| Guide to Artifacts | INDEX to Volume 25 |
|
Radiocarbon dating results *****The measured C14 age for our first sample was given as 580 +/- 50 BP. I must admit to being surprised and disappointed with such a recent date and it was hard to get back into the work with the same enthusiasm as before. Still there were ways of perhaps explaining how it might happen that the sample I chose was in fact an intrusion from the upper part of the layer and that the layer itself could still represent a long term occupation. *****So I started to investigate the now disturbed bed of the trench to try to establish exactly how the layers were oriented and link up the deposits to the opposing walls. i.e. the layers are evident on both sides of the trench but they do not match up well at first sight. I attacked the bottom with a shovel and found that it was disturbed (marbled) well below the present surface, undoubtedly due to deep tire treads or irregular shoveling by the pelleteuse. Still after digging down far enough I found an undisturbed area of the lowest layer, to my surprise, I discovered that this layer thickens towards the western wall to reach a thickness of nearly 70 cm in some points as opposed to a thickness of less than 20 cm in some areas near the opposite wall. |
|
This was a great inspiration for I began to ask myself how it could be that this layer could arrive to a thickness of 70 cm? Certainly this might be a sign of an important and prolonged occupation. *****Exploring this thickest part of the layer proved however rather disappointing, being a relatively uniform grey colour throughout, which contained little other than an occasional nondescript stone or shell and or the very rare piece of bone (fish vertebrae, small) and or small basalt flakes, these coming however from the very bottom of the layer. Also a deep penetration or post hole was encountered and photographed, this extended down to the hardpan coral bottom which is found at about 2 meters below the surface (photo 5.) The main occupation layers are of an undulating form of variable thickness, found roughly about 70 cm below the present surface, these layers have been formed over a shallow layer of clean sand also of variable thickness under which lays broken coral and compacted sand /coral (hardpan) of a whiter colour than the covering layer of clean tan coloured sand. The water table probably being just below the hardpan (depending on rainfall) I photographed the water entering my lowest excavation but I never encountered it generally (photos 1 + 2). *****I then explored the remaining part of the lowest layer as it is found under the bottom surface of the trench by excavating transversely but soon realized that any discovery made in this area will be of uncertain value due to the complete absence of any information concerning the upper stratigraphy, just examining the profile of the trench walls revealed numerous intrusions from the upper layers (see photo 3 of an unusual intrusion). *****So I decided rather to concentrate on exploring the lowest layer along the walls where the entire deposit still remains intact. I made a series of test pits at the wall edge to try to establish the way in which the layer was placed and to observe how it merges or rather interacts with the upper layer. A number of observations can be made here concerning this lowest layer which contains little in the thickest part but is rich with bone and stone in the thinner part where it meets the eastern wall, I discovered a number of darker areas containing shell, bone, stone and charcoal of varying quality, I gathered and bagged the more important specimens, however I found little charcoal of the quantity and quality of the sample submitted for dating. Stone was relatively rare, no intact ground artifacts were found nor did I find anything which appeared worked, blanks etc. *****On the 19 th of September decided to continue excavating the lowest layer along the walls even though this work was causing the walls to collapse. I first discovered a darker zone in the upper part of the layer along the west wall as the layer drops below the bottom of the trench, I collected stone and bone from this area as well as photographing the layer ( photos 21+ 22). Then crossing to the other wall I searched the layer until I found a distinct discoloured zone at the bottom of the layer. Here again I discovered bone and stone, poor charcoal etc. and I photographed the discoloured part of the layer (photos 23 +24). Artifacts Recovered *****I was all the while hoping to find a good representative artifact and now after an extensive amount of digging had almost given up the search. At this point I was exploring the bottom of the lowest layer, an artifact found here could provide just the clue needed. I excavated along this discoloured zone until I exposed some rather large bone fragments and decided take a picture of the intact bones with the last remaining photo of the roll (photo 25). After doing this I extracted and bagged the bones, then proceeded to dig a bit further into the deposit at the same depth. Only about 10 cm from the bones, I finally found an important intact artifact. |
|
*****Y. H. Sinoto calls them graters when the edge is serrated, they are made of the thick hinge part of large pearl shells and in Tubuai I had previously found only one nearly complete example and a number of broken fragments to persuade me to think that this artifact was in fact in use at one time in Tubuai. (see Diagram 25.1) Also present in the Marquesas as well as Huahine this artifact is recognized as early by Sinoto. (See personal communication re the nearly complete AHOAPOFATU example illustrated Volume 18 (Diagram 18.26) *****The following day I thought it best to return and try to establish the exact location of the findspot of the grater by measuring from the road as well as looking for dateable charcoal etc. Never imagining that more artifacts could be found as they seemed few and far between and work now made more difficult with the walls collapsing due to my undermining, anyway I cleared away the fallen rubble and again proceed to scrape away at the discoloured bottom part of the lowest layer not far from where I found the grater. I did find some more poor quality charcoal as well as bones and a large piece of worked pearl shell but more surprising was the sudden appearance of another grater only about 50 cm further south and placed at about the same level and in the same way in the discoloured bottom part (see Diagram 25.2) I had hardly extracted this second grater when I came across a complete well finished adze which was placed vertically next to the grater. the lowest part of the adze very near to, if not partially imbedded in the sterile clean layer below. Another 20 or so cm further on I came across a large terebra shell chisel as well as a sea urchin spine. For these tools to be found more or less together and all in good condition, one might wonder if they do not represent some sort of a cache? |
|
*****The adze proves very interesting for it is rare Type 2Aa which has much in common with the early Hane adzes i.e. flat reversed trapezoidal (see Diagram 25.3 as well as Diagram 18.1 in Volume 18 ), however we see in this example a more extensive grinding which then is leading towards a more sub triangular form, this adze is untanged and heavily encrusted. *****The terebra shell chisel, is in better condition than many others found elsewhere with the exterior surface pattern still evident. This artifact may also prove to be early as in Huahine. *****The second grater, thicker than the first and wider, and is identical in form and size to one recovered at the Fa'ahia site, see Diagram 25.2 see also the rendering of the Fa'ahia specimen by Nicole Pigeot which is also pictured in Fig 11, page 28 of the 1983 report, Nouvelles recherches sur le site de Fa'ahia (M.T.I. publication). *****Both ATIAHARA graters are in excellent condition, both have serrated teeth although the second appears somewhat worn. If one considers the fact that I have been fossicking all kinds of sites for many years and to date only one complete grater had been found and it being in a much deteriorated condition (recovered from ATIAHARA #5) while a few other incomplete fragments have turned up these too appear poorly preserved. How then might one explain the appearance of these two well preserved specimens? *****The artifacts came from a 50 cm penetration of the eastern wall at a distance of 37-38 meters from the road. (measured from the east wall following the long axis of the trench). Coincidentally the first experimental transverse excavation was undertaken just beyond the 38 meter mark and the deep expermental hole excavated next to the east wall was perhaps only 60 cm beyond the cached artifacts, these excavations were fully photographed and further photographs were taken on the 22nd. |
| Go to Comparative Implementology | go to ATIAHARA.ORG |
