|
The Implications of Recent Publications While it would appear that Archeology is making much progress in the area of early Lapita a few rather disconcerting observations should be mentioned. I have previously remarked upon the chaotic nature of current adze classification and the lack of one precise all encompassing system. This situation is further exacerbated by a regressive lack of precision in the definition, illustration and expertise in this field. Errors and misconceptions are being perpetuated, these often stem from unqualified attempts to classify all and every artifact despite its relative state of completion. It should be obvious that unfinished adzes and fragments therefrom cannot and should not be classified unless by a highly qualified expert, such an expert would with the strongest reservations suggest a possible direction relative to the completed implement (without omitting the observation that some tools remained 'unfinished' or were so minimally ground that in their finished state they appear unfinished and or with perhaps the finished part broken away). In 1930, P. H. Buck published a very precise system of classification for the Samoan Adzes, which was coupled with detailed illustrations and observations to further describe most of the major characteristics of the important individual specimens. I am at a loss to understand how his work could have been replaced in by 'new' inconsistent types, largely inadequate illustration, and a lack of descriptive detail. However this has been the pattern of 'modern' Archeological work and it continues today, adzes remain illustrated with only one cross section which may be taken randomly (i.e. not at mid point), profiles are often limited to back and front only, side profiles are often transposed into longitudinal sections and thus do not show the position of the longitudinal margins. In short adze description was 60 years ago more precise and useful than it is today. The Comparative Implementologist must cringe when discovering that the important details which would allow a reasonable comparison between important specimens from early Lapita contexts, are missing. A recent publication purporting to be a critical review of Lapita research: ARCHAEOLOGY OF THE LAPITA CULTURAL COMPLEX: A CRITICAL REVIEW P.V. Kirch and T.L. Hunt (eds.) 1988, gives a full report of almost every aspect of the Lapita Culture, but is without a single illustration of representative stone artifacts. The importance of these artifacts to the modern 'Archeologist' will immediately be evident by referring to the References Cited at the back of the above mentioned publication, being a rather complete list of most of the relevant Lapita literature in print, over 14 pages, which contain more than 260 references. Of these, not one title bears the term adze, in fact not a single work appears to have been consecrated to the Lapita Adzes. How can this deplorable situation be explained? It would seem that obsidian research, with the potential of hydration-rind dating has diverted a considerable amount of attention that might otherwise have been channeled into stone tools such as adzes. In fact about 10 percent of the Lapita literature cited above, deals almost exclusively with obsidian. |
| Go to Comparative Implementology | go to ATIAHARA.ORG |