The Atiahara site revisited: An early coastal settlement in Tubuai (Austral Islands, French...

Archaeology in Oceania, Vol. 00 (2015): 1–14DOI: 10.1002/arco.5070

The Atiahara site revisited: An early coastal settlement in Tubuai (Austral Islands,French Polynesia)

AYMERIC HERMANN, ROBERT BOLLT and ERIC CONTE

AH, EC: Department of Social Science (EASTCO)/University of French Polynesia; AH, EC: International Center forArchaeological Research in Polynesia (CIRAP); AH, EC: UMR 7041 ArScAn – Ethnologie prehistorique, CNRS; RB:

Affiliation during the 2007 fieldwork: Department of Anthropology, University of Hawai‘i; RB: Deceased, 26 January 2010

ABSTRACT

The Atiahara site is the first and only excavated site on Tubuai Island (Austral archipelago, French Polynesia). It was accidently discoveredin 1994 and has been excavated on several occasions since then, over a surface of 197 m2. This paper aims to present a compilation of thedata available from the excavations, with a specific focus on stratigraphy, a spatial analysis of preserved occupations and new radiocarbondates. We report a short dating sequence running from 1215 to 1390 CE, which makes the Atiahara site one of the earliest settlements in theAustral Islands. Finally, we mention the potential for tackling important topics in Polynesian archaeology through this key site, includingthe evolution of material culture and fishing strategies, socio-economic dynamics within a central Polynesian domestic context and possibleclimate variability in the region.

Keywords: East Polynesia, Austral Islands, coastal occupation, stratigraphy, chronology

RESUME

Le site d’Atiahara est le premier, et a ce jour le seul, fouille sur l’ıle de Tubuai (Archipel des Australes, Polynesie francaise). Decouvertfortuitement en 1994, il a fait l’objet de plusieurs operations archeologiques, et ce sur 197 m2. L’objectif de cet article est de presenter unesynthese des donnees spatiales et stratigraphiques recoltees au cours des differents terrains, ainsi que les datations radiocarboneseffectuees sur des charbons issus des differents niveaux archeologiques. La sequence chronostratigraphique mise en evidence estrelativement courte, avec des occupations domestiques datant entre 1215 et 1390 CE, ce qui fait d’Atiahara l’un des plus anciens sites depeuplement connu dans l’archipel des Australes. Nous evoquons les differents aspects qui devront etre abordes prochainement a traversl’etude de cet habitat cotier, et notamment les activites artisanales, les strategies de subsistance, et eventuellement les perturbations duclimat au cours de la premiere moitie du second millenaire de notre ere.

Mots Cles: Polynesie orientale, Iles Australes, occupation cotiere, stratigraphie, chronologie

Correspondence: Aymeric Hermann, University of French Polynesia, BP 3056, Papeete 98713, French Polynesia.Email: [email protected]

The Austral Islands include five islands (Rimatara, Rurutu,Tubuai, Ra’ivavae and Rapa) and two uninhabited atolls(Maria and Marotiri), lying between 22°5′S/27°5′S and144°5′W/153°W and forming the eastern half of theCook–Austral chain (Figure 1). The Atiahara site, locatedon the northern coast of Tubuai, is the first and onlyrecorded excavation on the island. As such, it stands as animportant site for documenting the settlement of CentralEastern Polynesia (CEP).

The Atiahara site has been partially known for more than20 years through the publications of Eddowes (1996, 1998)and Worthy and Bollt (2011), yet an adequate account ofthe site’s general characteristics has been lacking.Therefore, the main purpose of this paper is to bring

together the results from several previous excavationseasons in order to provide a synthesis of the site’sstratigraphy, chronology and spatial patterns.

TUBUAI, THE AUSTRAL ARCHIPELAGO AND THECOLONISATION OF CENTRAL EASTERN

POLYNESIA

Tubuai is the largest island of the Austral group, thesouthernmost archipelago of French Polynesia (Figure 1).This region is amongst the lesser-known cultural set ofCentral Eastern Polynesia (CEP) in terms of historical andsocial sciences, with a lack of archaeological, linguistic and

C© 2015 Oceania Publications

2 The Atiahara site revisited

Figure 1. The Central Eastern Polynesian archipelagos.

ethnographic data. A full-length description of the culturalenvironment, origin and historical evolution of thePolynesian populations who settled the archipelago istherefore difficult to put forward. At the time of the Frenchannexation, the colonial administration grouped these fiveislands into a territorial unit in spite of a lack of commoncultural identity or any kind of political unity. According tohistorical linguistics (Biggs 1971; Green 1966), ritualarchitecture (Eddowes 2004; Verin 1969) and materialculture studies (Bollt 2005, 2008; Duff 1956, 1959;Edwards 1998; Stokes 1930; Verin 1969), the Austral groupshared more with the Cooks and the Society Islands thanwith any other archipelago. Oral traditions reveal that thewestern Austral Islands were part of an extensive exchangenetwork with the southern Cooks during the latepre-European period. This network involving the transfer ofthe vini ‘ura (Vini kuhlii) red feathers that the chiefs sportedas a symbol of their mana, which took place within a “redland” (fenua ‘ura) that stretched from Rimatara toRarotonga (Eddowes 2004: 96; Ellis 1969; Henry 2000:396).

Moreover, ethnohistorical accounts indicate that part ofthe Austral group was settled by populations sharing thesame cultural features and who were probably related to theSouthern Cook group and the Leeward Society Islands.Indeed, occurrences of the famous Tamatoa descent linefrom Ra’iatea (Leeward Society Islands) have beenrecorded on Tubuai (Ellis 1969; Morrison 1935) andAitutaki in the southern Cook Islands (Williams 1838:43-4). Monumental ceremonial structures related to theTamatoa lineage (marae Tonoha’e) are to be found all overthe archipelago. The oral traditions of Tubuai and Rurutureport that the deified ancestor Hiro established the firstmarae in Ra’ivava’e, then in Tubuai and finally in Rurutuand Rimatara (Aitken 1930: 123; Seabrook 1938: 172).

In the light of this information, Tubuai thus proves to beculturally related to the neighbouring CEP archipelagos ofSouthern Cook and Society Islands through both

socio-economic and political connections prior to theEuropean contact period.

The chronology of human settlement in CEP remains animportant topic of archaeological research. The revision ofradiocarbon data available within key sites provided ashortened chronology for the peopling of Eastern Polynesia(Conte 1995; Kirch 1986, 2000; Spriggs & Anderson 1993).The shortening of the previous chronology is generallyaccepted, thus implying a late colonisation processoccurring within the last millennium AD. However, debateson the details of this process in CEP are still provingcomplex. Indeed, Wilmshurst et al. (2011) proposed a firstphase of colonisation into the Society Islands by 1025–1120CE and a second phase into the other archipelagos by1190–1290 CE. Yet several other radiocarbon datesobtained in the southern Cooks, the Societies, theMarquesas, the Gambier Islands and Pitcairn (Conte &Molle 2014; Kahn 2012; Kirch et al. 1995, 2010; Molle2011; Weisler 1995) suggest a single colonisation processoccurring throughout all CEP around 1000 CE.

In spite of its key position for the understanding of thesettlement of Eastern Polynesia, the Austral archipelagoremains one of the least studied in the region. Nonetheless,the sedimentary deposits covering these low islandsallowed the collection and analysis of well-preservedpalaeobotanical evidence (Prebble 2006; Prebble & Dowe2008). The identification of human-induced native flora andfauna species reduction and the introduction of new taxa(Kennett et al. 2006; Kirch 1996, 2009; Kirch & Ellison1994; Kirch et al. 2015; Prebble 2006; Prebble & Anderson2013; Prebble & Dowe 2008; Prebble & Wilmshurst 2009;Steadman 1995) provided indirect signals of human arrivalinto the fragile island ecosystems. Palaeoecological recordsindicate first human impacts in Rimatara and Mangaiabetween 1100 and 1300 CE (Prebble & Wilmshurst 2009),which is consistent with previous radiocarbon dating fromTangatatau rock shelter on Mangaia Island (Kirch et al.1995). At the eastern end of the Australs, Tangarutu rockshelter on Rapa iti provided radiocarbon dates with amaximum calibrated age of 1200–1400 CE (Prebble 2006).

Given the partial knowledge of human history withinsouthern CEP, a better understanding of the stratigraphyand chronology of the Atiahara site will provide newinsights about the time depth of human occupation and theresulting cultural sequence in the region.

THE ATIAHARA SITE: BACKGROUND

The site is located at the northern limit of the Atiahara land,in the municipality of Mata’ura on the northern coast ofTubuai. The archaeological layers of the Atiahara site lie2.5 m above sea level, at the top of a sand beach ridge, 500m east of the Vaiohuru River mouth and Bloody Bay,named after the first confrontation between the mutineers ofthe Bounty and the local populations in 1789. The proximityto the island’s single pass provided direct access to the opensea as well as control over the only passage to the island


Archaeology in Oceania 3

Figure 2. The Atiahara excavations map.

(Figure 2). This made the area a key location for politicalpower, which may explain why the district chief’s houseand the founding ancestral marae Tonohae were locatednear the Vaiohuru River mouth (Aitken 1930: 30, 123). Theoral traditions collected from local informants by Aitkenreveal that those two elements constituted a centre ofpolitical and religious importance within the northernToerauetoru district (Aitken 1930: 31-2). Oral traditionsalso mention that the main original village of the districtwas located around these traditional elite structures. Whenthe church was built 2 km eastward, it produced a shift inthe settlement pattern, which led to the present village ofMata’ura. Therefore, the Atiahara site must be consideredas part of the main pre-European settlement in the island.

Amateur archaeologist L. Miller first identified in situartefacts and well-preserved cultural deposits at theAtiahara site in 1994, after the landowner dug pits andtrenches in his yard. Excavations were conducted onvarious occasions soon after the discovery of the site. R.Shutler, W. Dickinson and L. Miller first investigated thesite in 1995, cleaning a 33 m long profile from the maintrench previously dug by the landowner (Figure 3).

In 1995, the Heritage Conservation and ArchaeologyDepartment of the Polynesian Ministry of Culture askedarchaeologist M. Eddowes and geomorphologist J.-M.Dubois to carry out test pits over the whole area in order toevaluate the preservation and extent of the archaeologicallayers. Encouraged by the discovery of a greatconcentration of artefacts and pit or fire features identifiednear the landowner’s house, M. Eddowes and E. Conte setup the first extensive excavations in 1996, over a totalsurface area of 60 m2 (Figure 2). The northern excavation,

located within the richest area, was completed duringfieldwork in 1999.

In 2007, another team, led by R. Bollt of the Universityof Hawaii, launched the final fieldwork undertaken at theAtiahara site. The two areas investigated are contiguous toEddowes and Conte’s previous excavations. Approximately24 new square meters excavation was adjacent to area Aexcavated by Eddowes ten years earlier. In total, Bollt’sexcavations extended over 120 m2 in three areas(designated as areas 1, 2 and 3).

Recently, one the authors of this paper (Hermann 2013)focused his PhD research on the production, maintenanceand distribution of stone tools from the Atiahara site andother Tubuai assemblages. Data collected from differentfield seasons at Atiahara were compiled in this document(Hermann 2013: 200-21).

The first description of the stratigraphy and thesediments of both cultural and natural deposits waspublished after Eddowes and Conte’s excavation (Badalian1998; Eddowes 1998). Based on a preliminary study ofcollected material, Eddowes considered the Atiahara site as“likely representative of a first human settlement uponTubuai’s northern coast [ . . . ] on the accretionary beachridge soon after its initial formation and consolidation.[ . . . ] That in addition by implication through the presenceof artefactually significant objects similar to those seenelsewhere in central east Polynesia, Atiahara itself must berepresentative of early coastal settlement sites uponTubuai” (Eddowes 1998: 24).

Two studies regarding Atiahara avifauna material werepublished (Steadman 2006; Worthy & Bollt 2011). T.Worthy reports 109 identifiable bird bones from 23individuals in the faunal assemblage from Bollt’s 2007excavation, with the flightless Tubuai rail (Gallirallussteadmani) largely dominating the assemblage (61 bonesfrom ten individuals). Worthy asserts that other endemicrails might have been present on other islands in the Australgroup, as is the case in different regions of Oceania(Worthy & Bollt 2011: 82). The other species identified arethe Tongan fruit bat Pteropus tonganus tonganus (which isthreatened by overhunting in many Pacific islands and isnow extinct in the Austral Islands), petrels (Procellariidae),the white-tailed tropicbird (Phaethon lepturus) and chicken(Gallus gallus). When analysing Shutler’s assemblage fromthe 1995 excavation, D. Steadman identified 11 bird bones,including the prion Pachyptila sp. and an extinct species offruit dove (Pitlinopus undescribed sp.) (Steadman 2006:225-9). No bones of the red feather lorikeet Vini were foundat the Atiahara site, although the genus is known elsewherein the archipelago and almost certainly had populations onTubuai (Worthy and Bollt 2011: 83). The heterogeneousdistribution of this bird within archaeological sites could berelated to the social value of its red feathers, exchangedthrough inter-island networks extending from the westernAustrals to the southern Cook Islands.

Several radiocarbon analyses have been run on samplesfrom different field seasons. Two unidentified charcoalsamples from Shutler’s excavation (Beta-76796 and



Figure 3. The locations of the Atiahara profiles (indicated by bold lines).

Beta-82813) were submitted for dating to Beta Analytic Inc.and uncalibrated results are accessible online (Miller 2007).Calibration using SHcal13 atmospheric curve gaverespective ages of 1288–1504 CE (63.2% at 1σ ) and1149–1230 CE (61.2% at 1σ ). These dates are difficult tointerpret due to the lack of a stratigraphic context. So far,only one radiocarbon date has been obtained on a piece ofwood charcoal possibly collected during Eddowes andConte’s excavation (ANU-11599), but the preciseprovenience remains unclear (A. Anderson, pers. comm.,July 2014). It has been identified as Tournefortia argentea(R. Wallace, unpublished data) and dated to the wideage-range of 1300–650 calBP (Prebble 2006: 17). Recently,two charred bark charcoals from Bollt’s 2007 excavationswere submitted for dating. The results are reported byWorthy and Bollt (2011: 73) as 921–686 calBP (SSAMS7120) and 769–675 calBP (SSAMS-7138). Recently, W.Dickinson (2014: 255-6) used these dates to analyse thebeach ridge complex on Tubuai. Nonetheless, the unclearorigin of the charcoals makes these results difficult to use apriori. Our interpretation of the Atiahara archaeologicalsequence allows for a better understanding of the site’schronology with several dates obtained for each occupationlevel, rather than only the deepest layers.

THE STRATIGRAPHY

The first description of the stratigraphy was made after the1996 fieldwork (Conte et al. 1997; Eddowes 1996).Eddowes published a more complete study of thestratigraphic sequence and briefly discussed the materialfound within different layers. He points out that bothartefacts and faunal remains indicate subsistence strategiesoriented towards lagoon exploitation of marine resources.He mentions the fishhook assemblage made of pearlshell(Pinctada margaritifera) and asserts that their morphology

is characteristic of early CEP sites (Eddowes 1998: 24).Later on, the reinvestigation of the site by Bollt led to areinterpretation of the stratigraphy. These results were notfully published, but a short description of the stratigraphy isavailable based on field notes provided by Worthy and Bollt(2011: 69-70). Our interpretation of the stratigraphicsequence is based on a revision of the complete fieldworkdata stored at the archive of the Archaeology Department atthe Service de la Culture et du Patrimoine (SCP) in Tahiti.Most of the excavations conducted in the 1990s and in 2007were well documented, except Eddowes’ area A, the fieldrecords of which are still missing.

The structural instability of the northern beach ridge andthe nature of the sediments produced irregularities of bothnatural and cultural layers, as well as vertical migration ofmany artefacts. Generally, the succession of layers followsthe same pattern, with light sterile sand layers separatingdarker organic cultural layers. Nonetheless, the compositionand the succession of the layers differ from one excavationunit to the other. This variability in the stratigraphy led us toidentify three distinct stratigraphic settings within the site.The north-western setting (the closest to the lagoonincluding the northern test-pits excavated by Eddowes andDubois in 1995, and Bollt’s area 2 and north of area 3)shows a complex stratigraphy more than a metre deep. Theintermediate setting (comprising Eddowes’ area A andConte’s area B, and south of Bollt’s area 3) shows apreserved stratigraphy over a depth of about 1.5 m. Thesouth-eastern setting (including Eddowes’ test-pits 1 and 2,and Conte’s area C) shows only one well-preserved culturallayer within the first 60–80 cm below surface.

The north-western setting (TP 9–13, Eddowes squaresA–D, area 2 and north of area 3)The uppermost layer Ia, a brown organic loamy sand about20–30 cm thick, is present across Atiahara, the result ofmodern agriculture. The transition between layer Ia and



Figure 4. Stratigraphic profiles of the north-western excavations at Atiahara.

layer II corresponds to sublayer Ib, a mix resulting frommodern ploughing. Layer IIa, a yellow medium- tocoarse-grained shelly sand, results from an accumulation ofseveral aeolian or marine deposits that covered the mostrecent occupation of the site. As a consequence ofploughing, the material associated with the top of thecultural layer (pearlshell and basalt artefacts, fishbones andoven stones) is clearly redeposited. Layer IIb is a lightbrown 5–10 cm thick horizon appearing in the northern partof the site and fading away inland (see Figures 4–6).Several similar layers of light brown colour are insertedbetween thick sterile yellow sand layers at thenorth-western limit of the site (Figure 4). Layer IIc isidentical to IIa and may therefore correspond to older butsimilar natural events of aeolian or marine origin.

Layer III corresponds to the most recent well-preservedoccupation of the site. It begins around 50–55 cm below thesurface and continues until 80–85 cm below the surface,with a number of fire features and postholes continuingdown to 110 cm below surface. It can be divided into twoorganic levels of 10–20 cm thick dark to light browncalcareous sand deposits, which are sometimes truncated byintrusive pit features from the upper layers. Layer IIIcontains many basalt and pearlshell artefacts, includingfinished tools, raw material and production wastes, as wellas faunal remains (mainly fish and pig bones).

Layer IV begins at 60–65 cm below surface. It is a 10 cmthick layer of fine light grey to yellow sand, containingcoral branches. Although this layer seems sterile in mostsquares, it is associated with several pit features and anumber of lithic materials, including finished adze blades.Its irregular morphology depends on the density of featuresdeveloping from the upper layers II and III. The sedimentsat the bottom layer IV are often found lifted up andredeposited, which takes the related artefacts out of initialcultural context (Figure 5). Geomorphologists generallyrefer to instances of this specific depositional/erosionalprocess as “rip-up clasts”, which result from temporary

Figure 5. A detail of the stratigraphy in Shutler’s trench,showing sterile deposits and rip-up clasts (photograph by L.Miller).

high-energy marine perturbations (S. Etienne, pers. comm.;see Engel & Bruckner 2011; Shanmugam 2012).

Cultural layer V lies between 70 and 90 cm below thesurface, depending on the excavation units (Figure 4). Itconsists of an organically enriched dark brown sandymatrix showing a number of combustion features, ash andcharcoal lenses, and many burnt postholes found in situ,which can be interpreted as a fire event on the site.

Layer VI corresponds to the oldest well-preservedoccupation of the site. It continues with a similar matrix asin layer V. Therefore, it could not always be identifiedduring the excavation, unless lenses of sterilecoarse-grained yellow sand clearly separated the two layers.Layer VI appears at 95 cm below the surface in Eddowes’C-6/D-6 squares and merges with layer V in Bollt’s areas 2and 3. Its presence is more obvious when fire features or pitfeatures implied a significant change in the matrix from one



Figure 6. Stratigraphic profiles of the intermediary excavations at Atiahara.

layer to the other. Both of the oldest cultural layers arehighly comparable to cultural layer III in terms of featuresand the artefacts discovered (postholes, combustionfeatures, pearlshell and basalt artefacts and productionwastes, avifauna, ichthyofauna etc.).

Cultural layers V and VI overlay the sterile layer VII, afine rose to yellow calcareous sand which begins at about100–110 cm below the surface and evolves towards a morecompact calcareous matrix. This layer corresponds to thetop of the natural beach ridge prior to human settlement.

The intermediate setting (TP 5–8, area A, area B, area 1and south of area 3)The first layers (I and II) are present as described for thenorth-west setting, although these are generally thinner.Cultural layer III appears at 30–45 cm below the surfaceand is 10–20 cm thick. The upper part of this layer isslightly richer, without obvious sublayer differentiation.Similar positioning of wide postholes in layer Ib and layerIII indicates a continuity of these features through time.Layer IV, which is unevenly distributed in the northernareas, appears at 50–60 cm below surface in area A and area1 with a 10 cm thickness, but fades away in thesouth-eastern part of area B and area 3 (Figure 6). Thenature and the development of this fine light-coloured sandlayer towards the lagoon indicate one or more high-energyevents of marine or aeolian origin. Cultural layer V appearsat 70–75 cm below surface. It lies beneath the fine sterilecoral sand of layer IV in area 1 and area A, but appearsdirectly beneath cultural layer III in area B and south of area3, due to the absence of layer IV. The oldest cultural layerVI is not clearly separated from cultural layer V, except inarea A, where an intermediate layer made of layer IVb finesand is deposited between the two (see Figure 6). These twolayers are made of the same dark brown to charcoaled-blacksandy matrix in association with a thick charcoal sublayerand ashy lenses, most notably in area 1. Sterile layer VII

begins at 80–90 cm beneath the surface. As described forthe north-western stratigraphies, it corresponds to a finerose to yellow silica sands evolving into a lighter calcareousmatrix towards the bottom of the stratigraphy. In hisdescription of this layer in area A (see Figure 6), Eddowesmentions the discovery of “a small fire scoop whichprovided [the] earliest RC14 datable sample for the 1995field season” (Eddowes 1998: 15). This sample could be theTournefortia argentea wood charcoal mentioned by Prebble(2006: 17) and dated to 1300–650 calBP (ANU-11599).

The south-eastern setting (TP 1–4 and area C)Within the south-eastern inland units, the first layer is thesame as the northern units. In test-pits 1 and 2, layer IIappears only in lenses. Layer III, a compact depositincluding a number of charcoals and burnt oven stones infire features and earth oven (umu, also called ‘ahima’a inreo Tahiti), begins at 50–55 cm below surface. The profileof test-pit 2 shows an earth oven with a bottom sublayermade of ash and burnt sand that is probably related to aprevious emptying of the feature (Figure 7). As aconsequence, we consider that the bottom of this oven is apalimpsest reflecting either the reuse of the same featureduring a single occupation, or else over distinct occupationsand a longer period of time. We will return to this featurewhen discussing the dating results of the charcoal materialrecovered within the truncated sublayer (Wk-36280). Thefine rose calcareous sands of layer VII appear at 60–80 cmbelow surface, underneath layer III and the associatedfeatures.

RADIOCARBON DATING

We previously mentioned the few dates obtained after thefirst excavations at the Atiahara site (Miller 2007; Prebble2006). The exact origin of the samples and their correlation



Figure 7. Stratigraphic profiles of the south-easternexcavations at Atiahara.

with the stratigraphy remained unclear in both cases. Thetwo radiocarbon dates published by Worthy and Bollt(2011: 73) were obtained on charcoal samples from squareK-5 in area 3. The notes and a profile description of squareK-5 were unfortunately missing from Bollt’s field notes. Wehave reservations about the provenience of these samplesbecause of contradictions in the sampling information.Worthy and Bollt (2011) mention pit fills related to layer C(layer III in this paper) at depths of 200–210 cm and175–180 cm, when the same layer clearly ranges from 45 to70 cm below surface in the next L-5 square (Figure 6).

A set of nine samples was obtained from collectionsfrom both Eddowes and Conte’s (1995–1996) and Bollt’s(2007) field seasons, which are stored at the SCP in Tahiti.All were charcoals, and the botanical identification wasmade by J. Huebert and R. Wallace at the University ofAuckland. The AMS determinations were carried out at theWaikato Radiocarbon Laboratory. Calibrations wereperformed with Oxcal v. 4.2.2 (Bronk Ramsey 1995 ;Bronk Ramsey & Lee 2013), using the SHCal13 SouthernHemisphere calibration curve (Hogg et al. 2013). Only afew samples could be identified and some undeterminedtree species may therefore be subject to inbuilt age. Detailsof the botanical identification and details of the AMS datinganalysis are reported in Table 1.

The two dated samples from layer VI (Wk-36276 andWk-36272) were collected from a fire feature in squaresX-2 and W-2 (area 3). They are respectively dated to1296–1395 and 1279–1390 calCE (2σ ).

For layer V, two samples (Wk-36275 and Wk-36273)came from fire features in squares Y-1 and W-3 (area 3).These provided high-probability calibrated ages rangingfrom 1301–1365 CE (>60% at 2σ ), with a restrictedinterval of 1320–1351 CE (>44% at 1σ ). A third samplefrom layer V (Wk-36277) was collected in square U-3 (area3) and provided a calibrated date of 1260–1314 CE (74% at2σ ), with a restricted interval range of 1268–1300 (64% at1σ ).

Three charcoal samples from cultural layer III wereanalysed. Sample Wk-36279 from square J-11 (area A)resulted in a calibrated date of 1294–1393 CE (2σ ), with arestricted age range of 1345–1388 CE (42% at 1σ ). SampleWk-36274 from a fire feature in square N-13 (area 1)provided a calibrated date of 1281–1390 CE (2σ ), with arestricted age range of 1356–1382 CE (35% at 1σ ). Thethird sample from layer III (Wk-36278), collected in squareG-2 (area 3), resulted in a calibrated date of 1276–1387 CE(2σ ).

One last sample (Wk-36280), associated with anearth-oven discovered within the inland TP-2, provided a2σ calibrated age range of 1215–1290 CE. The charcoalwas identified as Myrsine sp., which is usually a shrub(Fosberg & Sachet 1975) and probably has a moderate tolow inbuilt age (J. Huebert, pers. comm.).

SITE CHRONOLOGY

The chronostratigraphic sequence of human occupationspreserved in the Atiahara site appears very short, between1215 and 1390 CE. The dates and the stratigraphicdescriptions reported above show the succession of threepreserved cultural layers over two centuries or less.Regarding the organisation of the Atiahara culturalsequence, one must consider the stratigraphic context inorder to better understand the succession of occupations.Therefore, dates obtained for one layer must be interpretedin relation to the termini post quem and ante quem providedby the above and underlying layers. From this point ofview, the only incoherence would be with respect to theWk-36277 charcoal, labelled as layer V but showing acalibrated age older than those collected from layer VI. Aswe emphasised above, layers V and VI often present asimilar matrix, therefore making unclear the limit betweenthe two during the excavation process. In addition, thestratigraphic details of square U-3 (where sample 36277was collected) were not all present in the available fieldnotes. Without other information, we believe that theremight have been accidental confusion of samples during theexcavation process. Given the results of the radiocarbondating, sample Wk-36277 may then be associated with layerVI rather than layer V.

If one leaves aside the sample Wk-36280, thehigh-probability age ranges indicate a first occupation inlayer VI dated to 1260–1330 calCE, a second occupation inlayer V dated to 1300–1365 calCE and a third occupation inlayer III dated to 1345–1395 calCE, as shown in Figure 8.



Table 1. AMS radiocarbon dating for the Atiahara site

Lab. no.(Wk)1 Provenience Material2

δ13C value(± 0.1‰)1

Measured14C age(BP)1

1σ calibrated ageranges (CE)3

2σ calibrated ageranges (CE)3

36279 J11 (area A), layerIII, 55 cmbs

Charcoal(broadleaftree)

–24.8 680 ± 29 1300–1324 (25.8%)1345–1388 (42.4%)

1294–1393 (95.4%)

36274 N13 (area 1), layerIII, fire feature,65 cmbs

Charcoal(undetermined)

–26.3 707 ± 29 1292–1316 (32.6%)1356–1382 (35.6%)

1281–1326 (45.4%)1340–1390 (50%)

36278 G2 (area 3), layerIII, 60 cmbs


–27.1 726 ± 29 1284–1310 (40.7%)1360–1378 (27.6%)

1276–1322 (54.7%)1348–1387 (40.7%)

36280 TP-2, layer III,earth oven, 95cmbs

Charcoal(Myrsinesp.)

–29.8 807 ± 33 1229–1252 (36%)1258–1278 (32.2%)

1215–1290 (95.4%)

36275 Y1 (area 3), layerV, fire feature,170 cmbs


–24.5 632 ± 29 1320–1350 (45.4%)1386–1402 (22.8%)

1304–1363 (60.1%)1376–1414 (35.3%)

36273 W3 (area 3), layerV, fire feature,114 cmbs

Charcoal(broadleaftree)

–24.3 643 ± 29 1320–1351 (50.5%)1385–1397 (17.7%)

1301–1365 (66.3%)1375–1407 (29.1%)

36277 U3 (area 3), layerV, 100 cmbs


–25.8 761 ± 29 1268–1300 (64.3%)1368–1372 (3.9%)

1228–1252 (8.1%)1260–1314 (74.2%)1357–1381 (13.1%)

36276 X2 (area 3), layerVI, fire feature,160 cmbs


–25.0 671 ± 29 1305–1328 (25.5%)1338–1362 (27.4%)1378–1390 (15.3%)

1296–1395 (95.4%)

36272 W2 (area 3), layerVI, fire feature,155 cmbs


–24.4 712 ± 32 1290–1315 (34.7%)1357–1381 (33.5%)

1279–1326 (47.4%)1341–1390 (48%)

1Samples were prepared and analysed at Waikato Radiocarbon Laboratory (University of Waikato, New Zealand).2Botanical identifications were provided by Jennifer Huebert and Rod Wallace (University of Auckland, New Zealand).3Calibrations were performed with Oxcal v. 4.2.2 (Bronk Ramsey 2013), using the SHCal13 atmospheric curve (Hogg et al., 2013).

Nevertheless, with a calibrated ate of 1215–1290 CE,Wk-36280 does not appear in line with this sequence. Wementioned previously the possibility of a palimpsestreflecting the emptying and the reusing of the earth-ovenfeature where this sample was collected. We emphasise thatthis feature may have been used over a longer period oftime than the dating of cultural layer III suggests. The lackof direct correlation between the south-eastern and thenorth-western stratigraphies makes the explanation for thegap separating Wk-36280 and the other dates even moredifficult to explain. Nonetheless, it is worth emphasisingthat this early date appears partially contemporaneous withthe deepest cultural layer VI, dated to 1279–1396 CE.Indeed, the continuation of this early occupation within theinland area remains probable if one considers the possibilityfor a major palimpsest phenomenon within the inland units.

SPATIAL DISTRIBUTION OF POSTHOLES ANDFEATURES

A large number of pits (postholes, stack-holes and refusepits) and fire features (charcoal concentrations andearth-ovens) were associated with each occupation of theAtiahara site. Unfortunately, excavation records related tothe spatial distribution of features are only available for 123

of the 197 m2 excavated. We consider the distribution ofthese features as a means to propose a first interpretation ofthe spatial organisation in the site (house constructions andactivity areas). The reconstitution of houses is madepossible through the postholes as well as the preservedposts discovered in the northern part of the site within wetdeposits (Figure 9).

The nature of archaeological floors also helped toconfirm the position and extent of houses. Indeed, organicand charcoal-rich sublayers often correspond to interiorhouse floors when associated with posts or postholealignments. The size of posthole features was also takeninto account. The largest posts (more than 25 cm wide) weregiven the most weight in interpretation, as they representthe greatest retaining capacity for supporting roof frames.The distribution of these features shows recurrent patterns:

–an apse formed by a semi-circle of four to six posts;–long rows of large posts; and–shorter rows perpendicular to the longer rows, sometimes

closing the semi-circle of the apse.

When associated, these patterns form the plan of acomplete round-ended house, the central longer rowmeeting the two opposite apses. The apses are oftenassociated with a big central post (or several smaller posts



Figure 8. An OxCal plot of radiocarbon age determinations from Atiahara using the SHCal 13 atmospheric curve (Hogget al. 2013). The Beta samples are from Miller’s excavations.

Figure 9. A wooden post preserved in area 2 (photographby R. Bollt).

associated), probably used for supporting the frame for boththe apses and the central part of the house. This type ofround-ended house, known as fare pote’e in the SocietyIslands, is also mentioned as ‘arepota’ata in theneighbouring islands of Rurutu (Seabrook 1938; Verin1969) and Rimatara (Eddowes 2004).

The spatial distribution of features from layers V and VIare presented in the same plan (Figure 10), as the separationbetween the two layers has not been possible in mostsquares. Moreover, the radiocarbon dating revealed closeages for the two occupation layers.

Several sets of features were identified as complete orpartial house constructions. In area 3, three sets present anapse and one or two large rows of posts, while one completeround-ended house was identified in area 1. This completehouse was easier to point out, as a charcoal-rich organicsub-layer 10–15 cm thick was recorded over what appearsas the interior of the house. This house is oriented along a



Figure 10. A plan of the layer V and layer VI occupations (reconstructed from field notes).

north-west–south-east axis, is 5–6 m long and about 2.5 mwide. Three rows of posts run lengthwise, two shorter rowsare cross-cutting, the south-east apse is complete and thenorth-west apse is lying outside of the excavated area. Twoundetermined square-plan constructions are also reported inareas 3 and B, the former being 1 m wide and the other 2 m.Fire features and refuse pits are located outside the houses,with a greater concentration of earth-oven features inland(area B).

The features of layer III are concentrated in area 3, withthree round-ended houses partially highlighted with refusepits and fire features, with fire-altered rocks on the side(Figure 11). Two singular elements were discovered withinthe central house: a 10 cm wide chunk of red ochrediscovered within a posthole fill and an organic indurateddeposit of more than 60 cm long and 30 cm wide markedwith ochre fragments (Figure 12). The hypothesis that theorganic deposit would be the vestige of a preserved mat wasmade during the excavation. Unfortunately, no samples ofthis deposit were found within the collection stored at theSCP in Tahiti. But this interpretation remains quitepossible, given the high-quality preservation of the woodenposts in area 2. Moreover, the association of ochre withwoven mats or beaten bark cloth (tapa) is well-known inPolynesian archaeological contexts, as pointed out by Kirchand Green (2001: 185).1

One undetermined structure appears in area 1, and onepossible alignment of three postholes extends along anorth-east–south-west axis in area B. A concentration offour or five earth-oven features associated with a refuse pitwas discovered in area C, which would suggest that thiswas a specialised area for cooking activities.

Since it was disturbed by ploughing in modern times,layer II was power-shovelled in area 1, 2 and 3. As aconsequence, most of the features recorded within theseareas were only deep posthole features discovered duringthe excavation of the subsequent layer III. Due to the

identification of these postholes, we report one single housestructure measuring 7 m long by 3 m wide, oriented along anorth–south axis. The house structure is evidenced throughlong rows of postholes running lengthwise, fourcross-cutting shorter rows and two virtually complete apses(Figure 13). The interior deposit of the house is not known,as the sediments of layer II were not hand-excavated orscreened. Nonetheless, charcoal-rich lenses were discoveredwithin a lower part of the layer, which could correspond tothe burning of the frame or the interior of the house.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

The re-analysis of the unpublished fieldwork data fromseveral seasons of Atiahara excavations significantlyimproved our understanding of the site. We provided aframework for analysing the chronology and the nature ofhuman activities within what appears to be the earliesthuman settlement in the Austral Islands.

Chronology and abandonment of the siteWe have proposed a correlation of the differentstratigraphies described during each excavation campaign.Through radiocarbon dating, we emphasised that all culturallayers preserved in the Atiahara site are related to asuccession of occupations over a short period of time,which extends from the mid-thirteenth to the late fourteenthor early fifteenth century. In addition, the site shows severalhuman occupations, of which three are preserved (layers III,V and VI) and two were disturbed by natural events or bymodern activities: the occupation floor of layer IV wasfound ripped up by a possible marine perturbation (turbiditycurrents) and layer II (sediments and artefacts) is clearlyredeposited by modern ploughing. A total of fiveoccupations are then reported, encompassed within anunexpectedly short period of time.



Figure 11. A plan of the layer III occupations (reconstructed from field notes).

Figure 12. A view of the ochre fragment and organic deposit in squares M1 and M2, area 3 (photograph by R. Bollt).

This accumulation of layers might be related to climaticevents, as suggested by the thick sterile deposits of aeolianand marine origin and the rip-up clasts described at the baseof layer IV (Figure 5). However, this working hypothesiswould need to be further investigated through sedimentsampling and appropriate sedimentological analysis. Thesuccession of short occupations could also be seen as a signof social instability, which may have originated fromhigh-mobility strategies or from warfare episodes – thelatter being otherwise documented by ethnohistoricalrecords (Ellis 1969; Morrison 1935 – for a synthesis, seeHermann 2013).

One would find it tempting to associate the steriledeposits and the constant rebuilding of house constructionswith the increasing frequency of storminess and climatevariability documented in the central Pacific over the pastmillennium. Indeed, a number of authors suggest anincreased El Nino Southern Oscillation (ENSO) activityduring the first half of the past millennium in the Pacific,

although the precise period is still debated (Cobb et al.2003; Graham 2004; Moy et al. 2002; Nunn 2000 – for asynthesis, see Allen 2006). Sedimentological analysis of theAtiahara stratigraphy will provide further information onthe depositional conditions of the thick sterile layersdescribed above, and may therefore help to document thechronology of ENSO intensification in the central Pacific.Furthermore, Moriwaki et al. (2006) report changes in thecoastal geomorphology in the east coast of Rarotonga(Southern Cook) through geomorphic mapping of thecoastal plain. The authors relate the incision of streams inthe coastal lowlands to sea-level fall occurring since800–500 calBP (Moriwaki et al. 2006: 846). Climatevariability documented for a period of 1200–1500 CE in thecentral Pacific may be strongly related to soil erosion anddeterioration of both terrestrial and marine resources incoastal environments. It could therefore be seen as anexplanation for the partial abandonment of the Atiahara sitearound 1500 CE. The analysis of the archaeological material



Figure 13. A plan of the layer II occupations (reconstructed from field notes).

related to the exploitation of marine species in the Atiaharasite may provide further information on the impact ofclimate variability over subsistence activities in the region.

Insight into ancient house structures on TubuaiThe fare structures identified in the Atiahara site are 5–7 mlong and 2.5–3.0 m wide, which is quite small compared tothe information yielded by James Morrison, who stayed onTubuai during the call of the Bounty in 1789 and providedthe main ethnohistorical data available for the island.Morrison describes the houses he saw as an oval form,looking like a long haystack of 12–24 m in length and 5–10m in width2 (Morrison 1935: 66). The difference indimensions between Morrison’s descriptions and theAtiahara structures may be explained by social status, as F.Christian’s crew mainly visited district chief’s houses(Hermann 2013: 128, 144; Morrison 1935: 58, 67). Thehouse structures discovered within the Atiahara site areundoubtedly more modest than the imposing housesdecorated with red-painted carvings that were described bythe seafarer (1935: 66-7). Nevertheless, these structuresmatch other archaeological round-ended house sitesdiscovered in Tubuai, and in the neighbouring islands ofRurutu (Verin 1969) and Rimatara (Eddowes 2004: 52-3).They also fit well with nineteenth century houses made of amortar of lime and sand described by ethnographers passingthrough the archipelago (Aitken 1930: 48-51; Eddowes2004: 53). As mentioned by Aitken (1930: 49) andMorrison (1935: 67), the inside floor of Tubuai houses wasgenerally covered with thick ’aretu grass (Hierochloeredolens). This could explain the density of organiccharcoal-rich lenses in the house areas, along with probableburning episodes of wooden architecture.

An opportunity for analysing social complexity in CEPAmongst the stone artefacts previously analysed throughinductively coupled –plasma mass spectrometry and

radiogenic isotope determinations, we identified onepolished adze blade from layer III that was made frommaterial from Eiao Island (Northern Marquesas group), thusimplying that the people occupying Atiahara had access toitems circulating through inter-island exchange networks(Hermann et al. 2012; Hermann 2013: 160-87). On theother hand, the technological investigation of lithicproduction highlighted a limited access to long adze bladesproduced by local specialists (mainly Duff types 3A and4A) and to good-quality material quarried in the island(Hermann 2013: 369-71, 374-7). Therefore, the Atiaharasite provides an opportunity to emphasise the increasingcontrol of social elites over key materials and valued goods,which is indicative of increased hierarchical organisation,and identified as a general trend in the evolution ofPolynesian chiefdoms (Kirch 1984; Sahlins 1972). Throughthe combined analysis of economic and technologicalactivities (e.g. stone tools and fishing gear production,fishing strategies, and local and inter-island exchangenetworks), the Atiahara site will eventually provide acomprehensive data set for understanding the evolution ofsocial dynamics in central Eastern Polynesian chiefdoms.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

A.H. would like to thank Oana Bollt for her help facilitatingaccess to the Atiahara 2007 excavation material and fieldnotes, and Jennifer Kahn for her assistance in shipping thematerial from Hawai’i back to Tahiti. A.H. gratefullyacknowledges the work of Tamara Maric at theArchaeology Department of the Service de la Culture et duPatrimoine in Tahiti. We thank her for the help sheprovided in getting access to the Atiahara material stored atthe Department. A.H. also thanks Jennifer Huebert for herhelpful comments on the botanical identifications, andPatrick Kirch for his useful comments on the initial draft.



NOTES

1. “Archaeological items probably relating to bark clothdecoration, which occur in a number of sites, include pieces ofred ochre carrying fine striations and other signs ofmodification (Green 1974: 151–152; Poulsen 1987: 214; Kirch1988: 218).” The same authors add that “fine particles fromrubbing this ochre were used to enhance the reddish-brown dyemade from the bark of the Bischofia javanica tree, PPN *koka.This was applied when printing designs on bark cloth in theWestern Polynesian region (Kooijman 1972)” (Kirch & Green2001: 185-7).

2. J. Morrison described in his journal the Tubuai houses that heobserved: “Their houses are built of an oval form and at adistance resemble a long hay stack, they are from 40 to 80 feetlong, and from 15 to 30 broad and about as much in height –the ridge is a strong beam, supported by two or more pillars,chiefly toa, and the sides and top are a frame of strong timberssquared to 5 or 6 inches and firmly lashd together, the thatch isneatly made and well put on is of the fwharra or palm leavesand will last several years; the thatch reaches the ground on theback & ends and on the front within about 6 feet, the front isclosed with timber neatly carved & painted with a redishcollour and has several openings about 4 feet high & 2 1/2wide which have shutters, answering the double purpose ofdoors & windows, these shutters are also carved with rudefigures of men & weomen and the inside is neatly lined withreeds, about 4 or five feet up – the floor is covered with grass,to a good thickness [ . . . ]” (Morrison, 1935: 66-7).

REFERENCES

Aitken, R.T. 1930. Ethnology of Tubuai. Bernice P. BishopMuseum Bulletin 70. Bernice P. Bishop Museum, Honolulu,Hawai’i.

Allen, M.S. 2006. New ideas about Late Holocene climatevariability in the central Pacific. Current Anthropology 47:521–535.

Badalian, L. 1998. Sedimentological approach of the coastalarchaeological settlements of Rivnac and Atiahara (FrenchPolynesia), preliminary results. In P. Vargas-Casanova (ed.),Easter Island and East Polynesian Prehistory, pp. 1–6.Universidad de Chile, Santiago.

Biggs, B. 1971. The languages of Polynesia. In T.A. Sebeok, (ed.),Current Trends in Linguistics, vol. 8, pp. 466–505. The Hague,Mouton.

Bollt, R. 2005. Peva: The Archaeology of a Valley on Rurutu,Austral Islands, East Polynesia. Unpublished PhD thesis,University of Hawai’i.

Bollt, R. 2008. Excavations in Peva Valley, Rurutu, AustralIslands (East Polynesia). Asian Perspectives 47: 156–187.

Bronk Ramsey, C. 1995. Radiocarbon calibration and analysis ofstratigraphy: the OxCal program. Radiocarbon 37: 425–430.

Bronk Ramsey, C., and Lee, S. 2013. Recent and planneddevelopments of the program OxCal. Radiocarbon 55:720–730.

Cobb, K.M., Charles, C.D., Cheng, H., Kastner, M. and Edwards,R.L. 2003. El-Nino/Southern Oscillation and tropical Pacificclimate during the last millennium. Nature 424: 271–276.

Conte, E. 1995. Dater la colonisation humaine des Marquises:problemes et perspectives. Bulletin de la Societe des EtudesOceaniennes XXIII-5 (n°268), 32–43.

Conte, E., Eddowes, M. and Navarro, M. 1997. Fouilles desauvetage du site d’Atiahara, Ile de Tubuai. Unpublishedreport, CPSH/UPF, Tahiti.

Conte, E. and Molle, G. 2014. Reinvestigating a key site forPolynesian prehistory: new results from the Hane dune site, UaHuka (Marquesas). Archaeology in Oceania 49: 121–136.

Dickinson, W.R. 2014. Beach ridges as favored locales for humansettlement on Pacific islands. Geoarchaeology: AnInternational Journal 29: 249–267

Duff, R. 1956. The Moa-Hunter Period of Maori Culture, 2nd edn.Government Printer, Wellington.

Duff, R. 1959. Neolithic adzes of eastern Polynesia. In J.D.Freeman and W.R. Geddes (eds), Anthropology in the SouthSeas, pp. 121–147. Thomas Avery, New Plymouth, N Z.

Eddowes, M. 1996. Recherches archeologiques et mise en valeurdes sites a Tubuai, Archipel des Australes. Unpublished report,C.P.S.H., Tahiti, 18 pp.

Eddowes, M. 1998. Initial results from Atiahara and Teta’itapu,two coastal settlement sites, upon the islands of Tubuai andTahiti: Their implications for an understanding of prehistoricregional adaptation to environment. In P Vargas-Casanova(ed.), Easter Island and East Polynesian Prehistory, pp. 7–30.Universidad de Chile, Santiago.

Eddowes, M. 2004. Etude archeologique de l’ıle de Rimatara(Archipel des Australes). Dossiers d’Archeologie Polynesiennen° 3. Ministere de la Culture de Polynesie francaise.

Edwards, E. 1998. The archaeological survey of Ra’ivavae,Austral Islands, French Polynesia: Preliminary results. In P.Vargas-Casanova (ed.), Easter Island and East PolynesianPrehistory, pp. 31–58. Universidad de Chile, Santiago.

Ellis, W. 1969. Polynesian Researches, 3 vols. Charles E. Tuttle,Rutland, VT.

Engel, M., and Bruckner, H. 2011. The identification ofpalaeo-tsunami deposits – a major challenge in coastalsedimentary research. Coastline Reports 17: 65–80.

Fosberg, F.R. and Sachet, M.H. 1975. Polynesian plant studies1–5. Smithsonian Contributions to Botany 21: 25.

Graham, N.E. 2004. Teleconnections between the tropical Pacificand precipitation in the western USA. The Holocene 14:436–447.

Green, R.C. 1966. Linguistic subgrouping within Polynesia: Theimplications for prehistoric settlement. Journal of thePolynesian Society 75: 6–38.

Green, R.C. 1974. Excavation of the prehistoric occupations ofSU-Sa-3. In R.C. Green and J.M. Davidson (eds), Archaeologyin Western Samoa, vol. 2, pp. 108–154. Auckland Institute andMuseum Bulletin 7, Auckland.

Henry, T. 2000. Tahiti aux temps anciens. Publication de laSociete des Oceanistes n°1er. Musee de l’Homme, Paris.

Hermann, A. 2013. Les industries lithiques pre-europeennes dePolynesie centrale: Savoir-faire et dynamiquestechno-economiques eva. Unpublished PhD thesis, Universitede la Polynesie Francaise, Tahiti.

Hermann, A., Maury, R. and Liorzou, C. 2012. Tracabilite desmatieres premieres lithiques dans les assemblagesarcheologiques polynesiens: le cas de Tubuai (Archipel desAustrales, Polynesie francaise). Geologue 172: 80–83.

Hogg, A.G., Hua, Q., Blackwell, P.G., Niu, M., Buck, C.E.,Guilderson, T.P., Heaton, T.J., Palmer, J.G., Reimer, P.J.,Reimer, R.W., Turney, C.S.M. and Zimmerman, S.R.H. 2013.SHCal13 Southern Hemisphere calibration, 0–50000 years cal.B.P. Radiocarbon 55: 1889–1903.

Kahn, J.G. 2012. Coastal occupation at the GS-1 site, Cook’s Bay,Mo’orea, Society Islands. Journal of Pacific Archaeology 3:52–61.



Kennett, D., Anderson, A., Prebble, M., Conte, E. and Southon, J.2006. Prehistoric human impacts on Rapa, French Polynesia.Antiquity 80: 340–354.

Kirch, P.V. 1984. The Evolution of the Polynesian Chiefdoms.Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Kirch, P.V. 1986. Rethinking East Polynesian prehistory. Journalof the Polynesian Society 95: 9–40.

Kirch, P.V. 1988. Niuatoputapu: The Prehistory of a PolynesianChiefdom. T. Burke Memorial Washington State MuseumMonograph 5. The Burke Museum, Seattle, WA.

Kirch, P.V. 1996. Late Holocene human-induced modifications toa central Polynesian island ecosystem. Proceedings of theNational Academy of Science 93: 5296–5300.

Kirch, P.V. 2000. On the Road of the Winds: An ArchaeologicalHistory of the Pacific Islands before European Contact.University of California Press, Berkele y, CA.

Kirch, P.V. 2009. Human impacts, Pre-Europeans. In R.G.Gillespie and D.A. Clague (eds), Encyclopedia of Islands, pp.414–418. University of California Press, Berkele y, CA.

Kirch, P.V. and Ellison, J. 1994. Palaeoenvironmental evidencefor human colonization of Remote Oceanic islands. Antiquity68: 310–321.

Kirch, P.V. and Green, R.C. 2001. Hawaiki, Ancestral Polynesia:An Essay in Historical Anthropology, Cambridge UniversityPress, Cambridge.

Kirch, P.V., Steadman, D.W., Butler, V.L., Hather, J. and Weisler,M.I. 1995. Prehistory and human ecology in Eastern Polynesia:Excavations at Tangatatau rockshelter, Mangaia, Cook Islands.Archaeology in Oceania 30: 47–65.

Kirch, P.V., Conte, E., Sharp, W. and Nickelsen, C. 2010. TheOnemea site (Taravai Island, Mangareva) and the humancolonization of southeastern Polynesia. Archaeology inOceania 45: 66–79.

Kirch, P.V., Molle, G., Nickelson, C., Mills, P., Dotte-Sarout, E.,Swift, J., Wolfe, A. and Horrocks, M. 2015. Humanecodynamics in the Mangareva Islands: A stratified sequencefrom Nenega-Iti Rock Shelter (site AGA-3, Agakauitai Island.Archaeology in Oceania 50: 23–42.

Kooijman, S. 1972. Tapa in Polynesia. Bernice P. Bishop MuseumBulletin 234. Bernice P. Bishop Museum, Honolulu, Hawai’i.

Miller, L.A. 2007. Atiahara dating. URL:http:// www.atiahara.org/excavations/radiocarbon.html (accessed 6 June 2014;archived by WebCite

R©at

http://www.webcitation.org/6Q88QiI6v).Molle, G. 2011. Ua Huka, une ıle dans l’Histoire. Histoire pre- et

post-europeenne d’une societe marquisienne. UnpublishedPhD thesis, Universite de la Polynesie Francaise, Tahiti.

Moriwaki, H., Chikamori, M., Okuno, M. and Nakamura, T. 2006.Holocene changes in sea level and environments on Rarotonga,Cook Islands, South Pacific Ocean. The Holocene 16:839–848.

Morrison, J. 1935. The Journal of James Morrison, Boatswain’sMate of “The Bounty”, Describing the Mutiny and SubsequentMisfortunes of the Mutineers, Together with an Account of theIsland of Tahiti. Golden Cockerel Press, London.

Moy, C.M., Seltzer, G.O., Rodbell, D.T. and Anderson, D.M.2002. Variability of El Nino/Southern Oscillation activity at

millennial timescales during the Holocene epoch. Nature 420:162–165.

Nunn, P.D. 2000. Environmental catastrophe in the Pacific Islandsaround A.D. 1300. Geoarchaeology 15: 715–740.

Poulsen, J. 1987. Early Tongan Prehistory: The Lapita Period onTongatapu and its Relationships. Terra Australis 12.Department of Prehistory, Australian National University,Canberra.

Prebble, M. 2006. Islands, Floras and History: An EnvironmentalHistory of Plant Introduction and Extinction on the AustralIslands, French Polynesia. Unpublished PhD thesis, AustralianNational University, Canberra.

Prebble, M. and Dowe, J.L. 2008. The late Quaternary decline andextinction of palms on Oceanic Pacific islands. QuaternaryScience Reviews 27: 2546–2567.

Prebble, M. and Wilmshurst, J. 2009. Detecting the initial impactof humans and introduced species on island environments inRemote Oceania using palaeoecology. Biological Invasions 11:1529–1556.

Prebble, M. and Anderson, A. 2013. Palaeobotany and the earlydevelopment of agriculture on Rapa Island. In A. Anderson andD. Kennett (eds), Taking the High Ground: The Archaeology ofRapa, A Fortified Island in Remote East Polynesia, pp.167–187. Terra Australis 37. Australian National University,Canberra.

Sahlins, M. 1972. Stone Age Economics. Chicago:Aldine-Atherton.

Seabrook, F.A. 1938. Rurutuan Culture. Unpublished manuscript,Bernice P. Bishop Museum.

Shanmugam, G. 2012. Process-sedimentological challenges indistinguishing paleo-tsunami deposits. Natural Hazards 63:5–30.

Spriggs, M. and Anderson, A. 1993. Late colonization of EastPolynesia. Antiquity 67: 200–217.

Steadman, D.W. 1995. Prehistoric extinctions of Pacific Islandbirds: Biodiversity meets zooarchaeology. Science 267:1123–1131.

Steadman, D.W. 2006. Extinction and Biogeography of TropicalPacific Birds. University of Chicago Press, C hicago.

Stokes, J.F.G. 1930. Stone implements. In R.T. Aitken, Ethnologyof Tubuai, pp. 130–164. Bernice P. Bishop Museum Bulletin70. Bernice P. Bishop Museum, Honolulu, Hawai’i.

Verin, P. 1969. L’ancienne civilisation de Rurutu, ıles Australes,Polynesie francaise: la periode classique. Memoires del’ORSTOM 33. ORSTOM, Paris.

Weisler, M.I. 1995. Henderson Island prehistory: Colonizationand extinction on a remote Polynesian island. BiologicalJournal of the Linnean Society 56: 377–404.

Williams, J. 1838. A Narrative of Missionary Enterprises in theSouth Sea Islands. J. Snow, London.

Wilmshurst, J., Hunt, T.L., Lipo, C.M. and Anderson, A.J. 2011.High-precision radiocarbon dating show recent and rapid initialhuman colonization of East Polynesia. Proceedings of theNational Academy of Sciences of the USA 108: 1815–1820.

Worthy, T.R. and Bollt, R. 2011. Prehistoric birds and bats fromthe Atiahara site, Tubuai, Austral Islands, East Polynesia.Pacific Science 65: 69–85.


The Atiahara site revisited: An early coastal settlement in Tubuai (Austral Islands, French...

Documents

Transcript of The Atiahara site revisited: An early coastal settlement in Tubuai (Austral Islands, French...