974, 1988; C. Orliac 2000b; Ottino and Bergh 1990; Van Gilder and Kirch1997; Walter 1993; Weisler and Kirch 1985). The recovery of charred breadfruitremains in the ScMo-120B house interior provides an additional line of evidencesuggesting that the house had a specialized function. The breadfruit remainssupport that the ScMo-120B house lacks the pronounced spatial segregation ofinterior areas and exterior areas used for cooking and eating found in sleepinghouses (see Kahn 2005:329). In this way, the case study demonstrates the efficacyof paleoethnobotanical analyses for determining site function and site special-ization. The identification of charred breadfruit skin from the specialized housealso provides insight into the context of everyday activities and ‘‘daily practice’’such as simple cooking activities whose spatial contexts are rarely described inethnohistoric accounts.

Table 2. AMS radiocarbon age determinations for ScMo-120B bracketing the breadfruit remains.

Lab no. Provenence

Conventional14C age years

BP d13C %Calibratedage at 1 s

Calibrated age at2 s

Beta-193934 Unit N108.85E102.80154 cmbd.Isolated chunkin constructionfill, just aboveinterface withLayer C(sterile). Datesinitialconstruction ofhouse terrace.

380 ± 50 225.6 AD 1440–1530(46.0%)

AD 1580–1630(22.2%)

AD 1430–1640(95.4%)

Beta-165117 Unit N97 E104,Feature 16:combustionfeature, houseinterior. Datesmain culturaloccupation.

240 ± 40 226.4 AD 1530–1550(4.4%)

AD 1630–1680(37.6%)

AD 1770–1810(21.2%)

AD 1930–1950(5.0%)

AD 1520–1600(14.4%)

AD 1620–1690(41.6%)

AD 1730–1810(32.5%)

AD 1920–1950(6.9%)

Calibrations were done using Oxcal Version 3.9 Bronk Ramsey (2003), using atmospheric data from Stuiver et al.

(1998). Radiocarbon dates were not reduced for southern hemispheric correction.


Conclusions

Paleoethnobotanical studies from outside Oceania have demonstrated theefficacy of utilizing plant data to identify specific domestic activities. Foodstorage and vessel utilization have been illustrated, in addition to foodpreparation and consumption activities in domestic and communal structures(Lennstrom and Hastorf 1995; Lentz et al. 1996). The spatial distribution ofspecific types of plant remains aids in understanding the function of particularstructures, sub-surface features, and activity areas and can serve as an alternateline of evidence for determining site function (Berelov 2006; Bosi et al. 2011;Vanderwarker and Stanyard 2009; van der Veen 2007). Such data can also beused to infer aspects of daily life and ritual, including plant processing andstorage, mundane cooking practices, and offerings incorporated into graves(Ballouche and Marnival 2004; Hastorf 1988).

While paleoethnobotany is accepted as a standard technique around theworld, many applications in Polynesia have been limited to vegetativereconstruction and identifying specific cultigens or short lived species forradiocarbon dating. Although recovering and identifying food plant remains inthe Pacific Islands can be challenging, due to vegetative propagation methods,use of ‘‘root and tuber’’ foods, and poor pollen production by many cultigens,such studies have advanced our knowledge of precontact subsistence andeconomy (Coil and Kirch 2005; Fairbairn and Swalding 2005; Hather 1994;Wallin et al. 2005, among others). Thus, we concur with other researchers (e.g.,Fairbairn and Swalding 2005) that the identification of domestic crops solelyfrom macro-botanical remains in Oceania can be challenging and timeconsuming, although not a completely unrewarded task, as this articledemonstrates. The recovery of charred breadfruit skin from a prehistoric contextin the Society Islands is in one sense an amazing discovery given this is a seedlessfruit that very rarely preserves in the archaeological record. The identification ofcharred breadfruit skin from a well-excavated and dated archaeological contextprovides direct confirmation of prehistoric use of breadfruit as a food crop late inthe Society Islands sequence and the antiquity of roasting as a cooking practice.More importantly, the context of the find provides confirmatory evidence for thespecialized function of house site ScMo-120B, illustrating how paleoethnobota-nical analyses can be used to differentiate domestic structures from communal,specialized settings. We note that the majority of archaeobotanical remains fromthe large-scale ‘Opunohu Valley household excavations (Kahn 2005) have notbeen fully analyzed, leaving open the possibility for further recovery ofidentifiable plant remains from these collections and their additional possiblepotential for understanding inter- and intra-household variability and inter- andintra-site variability.

Note

1 See this videoclip at the National Tropical Botanical Garden

http://ntbg.org/breadfruit/uses/food1.php#traditional_cooking


Acknowledgments

Field research at ScMo-120, which formed part of Kahn’s dissertation research, wassupported by grants from the Green Foundation for Polynesian Research, the GumpResearch Station (Office of the Vice-Chancellor, University of California, Berkeley), theLowie Olsen Fund (Department of Anthropology, UCB), and the Stahl Fund (Archaeo-logical Research Facility, UCB). James Coil produced the SEM photographs of thearchaeological breadfruit sample and the charred reference material. Shawn Fehrenbachaided in drafting Figure 3. Hinanui Cauchois and Doris Maldonado generously translatedthe English abstract. We extend warm thanks to Guy and Nicole Brault and Luka Teuahaufor their hospitality during Ragone’s stay in Papara, Tahiti, and for sharing theirknowledge about breadfruit. Finally, we thank Dana Lepofsky, two anonymous reviewers,and the journal editors for their critical comments.

References Cited

Addison, D.J.

2000 Irrigation in Traditional Marquesan

Agriculture: Surface Survey Evidence from

Hatihe’u Valley, Nuku Hiva. In Pacific 2000:

Proceedings of the Fifth International Confer-

ence on Easter Island and the Pacific, edited by

C.M. Stevenson, G. Lee and F.J. Morin, pp.

267–271. Easter Island Foundation, Los

Osos, CA.

2007 Traditional Marquesan Agriculture

and Subsistence: Cultivation and Processing

of Specific Agricultural Products Part II of

IV. Rapa Nui Journal 21:33–57.

Allen, M.S. and R. Wallace

2007 New Evidence from the East Polyne-

sian Gateway: Substantive and Methodolog-

ical Results from Aitutaki, Southern Cook

Islands. Radiocarbon 49:1163–1179.

Asouti, E. and P. Austin

2005 Reconstructing Woodland Vegetation

and its Exploitation by Past Societies, Based

on the Analysis and Interpretation of Archae-

ological Wood Charcoal Macro-Remains.

Environmental Archaeology 10:1–18.

Athens, J.S., J.V. Ward, and G.M. Murakami

1996 Development of an Agroforest on a

Micronesian High Island: Prehistoric Kos-

raean Agriculture. Antiquity 70:834–46.

Athens, J.S. and J.V. Ward

2004 Holocene Vegetation, Savanna Origins

and Human Settlement of Guam. In A Pacific

Odyssey: Archaeology and Anthropology in the

Western Pacific: Papers in Honour of Jim

Specht, edited by V. Attenbrow and R.

Fullagar, pp. 15–30. Records of the Austra-

lian Museum, Supplement 29, Sydney,

Australia.

Ballouche, A. and P. Marnival

2004 At the Origin of Agriculture in the

Maghreb. Palynological and Carpological

Data on the Early Neolithic of Northern

Morocco. In Acts of the XIth Congress of

Panafrican Association, pp. 74–82.

Beaglehole, J.C., ed.

1955 The Journals of Captain Cook on His

Voyage of Discovery. 3 vols. Cambridge

University Press, Cambridge, UK.

Berelov, I.

2006 Signs of Sedentism and Mobility in an

Agro-pastoral Community during the Levantine

Middle Bornze Age: Interpreting Site Function

and Occupation Strategy at Zahrat adh-Dhra’1.

Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 25:117–143.

presently cited in paragraph 1, page 252.

Bligh, W.

1789 A Voyage to the South Sea, Undertaken

by Command of His Majesty, for the Purpose of

Conveying the Breadfruit Tree. 2 vols. G. Nicol,

London, UK.

Bosi, G.M.B. Mazzanti, A. Florenzano, I. Mas-

samba N’siala, A. Pederzoli, R. Rinaldi, P. Torri,

and A.M. Mercur

2011 Seeds/fruits, Pollen and Parasite Re-

mains as Evidence of Site Function: piazza

Garibaldi – Parma (N Italy) in Roman and

Mediaeval times Journal of Archaeological

Science 38(7):1621–1633.

Bronk Ramsey, C.

2003 Oxcal Program v. 3.9. Available at:

http://www.rlaha.ox.ac.uk. Accessed 12/2011.

Buck, P.H.

1934 Mangaian Society. Bernice P. Bishop

Museum Bulletin 122. Bishop Museum

Press, Honolulu, HI.


Coil, J.2004 ‘The Beauty that Was’: Archaeological

Investigations of Ancient Hawaiian Agriculture

and Environmental Change in Kahikinui, Maui.Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Depart-ment of Anthropology, University of Cali-fornia, Berkeley, CA.

2005 Taxonomic Identifications of AMSRadiocarbon Dating Samples from the ‘Opu-nohu Valley Archaeological Project. Unpub-lished report. In Household and Community

Organization in the Late Prehistoric Society

Islands (French Polynesia), edited by J.G. Kahnand Appendix, 1.1., pp. 543. UnpublishedDoctoral Dissertation, Department of An-thropology, University of California, Berke-ley, CA.

Coil, J. and P.V. Kirch2005 An Ipomean Landscape: Archaeology

and the Sweet Potato in Kahikinui, Maui,Hawaiian Islands. In The Sweet Potato in

Oceania: A Reappraisal, edited by C. Ballard,P. Brown, R.M. Bourke and T. Harwood, pp.71–84. Oceania Monograph 56, Sydney,Australia.

Conte, E. and P.V. Kirch2004 Archaeological Investigations in the

Mangareva Islands (Gambier Archipelago)

French Polynesia. Contribution Number 62.Archaeological Research Facility, Berkeley,CA.

Corney, B.G. (ed. and trans.).1918 The Quest and Occupation of Tahiti by

Emissaries of Spain during the Years 1772–

1776, Told in Dispatches and other Contempo-

rary Documents Containing the Diary of Max-

imo Rodrıguez. Volume III. The HakluytSociety, London, UK.

Cristino, C., P. Vargas, and J.L. Rieu1988 Fouilles Archeologiques et Restauration

du Site VAI 1, Vallee de la Vaihiria, Tahiti.Departement Archeologie, Centre Polyne-siennes Sciences Humaines, Te Anavaharau,Tahiti.

Davidson, J.M.1967 Excavations of Two Round-Ended

House Sites in the Eastern Portion of the‘Opunohu Valley. In Archeology on the Island

of Mo’orea, French Polynesia, edited by R.C.Green, K. Green, R.A. Rappaport, A. Rappa-port and J. Davidson, pp. 118–140. Anthro-pological Papers of the American Museumof Natural History 51:111–230.

Davies, J.1991[1851] A Tahitian and English Dictionary

with Introductory Remarks on the Polynesian

Language and a Short Grammar of the Tahitian

Dialect with an Appendix. Haere Po no Tahiti,Tahiti.

Eddowes, M.1991 Ethnohistorical Perspectives on the

Marae of the Society Islands: The Sociologyof Use. Unpublished Master’s Thesis, De-partment of Anthropology, University ofAuckland, Auckland, New Zealand.

Ellis, W.1831 Polynesian Researches during a Residence

of Nearly Eight Years in the Society and

Sandwich Islands. 4 vols. Fisher, Son &Jackson, London, UK.

Fairbairn, A.2005 An Archaeobotanical Perspective on

Holocene Plant-use Practices in LowlandNorthern New Guinea. World Archaeology

37(4):487–502.

Fairbairn, A. and Swalding, P.2005 Re-dating mid-Holocene Betelnut

(Areca catechu L.) and Other Plant Use atDongan, PNG. Radiocarbon 47:377–382.

Forster, J.R.1778 Observations made during a Voyage

around the World in Physical Geography,

Natural History, and Ethic Philosophy. G.Robinson, London, UK.

Fosberg, F.R.1941 Names in Amaranthus, Artocarpus, and

Inocarpus. Journal of the Washington Academy

of Sciences 31:93–96.

Green, R.G.1986 Some Basic Components of the An-

cestral Polynesian Settlement System: Build-ing Blocks for More Complex PolynesianSocieties. In Island Societies, Archaeological

Approaches to Evolution and Transformation,edited by P.V. Kirch, pp. 50–54. CambridgeUniversity Press, Cambridge, UK.

Green, R.C. and K. Green1967 Interpretation of Round-Ended House

Sites of the ‘Opunohu Valley Based onExcavation of an Example in the WesternPortion of the Valley. In Archeology on the

Island of Mo’orea, French Polynesia, edited byR.C. Green, K. Green, R.A. Rappaport, A.Rappaport and J. Davidson, pp. 164–176.Anthropological Papers of the AmericanMuseum of Natural History 51:111–230.New York, NY.

Hamilton, B. and J. Kahn2007 Pre-Contact Population in the ‘Opu-

nohu Valley, Mo’orea: An Integrated Ar-chaeological and Ethnohistorical Approach.In The Growth and Collapse of Pacific Island


Societies: Archaeological and Demographic Per-

spectives, edited by P.V. Kirch and J.-L.Rallu, pp. 129–159. University of HawaiiPress, Honolulu, HI.

Handy, E.S.C.1923 The Native Culture in the Marquesas.

Bernice P. Bishop Museum Bulletin 9.Bishop Museum Press, Honolulu, HI.

Handy, E.S.C. and M.K. Pukui1958 The Polynesian Family System in Ka’u,

Hawai’i. Charles E. Tuttle Company, Rutland, VT.

Hastorf, C.A.1988 The Use of Paleoethnobotanical Data

in Prehistoric Studies of Crop Production,Processing, and Storage. In Current Paleoeth-

nobotany, edited by C.A. Hastorf and V.S.Popper, pp. 119–144. University of ChicaogPress, London, UK.

Hather, J.G.1994 The Identification of Charred Root and

Tuber Crops from Archaeological Sites in thePacific. In Tropical Archaeobotany: Applications

and New Developments, edited by J. Hather,pp. 51–64. Routledge, London, UK.

Henry, T.1928 Ancient Tahiti. Bernice P. Bishop Mu-

seum Bulletin 48. Bishop Museum Press,Honolulu, HI.

Huebert, J.M., M.S. Allen, and R.T. Wallace2010 Polynesian Earth Ovens and Their

Fuels: Wood Charcoal Remains from AnahoValley, Nuku Hiva, Marquesas Islands.The Journal of the Polynesian Society 119:661–697.

Jones, A.M.P., S.J. Murch, J. Wiseman, and D.Ragone

2013 Morphological Diversity in Breadfruit(Artocarpus, Moraceae): Insights into Domes-tication, Conservation, and Cultivar Identi-fication. Genetic Resources and Crop Evolution

60:175–192.

Kahn, J.G.2003 Maohi Social Organization at the Mi-

cro-Scale: Household Archaeology in the‘Opunohu Valley, Mo’orea, Society Islands(French Polynesia). In Pacific Archaeology:

assessments and prospects, edited by C. Sand,pp. 353–367. Le Cahiers de l’Archeologieen Nouvelle-Caledonie 15, Noumea, NewCaledonia.

2005 Household and Community Organi-zation in the Late Prehistoric SocietyIslands (French Polynesia). UnpublishedDoctoral Dissertation, Department of An-thropology, University of California, Berke-ley, CA.

2006 Society Islands (Central Eastern Poly-nesia) Chronology: 11 Radiocarbon Datesfor the Late Prehistoric Expansion andProto-Historic Periods in the ‘OpunohuValley, Mo’orea. Radiocarbon 48:409–419.

2007 Power and Precedence in AncientHouse Societies: A Case Study from theSociety Island Chiefdoms (French Polyne-sia). In The Durable House: House Society

Models in Archaeology, edited by R. Beck, pp.198–223. Center for Archaeological Investi-gations Occasional Paper No. 35. SouthernIllinois University, Carbondale, IL.

Kajale M. D.1989 Mesolithic Exploitation of Wild Plants

in Sri Lanka: Archaeobotanical Study atthe Cave Site of Beli-Lena. In Foraging

and Farming: the Evolution of Plant Exploita-

tion, edited by D.R. Harris and G.C. Hillman,pp. 269–281. Unwin Hyman Ltd, London,UK.

Kirch, P.V.1989 Second Millennium B.C. Arboricul-

ture in Melanesia: Archaeological Evidencefrom the Mussau Islands. Economic Botany

43:225–240.

2010 How Chiefs Became Kings. University ofCalifornia Press, Berkeley, CA.

Kirch, P.V. and R.C. Green2001 Hawaiki, Ancestral Polynesia. Cam-

bridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.

Kirch, P.V. and M. Sahlins1992 Anahulu: The Anthropology of History in

the Kingdom of Hawaii. University of ChicagoPress, Chicago, IL.

Kirch, P.V. and D.E. Yen1982 Tikopia: The Prehistory and Ecology

of a Polynesian Outlier. Bernice P. BishopMuseum Bulletin 238. Bernice P. BishopMuseum, Honolulu, HI.

Latinis, K.2000 The Development of Subsistence

System Models for Island Southeast Asiaand Near Oceania: The Nature and Role ofArboriculture and Arboreal-based Econo-mies. World Archaeology 32(1):41–67.

Lennstrom, H.A. and C.A. Hastorf1995 Interpretation in Context: Sampling

and Analysis in Paleoethnobotany. American

Antiquity 60(4):701–721.

Lentz, D.L., M.P. Beaudry-Corbett, M.L. Reynade Aguilar, and L. Kaplan

1996 Foodstuffs, Forests, Fields, and Shelter:A Paleoethnobotanical Analysis of VesselContents from the Ceren Site, El Salvador.Latin American Antiquity 7:247–262.


Lepofsky, D.1992 Arboriculture in the Mussau Islands,

Bismarck Archipelago. Economic Botany 46:192–211.

1994 Prehistoric Agricultural Intensifica-tion in Society Islands, French Polynesia.Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Depart-ment of Anthropology, University of Cali-fornia, Berkeley, CA.

1999 Gardens of Eden? An EthnohistoricReconstruction of Maohi (Tahitian) Cultiva-tion. Ethnohistory 46:1–29.

2003 The Ethnobotany of Cultivated Plantsof the Maohi of the Society Islands. Economic

Botany 57:73–92.

Lepofsky, D. and J. Kahn2011 Cultivating an Ecological and Social

Balance: Elite Demands and CommonerKnowledge in Ancient Ma’ohi Agriculture,Society Islands. American Anthropologist 113:319–335.

Lepofsky, D., P.V. Kirch, and K.P. Lertzman1996 Stratigraphic and Paleobotanical Evi-

dence for Prehistoric Human-Induced Envi-ronmental Disturbance on Mo’orea, FrenchPolynesia. Pacific Science 50:253–273.

Linton, R.1923 The Material Culture of the Marquesas

Islands. Bernice P. Bishop Museum MemoirsVIII. Bishop Museum Press, Honolulu, HI.

Matthews, P. and C. Gosden1997 Plant Remains from Waterlogged Sites

in the Arawe islands, West New BritainProvince, Papua New Guinea: Implicationsfor the History of Plant Use and Domesti-cation. Economic Botany 51:121–133.

McCoy, M.D., M.W. Graves, and G. Murakami2010 Introduction of Breadfruit (Artocar-

pus altilis) to the Hawaiian Islands. Econom-

ic Botany 64:374–381.

Millerstrom, S. and J.H. Coil2008 Precontact Arboriculture and Vegetation

in the Marquesas Islands, French Polynesia:Charcoal Identification and Radiocarbon Datesfrom Hatiheu Valley, Nuku Hiva. Asian

Perspectives 47:330–351.

Morrison, J.1935 The Journal of James Morrison, Boat-

swain’s Mate of the Bounty, Describing the

Mutiny and Subsequent Misfortunes of the

Mutineers, Together with an Account of

the Island of Tahiti, edited by Owen. Rutter.The Golden Cockerel Press, London, UK.

Murakami, G.1992 Appendix H: Identification of Char-

coal from Kahoolawe. In Kahoolawe Excava-

tions, 1982–83, Data Recovery Project: Island of

Kahoolawe, Hawaii, edited by P.H. Rosen-dahl, A.E. Haun, J.B. Halbig, M. Kaschkoand M.S. Allen, pp. H1–H14. Paul H.Rosendahl Inc., Hilo, HI.

Oakes, N.R.1994 The Late Prehistoric Maohi Fare

Haupape: An Examination of HouseholdOrganization in Mo’orea, French Polynesia.Unpublished Master’s Thesis, Departmentof Archaeology. Simon Fraser University,Burnaby, BC.

Oliver, D.L.1974 Ancient Tahitian Society. University of

Hawaii Press, Honolulu, HI.

1988 Return to Tahiti, Bligh’s Second Bread-

fruit Voyage. University of Hawaii Press,Honolulu, HI.

Orliac, C.1982 Materiaux pour l’etude des Habita-

tions Protohistoriques a Tahiti (PolynesieFrancaise). Unpublished Doctoral Disserta-tion. Department of Anthropology, Univer-site de Paris I, Sorbonne, Paris, France.

1984 Marae TPP 84, Papeno’o, Tahiti. Rap-port de Fouille, Decembre 1984. C.N.R.S.L.A. 275.

1998 Donnees Nouvelles sur la Composi-tion de la Flore de l’ıle de Paques. Journal de

la Societe des Oceanistes 107(2):135–143.

2000a The Woody Vegetation of Easter Is-land between the Early-14th to the Mid-17th

Centuries AD. In Easter Island Archaeology:

Research on Early Rapa Nui Culture, edited byC.M. Stevenson and W.S. Ayres, pp. 199–207. Easter Island Foundation, Los Osos,CA.

2000b Fare et Habitat a Tahiti. CollectionArchitectures Traditionelles, Marseille,France.

2003 Ligneux et Palmiers de l’ile de Paquesdu XVIIeme Siecle de notre ere. In Arche-

ologie en Oceanie Insulaire: Peuplement, soci-

etes, et paysages, pp. 184–199. EditionsArtcom, ’ Paris, France.

Orliac, C. and M. Orliac1998 The Disappearance of Easter Island’s

Forest: Over-exploitation or Climatic Catas-trophe? In Easter Island in Pacific Context:

South Seas Symposium, edited by C.M. Ste-venson, G. Lee and F.J. Morin, pp. 129–134.Easter Island Foundation, Los Osos, CA.

Orliac, M.1978 Tahiti: Vallee de la Papeno’o, TPP05,

1977. CNRS, LA. 275. R.C.P. 259 Ethno-Histoire du Pacifique, Paris, France.


1997 Human Occupation and Environmen-

tal Modifications in the Papeno’o Valley,

Tahiti. In Historical Ecology in the Pacific

Islands: Prehistoric Environmental and Land-

scape Change, edited by P.V. Kirch and T.L.

Hunt, pp. 200–229. Yale University Press,

New Haven, CT.

2003 Petite Fenetre Ouverte sur un Paysage

de Mangareva au XIIe Siecle de notre ere. In

Bilan de la Recherche Archeologique en Poly-

nesie Francaise, 2001–2002, edited by H.

Marchesi, pp. 137–146. Service de la Culture

et du Patrimoine, Dossier d’Archeologie

polynesienne 4, Punaauia, French Polynesia.

Orliac, M. and C. Orliac

1980 Les Structures de Combustion et Leur

Interpretation Archeologique: Quelques Ex-

emple en Polynesie. Journal de la Societe des

Etudes Oceanistes XXXVI:61–76.

1982 Les Structures de Combustion Reflets

des Activites et des Structures Sociales en

Polynesie. Bulletin de la Societe des Etudes

Oceaniennes 18, 220:1113–1122.

Orliac, C. and J. Wattez

1987 Un Four Polynesien et son Interpreta-

tion Archeologique. In Nature et Fonction de

Foyers Prehistoriques, edited by A.P.R.A.I.F.

Nemours, pp. 69–75. Centre National de la

Recherche Scientifique, Nemours, France.

Ottino, P.R. and M.N. de Bergh

1990 Hakao’hoka: Etude d’une Vallee Marqui-

sienne. Travaux et Documents Microedites.

Orstrom, Paris, France.

Parkinson, S.

1784 A Journal of a Voyage to the South Seas,

in His Majesty’s Ship the Endeavor: Faithfully

Transcribed from the Papers of the Late Sydney

Parkinson, Draughtsman to Sir Joseph Banks,

Bart. in His Expedition with Dr. Solander

Round the World; and Embellished with Twen-

ty-nine Views and Designs, Engraved by Capital

Artists. To Which is now Added, Remarks on the

Preface, by the Late John Fothergill M. D. F. R.

S. &c. And an Appendix, Containing an

Account of the Voyages of Commodore Byron,

Captain Wallis, Captain Carteret, Monsieur

Bougainville, Captain Cook, and Captain Clerke.

Charles Dilly And James Phillips, London,

UK.

Paz, V.J.

2001 Archaeobotany and Cultural Trans-

formation: Patterns of Early plant Utilisation

in Northern Wallacea. Unpublished Doctor-

al Dissertation, Department of Archaeology,

University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.

Pollock, N.J.

1992 These Roots Remain: Food Habits in

Islands of the Central and Eastern Pacific Since

Western Contact. The Institute for Polynesian

Studies, Laie, HI.

Ragone, D.

1991 Ethnobotany of Breadfruit in Polyne-

sia. In Islands, Plants and Polynesians, edited

by P.A. Cox and S.A. Banack, pp. 203–220.

Dioscorides Press, Portland, OR.

1997 Promoting the Conservation and Use of

Underutilized and Neglected Crops Series,

Vol. 10: Breadfruit, Artocarpus altilis (Parkin-

son) Fosberg. International Plant Genetic

Resources Institute, Rome, Italy.

2001 Chromosome Numbers and Pollen

Stainability of Three Species of Pacific Island

Breadfruit (Artocarpus, Moraceae). American

Journal of Botany 88:693–696.

2006 Artocarpus altilis (breadfruit). In Tradi-

tional Trees of Pacific Islands, edited by C.R.

Elevitch, pp. 85–100. Permanent Agriculture

Resources (PAR), Holualoa, HI.Available at :

http://www.traditionaltree.org. Accessed

12/2011.

Ragone, D. and C.G. Cavaletto

2006 Sensory Evaluation of Fruit Quality

and Nutritional Composition of 20 Bread-

fruit (Artocarpus, Moraceae) Cultivars. Eco-

nomic Botany 60:335–346.

Ragone, D. and H.I. Manner

2006 Artocarpus mariannensis (dugdug). In

Traditional Trees of Pacific Islands, edited by

C.R. Elevitch, pp. 127–138. Permanent Agri-

culture Resources (PAR), Holualoa, HI.

Available at http://www.traditionaltree.

org. Accessed 12/2011.

Ragone, D. and J. Wiseman

2007 Developing and Applying Descriptors

for Breadfruit Germplasm. Acta Horticul-

turae 757:71–79.

Rappaport, R.A., A. Rappaport, and R.C. Green

1967 Descriptive and Comparative Analy-

sis of Portable Artifacts Recovered from

Coastal Excavations. In Archeology on the

Island of Mo’orea, French Polynesia, edited by

R.C. Green, K. Green, R.A. Rappaport, A.

Rappaport and J.M. Davidson, pp. 184–200.

Anthropological Papers of the American

Museum of Natural History, New York.

Volume 51:111–230.

Rider, J.

1799 Tahiti and Society Islands: Missionary

Records. Religious Tract Society, London,

UK.


Shore, B.

1989 Mana and Tapu. In Developments in

Polynesian Ethnology, edited by A. Howard

and R. Borofsky, pp. 137–173. University of

Hawaii Press, Honolulu, HI.

Sparrman, A.

1944 A Voyage Round the World with Captain

James Cook in H.M.S. Resolution. The Golden

Cocherell Press, London, UK.

Stuiver, M., P.J. Reimer, E. Bard, J.W. Beck, G.S.

Burr, K.A. Hughen, B. Kromer, F.G. McCormac,

T.V.D. Plicht, and M. Spurk

1998 INTCAL98 Radiocarbon Age Calibra-

tion, 24,000 cal BP. Radiocarbon 40:1041–

1083.

Suggs, R.C.

1961 The Archaeology of Nuku Hiva, Marquesas

Islands, French Polynesia. Anthropological

Papers of the American Museum of Natural

History, 49(1).

Sutton, D.G.

1990 Organization and Ontology: The Ori-

gins of the Maori Chiefdom, New Zealand.

Man 25:667–692.

Van der Veen, M.

2007 Formation Processes of Desiccated

and Carbonized Plant Remains–the Identi-

fication of Routine Practice. Journal of Ar-

chaeological Science 34(6):968–990.

Vanderwarker, A.G. and B. Stanyard

2009 Bearsfoot and Deer Legs: Archaeobo-

tanical and Zooarchaeological Evidence of a

Special-Purpose Encampment at the Sandy

Site, Roanoke, Virginia. Journal of Ethnobiol-

ogy 29:129–148.

Van Gilder, C. and P.V. Kirch

1997 Household Archaeology in the Ahu-

pua’a of Kipapa and Nakaohu. In Na Mea

Kahiko Kahikinui, Studies in the Archaeology of

Kahikinui, Maui, edited by P.V. Kirch, pp.

45–60. Special Publication No. 1. Archaeo-

logical Research Facility, University of Cal-

ifornia, Berkeley, CA.

Wallin, P., C. Stevenson, and T. Ladefoged2005 Sweet Potato Production on Rapanui.

In The Sweet Potato in Oceania: A Reappraisal,edited by C. Ballard, P. Brown, R.M. Bourkeand T. Harwood, pp. 85–88. Oceania Mono-graph 56, Sydney, Australia.

Walter, R.K.1993 The Community in Ma’uke Prehisto-

ry. In The Evolution and Organisation ofPrehistoric Society in Polynesia, edited byM.W. Graves and R.C. Green, pp. 72–86.New Zealand Archaeological AssociationMonograph 19, Auckland, New Zealand.

Weisler, M. and P.V. Kirch1985 The Structure of Settlement Space

at Kawela, Molokai, Hawai’ian Islands.New Zealand Journal of Archaeology 7:129–158.

Whistler, W.A.1991 Polynesian Plant Introductions. In

Islands, Plants, and Polynesians, edited byP.A. Cox and S.A. Banack, pp. 41–66.Dioscorides Press, Portland, OR.

Wilder, G.P.1928 The Breadfruit of Tahiti. Bernice P.

Bishop Museum Bulletin 50. Bishop Muse-um Press, Honolulu, HI.

Worrell, D.B., C.M.S. Carrington, and D.J.Huber

1998 Growth, Maturation, and Ripening ofBreadfruit, Artocarpus altilis (Park.) Fosb.

Scientia Horticulturae 76:17–28.Yen, D.E.

1974 Arboriculture in the Subsistence ofSanta Cruz, Solomon Islands. EconomicBotany 28:247–284.

Zerega, N.J.C., D. Ragone, and T.J. Motley2004 Complex Origins of Breadfruit (Arto-

carpus altilis, Moraceae): Implications forHuman Migrations in Oceania. American

Journal of Botany 91:760–766.2005 Systematics and Species Limits of

Breadfruit (Artocarpus, Moraceae). SystematicBotany 30:603–615.


Identification of Carbonized Breadfruit (Artocarpus altilis) Skin: Refining Site Function and Site...

Documents

Transcript of Identification of Carbonized Breadfruit (Artocarpus altilis) Skin: Refining Site Function and Site...