|
In the last edition of the Tubuai Adze Classification Catalogue I have commented upon the problems that have evolved out of the Green and Davidson Types IX and X for the Samoan adzes. Kirch has, in a recent work (Niuatoputapu, 1988) further confused the Samoan typology with a classification which apparently ignores the excellent work of Buck and quite expectedly misconstrues the work of Green and Davidson (as it is inadequately defined).. Thus In Figure 117 (Kirch, Niuatoputapu, 1988) are illustrated adzes which could easily be compared with Buck's Figures 173 and 174, these are Type I, thick variety, even given the Green and Davidson typology these adzes are incorrectly classified as Type X and IX. In Figure 119 we see adzes illustrated with one random cross section, a longitudinal cross section of the left side, which makes comparison with most other classifications difficult, and gives no indication of the position of the longitudinal margins (which might otherwise be suggested by a complete set of cross sections), further these adzes are obviously related to Bucks Type I, long narrow variety as per his figure 175 (adze 'a' may be intergrading with Type VI). The fact that Bucks illustrated Types often fit so well, is an indication that he recognized the basic underlying forms to which the bulk of the Samoan adzes can be shown to closely conform. The weakness of the classification of Kirch is shown in his Figure 115 where he has Illustrated an important discovery (adze 'd') as a Samoan Type I? this adze demonstrates important characteristics which may link it with the early Marquesan flat quadrangular adzes. In Figure 116 adze 'a' is classified incorrectly as type III when it is quite obviously Type I as per Buck Figure 184 (Type III should be nearly rectangular and not trapazoidal as described by Kirch). Also in the same Figure 116, we see another important adze incorrectly classified as Type III and without any descriptive detail. This adze may be a very important link between the early Marquesan adzes and those of the Society Islands. it is exactly this form which has been recognized in early contexts, examples can be seen in the M.I.T. Society Islands adze display as well as their Hane Excavation Display. This adze borders on Plano-convex and the curved cutting edge is another distinctive feature. These adzes may be related to very early plano-lateral form which appears now as one of the oldest of the Lapita forms. it is interesting to note that in the Marquesas these adzes merge with quadrangular forms quite like the Niuatoputapu adze figured as previously mentioned as Adze 'd' Figure 115. Even more disturbing is Kirch's Figure 118 where we see an adze ('b') which is clearly Type II subtype a, as per Buck Figure 179, incorrectly classified as Type IX? In the same figure adze 'a' incorrectly classified as Type IX, when it is clearly a Type VI, as shown in Bucks Figure 196. Finally in adze 'c' in the same Figure 118, no indication is given as to the fact that this is not a complete adze, i.e. extending dashed lines to indicate that it is in fact a broken fragment, this adze fragment may be of Type I or III but it is certainly not Type IX as defined by Green and Davidson. Kirch further demonstrates his lack of adze expertise in overlooking the important circular sectioned fully ground chisel which is diagnostically important in Eastern Polynesia (see Figueroa and Sanchez page 199, Type 6) While the aberrant adze shown in Figure 120 and described as plano-convex? (due to the butt cross section?) may not have counter parts in Western Polynesia but is clearly evident in the Classification of certain New Guinea adzes by Blackwood (1950, Fig. 4, page 19).
|