Copyright Statement The digital copy of this thesis is protected by the Copyright Act 1994 (New Zealand). This thesis may be consulted by you, provided you comply with the provisions of the Act and the following conditions of use: •
Any use you make of these documents or images must be for research or private study purposes only, and you may not make them available to any other person.
•
Authors control the copyright of their thesis. You will recognise the author's right to be identified as the author of this thesis, and due acknowledgement will be made to the author where appropriate.
•
You will obtain the author's permission before publishing any material from their thesis.
To request permissions please use the Feedback form on our webpage. http://researchspace.auckland.ac.nz/feedback
General copyright and disclaimer In addition to the above conditions, authors give their consent for the digital copy of their work to be used subject to the conditions specified on the Library Thesis Consent Form
C'OOK
-
Nffi
IREIVilOHT,IAL $TRTX,ffURES Dive;reity at frMaeand Vbde$ of [Vfe.a,ning$
-
Ey Toru'Femaeurfui
ruUF ffi
A,
thesisr imeneuted tq Sbs U^lliveme-iff of Aun&lgfi
is.fuilfi&lilneet
o-f
I
rhe bhesie
:br iifuc de$,ee, sl .Doetorof Fffi logopfu lnAnthrop_ology. re,qXrime,mcJtt
9000
Aw&lmit, blprv geailand @) ilbmYauaguehi
ABSTRACT:Ethnographic accounts recorded from a number of its island.s illustrate that mara€ or c€rr€rllonial structures in East Polynesia are richly polysemie, their siguificance spreading out in an embarrassment of directions (cf. Geertz 1980: 105). Yet, it is fair to say that archaeologists have hard.ly approached the great variety of meanings encode d, in marae. Most previous studies have generally constrilined inquiring into the local characteristics of ceremonial structures in order to build general models of social evolution. Critical reconsideration of these insights provides a new perspective derived from contextual archaeolory. The principal aim of this stud.y, therefore, is to interpret a variety of local meanings encoded in maraein the Cook Islands in accordance with this new perspective. For this purpose, I document the considerable diversity of ceremonial structures in this island group, mainly on the basis of data which were collected during the 1g8b, the 1gg9 - lggl and the 1995 - 1996 Keio University E>rpeditions to the Cook Island Group including my own lggb research in Tongareva Atoll.
It would, hovt'ever, be impossible to interpret all the meanings encoded. in Cook Island ceremonial structures. Therefore, I focus on the concept of tultural landscape.'It is a product which has been formed. by interaction between a local c,ulture and a local environment or by human imposition of Iocal meanings o:nto a local environment (cf. Ucko 1gg4: xviii). Seen in this
light, we can view construction of ceremonial structures as a physical action of such an event. The concept of cultural landscape, thw, involves us in taking
up the issue of why marae pmvided with particular
morphological
characteristics e:iists a particular locale. Data related to this issue include the moryholory of elements comprising a nxa,ra,e, tbe con-figuration of these elements comprising a marae, the configuration of these elements, its orientation, and the various features related to its location. They also includ.e the spatial associations with other architectural features, and more general
aspects
of the cultural
context. And comparison of these visible characteristics amorrg m,arde- alongwith ethnographic accounts provide us suitable contexts relevant to examining various set of meanings -encod.ed in each m,arae.
The substantive research includes thre-e case studies. The first of them
demonstrates that m,a,rae are intimately related to certain aspects of the Tongarevan prehistoric society in the Northenn Cook Islands which include economic, social and political as well as ideological and cosmological factors. It is also noteworthy that every naare,e does not necessarily share the same set
of meanings. This reflects a situation in which ,narde turn out to be associated with various socio-political levels ranging from households to the entire atoll forroed within a society that is segmentary in nature.
-
Marae thus carry a variety of meanings peculiar to each social unit at various levels, as well as serving as territorial markers at a main socio-political level,
that of the level of largest and most stable social units called huaanga.
in the analysis of Tongarevan case ceremonial structures are richly polysemic is also the analytical basis of next two case studies of religious structures of Rarotonga and Mangaia in the Southern Cook Islands. The comparison among the three island.s, however, provides still another viewpoint. Marae in the islands exhibit homogeneous or heterogeneous pattern in morpholory andlocation, but these patterns are not directly related to the degrees of socio-political complexity. This suggests that the realization of the local meanings which vary relative to islands must be examined in detail before linkipg too facilely ceremonial structures with political hegemony or social evolution in some overall framework. The perspective developed
The above perspective derived from three case studies leads to a reconsideration of the diversity of ceremonial structures in the Cook Island Group and throughout East Polynesia. First, the diversity can be observed most directly in the Cook Islands. This is quite sufficient to cause a revision of the prevailing image that East Polynesian ceremonial structures all share basic morphological elements. If we do not aim at constructing a general model of ceremonial structures, but instead scrutinize the d.iversity, it becomes necessary to refer to sets of local meanings varying not only within island and island but also within tnq,raeby marae. I believe this may prove to be an effective approach for a new range of marae studies. Moreover, it would. also contribute to the development of a more recent perspective designated 'l'andscape archaeolory' which aims at approaching various aspects of the
built environment including physical, social, economic and ideological
ll1-
ones.
-ACKNOWLEDGMENT
_
My greatest debt of gtatitude is to my supervisors, Professor Roger Green and Dr. Douglas Sutton for their support. Professor Green is thanked for properly and wisely guiding me every time I met d.if6culties. I was prone to stick to details too much in writing chapters of case studies, but he helped me get back the balance between individual and general issues to ceremonial architecture- In retrospect Icannot help feelingthat he has seen through the process of my trial and error in advance (probably since I arrived at Auckland). The other staff in Anthropolory Department, the University of Auckland., also kindly and encouragingly assisted. me, a Japanese student who was loss because I did not know much about the department. br particular, Dr. Rod
wallace, a member of the tecbnical staff, frequently invited me to his
comfortable office. I very much enjoyed our d.iscussion and smoking there. He also provided his great assistance on identifiring species of charcoal samples from the Cook Islands. The data became the essential base of several issues which are discussed in this thesis. For translation of traditions which I collected in Tongareva Atoll, I am indebted to Mr. Wilkies Rassmusen who was a PhD student in Anthropolory Department during my stay. He also gave me invaluable suggestions on the
traditional society of rongareva. Mrs. Jacqueline craig and Mss. Bridget Mosley also offered me a grcat deal of their assistance. They proof-read. my drafts which are filled with complicated discussions, and instructed me to make their presentation in English in the best shape possible. The Keio University team has undertaken the following archaeological
suryeys
in the Cook Islands
founded by the International Scientific Research Foundation, the Ministry of Education of Japanese Government (Grant No. 01041081 and No. 07041022) 19gb:
-
-since
(1) the 1985 expedition in Pukapuka in the northern group, (2) the 1989 expedition in Tongareva in the northern group,
(3)
the 1990 expedition in Manihiki and Rakahanga in the northern
-iv-
group, (4) the 1991 expedition in Manihiki in the northern group and Rarotonga in the southern group, (5) the 1995 expedition in pukapuka in the northern soup, (6) the 1996 expedition in Rarotonga in the southern group, and (7) the 1992 expedition in Rarotonga in the southern group.
I have partaken all expeditions since 1989. I most deeply appreciate the
efforts of Professor Masashi Chikamori who provided me great opportgnities to join his long term research in this island group. He has also long guide me as a mentor and inspired me to continue my stud.ies on the Oceanic archaeolory. The invaluable time in the Cook Islands spent w"ith him and other members have proven unforgettable in my life. I also undertook my own survey of Tongareva in lggb. It was founded by Toyota Foundation (Grant No. 94-4-134). During the stay in this atoll, Mr.
Soatini (the Government Representative) kindly provid.ed a comfortable accommodation and delicious local ddshes. I also met an unforgettable man NIr. Temaire Vaeau. He is a pastor in Cook Island Cristian Church. He was enjoying his vacation with his family when I arrived at the atoll, but pleasantly agreed to assist in hard. archaeological surveys in some remp,te islets.I wish to e4press my special gratitude to Mr. Soatini, if,ft.'f;ffitffi*'
Tongarevan people.
Looking back upon the past ten years, I found myself supported by many people including many friends livingin the Cook Islands.In particular, I am
indebted to Mr. Hon. Terepai Maoate, the current prime Minister, Mr. Hon Inatio Akaruru, the ex-Deputy Prime Minister, Mr. Anthony Utanga who was the Permanent Secretary of Internal Affair, the late Mr. Stuart Kingan who was in Scientific Research of the government, and the late Mr. Kauraka Kauraka who was in Ministry of Cultural Development. They gave us kind. advice concerning our research and arranging for our projects in all expeditions. While not listing all names of my friends in this island group, my sincere thanks are due to them.
Finally, my parents and my wife have mentally and financially supported me for a long period. Their anxieties have been immeasurable. I have no word
to thank them and thus, I would like to dedicate this thesis to them.
June 27.2000 Toru Yamaguchi Maeda 510-21-107, Yokohama, Totsuka,
JAPAN. 244-0804.
[email protected] [email protected]
-vi-
_
CONTENTS
_
Abstract
I
Acknowledgements
iv
List of Figwes -----------
)ol
List of Tables
)w
Chapter 1: Introduction
Architecture 1.1.1. Culture Historical Perspective 1.1.2. Processual Perspective 1.1.3. Structural Perspective---------
1.1. Perspectives to
1.2.
Ceremonial
2
4 6
Framework L2.1. Definition of 'Symbol'
Theoretical
8 9
1.2.2. Contextual Approach and Settlement Pattern 1.3. Research Design of Thesis
l.3.l.Introduction to Chapter 1.3.2. Introduction to Chapter l.3.3.Introduction to Chapter 1.4.
z
I
l0 13
4
l3 t4
5
15
3
Summary of Introduction
Notes to Chapter
Studies
l5
-----------
16
Chapter 2. General Settings for Settlement in Tongareva and Other Atolls of the Northern Cook Islands ------------- 18
2.1.1. Geomorphology
2l 2l
2.1.2. Vegetation
23
2.1. Physical Settings of Tongareva
Atoll
-vr1-
2.1.3. Freshwater
23
Islands
24
Islands 2.2.2. Sedimentary Progradation-----------
25
2.2. Atoll Formation in the Northern Cook 2.2.1. Sealevel Change and Emergence of Holocene Corals in the Northern Cook
2.3. Colonization of the Northern Cook
Islands
2.3.1. Colonization of Pukapuka, Rakahangaand Manihiki 2.3.2. Colonization of
29 g2
-------
Tongareva----------
2.4. Summary of Chapter 2
Notes to Chapter 2
-
-----------
-----------
Chapter 3. Interpretation of Ceremonial Architecture: A Case Study of Tongarevan Marae
---------3.1.1. Categories of Architectural Features --------3.1.2. Culnral Sequence of Architectural Features --------
3.I. Tongarevan Architectural Features
34
-
37
40
4l
43 44 44
5l
3.2. Spatial Position of Marae
Units 3.2.1. Prehistoric Settlement Pattern in Tongareva Atoll 3.2.2. Spatial Separation of Marae from Household Units 3.2.3. Location of Marae
-
Meanings at the Level of Household
6l 62
69 70
3.2.4. Meanings Encoded in Spatial Separation of Marae
from Settlements 3.3. Marae as
-
76
Territorial Markers of Districts
Meanings at the Level of Districts
3.3.1. Reconstruction of the Tongarevan -------Socio-Political System 3.3.2. Reconstruction of Districts -----3.3.3. Marae Serving as Symbols of Distiicts
80 81
86
9l
Territoriality
3.3.4. A Variety of Expressions of
96
3.4. Morphology and Orientation of Marae Meanings at Levels of Inter-Districts and Entire --3.4.1. Morphological rypes of Marae and Their Distributions -------------3.4-2- Political or Genealogical Relationships among 3.4.3. Spatial Orientations of Tongarevan Marae -____-_
Atoll
-
Districts-------__-__
3.5. Prevailing Features of Marae in the segmentary
society
---
105 105 I
l0
l 14
ll7
3.6. Summary of Chapter 3
-
the variety of Meanings Encoded in Tongarevan
Notes to Chapter
3
Marae
----------
- lr9 __-_____
Chapter 4. Additional Case Studies: Ceremonial Structures in Rarotonga and Mangaia, the Southern Cook Islands
l2S
l2g
_
4.1. spatial Distribution and Morpholory of ceremonial structures
in Rarotonga, the Southern Cook
Islands
__________
l2g
4-I'1. Architectural Features Associated with Ceremonial Activities ------ l3l 4-1.2. Topographic Zones and Locations of Ceremonial Structures ------- --- 132 4.1.3. Political System and ceremonial structures along ,Ara 4.1.4. Locations of other Marae
-
4.1.5. Mountain Marae andOcean
Its Topographic
--- 137
------------_ 140 within Tapere Tenitory------------ l4g
StructuresMarae-----
variety within ceremonial
4.1.8. Heterogeneity among Rarotongan 4-2.
Features
135
Marae
4.1.6. The variety of ceremonial Spaces 4.1.7 - Morphological
Meatua------
------ 154
---
162
ceremonial Structures in Mangaia, the southern cook Islands
164
4.2.1. Location of Mangaian Marae
166
4.2.2. Subsistence Production and Ceremonial
Activity -------
168
4.2.3. The Relationship of Marae Location and Water Supply
to the Lrigation Systems
169
4.2.4. Political Control of Irigation
Systems
4.2.5. Ceremonial Legitimization of political Authorities 4.2.6. Marae as Focal Points Uniting Various 4.2.7. Morphological Features
-__-_-_ l7I
---__ Activities ofMangaianMarae
-_ I7Z -___--__ 172 __ 174
4.2.8. Homogeneity of Mangaian Marae and
System
Highly Instirutionalized Political
____-_ l7g
4.3. Summary of Chapter 4
-
Heterogeneity and Homogeneity
Notes to Chapter
t82
4 ----------
r86
chapter 5. Discussions on the Diversity of ceremonial Structures in the Cook Islands 5.1. Various Ceremonial Structures
the Northern Cook
____---_
lgg
in Three Atolls,
Islands
__
Atoll 5.1.2. Ceremonial Structures innakahangaAtoll 5.1.1. Ceremonial Structures in Manihiki
5.2. Ceremonial Structures in Pukapuka
Atoll
lgg
_____-- 190
_--__ 195
:*-__ l9g
5.3. The Variety of Ceremonial Structures
Islands 5.3.1. Ceremonial Structures in Rarotonga 5.3.2. Ceremonial Structures in Aitutaki 5.3.3. Ceremonial Structures in Mangaia 5.3.4. Ceremonial Structures inNgaputoru --------in the Southern Cook
5.4. Culture Historical Approach and Its 5.4.1. Culture Historical Relations
Cook Island Ceremonial
Limitation
-------
---------- Z0Z
-----------
203
-_ 203
-- 206 --- 207 -------- 210
of
Structures
- ZI2
5.4.2. Limitation of Culture Historical Approach Encompassing the Entire Cook
Islands
-------- Zl7
5.5. Studies of Localify Leading to Interpretation of
Ceremonial Structures in the Cook
Islands
5.5.1. The Northern Cook Islands as an Interface between West and East polynesia
-------
2lg
--___-
-_--_-_ 2lg
5.5.2. Theoretical Implications of Three Case Studies
to Studies of Notes to Chapter
5
Locality
----------
Chapter 6. Cook Island Marae in Comparative and Local Perspective: a Summary
Appendise----------
____
221
__-_____
226
__ZZg
__________235
Appendix 1: Archaeological site-Database in the cook Islands
Tongareva Manihiki and Rakahanga PukapukaRarotonga Mangaia Aitutaki--Atiu---Mauke
--------____ 236 __-____
243
------------ 245 ____________
24g
- 263 ------------ 269 ------------ 276 --- Zgl
Appendlx 2: Radiocarbon Dates From the Northern Cooks and Rarotonga Tongareva-
--- 282
Manihiki--
References
.--303
_ Chapter
2.lr1.
LIST OF FIGIJRES
-
2
Islands 2.1.2. Map of the Cook Islands Location of the Cook
19
Z0
2.1.3. Schematic cross-section of Tongarevan islets 2.2.1. Calcite bedrock exposed at the bottom of excavated trench (photo) 2.2.2. Mean annual rainfall distribution for cook Islands 1951-19g0 2.3.1. Radiocarbon dates associated with atoll formation
26
----------2.3.2. Untanged basalt adz from pukapuka
34
and early settlement of Pukapuka
2.3.3.
Radiocarbon dates associated with atoll formation and early settlement of Rakahanga
-----------
2.3.4.
3l
35
36
Radiocarbon dates associated with atoll formation and early settlement of
2.3.5.
Zz
Manihiki
36
Radiocarbon dates associated with atoll formation and early settlement of Tongareva
---------
3g
Chapter 3 3.1 . I
.
3.I.2.
Distribution of archaeological sites in Tongareva Atoll ----TON-03 circular courfyard in Niu-te-Kdrga Tongareva
3.1.3. TON-36 graveyard in Tepuka, Tongareva 3.1.4. ToN-33 marae in Tepuka and stratigraphic profile of rrench 2 ------------3.1.5. TON-21 marae in Hangarei and stratigraphic profile--------3.1.6. TON-47 settlement site in Hangarei
-----3.1.7. chronological order of rongarevan architectural features 3.2.1. A muddy field of puraka inTepuka, Tongareva (photo) and stratigraphic profile of the mounded oven
3.2.2. TON-45 settlement
47 50 53 55
57
6l 63
site and locations
of two marae (TON-19 and TON-46) in
3.2.3. A stone-walled
45
Mangarongaro
65
structure in TON-45 settlement site
in Mangarongaro, Tongareva (photo) --
3.2.4. TON-28 site complex in Mangarongaro, Tongareva 3.2.5. Locations ofTongarevanmarae 3.2.6. TON-O9/II marae in Kave4 Tongareva (photo) 3.2.7. TON-l0/I maraeinNaue, Tongareva @hoto) -x11_
66 68
7l 72 73
3-2-8-
Tongareva 3.3.1. First reconstruction of rongarevan socio-political system 3.3-2. Revised model of the Tongarevan socio-political system 3.3.3. Divisions of lagoons (huaanga moana) in Tongareva Atoll 3.3.4. ToN-23 human-shaped monument in Tautupae, Tongareva --------3.3.5. ToN-46 marae in the islet of Mangarongaro, Tongareva (photos) Soil sedimentation profiles of excavated sites in
76 g3
g5 gg
90 94
3.3-6. Territories of districts (huaanga henua) and distribution of narae ---------- 97 3.3.7. A brackish inlet used as the fishpond of Milkfish in Tongareva (photo) ---- 100 3.3-8. Tongarevan Marae spatially associated with brackish inlets ---- l0l 3.3.9- Tongarevan Marae spatially associated withtaurangaruhi ------------------ 104 3-4.1. Morphological classification of Tongarevanmarae _-_ 106 3.4.2. Spatialdistributionofeachtype ofTongarevan marae --_--__-__ 109 3.4.3. Politically allied units of Tongarevan districts -----------------___ l l I 3.4.4. Structure in the Primordial Genealogy _-___ l 13
3.4.5.
Marae-orientations in Tongareva
---------
_
I 15
Chapter 4
4.1.1. 4.1.2. 4.1.3.
Topographic classification
.4. 4.I.5.
RAR- I 6 marae located on a floodplain, the eastern region of Rarotonga RAR-9 marae located on a beach ridge,
4.1
Islands of land in Rarotonga -----------
Map of Rarotong4 the Southern Cook Rarotongan political system ----
------- l2g -------- 133 ------- 136
--
the eastern region of Rarotonga (photo)
4.1.6. 4.1.7.
RAR-I05 marae inTurangi Valley within the eastern region of Rarotonga
---------
I38
139
--------
l4l
Sacred mountain peaks taken in the landscape
of RAR-I05 marae (photos)-
4.1.8. 4.1.9. 4.1.10
t42 Pit oven (umu) exposed within RAR-I05 marae (photo) t43 Cays or islets formed on coral reef flat (photo) t45 RAR-12 marae on Motu Tapu, a cay in the eastern part of Rarotonga ----- r46
4.1.11. Uprights standing on RAR-12 and RAR-105 marae (photos)
148
4.1.t2. Site-distribution within Truangi and Avana River Basins
151
4.1.13.
l))
schematic reconstruction of marae located on mountainous interior
4.1.t4. Schematic reconstruction of marae located on floodplains ---------4.1.1 5, M o rphological class ifi cati on o f Raroton gan m ar ae 4.2.1. Distribution of marae inManeaia --
-xrlr_
157 161
r65
4.2.2. Schematic profile of topography from the coastal areato the inland --------4.2.3. Spatialdistribution of marae andirrigatedtenacesinKeiaDistrict---------4.2.4. Proportion of Mangaian Marae ------------
166 170
176
Chapter 5
5.1.1. Site distribution in Manihiki Atoll, the Northern cook Islands - l9l 5.1.2. MNH-4 Ngarikura Marae in the islet ofNgake, Manihiki Atoll :--------- lg2 5.1.3. MNH-6 Tua-i-heke-rangi Marae in the islet of Motu Hakamaru, Manihiki 5.1.4. 5.
r.5.
5.1.6.
s.2.1.
5.2.2. 5.3.1.
s.3.2. 5.3.3. 5.5.1.
Atoll----
--------
193
MNH-2 Maramanui Marae inthe islet of Ngake, Manihiki Atoll lg4 site distribution in Rakahanga Atoll, the Northern cook Islands ----------- 196 RAK-2 Mua Marae in the islet of Te Kuing+ RalcahangaAtoll ------------ 197
-------
Pukapuka Atoll, the Northern Cook Islands, and site distribution in the islet of Wale --------
199
PUK-WI0 ceremonial site (Mata Ala) in Wale, pukapuka Type D2 marae (AIT-35) inAitutaki
201
MAN-10 Aumoana Marae in Mangaia Marae in Atiu, the Southem Cook Islands (photos) Map of the Northern Cook Islands
-xlv-
205 207
209 220
-
LIST OF TABLES
_
Chapter 2
2.2.1,
Radiocarbon dates on emergent Holocene coral and early human settlements in the Northern
cook
Islands
zg
Chapter 3
3.1.1. Radiocarbon dates from Tongarevan
features 3.2.r. Identified species of charcoal samples from excavated marae 3.3.1. Names of local districts and divisions of the lagoon in Tongareva 3.3.2. Relation between local districts and tnarae 3.6.1,
.1.
sz 74 89
gz
Various characteristics of Tongarevantnarae examined in Chapter 3 -------- 120
Chapter 4.1
architectural
4
Location of archaeological sites in Rarotonga
4.1-2- variety of ceremonial spaces within large valleys in Rarotonga 4.2.1. Topographic and Morphological features of Mangaian Marae
t34 t52 175
Chapter 5
5.5.1. Relations among paftern of society, and their significance of
mainrole
pattern of marae,
--- 224
Chapter
I
fntroduction
Ceremonial structures are widely distributed among the islands of East Polynesia. They are called fiLarcte, nne'e,e, heiau or ahu. Many of them share basic moryhological elements such as "an enclosed or otherwise delineated
courtyard, elevated
altar area (ahu), and upright stone slabs or canred
images" (Kirch 1982: 80). However, they are also diversified in their size, orientation, and location. Ir particular their collective configurations may vary at the district level of an island as well as within islands of a group or between island grcups.
Because
of their number, the monumental size of many of
these
structures, their similarity and their diversity, these ceremonial structures have been viewed as one of most marked cultwal phenomena of East Pol5rnesia (Garanger 1967: 383). These structures have also fascinated European voyagers, travelers, traders and settlers who have visited the
islands since the early 18th century. They recorded rituals performed at several islands in their descriptions or drawings. Such records demonstrate
that the structures were ritual places. However, their accounts were not necessarily based on su-fficient insights into the details of Polynesian culture and its religion, so included exaggerated, inaccurate or vague statements.
The majority of more reliable information was not accumulated until
the 1920's when the Bishop Museum
systematically carried out archaeological and ethnological surveys (Emory 1g43: g). It is very evident by that time that most of islands were strongly westernized and had lost or were in the process of losing their traditions about such matters as ritual and cosmolory. In this situation, salvage surveys of the Bishop Museum yielded a mass of invaluable records, and many scholars frequently refer to
-1-
ves
to Ceremonial Architecture
these records even at present. In keeping with this accumulation of information, both studies of the ceremonial architecture itself and those interpretations using
it as the main part of their data have progressed
by
employing several perspectives, each reflecting world archaeological trend.s.
Recent theoretical writings in archaeolory often search for a current perspective by employing a stance such as 'post-new archaeolory' or 'postprocessual archaeolory.' The studies of ceremonial architecture in East Polpnesia are not exempt from this trend. In order to ad.dress these new perspectives to analyses, the world trends
it would
be useful to scrutinize
-
with a mind to
preceding studies which have been put for:urard over the last 70 years. In this chapter, they are classified into three perspectives
-
the culture-historical, processual, and structural
-
each
of which
-
is
examined separately. Thereafter, I propose a new theoretical framework and. a set of analytical procedures useful in carrying out my analyses of East Polynesian ceremonial structures, w-ith the focus on those found in the Cook Islands.
1.1. Perspectives to Ceremonial Architecture 1.1.1 Culture-historical Perspective
The extensive and systematic surveys carried out by the Bishop Museum originated from the First Pan-Pacific Science Congress held in 1920' The Congress "proclaimed the problem of Polynesian origins'to be one of the pressing scientific concerns" (Kirch lgg2), and this led to mapping out what turned out to be over 40 years of study of ceremonial architecture. Kenneth P. Emory's works, in particular, characterize this trend.
In 1925, Emory suweyed 240 archaeological sites throughout the Society Islands. Using these data, he classified marae of the Windward Islands into
-2-
l.l.
Perspectivcs to Ceremonial Architecture
three types: inland, intermediate and coastal. He also identifred another type of marae in the Leeward Islands. The intention of this quadripartite classifi.cation was to outline a developmental and chronological framework
for the ceremonial architecture of this island group.
It ranges from the
simpler inland tyrpe through the intermediate and the Leeward t;pes to the more sophisticated coastal tlpe (Emory 1933:40-1). He vigorously continued a series of surveys: Nihoa and Neker in the Hawaii Islands (Emory 1g2g), the Tuamotu Archipelago (1934a), the Gambier Islands (1939) and, the Line
Islands (1934b) as well as expanding his investigations in the Society Islands. Using his extensive data and information about ftLa,rae of other islands including Tongareva Atoll, he set out morphological similarities and differences in ceremonial structures as a basis from which to infer a
developmental and diversifying sequence
for such structqres in
East
Polynesia @mory 1943, 1970).
E-ory also collected ethnographic and ethnohistorical information wherever possible.
It is, in particular, notable that
he "encountered for the
first time Polynesians who were sufficiently removed from the inlluences of Western civilization' (Kirch L992:4) and he compiled a variety of indigenous concepts related to Tuamotuan marae. Le this monograph, he set out a fundamental general point: The maraes, as the property of kindred, were material symbols of them, and fomed a
visible connection with the past. Always standing on the land occupied by the kindred, obseryable by any who might pass, they came to be a seal of ownershio. They bound
tbe ancestral spirits and gods of the kindred to the land, putting it trnder their eternal guardianship. Bmory 1947: 10 (underlining mine)l
Surprisingly, this paragraph foreshadowed a forthcomingperspective. h fact, Renfrew (1984: 180), refering to it, emphasized that Tuamotuan tnarae functioned as territorial markers, a basic concept of current spatial studies that examine the management of resources and political stratification in prehistoric societies.
-3-
l.l.
Perspectives to Ceremonial Architecture
Emory, however, largely failed to explore, on the basis of analyses of archaeological data, either how elements of tnarae objectified genealogies
and gods as material s5nnbols or how they reflected the territoriality of social groups as territorial markers. Instead his main concern was to erplain
-by comparisons of ceremonial structrues -"1[s development and. spread of Polynesian cultute" (Emory 1970: 91). In this culture-historical perspective, morphological types were viewed as indicators of diffusion of cultural norms (cf. Hodder 1982a: g).
1.1.2. Processual Perspective
I:r the 1960's, a different method of survey
-
settlement pattern
archaeology- started to be applied to Polynesian prehistory. This included intensive coverage of a given area such as a valley or other defined locale, and excavations to reconstruct local cultural sequences. One of the earliest examples of such research was can'ied out in the 'Opunohu Valley of Mo'orea, Societylslands (Green 1961; Green et al. 196?). Green demonstrated that a range of rnarae types functioned contemporaneously in the society occupying
the 'Opunohu Valley. He also pointed out that "the frequency of various rnarae tSpes then becomes intelligible in terms of the social differentiation and stratification that had developed by the eighteenth centurt'' (Green et al. 1967: L62). Thereafter, ceremonial architecture of East Pollmesia has frequently been treated in studies aiming at the reconstruction of sociopolitical structures with a focus on the indices of architectural elaboration such as size, construction materials and a number of other elements.
Many archaeologists also ascribed the advent of large and elaborate structures to the late part of eachchronological sequence by referring to the ethnohistorical accounts as well as to a limited number of radiocarbon d.ates (and sometimes as in volcanic glass dates) for their construction. They did so
by considering architectwal diversification and sophistication to reflect a process of socio-political integration which occuned in late prehistory (e.g.
-4-
l.l.
Perspectives to Ceremonial Architecture
in the Marquesas Islands; Kirch & Kelly 1grs, peebles & Kus 1977, Green 1980 in Hawaii Islands; Apes 1gTB, IVIccoy 1926, stevenson 1986 in Easter Island). There appears to have been a shared viewpoint which allowed these archaeologists to build a model of the evolutionary process of socio-political integration common to various islands. For this suggs 1961
purpose, they synthesized a variety of data related to population growth, intensification of food production, environmental change and warfare (e.g.
Kirch 1984) which in general followed a processual perspective that has been a main trend in Polynesian archaeolory since 1[s lggQ's tu. Recently, some archaeologists have proposed an'evolutionary ecological model'which focuses more on ecological conditions in terms of the process of
socio-political integration achieved in part through aggression (Graves & sweeney 1993; Graves & Ladefoged lggb). The existing ,cultureevolutionaqy' model views inter-group aggression as a corollary of increasing social complexity or as a function of population increase and food scarcity. The new model, however, proposes that aggression is generated by groups
living in comparatively less productive and less reliable locales even ,,when there are relatively stable and predictable food. resources,, (Graves & Sweeney 1993:
Il7). This model
is based on the assumption that the cost for the increased production would be higher than that for aggression in such locales. Proponents of this model thus anticipate that ceremonial structwes
would exist unevenly
in the less productive areas. Indeed, Ladefoged
on
- _ the basis of archaeological, environmental and. ethnohistorical d.ata states that the Rotuman case strongly supports this model, and then turns to the cases of Maui and Hawai! islands as also in keeping with it (Ladefoged 1993; Graves & Ladefoged 1g9b). Some scholars also propose a 'selectionist model'to explain the process of appearance, proliferation and disappearance of ceremonial architecture.
This model frrst assumes that 'superfluous activities'such as construction of ceremonial architecture would help to lower the birth rate and to constrain the population increase in a given area. On the basis of this assumption,
-5-
l.l.
they propose that
Perspectives to Ceremonial Architecture
in the locales rnrlnerable to
environmental perturbations
unpred.ictable
the people would invest their enerry in superfluous behaviors to increase "suryivorship of offspring through lower rates of population increase" (Graves & Sweeney lgg3: 116; Graves & Ladefoged 1995: 161). In addition, they anticipate that when the productive potential within a region changes - these behaviors may diminish in scale and frequenry, "since they no longer enjoy a selective
-
& Sweeney lgg3: 119). While this approach may be of value as one of few processual frameworks focusing on ceremonial advantage" (Graves
architecture itself, the model contains several unclear concepts and vague assumptions [2].
The processual perspective outlined above has contributed
to an
understanding of several characteristics of ceremonial architecture related to the varied socio-political organizations of Polynesia, and still maintains a great deal of inlluence at present (e.g. Kirch 1gg0). It would be, however,
legitimate
to state that in
general most processual studies have not discussed ceremonial architecture itself. But many studies have referred to this conceptual framework as a means to or an important datum in understanding other phenomena, rather than simply an end in itself. Again, the processual approaches' main pulpose is to reconstruct the process of socio-political evolution (Kirch 1984). Such approaches, for instance, discuss both grave mounds of high chiefs in Tongatapu and heiau in the Hawaii Islands in a rather similar way as evidence of a high degree of political
stratification
f .1.3.
(e.g.
Kirch 1990b).
Structural Perspective
It is not entirely accutate,
that there are no studies aiming to interpret ceremonial architecture itself. For instance, Green & Green (1968)
-
however, to say
relying on eyewitness descriptions and drawings recorded by
Europeans as well as ethnohistorical information
-6-
-
indicated that several
l.l.
archaeological types
Perspectives to Ceremonial fuchitecture
of marae in the Windward Society Islands
were
associated with or dedicated to the god, Oro. This study demonstrates that a variety of meanings can be encoded in various characteristics and patterns which archaeologists can observe in ceremonial structures.
A recent study on Easter Island complex symbolized
-
emphasizes
that "the ahu/moai
both architecturally and iconographically
-
the
dominance of an ideolory defined as male, lineage-based and incorporating anthropomorphic and bird symbolism" (van Tilburg & Lee 1987: 184). The
same author, then, suggests that temporal variations of moaj reflect changes of ideolory associated with socio-political hierarchy (see Graves & Sweeney 1993: 113). Kirch also focuses on stylistic variations existing between temple images of O'ahu and Kaua'i islands and on the western part
of Hawai'i Island. He points out the likelihood that each of the regional variations would be invented purposefully by 'oa group of people in order to consciously distinguish themselves from the other" (I{irch 1gg0c: b0). These studies, however, do not belong to that category of 'structuralist' approaches investigating'high structures', that is ideal orders in mind or
underlying orders such as up/down, left/right, inside/ outside or pure/impure (see Hodder 1982a: 7). They focus instead on structures or patterns consisting of similarities (e.9. functional similarities as TLara,e or temple images) and differences (e.g. architectural or stylistic differences)
in both
spatial or temporal dimensions, and then try meanings enc,oded
in
such patterns-
to interpret particular Therefore, it may not be entirely
unwarranted to declare that these kinds of study are based on a structural perspective in the general sense or are, at the very least, incorporating basic
structural elements.
As Kirch (1990c) notes, archaeologists in Pollmesia have e:iplored variations or differences particularly in spatial dimension observed in objects that otherw'ise at least share similar characteristics or functions. He restricts this tendency to its occurrence within the "normative" (1990c: 43) or
-7-
1.2, Theoretical Framework
culture-historical approach, but his statement could apply equally to these processual studies which investigate general processes of socio-political hierarchy, even if
it
means breaking down societies into several categories as did Sahlins (1958) and Goldman (1920) tal. On the contrary, the structr.rral perspective turns more attention to local
cultures, an emphasis which has been constrained in the processual approach. However, a structural perspective has the potential for revealing local meanings encoded in particular materials by analyzing local patterns of similarity and difference. some results from this type of analysis may also provide convincing interpretations that then become available for processual studies which, for instance, view ceremonial architecture as
playing "significant roles as visual slmbols of chiefly hegemony and dominance" (Kirch 1990a: 2I7-8, see also more theoretical explanation in Earle 1991).
1.2. Theoretical Framework Embracing the structural approach, I devote the first half of this thesis to interpreting meanings symbolized in patterns and characteristics which are archaeologically observed in the nxarae of Tongareva Atoll in the
Northern cook Islands. This aim derives from a simple question what was/were the roles and signifi.cance of rna,rae for the Tongarevan people. In the following section, I propose a theoretical framework for scrutinizing this issue. To begin with, it would be useful to examine the definition of 'slmbol',
since
it is
somewhat ambiguously used
Polynesian prehistory.
-8-
in
archaeological studies of
1.2, Theoretical Framervork
1.2.1. Definition of 'Svmbol'
The term 'symbol' can be used
in
several ways. In some cases it is associated with objects from which dichotomous distinctions are abstracted (Weisler & Kirch 1985: 154). In other cases, it is also applied to objects containing political ideolory legitimizing chiefly hegemony and dominance (Kirch 1990a: 2L7-8). Still other scholars (Van Tilburg & Lee 19g?) quoting from the definition by Hodder
-
refer to
it
-
as "an object or situation
in which a direct, primary or literal meaning also designates
another
indirect, secondary and figurative meaning" (rlodder 19g2b: 11). From the examples cited,
it
is evident there is little hope of achieving on a defrnition of 'symbol' which possesses any precision. However, I find it useful for purposes here to refer to Geertz's idea. He mentions the term may be "used for any object, act, event, quality, or relation which serves as a vehicle for a conception the conception is the spnbol's meaning,,, and. that
-
the term of 'symbolizingi can be defi.ned as "concrete embodiments of id.eas,
attitudes, judgments, longings, beliefs" (Geertz lgzs: g1). Given this definition, ceremonial architectwe is a vehicle suitable for interpretive archaeology, since we can readily expect from
it that the concept carries a set
of particular meanings includingthose of a social, political, ideological, and religious order.
Several recent studies of ceremonial architecture, quoting from Hodder's elucidation (Hodder 1982b: 12), emphasize the active role of s5mbols in
forming and giving meaning to social behavior (e.g. Descantes 1g90: 4). Geertz also sets forth his view on this point, as the following: [Symbol has] two senses
"'
an "of' sense and a "for" sense
...
and though these are
but aspects of the same basic concept they are very much worth distinguishing for analvtic nurooses. In the first, what is stressed is the manipulation of symbol structures so as to bring them "' into parallel with the pre-established nonsymbolic
"'. ftn this sense, symbol] is a model o/"reality." In the second, what is stressed is the manipulation of the non symbolic systems in tem,s of the system
-9-
1.2, Theoretical Framervork
relationships expressed in the symbolic [structures] .... model for "realtty." [Geertz 1973: 93 (underlining mine)]
[n
this sense, synbol] is
a
In Geertz's framework, the active role of symbols is equivalent to the model (or template) "for" forming reality (or a system of social behavior). This role,
is an aspect of s5rmbols, which essentially couples it with other aspects. [r other words, every symbol would have a role to play in forming reality on one hand, as well as reflecting reality on the other hand t4l. It is not my main pu{pose to investigate such a duality of the symbol in this however,
thesis, but I will proceed mindful of the distinction.
t.2.2. Contextual Approach and Settlement Pattern Studies Iaterpretation of meanings encoded in symbols is accompanied by two risks: interpreting more things than are really there and reducing particular meanings
to a set of general e4planations
(e.g. Geertz 1980: 108). To overcome these risks, we must accumulate the "relevant contexts" by having at hand significant relationships among the objects at issue, along the lines discussed by Hodder (1986: 139).
Seen
in this light, the processual approach in
Polymesia has usually
incorporated a variety of data, including not only archaeological but also ethnohistorical and ethnographic materials, so as to associate monumental
architecture with chiefly hegemony and dominance or with a concept separating chiefs from commoners. This has proven advantageous for archaeologF in Polynesia. Yet, before imposing convincing interpretations on various meanings embedded
in ceremonial structures, there remains
room
to
explore other contexts including those of topographic features, vegetation t;rpes and views from sites - which are also relevant to the issues in question. Tongarevart ffLs,rae are a type of religious s5mbol. Thus, they should be
-10-
1.2, Theoretical Framervork
"riclrly polysemic" (see Geertz 1980: 10b), and each tna,rae may exhibit a different set of meanings, It is, however, impossible to holistically interpret all meanings tal. This thesis therefore mainly focuses on characteristics related to the concept of 'cultural landscape.' That is, a product which has been formed by interaction between local culture and local environmenf,, or by the human imposition of local meanings to a local environment. As such, we can view the construction of tnerae as a physical action of such an imposition. This concept allows us to invoke the issue of why a marae is provided with certain morphological characteristics at a partictrlar locale. Data related to this issue include morpholory of elements comprising a mQ,rae, configuration of these elements, its orientation, various features related to its location (for instance, topographic features, vegetation t5ryes, and prospects), and its spatial association with other architectwal features. Through analyses of these data, it becomes possible to obtain patterns of similarity and difference. The above characteristics may also be sorted by the method employed
in
settlement pattern studies. That methodolory has established three levels of space (Clarke 1977: 11-15): (1) the micro level in which each dwelling
is treated as a spatial unit, (2) the semi-ma*o level in which a set of several dwelling houses and other archaeological featwes are viewed as a spatial unit, and (3) the macro level in which several sets identified at the second level are treated as a spatial unit. These levels have been developed to investigate prehistoric settlement patterns, but may be borrowed when discussing the 'cultural landscapes' of ceremonial structures. For instance, house
morphological characteristics of particular elements and their configuration within the confines of a structure are classified as belonging to the micro level. The location of a ceremonial structure could be analyzed at first within the con-fines of a spatial unit at the semi-macro level. Il addition, we may be
able to find yet other features by examining that location within ths ssnfines of a
spatial unit set at the macro level. kr short, along with selecting characteristics for analyses,
-11-
it is necessary
1.2,
Theoretical Framework
to establish spatial scales related to patterns of similarity and difference in order to clarify the spatial range in which each characteristic is observed (or
not observed). Such spatial scales cedainly vary relative to
selected
characteristics, and we do not have any absolute scale applicable to every
region and every period. Thus, the spatial scale relevant to each characteristic must be picked out heuristically through trial and error (Hodder 1986: 135) or through the dialectical process of questions and answers (Hodder L991: 11).
in Polynesia, however, are fortunate in having ethnographic information which provides useful materials to help in establishing relevant scales. For example, it is possible in many cases to infer the spatial scale of social groups which constructed and used ceremonial structures by referring to such information. I:n the case of Archaeologists working
Tongareva
Atoll in the Northern Cook Islands
ethnographic accounts indicate that rnarae belonged to districts which are currently called huaanga (see Section 3.3). lVe can therefore establish three spatial scales for comparisons of tnarae: (1) the range of a district, (2) the range of several districts, and (3) the entire atoll. Given
this framework,
it is possible to obtain two spatial dimensions.
is that of three spatial levels borrowed from settlement studies used to analyze various characteristics related to the landscape of ceremonial One
structures. The other is that of three spatial scales which are helpful to investigating patterns of similarity and difference in each characteristic. Their combination provides a set of relevant contexts within which to approach various meanings associated with the three social levels accepted
in Polynesian archaeolory: the household level, the comhunity level and the
political level (see Green 1984, 1993).
-t2-
1.3. Research Design of Thesis
1.3. Research Design of Thesis Following an introduction (this chapter) and one providing the general setting (Chapter 2), this thesis has three parts. The first is the case stud.y of naarae in Tongareva in the Northern Cook Islands (Chapter 3). The second is
an additional case study of ceremonial structures in Rarotonga
and
Mangaia in the Southern Cook Islands. The last is a discussion concerning the overall diversity of ceremonial structures in the cook Islands.
1.3.1. fntroduction to Chapter 3
Until the middle of 19th century, the Tongarevans had settled in
a
dispersed fashion on habitable islets surrounding a vast lagoon. A historieal document states that small households generally consisting of less than 20 persons were scattered on these islets (Lamont 1867: 116). The united
-
assemblage of several households formed districts called huaanga, each of which was controlled by a chief (arihi). More than ten districts existed. before European contact (Campbell 1g85: 64, see also Section B.B.l). on the basis of historical documents and ethnographic accounts, three social levels can be estabUshed: household units, districts and inter-district assemblages. The following is a summary of main issues related to each of these levels.
In the mid 19th century there were two kinds of household units. The first was of small units of less than 20 persons. Another was of more thickly settled units which appear to have been residences of district chiefs. A historical document describes that a trlara,e was located about 15 minutes from a thickly settled portion (Lamont 186T: 120). This account suggests there was a symbolic orderingof space within the confines of household units. In Section 3.2, this issue is examined from the spatial association between nl.arae and household units.
-13-
Tongarevan rnarae are supposed
to be distributed as visible markers which express territoriality or tenure of districts and access to particular resources. Section 3.3 sets out the various topographic features srrrrounding nxarae in order to address this issue. It does so by reconstructing district
territories on the basis of ethnographic accounts and an old map.
Oral traditions state that districts occasionally formed political alliances for mutual protection or aggression. This ethnographic information suggests the possibility that Tongarevan rrlara,e also reflect socio-political
relations and that cosmological concepts were shared among several districts. I approach this issue by exploring comparisons among characteristics of lrlarae, in particular their common morphological elements and marae direction.
l.3.2.Introduction to Chapter
4
Chapter 4 considers Cook Island ceremonial structures in Rarotonga and Mangaia in the Southern Cook Islands. The aim is to demonstrate how the variety of meanings differ relative to each island and context. I do not, however, have su-fficient contextual information to interpret the many meanings encoded in the ceremonial structures of these two islands to the same degree as that acbievable for the Tongarevan case. Thus, only certain specific issues are discussed in relation to each of these two islands. Case Study of Rarotonga: Rarotongan ceremonial structures
in particular, mara,e - exhibit remarkable diversity both in collective configuration and location. I discuss the association of this diversity in relation to the prehistoric socio-political system, in this case consisting of tapere (basic land divisions occupied by lineages) and uaha (territorial tribes). The result illustrates that one important role of Rarotongart nLdrae is associated with
-L4-
-
1.4. Summary of
Introduction
various sacred or ceremonial spaces within each tapere, while other ceremonial structures such as T-shap ed paepae and houtuserved. as political nodes at the uakalevel.
Case study of Mangaia: Ln marked contrast
nl.arae are homogeneous both
Section 4.2,
in
to those in Ranrtonga, Mangaian collective conliguration and location. hr
I investigate an aspect of this
homogeneity by associating
it
with the well-institutionalized political system covering the entire island and the irrigation system.
1.3.3. Introduction to Chapter 5
In the Chapter 5, I further explore the morphological diversity of ceremonial structtues in the Cook Islands by referring in turn to those in other islands: Manihiki, Rakahanga and pukapuka in the northern group, and Aitutaki, Atiu, Mauke and Mitiaro in the southern group. This allows one to foreground the limitations of a culture-historical approach to the study of marae in the Cook Islands. It also sets the stage for examining the
theoretical implications of the various case studies to future research of ceremonial structures in Eastern Polynesia including the Cook Islands.
1.4. Summary of Introduction This thesis aims to interpret variow meanings encoded in ceremonial structures of the Cook Islands. For this pr.rrpose, I try to illustrate what is gained by focusing,
in particular, upon the diversity or the
heterogeneity
exhibited by these ceremonial structures rather than by red.ucing them to any general sets of types within East Pol5mesia. This frees the concept of nxarae from reductionism and from various stereotypes of East Polynesian 'tne,rae'.
The aim and the method therefore contrasts with a processual
-15-
Notes to Chapter I
that attempts to build very general mod.els through synthesizing classi{ications of these structures. Instead by contextualising them within their cultural landscape, I hope to show that additional aspects of their approach
meaning can be obtained.
Notes to Chapter (p.
5)
(p.
6)
(p.
8)
I
[1] The prtcessual approach
in Polynesia, of course, is related. to New Archaeolory that is common among North American archaeologists. However, it has also been drawn from an evolutionary perspective which Sahlins and Goldman developed (see Graves & Sweeney lgg3). [2] It appears that this model includes some unclear concepts. First, the model must demonstrate the causal relation between superfluous activities and lower birth rate through concrete cases in East Polynesia. Second, while authors distinguishing unpredictable perturbations from predictable ones, this distinction would not be evident in the explanation of locales which they used as supporting the model. In addition, even if these locales are vulnerable to unpredictable perturbations, these would not support the model until the level of social groups - which constructed and used each eremonial structure bemmes clear. For instance, in the case of islands of Tahiti and Mo'orea, it would be plausible to the same degree that each small group (such as a lineage, which explored the inland separately) constmcted rlarae on a limited area within valley topograpby. The last is related to epistemolory. In other words, this model is susceptible to discussions as to whether the people perteive the neoessity of population control, predicting the unpredictable perburbations. Therefore, in attempting to extract this information, we should carefirlly collect the ethnohistorical accounts aseociated with natural hazards on each locale or island. [3] Recent processual studies sweiy admit the importance of regional di-fferences.
For instance, Earle states that the studies of chiefdom should evaluate the differences as weU as similarities "in societal change from region to region" @arle 1991: 4), and this view may lead to a provocative suggestion "that the three components of power (i.e. ontrol over the economy, war, and ideolory) ...
present alternative strategies" @arle 1991: 9) for the creation and maintenance of regional polities. In general, however, the common proesses tend to be stressed in the condusions of spec'fic comparative-studies in Polynesia (e.g. Ktuch 1990a).
-16-
&'10)
(p-
11)
[4] rn a disrnrpsion of eettlem.ent pattern alelhaeologr, Gteen (19?0; lB) also poirted out both aepects of Eettlement pattem: "Battern of behaviod' atrd "pattem fsr behavionn But, he considemd that the folmer belonged to tfte tedrnologiel. economlt+ socigl, polittrnl and religio,us. activity eyetene, and that tbe latter helonged to the ideologiel stnrctur€ whietr night &,rq such aetivities. He probably viewed the f,o er as in&a,stnrctrue, and the latter ae super-struetura Ia this poiat hic vjew dlffers form that of Geertz. [6] We ean fiad a sinilar plo'bleu in ouployiug a holistic penep,eqtive in crrlturat anthropologr-. For instance, Peaoek etates t!"at "Xlolism is an important but inpoosible idea['. We can nst "tbiqk ,evrerrthins' aud therefore we bave, to categqrize the objeet into sone aepects "depending as tbe ta.sk- o! qtrestion at iss,uei" (Peacoek 1986: 19),
-1?-
Chapter 2
General settings for setilement in Tongareva and other Atolls of the Northern cook Islands
The Cook Group comprises fifteen islands spread. over a large area of 2
million sq. km.
in central polynesia (Fis. 2.r.1). These islands fall
geographically into two dusters, the Southern and the Northern Cooks. The islands in the southern group, which lie around 20 degrees south latitude except for two islands, are generally of volcanic origin with fertile soil. In contrast, all theislands inthe northern group out along 10 degrees -strung southlatitude - are coral atolls with the exception of a sand cay on a coral reef base (Nassau).
Keio University researchers have undertaken repeated archaeological sruveys in the Cook Islands since 1985, and the total period involved. has reached more than a year's duration. The
first phase in l98b concentrated on Pukapuka Atoll in the northern group and Mangaia Island in the southem group. In the second phase, from l98g to 1g91, the focus tumed. to other islands in the northern group in order to better procure further information on atoll prehistory in that part of Central Polynesia. We suryeyed thr.ee atolls: Tongareva, \{2afhiki and Rakahanga. In this phase, we also excavated. severaL sites in Rarotonga, a volcanic island in the southem soup, in ord.er to amass archaeological infonnation comparable to that from the northem atolls. The third phase started in 1995 and is cun'ently still in process. We surveyed Pukapuka again in 1995, and Rarotonga in 1996. I also had a chance in 1995 to excavate severaL ceremonial sites in Tongareva, an atoll in the northern group.
The discussion in this thesis is based mainly on extensive data from these suweys. Following the research design-outlined in the preceding
-18-
Chap.2: General Settings of Tongareva and Other Atolls in the Northern Cook Islands
\
-ff\.r F?
*;l
ltc
T
Fig.2.1.1. Location of the Cook Islands
-19-
al 1l
\ TJ
I
fE IE
chap.2: General settings of rongareva and other Atolls in the Northern cook Islands
l6trw r\rl
165"1V
Rakahanga Pukapuka .
r
'\
155nV
Tongareva I
CPS
Manihiki
Nassau'
o Suwarrow
I 5'S
2fs
Big. 2.1.2. Map of the Cook Islands
chapter, I will explore various meanings encoded in Tongarevan marae. Then
I
will tura the focus to ceremonial structures reported on other islands in the Cook Islands with a similar aim. Thus, the d.ata from other islands provid.e furtherinsights into understanding the Tongarevan marae. Before exploring the ceremonial stnrctures themselves, however,
it
would be useful to provide
background on their physical setting induding the formative processes of
their atoll environment and aspects of the history of human colonization in the Northern Cook Islands.
-20_
2.1. Phvsical Settrngs of To
2.1. Physical Seffing of Tongareva Atoll Tongareva @enrhyn) Atoll lies at the northeastern margin of the Cook Islands (9 degrees south latitude and 158 degrees west longitude). The Line Islands extend to the north of the island, and the Society and the Tuamotu Islands lie to the southeast @ig. 2.1.1). One can reach the atoll in 4 or b hours on a twin-engine plane from Rarotonga Island which and economic center of the Cook Islands.
is the administrative
2.1.1. Geomorphology Tongareva comprises a continuous coral reef with nano% elongated islets (motu) of coraL sand and gravels appearing along the reef margin. The
islets are separated by passages or channels linking the lagoon with the ocean. The lagoon includes an extensive area of about 22 by 14 km (2g0 kml and is studded with patches of coralline reef. The islets lie on bedrock of aragonite reefal deposits, as was obsewed at the bottom of some of or:r excavated trenches (Yamaguchi 1995: 75). This bedrock rises from water depths in excess of 5 km. Coral growth, which commenced from the orieinal fringing reef around a subsiding volcano, began in the mid-Miocene (Wood & Hay 1970).
Subaerial landfonns on atolls are markedly simpler than those of volcanic islands. As seen in Fig. z.L.B, however, several micro-topographic features are discerr.ible. These features prove to be spatially associated with ceremonial structures (see Section 3.4). In the tidat zone ofthe ocean sid.e, cemented beach-deposits
-
so-called beachrock
-
occur (d. Emery lgEB: 1g;
Wiens 1962: 64'7). This formation is cross-bedded along the beach slope, an4 coraL slabs can be easily quarried from it. The people used such slabs for
buildiug architectural features including marae. Similar deposits of coral Iimestone are obsenred on some parts of lagoon-side shoreline (yamagucSi 1995:77).
-2r-
2.1. Physical Settings of Tongareva
Cocoa nucir6.a
Atoll
Pandtnos lacloriua
Pamghlt.clatuta Scaavola lr!latcana ?ourE.lorti. atgana.. Aouldat Railprrt
Fig. 2.1.3. Schematic cross-section of Tongarevan islets The subaerial landform ald the vegetation of atolls ere considerably simpler than those of volcani c islands, but some distributional variations of micro-topographic features a-nd timber trees are discernible.
There is a mass of coarse debris along the ocean shore or storm ridge
-
-
boulder ramp.rrt
which lies up to 4 m above sea level in places. Ridges formed
of coral gravel and boulders are usuallywashed over and accumulate on the
already existing land through cyclonic wave and surge effects (Chappelt lg82: 74). An inland flat extends from the rampart to the lagoon beach. Coral gravel is found beneath the humic soil, vrith reducing gxain size towards the lagoon
(d Wiens 1962: 333; Chikamori
1995: Fig. ).
Large islets feature brackish or fi'eshwater inlets which are usually related to the lagoon-sid.e accretion of beach deposits. The lagoon shores of younger islets were origina[y crenu]ated. The intricate indentations of such a
shoreline
-
sometimes called barachnis
-
are caused by sediments washed
islet that fan out along its lagoon shore. These gradually become infiIled (Nunn 1994: 284). When the lagoon side of the indentation is completely closed by sandy spits, it becomes an inlet. The endosed water w'ill over the
gradually change from a saline through brackish to a freshwater pond as more rainwater is stored there. The people traditionally used such sa[ne or brackish inlets for the aquaculture of milkfish(Clwrcs clwrcs) called aua in the local language. Some of the inlets overtime are influenced by continual
-22-
2.1. Phr sical Settings of Tongareva
Atoll
accretion of sediment supplied from the surrotueding land, and consequently become infilled with sand and mud. In such wet lands, the people have
cultivated
a t]rye of foro-like tuber plant
called puraha (cyrtnsperma
chamissonis).
2.1.2. Vegetation
While the least modified commurities of plants on atolls rarely have more than about 15 species, this vegetation contributes to the forrnation of the atoll's landscape (d. Spencer et al. 1gg4: sL-z). Coconut trees (Cocos nucifera) account for about 90 percent of total vegetation (Linton lgBB). The dense and oftenuniform forests of this species extendthr.oughout the length and breadth of manv islets.
is a little more open, Pandnrun tp.ctorius (Iwra)is often common and Morindn citrifolia (rnnu) is usually present as a subcanopy species. One can obsenre the more marked, spatial shift of vegetation at the Where the forest
margins of islets, especially those on the ocean side (Fig. z.l.g). Such areas are wually covered with small trees and shmbs such as Pandnnus tectoritn, Scaeuola taccadn (ngasu), Pemphis acidula (ngangie), Tounrcfortin argentea
(tnwunu), and occasionnlly with Cordia subcordnta (tou) and Guettardn speciosa (lwrc). Such open vegetation is also predominant on smaller islets where the surface is generally covered vrith coral rubble or compacted coral.
2.L.3. Freshwater No surface freshwater occurs on the atolls, so only groundwater was available to the people. While the extent of groundwater has not yet been
in Tongareva, it should be analogous to other atolls where this has been deterrnined. The calcareous bedrock is so porous that it firnctions as an aquifer. Seawater infiltrates into this formation, but rainfall percolating sunreyed
-23-
2.2. Atoll Formation in the Northern Cook Islands
from the surface forms a Gyben-Herzberg freshwater lens on the saline water. The recent stuvey on Majuro Atoll of the Marshall Islands revealed. that the freshwater lens was thichest near the lagoon (Griggs & Peterson 1989: Fig. 10). This is because the bedrock is fine-grained there, impeding freshwater flow into the lagoon (Newhouse 1980: 8). Most settlement sites in Tongareva lie dose to the lagoon shore @ellwood lg78: l7g-s7).In part this may be
related to the thickness of the freshwater lens; other reasons may be cultural or relate to security of settlement and e>iploitation of the marine resources of the lagoon.
2.2 Atoll Formation in the Northern Cook Islands the subaerial landform Iocal tectonic movements
-
of most atolls
-
except reef islands affected by
has formed in the geologically recent period of the
last 6000 years. Before that time, the sea level was rising rapidly in association with eustatic movement, but since then it has shown more stability at a position around its present level. Corals have also grown upward. and fonned broad reef
flats
close to low-tide sea level trl. During the
phase of rapid rise of sea level, however, the Holocene reef growth would have been in geomorphic disequilibrium, since the rate of growth lagged behind
that of sea level change. Such a time lag can often be inferred fiom the fact that coastal sedimentation on an atoll is frequently found to have commenced later in time some times by a few thousand years than the sea level
-
change (Chappell 1982: 72-3). This model
-
the so-called tatch-up' stratery of reef growth (Neumana & Macintyre 1985) - alerts us to the fact that we must consider the fonmation processes of atolls in scrutinizing the early phase of human settlements on them in Central Pollmesia. In discussing the
fomation process, it would be usefirl to distinguish two factors: sea level rise associated vrith biogenic accretion of the coral reef and the sedimentary progradation of subaerial landform. I cover each of these factors in the following sections.
-24-
2.2. Atoll Formation rn the Northern Cook Islands
2.2.1. Sea Level Change and Emergence of Holocene Corals in the Northern Cook Islands The Holocene sea level rise has been a moot point, and positions of scholars tend to fall into two basic schools of thought (Clark f gg0). One camp has held that there were times dtrring Holocene in one region of the Pacific when the sea stood higher than the present level (e.g. Dickinson and Green 1998). Most models in this camp suggest a rise above present level by less
than a meter to several meters in magnitude, and place the maximum of this rise between 4000 and 2000 yr. BP. The second school Eugues that the present sea level is the same as the highest point reached in the Holocene period tzt.
it
has recently become evident that a global sea-level curve would not be possible, and that the pattern of the Holocene sea-level change has varied relative to different points on the earth. Thus, the focus of attention has shifted to local and regional studjes of sea lsys| tsl. However,
Lithified reefal deposits at positions above mean sea level have been widely reported from throughout the Indo-Pacific reef province, and the islands of the South Pac:ific would be placed into a single broad region in which the maximum elevation of the sea level reached a higher position in the rnid Holocene than the present level tal. Evidence recorded from eighteen atolls
in the Tuamotu Archipelago, in particular, supports this interpretation. The maximum elevation reached. a position of approximately 0.9 m above the present sea level about 5200 yr.BP, at least in the northwestern Tuamotu, or
to
1.0 m above the present level about 4500 )ry.BP in southeastern Tuamotu (PirazzoLi & Montaggioni 1986; Hrazzoltt et al. 1988). of 0.8
in the Cook Islands has also provided evidence consistent udth that from Tuamotu (Woodroffe et al. 1990). Thus, it has The atoll of Suwarrow
extensive outcrops of emergent reef. Their upper surface is at 50 cm above the present low point in sea level. Such units yielded radiocarbon dates ranging
from 4680 to 4310 yr. BP. In respect of the timing of Holocene coral emergence, however, the records from the Cook Islands differ from that identified in the
-25-
2.2.
Atoll Formation in the Norlhern Cook Islands
Fig.2.2.1. Calcite bedrock exposed at the bottom of excavated trench in PukaJruka. Similar betfuock was ftruncl in other tfuee atolls of lhe Northern L]ook lslands. consolidatr:rl thal lhe piete was out out by a pickax. Photo
[t
was so
Tuamotu Archipelago. Emergent Holocene features in the Cook Islands can be dated to a range of 5100 -3400 yr. BP tul. In contrast, the records from the Tuamotu Islands indicate that a gradual sea-Ievel drop started only afber 1500 yr. BP (Woodroffe et al. 1990:
37;Ptazzoli et al. 1988: 67).
Manihiki, On this point, data collected from four atolls - Tongareva, in the Northern Cook Islands are intriguing Rakahanga and Pukapuka
-
(Table 2.f.1). The flat and horizontal su-rface of aragonite bedrock was exposed at the bottom of excavated trenches in every atoll. It was so lithifred or consolidated that the pieces had to be cut out with a pickax (Fig. 2.2.1). Thus, such bedrock should constitute the trace of an old reef flat formed in the past, and material from it give an indication of its age.
-26-
2.2, Atoll Formation in the Northem Cook Islands
lVe measured the vertical position of eaeh of these bedrock samples on four atolls with a telescopic level from the approximate mean sea level
GVISL)
on the adjacent lagoon shore, and found above the present MSL
in each
that the surface of bedr.ock occuned atoll: +4g cm in Tongar.eva, +g cm in Manihiki,
+38 cm and +15 cm in Rakahangd, anfl +14 cm in pukapuka (Table Z.Z.L\ I6t.
The depth down to volcanic bedrock on which reef growth took place would have affected the foruation and altitude of the subsequent coral reef flat. In addition, because hermatypic coral gt'ows upwards to the low-tide sea level and then expands horizontally, the measurement of altitude
particular position on the coral bedrock
at
a
is
essentially rather delicate. However, it seems reasonable from our measurements in four atolls that the low-tide level -the altitudinal limit of her-rnatypic coral $owth -in the Northern Cook Islands formerly stood higher than the present level, and. this result is consistent with the evidence from other islands in Central Polynesia. Of special interest is the fact that there are variations in radiocarbon dates obtained from aragonite bedrock in the Northern Cook Islands (Table 2'2'L). The date from easternmost Tongareva constitutes the latest date 1866' 1686 cal- yr. BP CN-5654) equivalent to dates from island.s -whichis of Tuamofq tzl. on the other hand., the sample fi.om westernmost pukapula
yielded the earliest date sample fr'om Manihiki
at
5270
- bO3r cal. y'. Bp ovK-4bzs), while the
between the above two atolls was dated at 4325 - 4073 cal. yr. BP CN-6152). Although we did. not retrieve any bedrock samples from Rakahanga, not far from lVlanihiki, one of the Tridacna shells from a sandy layer - naturally accumulated just above the bedrock - gave a date at 3175 - 29L4 cal.yr.Bp (N-ssg4). This suggests rhat the Rakahangan reef emerged above the MSL before that period, a timing wbich
-located
would be
equivalent to that in Manihiki. The data fi'om the Northern Cook Islands
illustrate that the emergence of Holocene corals was later from the west' toward the east. This trend is qn
l-
-L
2.2. Atoll Formation in the Northern Cook Islancls
Table 2.2.I. Radiocarbon dates 0n emergent Holocene corals and early humansettlements in the Northern Cook l5l2pd5ru Cal. y BP Atoll
Lab no,
Site code
Material
description
Tongateva
wK-4091
TON-21
charcoal
early senlement
470
N-5s92
TON.40
cnalcoal
early selllement
{60 t
ANU-10217
TON-d7
tunle plaslron
early setllement
960
wK-4094
TON-47
charcoal
early setllsment
NUTA-2086
TON-36
numan bone
eatly senlemant
N.5654
TON-40
bed rock
N-6151
MNH-07
chatcoal
N.6663
MNH.O7
charcoal
N-6r43
MNH.O7
cnarcoal
early setllement
N-6150
MNH.O7
charcoal
early sgtllemenl
N-5863
MNH.O7
chatcoal
early settlement
fg x75
N-6152
MNH.O7
Ded rock
aragonfi€
N-53/t
FIAK-Tek-B
cna rco
N-5873
FlAK.Tek-B
N-5876
RAK-Tek-B
Manihiki
Rakahanga
Pukapuka
''c
Mearl
(cm) +83
ot
t
,t30
M
37J
473.0
75
5F
470
504.0
A
60
544
473
560
t
50
629
523
700
i
'160
9r3
1790
t
75
1866
Early sefllemenl
580
I
80
64€
Early settiEm€nl
590
t
110
600
t
90
655 -
640
t
85
663 .
a
rag
o
nd€
t
3740
so t
charcoal
eafly s€ttlement
620
chafcoal
eafly settlqm€nt
I
Altitude
y gP
Early settlqmenl
a
:)
P)
S0
Range (1
+l06 5/6.0
+1Ol
740.0
124
1686
17t6.O
48
519
583.5
78
+84
514
52{
58S.5
543
603.0
+44
646
674.5
+95
4073
4199.0
+8
.
4325
100
648
5@
t
95
661
532
s96.5
+ 152
670
t
140
708
534
o?1.0
+164
880
t
120
@A
670
79S.0
+96
920
9A9.0
l84S
1943.5
2914
3044.5
+ 196
N-5875
RAK-Tek.B
charcoal
early s€ttlement
N.5874
RAK-Tek.B
cnarcoal
early senlemenl
1060
t
85
105S
N-5886
RAK.Te(-B
T
fidacna
natural layof
1940
t
75
2039
N-5S84
RAK 'Tek.B
Tfiatacna
nalural l€yet
2S40
BAK-Tek-B
b€d rock
aaagonne
not daled
+38
BAK-Tek-D
bed roqk
a
rag on ite
not dated
15
PUK.W11
charcoal
eafly senlem€ni
wK.508g
t
85
3175
.
-
658
N-5106
PUK-W5
cnarcoal
early setllemenl
1490
t
65
141
N-51 07
PUK.W6
cnarcoal
€arly senlemenl
1800
i
75
1818
wK-4524
PUK.W9
Tridacna
early selllem€nt?
2s90
t
50
N-5 | Or
PUK.Wl
Tridacna
early senlement?
2240
t
60
wK-4525
PUK.W12
bed rock
araganne
4910
t
60
554
r3s8.5
1612
17r 5.0
2296
2120
2208.0
2353
-
2267
2310.0
s270
-
5031
5r50.5
-
+62
*62
606.0
306
'|
1
F
+96
+14
(1) The detail ofeach sample is provided in Appendix 2. (2) Conventional rrC dates are based on half-life of 5568 years, a-nd applied with correction for isotopic fractionation, apart, from samples having the lab-code "N". (3) Calibrated ages w€re calculated with the CAIIB 3.0 (Stuiver & Reimer 1993). Samples origirating from marine environment were calibrated rvith the AR (-15.0 * 30.0) obtained from rhe South Pacific (Stuiver et al. lgE6: Stuiver
& Braziunas 1993). and marine samples haring ttre code "N" were, in addirion. calibrated with dl3 values obtained from otber samples having tbe code '\{1i". The NLITA-2086 was also ca[brated with an approximate 013 value for bone collagen (Borvman lgg0). ($ The altitude ofeach sample location was measured from the approximate meaa sealevel takeo atthe adjacent Iagoon shore.
-28-
2 2.
Atoll Formation in the Northern Cook Islands
consistent with records from Tuamotu Archipelago (showing the age of lb00 yt. BP) tsl, although it is cuuently not evident what factor was associated
with
this trend
tsl- We must, however,
take the difference of timinginto account, since it would affect subsequent formation of the subaer.i.al landforms on which early human-settlement in each atoll could then be established_
2.2.2. Sedimenta ry Prograd ation On atolls, once broad reef flats were formed close to the mean low tide level, sedimentation of sand and shingle on this platform base would have started. This second factor related to atoll formaf,ion may therefore be treated
as a type of progladation, the progressive forrnation of new land by sedimentation. The process of progradation as a formative method of producing subaerial landform can be explained through four stages d.escribed below (see also Nunn lg94: 244-9). Stage
l. Cay made
of sand and shingle accumulated on broad reef flats tends to be common yet ephemeral and transient features of oceanic reefs. Powerfirl storms may cause cay
distribution on a particular reef to be rapidry and radically altered. Stage 2. The development of beachrock along the ocean-facing shorelines of cays marks a critical stage in their development. Beachrock will develop onll'rvhen the accumulation of the detritus which comprises a cay becomes sufficientlylarge, which itself implies a degree of permanency. Once beachrocli commences forming. it rvill act as protective cover around the cay or at least along its most vulnerable coasts.
Stage 3. The principal factorby which islets are distinguished firom cays is the occurrence of storm ridge or rampart in the fabric of the former which gives them a grearer degree of perrnanence than most cays. Ridges are usually restricted to the windrvard sides of atolls' In areas where tropical storms are less fuquently esperienced., islets may grolv as the result of sediment being repeatedry washed over the reef flat. Stage 4. Once islets are established, they usuaily become stabilized further through the
colonization of vegetation.
Initial colonizers such as Pemph.is acciduln stabilize
unconsolidated materials through root binding and the accumulation of humus leading to soil formation. Shoreline vegetation colonization sen,es to trap sediment and inhibit
its longshore movement.
-29-
2 2.
Atoll Formation in the Northern Cook Islands
Various forces of local terrestrial dynamics can advance the process of progradation, but the wave abrasion of reefs produces most of the secliment found on atolls (Chappel 1982: 72). In particular, where waves obliquely approach a shoreline, the effect of wave reflection occtrrs and the distribution of wave enelgy is altered. This wave energy is focused at convex points of the
reef
flat, especially on its
ocean side
(d. Nagata lg90: 1lB). Thus, the
sediment budget or rate of progradation varies relative to individual islets but is dependent on the horizontal shape of reef flat where the various islets lie. [r support of this, there are broader and higher islets in Pukapuka with
its angular reef flats than in Tongareva which has compar.atively smooth reef flats.
The shingle abraded from coral reefs
is
transported to its onshore position mainly by wind waves and cyclonic waves. All atolls in the Northern Cook Islands lie in the southern belt of the east trade winds. From this viewpoint, islets particular on the eastern sides of atolls would be - in constantly supplied to varying degrees with sediment. In addition, these atolls lie to the east and the north of the South Pacific Convergence Zone (SPCa where troughs associated srith low pressure systems occasionally develop. The development of troughs is accompanied by an increase in the \I{idth of the cloud band and a deterioration in the weather. Cydonic waves and surges with great energ:r produced by strong westerly winds of such troughs - wash the western shores of atolls and therefore supply a large amount of sediment to that part of the islet. As described above, the formation process of a subaerial atoll landform in the Northern Cooks is strongly associated vdth meteorolo$cal phenomena. To see
if this is true, we must examine the meteorological
condition of each
atoll, as the effect of troughs producing energetic waves varies among them. Pukapuka is closest to the SPCZ and would experi.ence stronger wind and waves than Tongareva farthest fi'om
the
Zone. Such variations are, while
somewhat indirect, illustrated as well
by the mean annual rainfall
distribution in the Northern Cook Islands. The diagram
-30-
in Fig. 2.2.2
22.,Atoltl Fsnnation in the No.rthern Cook Islaads
I
i
1700i {V
OE' I
I I
-l:I
.;
.Nluo
Fig- 2-2.2- Mean, annual rainfall distribution fsr Cooklslands
f95l-lgf0
Adqpted fro.n:r Thomxrso,a 1986: Ftg. 9 (p. rB),irhe diagrad shows tLat Tongareva (Fe[rh:a), on th,e edge of the $outh Pacific v'ery dry Zone. Rainfall nraourrts irnclease Fon Toug*rEva to Fuliqpulia w.hic1 Ues in tJre regioa of influeueE of the SFCZ- The rai,nfall distribqtion sruggegts thet f,he effec! of trougts plodueiog energetic irrav.es vqries.arBo-!g atolls ht the NorthEr,n Cook Istra,nds.
indieates that the aruual rainfall decreases fro,m prlkapuka to Tongareva (Thourpson 1986: 1B). Pukapuka therefore is more affeeted by troughs, a1d, these provide better coxditions f,or islet foraration.
--31-
2.3. Colonization of the Northern Cook Islands
2.3. Colonization of the Northern Cook Islands
The orthodox scenario
of
Polynesian colonization which prevailed
towards the end of the 1970s included in
it
a model for a T.ong Pause,' a lag
in colonization of East Polynesia from West Pol5mesia. Thus, it was held that there was a gap of 1500 years between the settlement of lVest and East Pollnesia, and that Ancestral Polynesian Society developed in West Polynesia in the early part of the period before the pause. Archaeologists have estimated this time gap from the difference in radiocarbon dates between the early settlements of West Polynesia (1100 BC from Tonga and 1000 BC from Samoa) and the Marquesas (AD 300). Recently, however, some archaeologists have questioned the Long Pause'
model (e.9. Bellwood 1970: 96; Dar,idson 1976: 46; Irwin 1981, f998; Kirch 1986). The persuasive and simplest reason is that the model is inconsistent
with the colonization pattern of Lapita communities whose spread in Oceania occurred so rapidly (finvin 1981, 1992: 70-3). Their previous success in colonizing voyages would have been sufficient to enable them to extend their colonization further to the east of Tonga and Samoa. In this continuous model of colonization, the Cook Islands
located between Samoa and the Society Islands plausible cand-idates for settlement, is - envisioned as one of most and would document an earlier colonization period than previously thought (e.g.
Kilch 1986:
33; Kirch &
-
Hunt 1988: 17).
From the perspective of the continuous model, there is a possibility that we would eventually discover several settlement sites
in the
Cook Islands
which are dated some centuries earlier than those of the Marquesas group but a few centuries later than those of West Polynesia. In a map showing bands of colonization periods expected from island positions and available radjocarbon dates, h'win suggests that the Cook Islands was settled during the first millennium BC (Inrin 1992: 80).
While the earliest archaeological evidence from the Southern Cook
-32-
2.-1.
Colonization of the Northern Cook Islands
Islands is cur:rently eonfined to the period AD 800 1200 (see Walter lg94: 224, 1998), carefully-handled evidence both fr.om pouen analysis and geochemical analysis indicates that forest disturbance had been ind.uced in Mangaia probably by human impact as early as at least 2000 _ 1600 Bp (Kirch and Ellison 1994). They also suggest that thick alluvial clays cover rrndiscovered early habitation sites (Xirch & Eltison 1gg4: BLl). This suggestion is supported by our own observation in Rarotonga. A test excavation at the valley mouth of Avana River revealed. the huge amotrnt of accumulation of alluvial deposit reaching 6 meters in thickness (Chikamori per' comm.) Ir0l. Beneath such thick deposit, therefore, there is the possibility that early habitation sites will be found in future in Rarotonga. However, it is not sure whether or not such sites there have been dated, curently l0B0+ b0 BP Geta-l18204) is the earliest Rarotongan date fr.om site RAR-12 in Motu Tapu (okajima in preparation; see also Appendix z), rtis as ear.ly as that of
Kirch and Ellison's discussion of habitation events in the Mangaian sequence. We thus need to wait for further archaeological mater-ials from e.xcavation before conclusion about either Rarotonga and Mangaia.
In respect of the Northern Cook Islands, which is closer to West polynesia than the southern group, there is a different question about when the atolls became available for human settlement. As rrrvin (1992: g4) suggests, it would have talien growing coral some time to catch up w{th the rising sea level
in Holocene, and still longer before calcareous sed-iment produced by wave abrasion formed islets on the reef available to fs selenized first by plants and birds and then by humans. However, making this claim does not necessarily preclude the possibility of finding earlier settlements there which date back to the late first millennium BC or the early first millennissl AD, since the timing of Holocene coral emergence and in growth speed. of subaerial landform is expected to vary among those atolls (see Secti on 2.2.2\.
-33-
2.-1.
Colonuation olthe Northern Cook Islands
250
200
+
O: charcoal from cultural layer l: others from cultural layer
\w('4524
O: bedrock \lTi-5088
0
E t.^ {J rirv
=
I
N-5101
a
+ o
100
N-Ero6
N-5107
50
-G
-4000
WK-4525
-3000
-2000
-1000
0
1000
2000
Nlean values of calibrated ages GC-AD) rvith one standard deviation
Fig. 2.3.1. Radiocarbon dates associated with atoll formation and early settlement
ofPukapuka the Northern Cook Isiands, hlkapuka is the atoll provided with the best conditions for its islets to grow rapidly. From this riewpoint. there is tbe possibility that Pukapuka would have been available for Polyr:esian plain ware pottery using communities to colonize it by the late first millennium BC. Several early radiocarbon dates hom excavations support this possibility. I-n
2.3.I. Colonization of Pukapuka, Rakahanga and lVlanihiki As was set out in the preceding sections (Section 2.2.1 and 2.2.2), t}:.e the closest atoll Holocene emergence above sea level of corals on Pukapuka to West Polynesia
-
-
was as ea-rly as 3081 - 3320 cal. yr. BC (5270 - 5031 cal.
yr. BP), and the atoll is provided with highly suitable environmental conditions for its islets to grow rapidly higher and wider. There is therefore the high possibility that Pukapuka would have been available to colonization of Eastem
Lapita commulities by at least the late part of first millennium
BC.
In support of this, an excavation of a taro patch bank (site PUK-W9) in consisting of brownish 1996 reveated that the lowest cultural layer there
-
-34-
2.-1.
Colonization of the Northern Cook Islands
,1, /l
C
3cm
Fig. 2.3.2. Untanged basalt adz from Pukapuka This adze was retrieved hom the lowest cultural layer of a taro patch bank which rvas dated at 171 . 3.17 cal. yr BC (lvii-452{). According to its morphological characteristics. it ca.n. be classilied as belonging to Type .' of the Samoan adz kit.
- 347 BC OI-5101) was derived from a Tridacna sp. shell (see in Appendix 2), it is not certain whether the date Because the calibrated age of L7L
reflects the earliest settlement period in Pukapuka. Chikamori also reported a radiocarbon date of 132
- 338 cal yr.AD
(N-5107) which was obtained from
a
charcoal sample (Chikamor{ and Yoshida 1988). While the exact provenance and descriptions of the layer relating to this date are somewhat unclear in his report, the expected earlier emergence of Holocene coral in Pukapuka and the rapid growth of its islets (see Chap. 2.2.1 and 2.2.2)
that Pukapuka, an atoll close to West Polynesia, would have been provided with conditions suitable for hurnan arrivals by the early first millennium AD. This assumption need'not be, however, associated with suggest
-35-
2.3. Colonization of,the Northern Cook Islands
200
150
€
N-5877
O: charcoal from cultural layer O: others from cultural layer O: Tridacna from natural layer
N-5876 -
+
roo N-5874 N-5884
--O-
€-
50
-2000 -1500 -1000 -500
{--+-
N-5873
N-5875
N-5886
0
IVlean values of calibrated ages (BC-AD)
500
1000 1500
2000
with one standard d.eviation
Fig. 2.3.3. Radiocarbon dates associated with atoll formation and earlv settlement ofRakahanga
100
O: charcoal flom cultural layer l: others from cultural layer O: bedrock
o + N-6663 +
N-5863
N-6150
+
N-6151
o
=bu
N-6143
--o-
+
N.GI52
-500 0
500 1000 1500
Ivlean values of calibrated ages (BO-AD)
with one standard deviation
-2500 -2000 -1500 -1000
2000
Fig. 2.3.4. Radiocarbon dates associated with atoll formation and early settlement of Manihiki Among atolls in the Norrhern Cook Islalds. Rakahanga and Stanihiki hold an intermediate position amoog the conditions for islets to grow. From this viewpoint, the colonizatiou can be expected to be somervhat later
thanthatofPulrplanations. Therefore, I will try to assess the likelihood that Tongareva n tnarae served as territorial markers, by scrutinizing their spatial linkage with socio-political territories' To do this, it is necessary to determine which socio-political level the marae are related to.
3.3.1. Reconstruction of the Tongarevan Socio-political System
What level of social group was related to Tongareva n marae? Lamont visited many islets during his stay in this atoll, and was included in several social groups as a high'ranking member through ceremonies which the chiefs
known as arihi performed at their tnarae. Each of these groups - Buck (1932a: passint) referred to them as "districts", expressing the ter:ritorial
aspect would maintain its own ffLarae. h order to
comprehend
characteristics of districts, however, the discussion should begin with a reconstruction of the socio-political system. Goldman (1970: 7B-4) divided the Tongarevan socio-political system into four levels: Level 1. This is the lowest level consisting of patriJineal extended households
ter13e4
haantau, which were the smallest social units in Tongareva. Each household, including up to four generations of patrihneal members, was a primary land and coconut tree
holder, and so formed an economic and residential unit (Campbell 1985: 52). Ir was for most purposes economically self-sufficient and independent, reallocating their holdings fi'om generation to generation in order ofseniority;
Level 2. Each community of this level consisted of a set of haanau tracing the descent from a common ancestor. It was headed by a lower-ranking ltono tagata or lesser chief. Since the groups were incorporated into the largergt'oups of level 3, they can be also viewed to have been subordrnate social units. Each horr.o tagata bound the extended. families to a Iarger group on the basis of a genealory, and enabled the whole district (Level S) to act together under the senior chief.(arilzi) of the larger group so formed @uck 1932a: 4i). O Pai Tangata who adopted Lamont would be one of hono tagata who headed a sub-
district of iVlangarongzuo @uck 1932a: 49);
-81-
3
.3 . lvlarae as
Territorial Markers of Districts -Mean
at the Levelof Districts-
Level 3. This is the level of the largest social groups (local districts) which were politically stable to some degree. Some of these groups encapsulated subordinate units, as described above. Each group ineluded members acknorvledging d.escent from a common ancestor, and was headed by an arihi or a chief of the senior line. The group appears to have been politically autonomous especially in peace time. Such groups correspond in
structure to what is now known as the huaanga, although it is unclear whether the term was used when Lamont visited rongareva (campbell r9g5: b2);
Level 4. This level is a "conquest state" representing the entire atoll, or a federation forming a large di"ision. Lamont (1867: 126) noted, "The various inhabited islands are in a constant state of feud with each other, though alliances are sometimes formed for mutual protection." Such alliances would create larger polities than local districts. A genealogical tradition (Bud< 1932a: 50) describes that the entire atoll was under a
ariki - called Turua - at one period. He declared himself at the head of the entire atoll and daimed the turtle tribute, probably on the basis of his genealogical superiority to other higher ranking chiefs. Such a political integration would not, however, have lasted long, as this tradition tells later. "in the period of Maiveriki, the turtle tribute was not exacted, and each chief or individual was entitled to keep what singie
he caught" Guck 1932a: 50).
It is thus
supposed
that any political levels beyond local
districts were unstable or temporal.
However, the above levels grve a somewhat incoruect impression
that the status system of autonomous districts consisted of three stratified ranks: ariki, hon'o tan'gata, and haanou (Fig. 3.3.1). It is doubtfut that these ranks were frrmly stratified, and that only the ariki possessed the privilege of establishing their districts. We must consider the possibility that the domination of the Tongarevan ariki was quite restricted. They were neither land distributors nor redistributors of resources, although the ariki headed larger and richer household turits in terms of subsistence economy. Status differentiation would be actualized in political alliances when conflicts occurred between districts. However, the consequent victories did not increase
the economic superiority of an ariki, since the victory resulted not in the expansion of territory but in the plunder of coconuts. Thus, it can be seen that ordinarily the traditional status system was comprised of several graded ranks.
-82-
3.3. lv[arae as Tenitorial Markers of Districts _Meani
political
territories of districts and socio-political strucrure
level
A:
superior
at the Level of Disrricts-
interdistrict
A'
ariki
,-l il
:
i:l :l
A:
district
ariki
O:
hono tagata Qesser chief)
^.
!l:l
head of extended
family
:l
;r
:n i
iA ;
(huaanga)
sub-
district
o o o
o o o
household (haanau)
o o o
o
: firm and stable tie based on kinship : loose and temporary
tie between district-chiefs
Fig. 3.3.1. First reconstruction of rongarevan socio-potitical system on the basis ofanalytical lerels described by Goldman (r9?0) the Tongarevan socio-political sysrem can reconstructed as rvell'strati6ed, but it is somewhat inaccurare as discussed later (see Fig. s.3.2).
be
In order to clarify the above issues, of social segmentation. Buck
it is necessary to consider the process generalized it as such:
In the settlement of the various islands and island divisions the territorial groups were derived from families which had hived off from the main lines at various period.s, and
all were related through common ancestors, certaia territorial groups with ped-igree lin-ks more recent showed closer relationships than others. In two or more though
related territories the senior family was known, and the senior chief of one of the linked tenritories was also, by descent, the senior chief of the combined territories. fBuck
1932a: 45]
-83-
3.3. Marae as Territorial Markers of Districts _Meani
at the Leve I of Districts-
This e4planation enables us to reconstruct the following process of social segmentation as a hypothetical series of phases. In Phase I, small social groups migrated from several other islands to Tongareva. They established their settlements separately on the large, feriile islets of this atoll. To support this, the present inhabitants claim descent from one of th'ee main lines of founding ancestors: Takatu, Tar-uia and Mahuta. This suggests migration from several islands. Oral traditions state that Taruia came from
Aitutaki, an island in the Southern Cook Group, and that Mahuta came from Rakahanga - an atoll in the Northern Cook Group via Tahiti (Buck 1982a:
-
L7).
In Phase II, population growth gradually led to the branching out of the initial gxoups. Junior collateral lines established. new groups on other islets. An intriguing tradition of Taruia, one of founding ancestors, relates to early segmentation of the social groups. Taruia left Tongareva shortly after his arrival on the islet of Tokerau, but he left two men: one of them settled at Tokerau and another one moved to another islet named Omoka (Buck IgB2a:
Atoll is called Mangarongaro in the Aitutakian version of the Taruia tradition (Buck 1982a: r7). Mangarongaro is the name of a southwestern islet in Tongareva, and the islet would thus be occupied by a social group which also branched from the Taruia line. Such social 17). Tongareva
segmentation, which led to exploration of uninhabited islets distant fr.om the original settlement, Iikely promoted the establishment of new arihititles and the formation of autonomous local districts. The most habitable islets were settled by Phase
Itr In this situation,
junior collateral families tended to branch out from the senior family, since a dispersed settlement pattern within the confines of an islet naturally lead.s to social segmentation. Buck suggested, however, that closer relations between senior and junior families was maintained within the "district" in some degree. This feature would lead to the intricate aspects of the Tongarevan socio-political system. In short, it is ambiguous whether the social segmentation occurrtng during
this later phase was accompanied with
-84-
fularae as TenitorialMarkers of Districts
large islet
district
i
at the Levelof Disnicts-
moderate islet
aistrict
district
H
+ I
I
$
tr
fr I
+ L
household units
household units
::
household units
!i
Fig. 3.3.2. Revised model of the Tongarevan socio-political system
Several ethnographic accounts indicate thatTongarevan socio-politica.l system was not based on any firm differentiation among political ranks, but on the gradation of ranks. In such a system, there rvould be some districts (huaanga) headed bychiefs who had no titles of arihibut those ofhono tangata (lesser chiefs). viewed from the economic aspects, these orilri and lrono tailgata were also only the heads
of
household
establishment of new arihi who controlred the autonomous districts. We may therefore need
to revise the model of the Tongarevan sociopolitical system (see Fig. 3.3.2). It is plausible that the socio-political segmentation in Phase III promoted the establishment of the lower rank termed hono tangata. Some chiefs holding this
-85-
title may have kept
on being
3.3. llfarae as Tenitorial Markers of Districts -Mean
at the
Levelof Disnicts-
politically involved in the district which they belonged to, but some others could have established new districts if their or{ginal district had enough space to divide the
territory among them. The districts formed in phase I and II would have been largely autonomous and self-sustaining. Thus, later social segmentation which occurred within these districts would be also unique as a result of the specific circumstance of each district.
3.3.2. Reconstruction of Districts The Tongarevan socio-political system is equivalent to the segmentary societies which Renfrew defines in his work. He enumerates the two criteria which characterize a segmentary society: (1) the society is composed of permanently functioning small gloups, and (2) the groups are not subordinate
parts of an effective and larger political and economic entity whose hierarchical control diminishes the autonomy of its constituent parts (Renfrew 1984: 177). He also points out that in many seglrentary societies the territories of such small groups are given symbolic e4pr.ession (Renfr.ew
that the monuments originally constructed as burials, ancestral resting places and so forth are central to that symbolic 1984: 178), and
-
expression of territory (Ren-frew 1984: 175). In the case of Tongarevan societl-, local districts (hu,aango) would correspond to the small groups which Renfrew
describes, and the ftrarae would be the monuments which symbolicallv express their territories.
Lamont's book includes thirteen names of d.istricts (Lamont 1867: passim), but there are twenty-three archaeologically recorded nTarae. Thus, first, it appears that m,arae did not correspond to districts. However, if the formation of districts was flexible as discussed in the preceding section, it is possible to conclude that various configurations of districts have occurred in the past and thus not described bv Lamont. In order to examine the association of the tne,ree with the territories of
-86-
lvlarae as Territorial Markers of Districts -Meani
at the Levelof Districts-
districts, it is necessary to reconstruct these unknown districts accurately. Of course, in this we can not depend on the distribution of mar&e. The reconstruction must be based on other data without reference to marae in order to avoid a circular argument. During the 1989 expedition of Keio University, I had the opportr:nity to obtain information on the lagoon divisions known as huaanga moana (Fig. 3'3'3). These divisions are bounded by lines dlawn between coral pinnacles trr], and every division is bordered by the landform which sur:rounds this lagoon. Many names of divisions are identical with those of d.istricts given by Lamont (Table 3.3.1), and it is thus itishly likely that the divisions of the lagoon were closely related to the land territories of d.istrict s (hu,aanga henua).
However, there are discrepancies between both Lamont's irrformation and mine. Several district names given by Lamont are not found in the Iist of
lagoon divisions, and vice versa. This indicates that both sources are incomplete, and it is necessary to ask why such discr.epancies may occpr.. Linton's map, published
in 1931, is applicable in addressing this
issue tr6l. It
gives us many land division names, so we know the approximate location of the districts which Lamont described. By comparing the three sources five
possibilities for the discrepancies suggest themselves: (1) Lamont did not visit or deseibe all the districts. For instance, Tausoata / Rukutia. Hanoa and Rupu which are found on the list of lagoon divisions are in this category;
no districts on several small islets, although they were associated with divisions of the lagoon. Forinstance, southernmost islets, whichfall into the range of the
(2) There were
two lagoon divrsions of tlloturakinga and Vaiari, are not suitable for human settlement. because of the scarcity of coconut trees. Rather, such small islets would be heid as satellite territories by districts occupying larger islets;
political bu-ffer or neutral zone unoccupied. between two districts. This is the case with the land facing on to the lagoon division of Tautupae, between the Omoka and
(3) There was a
Nlotukohiti districts which are located on the northwestern islet. Lamont also observed
-87-
3'.?''M*nt,tt T*ii"tiul M*&prs SDirtriutr -M.uniogr
er t-hu
L"r*lqf Dirni*,
r{
.**@tru (^,/^ @44
-ftfgs
FffiFe]
ur ltl
\l
n
rik'rirr
viirc.! vci't
-"tfH** trrr1ir,
l-o--rqfA-ll
fq
I
m*"o"t
$ x"*"
-\\w-
%
-q$
Fig.3,3.3. Divisions of lagoons (h'uaa,aga noana) in Tonggre,va Atoli During tbe 1$89 expeditiou o{ Xeio Universigy- n had the opportunity to coUec,t information
on.
fif,leeu
driyisions of,.'the lagoon- Theso divisi,orls {v,ere te@ed hilclo,:ng' moenc. Laad names Sbown outside igtro'ts are talec &om Linton',s map which was Xublished for the Cook Istand .*druipistr.ation in trg,gt. Tbe boxed nemea ,are
identical with the district names noted bylsnotU
_g,g_
Marae as Tenitorial Markers of Districts -Meanin
Table 3.3.1. Names of local districts and divisions of the lagoon of Tongareva (I) Lagoon Divisions (huaanga moana)
Districts (hu,aanga) given by Lamont
Omoka
Omoka IVIotu-Unga
Tokerau
Ruahara Tausoata / Rukutia
Ruahara
Hanoa
Tautua
Tautua IVlotunono
Naue
Temata
Rupu
Tepuka
Tepuka
Atutahi
Atutahi
Motu-Rakinea
Vaiari Hakasusa
Hakasusa
Mangarongaro
Mangarongaro Tevete
Motukoh-iti
IVlotukohiti
Tautupae (l) The
names
of the distlicts ale listed in a clockwise direction from Omoka. the northwesrern islet of
the
Tongareva atoll.
rugged rocky ground destitute of coconut irees between these two districts (Lamont 1867: 169). During his stay, iVlotukohiti was subject to oppression fi.om its militant neighbour Omoka (Lamont 1867: 169-70). Of interest is that the unique human-shaped
monument called Te Papa-o-sokoau (TON-23) lies on the land division of Tautupae (Fig. 3.3.4). This structure is said to have been a place of refuge where a person was immune
from an enemy's attack @uck 1932a: 176). This information supporls the possibility that the land division of Tautupae was a bu-ffer zone between the above districts which were antagonistic;
(a) A division of lagoon rvas associated w'ith two or more districts. The lagoon division of Omoka comes into this category.
It
was divided into three parts, each belonging to
Omoka, IVlotu-Unga and Tokerau districts;
-89-
3.3 . Marae
u
Territorial Markers of Districts
at the Level of Districts-
.---.-4'
.V\
\\
"{7) *\trg-
-\% o'@ragq,
Fig. 3.3.4. TON-23 human-shaped monument in Tautupae, Tongareva As Bellwood (f97& 173) states, this monumeRt is a unique site in Polynesia, and belongs to the "esoteric domain of culture" (Sahlins 1955). lVhile this site is associated wirh a revenge tradition, an informant of Buck stated that it was a refuge where any persolr who committed a crime was immune from attack (Buck 1932a: 176).
-90-
3.3. fu[arae as Tenitorial Markers of Districts _Meani
at the Level of Disrricts-
(5) IVIore than two districts shared. a division of the lagoon: for instance, Tautua and i![otunono, Mangarongaro and revete, Temata and Naue, and probably Hakasusa (flakasusanui) and Tapuroro. IVII. David lVlahera of my infomrants _ prorided much useful information on this subject. According to him, there were two chiefs
in the
islet of Naue, one of them occupied Temata and the other Patanga. He told me that they shared a division of the lagoon since they were genealogically close to one another. He also stated that there had been two chiefs in each district of Mangarongaro and Hakasusa, one of the l\Iangarongaro chiefs occupied. Tetoto and the other ]Vlahera: one of the Hakasusa chiefs occupied Hakasusanui and the other Tapuroro.
lVhile all these possibilities could be factors in causing the discrepancies between Lamont's information and the lagoon divisions, the last one needs a little more explanation since these pairs of districts could. be examples of social segmentation in later prehistory. It is not evident whether all chiefs described in the
fifth possibility held the titles of arihi. My informanr jusr called them upoho henua meaning 'heads of land..' If only arilzi had the privileges to establish districts, some of the'districts' headed by upolzo henua would have been subordinate territorial divisions incorporated into larger
districts. As already discussed, however, it is also plausible that the lower chiefs could establish their own political units which were autonomous in some degree. Therefore,
it
would be necessary to include the territorial divisions from the frfth possibility in the list of districts.
3.3.3. Marae Serving as Symbols of Districts
As a result of the above examination,
it is inferred that at least nineteen
districts occurred in late prehistory. Table 3.3.2. indicates the relation between reconstructed districts and the rectangular tnara.e-As shown in this table, fifteen of the nineteen districts have one marae within their territories. One of exceptions
to the general rule of one tnarae per district is
the
Atutahi where two tnarae occur. However, site TON-37, one of the ntarae
-91-
oyl
fufarae as Tenitorial Markers of Districts _Mean
at the Level of Districts-
Table 3.3.2 Relation between rocal districts and morae e) Lagoon Divisions Omoka
Reconstructed Districts Omoka
TON-25
IVIotu-Unga
TON-01 (destroyed
Tokerau
TON-02
Marae ?)
Ruahara Tausoata lRuliplain why marae occur at given places within the confines of the sterile landscape.
Mara
3.4. Morphology and orientation of Meanings at Levels of Inter-Districts and Entire Atolr
-
the two preceding sections (Section 3.2 and 3.3), I examined locations of marae' Here, I shift my focus to their morphologl' and spatial orientation tzsl. As discussed below, several morphologcal featules and an orientation IJl
are
commonly observed in many tnarae. We can thus infer that these characteristics were related to prevailing meanings which were broadlv shared by social ranges beyond districts.
3.4.1. Morphological rypes of Marae and
rheir Distributions
Among Tongarevan architect ura I featwes ceremonial s truct ures terme d ntarde are largest in number (twenty-three sites). These r?Lerae consist of a
rectangular court, coral uprights and an irurer component. The general design is thus analogous to that of marae recorded from the Society and the Tuamotu Islands. Tongarevan tnarae, however, also exhibit several var-iations of elements. For instance, cou-rts of some mdrae are enclosed b5r curbstones and uprights
but others are just edged by uprights standing along the peripheries. Uprights also exhibit various shapes. Popular uprights are just rectangular in shape, but some are flanged, knobbed, notched, should.ered, medial-curved orper{orated (Yamaguchi 1995: Fig. 5). Thepermutation of these variations
-105-
3.4. Morphology and Orientation of Marae
T!1re r\
platform
rlpeB
a,rHLa na
'L) oa { a 9: *} q--o>-.* artansem
,.o:*
"'tb*Q-re--zo
F'ig,,3,4-1. Morpholo gieal classifieation of,
^ aa
n
a
o
,om Y
Tonglrevan t urw
Tongalev*n' ,'iorn'€ er€! el'assifisd itto t\r'o type6 on .$re basis'of the eiorp,holggical variation of the lnner eomponents ai bha r:ear of the,courts. Tlme A nrorce has. aplat&r,p inside the cour,f and T!.pe B rncrae bas tr,vo qtqae atrang-erlrenfs which are like a revesed letter,*.[-dt *L:t in sbape,
-106-
makes each maroe somewhat unique, but the most remarkable variations are seen in the morphology of the inner components at the rear of maraecourts. On the basis of these variations, we can classi ltymaraeinto two types (Fig. 3.4.1).
ftpe A marae are characterized. by their rectangr.rlar platforms. lVlost
platforms are raised approximately 50 cm in height. These strucures are faced by rows of coral slabs set on edge, and their interior is filled w.ith coral gravel and boulders. h addition, well-preserved srructures suggest that the su'face of platforms was usuarly paved. with flat coral slabs. Twe B marae have two arrangements formed with coral slabs, and these srructur.es resemble a reversed letter ,,F" or,,L,' in shape. One of the Eulopeans who landed on Tongareva
Atoll in early 19 century AD was E'H. Lamont, an American trader. He stayed on the atoll for nearly a year and observed several ceremonies in different districts. One of these ceremonies began when the people marched to their tnarae from a chiefs settlement, and progressed through the purification of the court and the offering of coconuts:
o Packa'
as this chief and high priest was called, on receiving one of the cocoa-nut gods. ascended the altar, and, seating himself in frontof a large stone, while he held his god
in both hands, began to glance wildly round. in every direction, his eyes wandering over the ctowd of bowed figures before him. A trembiing motion, commencing in his hands. extended th-r.ough his whole bod_v till every liml shook in the most violent manner. the muscles working and the veins swelling almost to bursting
- a sign, as these rgnorant creatules believed, that he was possessed by a spirit. pamont 1867: r22 (emphasis mine)l This paragraph, describing a ceremony performed at a rnarae on the islet of Nlangarongaro, illustrates that the maraewas provided with a platform-like
structwe, and it can be thus classified as belongrng to Type A. It is evid.ent that this platform was used in the climax of the ceremony as the point at which gods or holy spirits descended.
-107-
Lamont does not provide us with any descriptions of the inner component of rype B marqe- Their stone arrangements, however, occupy an equivarent position to that of the pratform within Tlpe A marae. This conformity of configu'ation between two types suggests that stone arrangements of rype B tnarae also served as focal points in ceremonies. Information on TON-02 ftrarae provided by Buck supports this possibility. While this marae on a small islet of vaiseru was heavily disturbed, it is classifred as belonging to Tlpe B marae' Buck states on the basis of explanations given by an old man of rautua village that the stone arrangements in the m,arae were termed raukaua which means the position occupie d,by au mana,or authorized people who were probably priests (Buck 1982a: 162). Platforms and stone anangements are mutually exclusive in Tongarevan rectangular tna,rae. No rnoroe have both inner components. This raised the question of wh5r such marked. variations arose in this atoll. one likely reason may be the difference in construction periods. However, Radiocarbon dates from Tongarevan tnarae are still so limited that we can neither prove or disprove the possibility that the morphological differences between the two types reflects temporal variability. The earliest marae in the atoll, TON-21 mdrae (dated to around 400 yr. Bp), is crassified as Tlpe A, and thus it wourd seem likely that Tlpe A marae appeared prior to Type B t2-q. Excavations of other sites, however, have revealed that nraraeof both types were also built in late prehistory. For instance, ToN-2 glr marae (Type A) in lVlangarongar.o was
constructed within the last 200 years, as was TON-BB nlarae (Trpe B) in Tepuka (see Section 3.1.2 and Appendix 2). The coexistence of both types of maraeinlate prehistory leads us to see specific meanings or intentions within the two types of inner component. The best evidence for this meaning is the spatial distribution of each type
of ftrarae' The land of Tongarevan Atoll mainly consists of a chain of islets surrounding a vast lagoon, and all marae exist on these islets. In plotting the position of marae of each type on the map, it becomes clear that these ceremonial structures are distributed separately by type (Fig. g.4.2). while
-r08-
qp \f t$1
N
4km
Te Fuf
co>
(!
(\r
o
e) ot
:(,
.i(
f dl
.D
o
Iu J
o F
o
ol
nl
o?
U) trJ
cir
a? (D
N
al
c) (')
c) (D
F
L I
z z o Fo +r
q
H
F
d
a?
(9
U-
q
\ ol
ol cl
o
J
aat
o o d o
o o
CD (E
o.
@
(t)
F
xlrJ
t-v -
o N
F
rh
ut
v
F
z at
(o
(o o)
o)
d
(r;
*
N
(g
(U
Ai
o ls
o o
d
oi
rt
N
rt
AI
N
z
F
lU J (l)
-
o |!
Y
vt c) tJ
o
o
(u
o
o
zG
z
(u
z
Y
o o o
:(!
:
F
F
0. (D
o F
(!
(E
(E
uJ
U)
.x
z
G q)
a!
UJ
F
o
6
BO
(!
(U
(E
x
!
CD
o
o-
(u
F
&
6
=
€)
3
g
r
CE
o
cg
s I lr
o UJ tf,
l
o ()
F
(E
c(! c)
o
o
(D
g
0t
(!
E
(U
3U
E
ls
g
ct
ct
(6
a!
o
C
o
o
F (5l
ol ol i3:v
sl
9l
I
orl 6l
6l ol
o 6
o
s(g
(U
E
:
!to
-g CD
(E
o
.U
o rg
E
po
CD
U)
(t)
5 o uJ F
6
E c o E c)
o o
.g
c
(6
E E
@ (,
(E
c
o
o
o
E
o
co
o
(D
(t,
o ()
E
rl'
_g
c
o o o o
co
(g
E
o C'
UJ
o o
O UJ
F U)
o, o z o
F
ot
o
z o F
z
o F
o = z
o
F
-237-
(\l
z o F
z
o t-
(t
\r
2
z o
o F
F
o U
lo
H H
-o)
z
o)
(Uv ot; (9*
N
(r
o:
(') g)
E
9(g C)E fa!
l< (t lD
H l!
b
o
-E
g
3
o
dt
ol (o
=o @dt
$I
i< o
3E =6, :9 C'E
cl
dl>
o)
vo -o I} o=
dl
-o, tu-.=
o
s5 o)E
6
o
ct)
eh
ot
o
|J)
€
co
t\ F
o,
:
dl>
o t\ o)
(! ol (?
(6
f6
I
(\l
F
('
co
c?
(\l
o 6 IU
q
al
o?
q,
o?
c?
(r,
(')
q q
q
I F
i
a? ('J
et
ct
tt)
u
F
z 2
E
tr
ol
ol
kl ol
! CE
(\l
ol JI
ct
o o (U
r-\ tq
* -
F X
I
F
a)
(9
o
(o
o
o
@
o o)
(o
(D
lfcr rtt o)
(o
$
lll
o
t! c
z
F lU J
F
c(g
v)
-
(It
(v
.(!
.E q o J
E
a! .F
G
.U
T
(a e)
0 cq .I
(o o)
I
z A !
o)
o;
(\J
o N o st
co
u
rh
ri F
(t
llJ
'6)
z=
F --(U
CJ
ul
a0
6
F
ol AI
att o
(U
.g
o) g
(5
+E EE P&
CD
xIU I
(!
,t
o IE
|J' C'
o
o r!
cD
(E
:6
J
z
C'
I
EF 6i (r
d!
@
to o)
-ot (gv al= cri
-6'
-€e eb,9
aO
a0
o)
O)
o
1C
:o
:o
N
S g= itEg* r-Y :vE'
.:a
c0>
d3E
(D
N c')
(t
(')
e)
a)
c,
ox :!()E 56
o
(\l (', o,
F
o
o
o 5
o
to
(D
TIJ
J dt F
(t N
-61 ot (t (\l c"
(t
L U'
(?
uJ ? F
a
rF
t
(t
(?
IL
o F o
sr
6t
CL
F xl! F
-l tV
|o
UJ
z A
F uJ
F
J
a
0
€g
o
a;ot+ rl) ol (\l
(t
ro c,
roc).l)(r) -.OF !f*Fol
ro t\
- -G) t\ ooro(\l rf(l)-*
a0
-q
o
F N
o a!
(! E'
c
o
6
('
E (E
o
o
J
o)
o
s(t
J
o
?d
co
E
o
=
(u
J
o)
o
c.U
o
6
at
o
F
o.
o o o
o
o
o q)
to
c)
xoo
z= UJ
o
qt
ul
c)
o @ o (o
CD
=
c)
U)
d N
o ct
z
v
N
if (\l
-
rA v
(9
@
o
r-'1
(r)
o
6
.It
'l-l
!t
r
"? (.,
I
ct
q
u d
z =
ol
r!
'g
c
a6
E
I o F
(E
tr (E
o
o
o
F
F
I
o a! o
o
o g
d
(5
E
E
-g o)
.g
C'
F
(!
IE
J o F
o
(E
o (g
U'
cq
-l
-sl lrl
ID
(o
@
t\
oc
3g EF
E
o
a#
EE o: ocD
o
:o
6
-
-6
Ef o, -g
N
(ri
IF
a H
F =
z z
d
tr
o E (-)
:c!
9
a
v
F X tU F
-l 4 Ft
vrfr
zA
ol (\l
o
(']
ra'
(!
o
o CD
at
o
ol
(g
F
c
CD
o
o
s)
.u ct)
ql
co
CD
El
o
g)
o (u
E
clq
CO
CD
o
c
c 6
.E
=
'al
N(o (.l ct)
o
l
I
d c
N
$(o Ll ct)
N
o
(t)
dat NO,
r4t
d N o-o (o6
(o
(E
g
:
o (t)
N -@ $o Nr
u2 q)I
ii.
C\l
c)
z
\J
.--
q C\!
Cq,
UJ
E
F
s
!o
o
ot a! o-
rv]
ol
o
CL
xrU I
E {g
=
z;
o
(u
o
G
!.
.o
o
o L
@
F
ui
GI qrl
= 2
a!l
6
UJ
F
.-l
ol
(ul 6tl
-l
rlfl
e)I t-l
to
6''
o)
UJ
(r
lu
aUv
tL
(r
o, ([
UJ
E
i-. ot -Gl otsl :(s1
E
b
(l
o)
o) o)
oIc'JF oY i, cD OE ql>
(95 o: i- cD .lg ()E 3o
(Ev
(",t or:
UJ
tt
rf) o)
o, o)
o,
cr>
|
o .L
c
6v
0i=
o
E
o
ED
G
ro>
I
co
(L
c(, ol
tu
a!
E
(!
G
uJ I
dl
s
I
ci
I
lu) l6 trJ It?
6l (t?
IF
H
lF
lz lz
ts
tr
loF o
t
I
c,
u?
cY
a?
g,
c)
AI
q
"i cl
(?
(\l
(o
C\l
cl
an
(D
(o
t\
F
(o
UJ
(o (o
X
Fd
F
N -a
r.r,
z
UJ
E
o
z
F
J
J
(l}
o
o
(Dr
r.
(g
c
$
o
o)
c
(! c (u
tE
o)
o
0,
o)
5
F
u) q)
ao
(E
6
.E
ct)
A
o
(o
d ro
-(o (oGl
o
6 ot
F JtrJ
(')'
o) ot
t(o
f\
rlr v
C.t OI
o)
Ot tu
o.
!
.'i
(')
g
6 c 6
=
(u
CD
r
(g
UJ
u)
z
a
c,
LrJ
F
(t)
a0
o o
G
ot
'€
t, L 4
c
o
o
u,
E o
E
u,
E
c
UJ
(f f
E g; E
F
o
r!
o EI
€l BI dl
o
o
a5
E gl
(! o (!
o,
o)
.U
o
o
o) -g
.g
o E c ="g o'E oO x(!
(El CDI =l trl
GI 6l ol
E !; C
.9 l!
oc o
nO
6Q
B€
-g q,
U)
(t,
5 ()
o
FJ
1!
F
a!
6
c
o
.g
E @
E
o o o o
o
v,
o E
o
o
UJ
o
o o uJ F
g)
$
z
o F
A'
zY
o t-
(o
st
z
o L
!t \t
z o F
-242-
rO
t
z
o F
(o
!t
z
o F
F.
rt
z o F
g) UJ
2
o
co ctt
lI-
H
E o
IJJ
o)
(r E
o
o
o)
o)
H lJ
o)
o) o)
O)
CD
CO
@
o
co
o
o, (D
o)
G
(t
E (!
(U
(t
E
(E
E (,
o
g,
(E
6
o ct)
g)
E 5 g,
to
O!
(t
(D
(U
(U
E
E
a!
o
cD
.U
ctt
(U
(u
E
F
(t
au
UJ
J
lD F
g,
N
@
(\l
ul
IF L x F z z o F o 9
3 .aJ
6l
rt
z
u P
q d
a ri
d?
:rt
,h
FF
o
v
F X IJJ F
CD
f{
lE
()
o)
to o)
tV.
o o
lJ) C"
s
(r,
-G v-F F FI
UJ
z F 5 a
o
9l Ll
1t
59 i6
6CL Es;
€.8 o.0 =g EE
8..
€EE
;EE fccL
PI,,;
fiEE tr(6-O
U)
5 (J
.!
.E
o o o o
ut
c
o
c
F a
o
o o
E
.g
E tg Y
(tt
tl-
i
:E ECD oQ 9Ea! ,=
;F For o= €E OE =B
= o3 lr;
oo .>ocD -o ctg .o.u 9= atE -@
go
€1s eE= EE; *Es tr cLo
bott, (!o
;> oo. oO^
EF pr =.E oO
9o 96
g E
o o o
o o o
(9
sf
C'
.d
:x tso ta; -:o i> A(,
={! oD 'E E@
EE aF
io
EE
oo gqg
rd@
F€ FI|
cgt
oE 99
cD(D
sq
.g
EE c@
E
E
o (,
oq ce
PA !o
d9
+
co
OE EO OE
o o (,
ott
rzI
zI
oo
sc o o o
E
uJ
o o
ol
lu
F
6
!
z
I
z
I
z
z
=
=
-243-
|I,
-z
E
oo,
g->
6tr 6E Eb
o
>@
6=
ri9 oo.
o
E o
.9
:3
63 s-c
r.
U)
o
xo
EO
e6,
--
o
Y
o o
:= .93 =x6 -o.
r!
'6
z
gs
.c
g
C'
(E
(!
ot
.g
J
a!
o Y
(!
(g
E (E
uJ
al -l .gt h0l ol -l
o
l< (g
z
z
l
uDl (l)l
f,l
o
J(E c,
fl
ol c)l cl
(E
E
d,
uJ
trl .-l
-l
(q
o !
z
F z o@
3@ tto (o
E c o E
o
o o
t\ if
sr o
(r
I
TE
E
(r
U)
U
z
o N
H
(o
L
(o
o)
N
o)
H
tr
uJ
3.o
v,
E
=N ocD
=
o
:o
(D
:o
ct
o!
o)
o
o o
o)
o
:o
o
F
@
c,
ao t\
r\
It
F.
E
o
E)F
(o
t\ (t)
N
rf
o)
UJ
t\
ct)
E o
:o
E
m
Io
co
I
I
u.l
t, ln
F
J
I
f
\l
\f
t?
lF lq I T
\r H
F
z 0 I
.t
B
z
u-
(\l
: *
F
o
I
--
o
I
o-
F
d
F
c)
ro
F
t; c,
(u
x
J
.(U
s(!
g
G
Y
(6
o-
o.
aU
(g
d
(!
F
\l
ro
n)
ct
(9
g
(tt
:i
(!
(E
:
= .g
J
(g
(!
.E
a6
(r
I
.=l tal
ro(o (i) ro
c,
uJ
s
x --4)
ol €)l !l
u,
IU (r
A
tvl HI
@
rO
r')
rli
z
:
(o
rO
UJ
q
E
at
(t,
.=
o= E'O
ctt
(E
o ffi
c
o
o
C'
o o
(g
It
o
au
o
a o
o
o o
(U
F
3
(rt
o C'
o o
o
c
o o o B
(, c)
-9'
o.
9 Ilqs
R
o
ffi >=
;-::6
d)E: c 9x E=v
.t3E t65
- oo EE-€.
oo:J
3g :.3
-!t @o :o ;>o -ooo-o6 .Eob
EgE 6g' 3=H
6
o dt
o G .9 ot o o o
Eo c (! o
c o-
E
Egb
Edo "s€€
G
.E E
.g g o E
E o
E
v) ct)
llJ
6
o E
r!-
o
o C)
o o o
E
o
Izol
I z
o
o
o)
c
o o o
-g c
o E o o (J
F E
o o
o o (,
E
o o o
UJ
o o o IJJ
F
gt
z
(r)
\r o
z =
-263-
ro
(o
t\
z
z
z
o
o
o
=
co
z9
zI
U)
q,
H tl-
H G uJ
b
N
E o o
o
g
g
@
o
trl
.D
N (t)
:. ':
o)
t\
!t o
P6 otr
!t o o
CD
o
:o
6E dro
6
N
o)
o o
5E 3E
i 6 [t
€
co
N
o!
P6
o
r
o
=o :. ct) ,: (t)
F
o)
uJ
o E
@
o)
>(u
:o
6E c0()
@
@
(t)
@
.D
3 @ F
-
o lrJ
-
ol
OI
Q
\t
ol
\t
ol
tl
t
g F
c)
I F
@ I'u
F
z z
a U-
o cg
*.q) G r,
ct
F
(v,
ro
C)
9
o o
-G
CD
(E
o-
F
x
lrJ
F
r\ o
G' C)
-
N
rlt
z
F
o
E F
|! g
@
6
a6
(!
ot
E o F
E
E (U
6
F
U'
{) ! U)
G
(,
q0
(!
(u
(t E 6
.E
c
g
t!
Y
o)
c,)
CD
Y
cg
(t
(E
Y
:
!6t
o
a* E;
c
{g
J o t! I o
o a
Et 3@
o o
e€
c o o
&b
oO .!q >
€g oo
Fo
'c
o -G |!-s
q o'€
if;E o=tE
gi
E
>i -ts c,t +O oc oo 9o (g(l,
o'E;
E6
:
at
it oo 6i o= a60 r@ 6!
p> o> 66
oo
o c
o o
CL
ct,
E
+e IoiU
o
-g
-9
&E
au
o a d t CD
C (! o o
E (o
3 lQo
(lJE
Ep oB |!0 ;E EO
6 o
o
c6
E
-@ >d ll^.GL !!E
eI
(o(E
o o
O
l'o E 133 .B€ E E 6= 9-.! !|!q
9
=o H€
H*e Eg?
tr
o E .a ro ..J
o o
€o 6lD e6
U' U)
5 o uJ
F
=ct .=
6 c
CD
ct
o o ('
o o o
Ct
o
E
z
z
6
tr.
= 6
3
E
o
(U
co
E
!c
o E o o o
.(E
F
-g
o E o o (t
o o C)
o ()
ol
(t
rf
to
@
z
z
z
z
z
=
=
o
@
o o
uJ
ul
a,
o
z
=
-264-
U'
U
zul
o F
E uJ
tl.
qt
@
o,
t. o)
(r CE
ut
o
o o
T
o)
o
:o
o o
q,
@
o)
O)
9b
E
!t
EE
o
:o
o
c!
@
r\
N
6E alO
o cl
to
o8 |--o OE
g
:o
dl
Io
fD
o)
E
:o
co
5
F
ot
UJ
o N
@
F
3 o
u, gt
J
F Ai
@
6 UJ
(\l
\t
v
T F
U'
+ F
H
z zo
a IL
tr €) .ts cq
()
9
o o
(o
o ot
E) (g
a
F X ul F
F.
t\
(o
d (0
N
(o
ao
$ N
rh
v
z
F ()
E
(d
F
-< Ej
o 6
tU
c)
a0
(g
2
0 q) v)
d
(! (E rE
u,
o G e,
t-
I
(t) UJ
(f,
o
F
E
f
c o @
b
o o 60 E6
9o o o 5 o
3
uJ
E
F
6
o
o
o (t
(g
o
nt
tu
= o
o q o
(!
o
'6
E
(! F
o (g
CD
o
o
(!
G
o
o
(! E ([
F
q)
o
F
TE
({
F g,
(g
.U
F
z=
6
r!
a6
lu
(!
o!
c(D
o^ =(! k3 6C}
Eo 9E h'-
OE oo o-9 oo !o
or OC
dO s= 66 Eq
(E
c
E o
o o x
pa
OG
oE '=>
-o oO
Eb G. E6
o(s
:o
-di
o(D
gr
Foco
E c
q,
o)
a!
E
o o o
3E \r frE es -c3 2A ro
-de o'; EE Eb EO
o
.(!
r!
F
ts
@
o
:
.E
(u
6 :
rg
tro
-o :s cr)
E
E:
l:o,
(D
co
@
@
o)
(D
o o
o
N
8E EE
3
6E c0()
6E
t\
@
CD
1;o
or
dl
q
q
F (t)
oo o
:o
E
6= roo
CO
t-
o
:o
dt
!0
P6 =o Po' OE
3E
6E coO
lrJ
J
@
F (\l
a 6 UJ
rf
r+
:q
I
g
E F g.
G q)
+J
6l 11
T F
H
z= o tr
ll-
d
o J
al, @
o,
(d
E
F X uJ F
-
rF \J
z
c!
N
f\ !O @F r (\l $.f rAl
r\
{
N
ol $
q
FO NN
qi r.i
N
@f.O -rGl (o$J (clF@
'\F
j a! [t E6
6
.q
.U
o
o
h
X! -o
oo (60
=o EO
e
c
(!
Io
TE
i,
(!E EC-.:6
o,
.z
o
o
tt, @
F.gg*
E3.i;
.gE i .E3;s o rt! 5€E*
g'
sF5
o
(u
.E
o
qlo' o;o >9 oc@
(6
C'
CD
36
(!
E
o
,=
(t @
--3 E o o
,io
Y
OJ
x
J
(t
(E
E .a
o
:E
at
E
EE!.8.
o
o
.=9 cL t)
o
oF CDE
@
-s6 oP
o
o
tr '5 @
o o
o (!
o.9 !Po :o
!
oo EC
o
.E
(l
.(6
E
.9
! o
G (s
E
bg 6-
o 6
E
(t
s uJ
F U)
E
{,
o
E
G
c
o
o o
o (D o
o o o
(o
N
(p
ct)
z
z
z
E
o C)
c
o o
c,
!t t!
g
o E Cl C)
Lll
o o o lrJ F U)
u)
$
z
OJ
z
ol
ol
C\l
o (r)
z
(9
z E
=
-266-
ol
z? =
U)
g UJ
[c
H H TE
UJ
F
6
-o :J C')
:-o| :o
oE >o
,:
o o)
ct)
o o) o
(t)
o)
Po oE >o
o ot
o ot
o|
o'
E
:
:
a!
6E dl()
6= d)o
()
a?
e,
a?
c!
(\I
F'
C\l
(\t
!f
\l
(o
ot
o
G(g(!d
o
E (!
F(\lslU
oroloo o)oo)o
E (!
(U
:
ia
o
()
ooo0 oooc YYYI
o (U o CD
ul
J
dt
F
6
UJ
tF
I
I F
z zo 6 I ! c! \,
H
E I
tr
9
a,
o g,
tsi A
s
v
()
(o
xtuF F
C)
(o
-t rh
v
z
F
-
F a 6
=
co 6()
o
o.9 qr6 E>
ro 6qt =x ;o
Eo |!O
o.o
rl .! o= :o
o
.o
EX
(E
o
o
(!
t\
@
2
z
q rt
o
E o 6 o o
c.
6 .= ot! E
llJ
o o (J
|I| F
6
(?
(v)
z
E
!t
zI
rO
(r,
z
(O
(r'
z
=
-267-
C'
(f)
=
z s-
I
E'I ruJ
F
IA
E
3 z o
6
rQ rFr ;Gl,
E
g
lJ'
-cl E F{
(5
z E.
-
a-E
ut ,€l
'*q -6it
.fI
BO
c
-c| a! --tl !
g o
s;oo E
.! E
o, OT\
e
E
I,=
.c e. a'fi
ER
6G) E.X 'ct {'
-26,8-
@
o
U
zu.l
€ F
@
u llJ tt
o)
H
E
t\
o o 3
CE
llJ
F o
o E
6
@
t\
@
q,
g)
N
CO
ct)
o,
o)
o,
9^ YS
o o E o
o o 3
o
-=
F-
6o ro=
o
dt
@
N
O)
@
4)
!t
E
:o
:o
6
o
(E
(E
;
6 (D
dl
t-
N
E @
N
o o o
cl
@
IJJ
J
dt
F U)
6
uJ 7 F
@
c! U1
.-
C,
I
-
H
F
z z o
E tl-
tr
o
I
o o (! CL
F
x ut F
cg
J
G
FI
g F -F FT
lo AI
tr)
()
AI
o ol
F
3
I
b
F o E
$
O(U (!:
I
G
E
.! o)
E (U
ID
(g
'5
ct)
c
tr (u
6
o
G
ao
ED
(!
E
.arr
c)
(!
t! CD g
o)
(!
uJ
U)
(!
ctt
o
F
-270-
(\l
c)
\l
lo
(o
F
t
i
F
F
4
E-
Q
o
g H
@
co
(o
o)
g)
o)
o
o o
F
F-
ut
t!
H
E ut
T
:o
o
N
E o
:o
:o
dl
@
{o f\ o)
F
(t)
F. (t)
o
o
o 3
o E
dI
trl
6
dt
qt
@
3
6 o
o
.i(o
CO
gl
Ol
E
!t
T\
F
9^
o o
:t -=F
:o
6o dr=
@
UJ
J
trt
s U)
o uJ
T F
-6{ U)
c)
-
6t c)
o I F
H
z z o
d ir
E ()
9
at
o (u
o. f, I
o s.
F X ut F
n)
o ol
F 1! J
g,
vF -F -
o
F o
(!
F
$ f
CD
E
u>
6 UJ
I
o
.J
r!
ftt
c(d
(6
o
o
o
(!
r!
(g
(E
(r,
G'
F
F
o
CD
.U
(! F
o
;
z E
G
)
C'O
.g
Eb y6 trE o5
a E o o o (U
CE 'i= g! 'io) @O
Nc' OE
o o
E
E
E
CD
.t2
(U
E
o E o
E
c
=
o o
o o o
o,l
(9
t
t4
E
F
o 6
ol L
(\l
nl
E
o o ()
N
u)
t{
z
H ut Ir
o
U
GO
-{' co
.i,
o
o)
.i
F.
6)
o @
t.
l.-
@
(o
o)
o)
t-
F-
d)
(o
@
o
o)
o)
:o
:o
N
N
N
IJJ
(r ltJ
E
6
9^
EX 6o (D3
v= Ef60) ElI
9^
!
o o
EX 6o dr5
o
o
:o
E o
dl
dl
@
o
:o
dt
@
uJ
J
@
s U)
q) tu E
G
o
T F
a)
H
F
z z
(.)
I
G q)
I
d
IL
k o o
o) (!
;
6
X
s o
TIJ
F
tt o ot
AI
F lll J
ft
g F -t F
-
I
o
F
C)
E
F U) o-
6
(E
6 F
F
G
6 F
F
F
o o
=(o
x 6
(t
o (u
o
:
({
0,
F
o
F 6r
3E 9(!
r9
a0
o
L
(s
(u
G
F
c)
q)
o
|E
(g
(U
E
o L
F
(s
E
al
CE
o o (g
(!
uJ
eh
€)
C'
G
(!
LlJ
0
o
(E
z c) rll
o
(u
(! (! F
U)
lu (r
kllJ IL
9E @o b*
#E '6u cc
9o ;2 9-o
" ts :EE
.f;
o-(!
U'L
:E Y{'
HB=
sfi:
Bs* 8sg
3He 3.ge >.F >F (! (E
(UX-
hEg NEI ..EE^ q5:.c
I"F 3; A;E E+
,; E.9
it=+ )
q)
o
ot
U'
,1
€)
d
N
o (\l
J
F
i -cL F5
tso 9o
(!;
6t -4.
=a !p! 9Cl -o (!ll
b9
E
EO o(E !l oo ,.9 _.(U )t cL
Eor
oot b'e
.9
oEi 'i
Yo
8e oo So (Ec (6
5r
o
b9 }(U .6(! >E
*e trcD ;'-o Oi6 :< 6(!
!
o
(L
o jo o.c :(u HE tr,o
;g
P: '92, 822e eE I CD: AE.Y 6 O-(E (E39) r! o:
EoX ar9o oE6
o 5
6G^
a. CL.r!
EbF
J
r!
F
z
Y
C'
(,'o)
E o ot
.!s
lEts
Eo
.sa 6r *10 oE CDE E.! (n=
gE
or! -(E ov
gEs (U:.s Eg.P a :.E (oftt; obE oaf E=O (\-oa!
(!
(!
E-c o= o= ov ooD t,E =E l|tr
93 .EO 2o
t.s
60 RC
'7i' rE8
o
(!
au
E !,
o o
o o o
ao E
o ()
o o o
oo
43. EO g, .6 .:! cL >\E 60 gd o. tt trC EE
g) U)
I
o uJ
F
6
o)
=o 3
(d
E
o E o o
o E o o o
(U
E C)
o
C)
E o E
E
o
.E
o E
o
c
o E @
o
o
.5 ID
3
IrJ
o o lrJ
F
6
(t (t F
rf
to
(o
t
E
F
c)
co
(r,
-273-
t\ ct F
q, c)
o)
F
E
c'
o s tr
U)
UJ ()
zlJ,l
((t
lrJ
O)
GO
t(t)
N
E.
IL
H
o)
llJ
6
3
o
@
dl
6
o
q)
@
o 3
g
B @
o o
jo, o) oo)E
g
:E lg@
o)
o
:
F
t\
o)
o
TE
(o
6 N
N
@
: olcr) oo)c Fl0
FO
o5
EZ oo (!,^ E -qt
qa
(rt
(L
=
o 3
o
rit
o 3 o
>
0-
g
o,
.E
o (u
.E
CE
-l e,l r.
-l
3 o
(U
E
(L
(Jl
|U
(E
q @ r!
.rl
-lGI
(g
o
6
-l
aE
o (E
F
:E
(!
:o
o
uJ
6
E)
G.
o
.!s
z=
ol ol .Hl
au
.! F
F
[U
1l
r-
(!
U' CD
>r lt*E
o
.C
6g 'ia E!
E.E 'i;
oo.:j o>^ .oE.!J
ao= o>^ oE:
e= --.=9 i^= E:!E=F
E:
E
E(U 9-O
9E oo
cltd :^o
oo Fo (q-c
(!t
E=g Ecg
.98 oo
E .Y'
of
.o
oo o= Gv
E.9
59
o
F-€
.FE =Fr b ogg
>co
>r .C oF aEl
clt
EE ttL
>x aoj o>!F: E o-
.9
e= E5F F-=
co6
P:PE
.f -rE EE
EE
^o6
-orU
=FE
E=8 !'EE
E=8
€o to
Egg ena
=6F: ^r
8=q
EEF
FEig ifiEE E EE g tr=g|= oo=E ?
c
.9
C' G'
co
E
-tl
o o (,
= I(u|
6.
(\.
(t
o E
o (!
E
6 o
o)> -=L
-c(g q= G6
c8,
FE lt 'g
FE
?6 od> "
Ioo E9E ov> to-(UE Y-6 E=O oo! urco r.9 o
€EE
FEE
.E€E --o a! Ett
r .9 (Il
.9
= E o
u.l
o o uJ
ts
U)
o)
s F
o
I
F
-275-
r-
o ut 2
N
H
\t
st
g,
o)
o
o
ul
lt
H
(r IJJ
6
t\
F
t-
N
o o
r\
t\
;
;t\
rt
o t
o)
ct)
N
F
F
oi
o)
o
o
c,
o
=N
o
F
Fr
F
o
@
;N
{t\
(t)
(t)
o)
o
o o
o
F
F
5FF-
ul
J dl F (t) U) uJ
? F
2 IF
z z o F o
$ tr
I
o
o
E)
tts
ct (rt
\,
o-
F
x
cq f I
I! F
-F
F
5 L o
F ()
ta c)
E
t6
c
F
tu
U)
uJ
o
d
o
F
F
c
TIJ
o
F
ut
@
@
F
F
u)
6l
c, q0
-
E o. l!
E
uJ
UJ
F
(!
o
G
iF
*o
(g
6
Q)
E
I
L
o
oo €o
;EE 6;>
ct)
iad
[c
t €'E Eo>\
F
OorE
F
6
o-
c rE
Eta
oo
x-o X= +rE
uo
-aU
O-O
.gF
o o
c o o
=(E a (U tt o E o o
3; .u-
o
;;i: .z -E .c(!(D o@c o(E(l'
EY oag
t!
q6 x oEE
ut
!t
._sE;
L-=
o UJ 5
@
(!
ut
ut
F
o
tr
6
:)
uJ
F
x(g
z=
,J
C = UJ
(U
Ec.
€E E-=
gf
XE o
oE o' a!
r
,== 6@
lr
It E (!
o,
=o
o 3
B
E
Eo FE EE
8b
ut
o o o lrJ
F
6
o
F
6l
c)
F
F
o
F
-276-
lo
F
(o
o F
F
I l-
CD
o F
Iz U)
UJ
(E uJ t.L
H
(o
o
;F
o
qt
rr)
o + F
o $
;N
('
@
;N
+
o)
o
c
o,
O)
d)
o)
o
o
o
o
o
o o
F-
F
$ N
N
(t)
o
(o
F-
N
(r TU
H
o
@
Ea
6(D Fr
6o
F-
F-
F
F
F
6.o
u.l
J
dt
s
F
9.
U) TU
F
Ir
u
F-
z z
E IL
e? a?
E
ro
c)
9
o o
q)
t
(u CL
\, cg
F X uJ F
G I
tr
q)
(t;
ro
o t\l
h0
o
o
(\t
F J
o
r.
F C) E F v)
6
(E
(5
a!
|u
g
tu
(o
(t
(! (!
z
zct)
zo)
zo)
ttl
:
z
Y
lr| F
=
(!
lll If
P
F
a6
E
E
(!
o
o t')
6 o
F
2o
oo(! =eE oo6
53.
Etss
-?#E o -7
E
=o
E o
!t ot(E
'Eg
co '=o
Eee E5 ost
oo
6^=
s5f; E3 .sE6 E€
EO o!
q.n =! (!o E=E gE0 8Es 3o g Eb=
o(6 qA
FE; ii sH i:E
'EEs?
.c=o
!-oto
:9; '3sE
(Utro -(Eo) 3=(E raEo
o.
o-
o
EE :oE
|q
xo
o
F
U'
(E
(E
o
o
q)
(! E o.
o)
g
€)
L
'6,
(E
o o
ar)
I
o o ot
@
o o.|
UI
-,\
u)
o (\I
-cl
o9.I (t' -ii
:as
TE 6=
-o
.o
EgE SEE (g0cD
6 o .= C'
g
(U
=(E
o
3
G
;P
4l
EO
o o
.9
gE
E-g
oO Eo! =o CF (U: Hqr L: tt'>
o.(! o:l >Ot ZE 6au !Yo
EA
6F 66
(u
6o-
'tr 3
a9
.E(6 .!o
ll .9 Q
.c o
o
CL
a!
;9 c-
ffC 6o
;e '=o oct o= FO 6(! x(6
ao oE
U)
a 5 o uJ
q =)
.g
o E o o q)
6
o .U
o
E
6
.o
o
(q
r.
.o
(!
E
ll
o o
lrJ
o o o l! F
o
o)
F
o F
F
3l
-aI
4 t'i t-
(\l
(t
It
ro
(o
F
i
F
F
-
att
o
g H
f N
ui TL
6
It N
t\
ot
g)
o
o
o F
o
H
t. lll E
@
o
;t\
rt
o)
(D
o o
Eo
F
F
o
o,
ao
v
ao
sN
F
ot
t
ol
o)
o
o
o
F-
o F
o
o o
F
F
ul J
trt
F th
a UJ
I F
9,
E F
c! q)
u E tr
z z o E o 9
e, c) tn
a o ct o q
tP
6t
&
r(t
F X llJ F
G
f, I
-
(\l
at o ol
CD
o
ot
F -t F
F
u,
J
a o
F
oe _
I
o
(l CD g
CL
tt
€) .P
.v
E
F
(!
d
c'
t!
q0
z
c)
o
cq)
.g CD
g o F
o
F
0 .l
'a c o
ED g
6
E-.3 gsEE
Ef;#i g;$$
gEi;g gt
I
Er'
eH EE !c o=
g o (U
E
o E o o 6 o ut
=O
EE 6f
;9 c ctt
+
!.co
6
!.s orE E.3
89 o
F.
c t\.
g CD
E o o
(!
3_ qr9
o o
5-6
o
;B
= o
6 E
Eb atE
CD
(g
F3 ;..tD
o !t E o
6€i EAF
Ec5 trx.!
.E
o o
(o(J0-
CD
z
L toe,
G a6
lto
co ai
o
Et e5 (!0
5n
(t (!
63 a$ FE a!=
sO
^L(U Ell
o .E
o(U oo
oi
YO |Et, -c .! (!
68
9o g6 (!=
8E
o
(\
(\
O go'i3
€E (6!
6
EE od
9s (E!
€g .E !t
€g -cE
E
o.E
6
oE eE
o
CG.
o
trl! Gto
llJ
F
a!
CD
E o (,
-g g
o
6
z
tE
luo o=
IA
coE)
F
(g
(d
F
6 6
g o
J g
c!
f
(!
a!
tr
G o
6
H
(g
g
g
F
U'
CD
o F
ut
-q, L.
ctt
6 6 ot
o E
o (,
Fc" .;9 (6! EE 6.cE
c
c
-9
E
4t
= ,o
t
E
ol
c'
F
F
(! .=
6
o
o
u o o (J ul
F
@
o)
i
o
6
F
F
ol
ol
F
l-
F
-278-
N
ry
(t,
Iz H
o
@
!f
.r
o)
ct)
t\
llJ
tl
H
Ir rf
o
b
o
!
;
N
r
ol
ao
o
F
F
s
+
F
o o
o)
l'-
N
ot
+
;F
F.
o)
o)
(D
o)
o
o
o
o
o
o
F
F
F
o + F
(tt
CD
o o
o
F
L
6
r!
o
o
o
g dl s o 6 l!
-F aJ)
t=-
cg
q)
t
,a
z z o tr 5 9
u E lL
o
o o, 6 EL
F
xtu I
J -l
3 t
-
o :.q)
@
F
ao
o AI
o ol
F
g U)
o
o) E
F o E
td G
6 6
o,
CD
d
{0
(6
tg ct,
ot
CD
o
o
c
(ll
o (D
o
F
F
(t
o
o
t-
o
o)
E
u2
G
(,
b!
uJ
o
z= uJ
F
6 €)
Y o
IE
(! g
,=
o
E
F
]
I L
(E
o
15 (6 0)! >aE (utr
a uJ E.
kIIJ u-
Eo -o FO -YO
6-9 ocL
aE cDo :0' k6 y,o @:\
tr(U
6EE
-(U0 (! 0-o
E
{!:
es 3 5=o E
A*
-s! .co(5 3) -F
5.Fr
EEE e g€U.EE 9ilu
fiE9 -org (!(9cl-
o
Ed *o Or! PX
=.u otr or
E3 oL _ED
lr= oo
J>r .E(5
o3
=€ t|'A
@
@
5 () uJ
F
6
(U
3 6 o-
.(!
:3
(t
3
!, .c (U.E oo-
o-
(s
o o (! o
o,o;
'=3 dE E(,, (l6
tr*
,rf; =o (E> go
eb, EE -so
g-E
o
.= O
g
t!=o
PHE o(!rl; 49Et
a!
o G
E
EEEF o-tr"
=3
[: trdrE;
ro
EE
o g, o c o
dL.L
;E.-3
(l E
o ct)
=
|!
a od oo
5E 6E 3o (6E fi6
oc r!
Eg xo
o(,' Eo 8.= 6,t
>o o> 60
c
(!
r Ec. 9or
EF
E
@
(\
o ot
F
F
o (r) F
2* xo
(olr
+
c-
E8S; .=EE9 e$*'E a6160c)
o
E
.9o
E
.9o .=(!
o o o
Og
+
E
-6 =c EE
.U CL
?u i:o ob EE oo
@-
-o =o
FO
c
E
3
(lt
oo
aE .= oO
.63
lrJ
o
o o lu
rt
F
ol
ro
(o
AI
U)
h
F
F
N
N
sF
-279-
(t F
o,
tt t\
o,
u)
v)
t!
F a E
z zo L
GI
c
a (t 9
-€q4 -F6t tr
-t -l
F
c =o x(D ESt cLg
@o (r3
-280-
@
a o rgt
o 9'} o r!
B
.g)
'o IIJ
F
lnl
-F
= zo: tr qll (9
t'
$
6
J(
cl
'A -l I
FC
X p =-
a-I
a {1, tl. .I
u1
4, ,cli
fJ .-ttD€ E
e
€D
EI
-
Fl
(J,
L
E$ E5 itE EE xo @6 => dE
gE EE FEi @.!D
Itd
*$
-281-
i
t: | s !s Ili13.! II oi i'E ig I Nll.}:cIG I r.: iH
I r) :u I lo lo !9
li -
I |
|I @
:6 iO
I
ic
IE | ,
iE :o
|-
i.e
I| a ? | !
ts
@
:E :c ,o :E i6
-*
0
:o ig
z
j
o o)
'J
:o
E N
F
-@iN
io
o
:F
:o :a :=
E
o
r-'l
_jo itD o o :!
=o c)
o 6
tv
z
i:
t--1 | ;3'I
+l
i8 i3
+l
B
ie
N N
@
o
F E
o
i;
o
!g
t
io :o :.=
:t
p i8
+t :.9 o i3 N a_o
!g !>
i!
t v)
io :E :6
@
E (s E
E
= o 6
Y
N
(J
-:o lo iG :J
F @
q
N
ir
E
:d ic -l 6t :3 :o :o o z :E
6
o
3 o
o
z
e
F
F
-!!
o o
6
E
6
6
3 -!P
Y
o o
E
G
o
6
ol
-l
io io i^
|
Ir io :o io !3 io ie io io iFl
-Ex Y g I
--i
c?
o
6
iF::
Q
N ct
-_i_ -) ,! N ir A :o
\
+l
$ ie$
a
a
+l
TI
=
+l
o
o N
*
c
;6
I
i.i5 :o
!9
r i;El
+ , o
i_8El
iL
-i
i3
Ii
git
id i>
o o 6
!E ao
o
- i.8.-l i€3 :o ;tra ; iE sl-l I i: 6 ieel I lsg 6 * iiEl io< q :i itE'l i-E 3 El-
!oE -:o-q iod
r'E i9t iie E ;EE iE= o g;39 io: :!
E
-iEi;gl
E ig€l ! i a trl E iEEI
s :5 gl U ii,r.El ii€o:lPl :F
EI
-282-
(?
o
z
o
F
!
o G o
= E E
o
o (! a
o o
(L
o J E Y
B; o
_l etIo
EEo o: o F: !
cl
iE iG :@ !6 iq
iE
N
+l
N N
o!
o o
i= !o ia to to
is :o :o ;6 :o !c
-i3
ie i€
_i 3
!N :o !>
N
:-5
ie z io. o
F i-i= cO
:g;
o
jg".
o
!oJ
q
G
3
-9
o
E
E
(t
o
t-
q o
E
o
i$E
iov
:EI? :FC
iEP
q N
+t Al
ut
z
q o
o o
ts
o F
o
(o
-q
+l
o
+l
o N
q
G
o
G
@
o o
@
c
q\l
i!
3
tr)
€r 8j6 o-t
o
GI
o 'bFCo
-eEE
o 6
@
G
xr .=I !S o
a
N
io
:e
o
,or ;: -Cu
u! N
+l
io ;c a'E :o
E
6o
;Jsl
,!
F
+l
ql
z
o o o
!p iF
ts
'oJ t
6
a 6 o
A,j
iz
,E
:E
isFl iiEl
-iq
o 6
:o i3
-':
o
Gl
a'
ci +l
;6
z
I
ig !6
o
l9 i6
:F o o
g,
io if
o ts
qq
io
o 6 E
t- iEbl :^=l
@
:E
,?
(o
io i-
@
e :c io
@
o
I ts
!c
+l
q
ie o i(! o iF o o id
o @
:6 ;E io !o i> f'E io iE l>
-o t TI q ig @
N +l
ic
igE :T E] E3 -----.1 _(t :! ::€l i:,Yl !? i tr El E io;l 6Y
io ii6 io
ir :F
q
+l
.io
i;9
(') iJ lE -io
\ +l
o 6 o
N
!6 iE io :o
3l ol
ip
@
i9 I:
F I
@
iE
o
F
ie io !a
1o
!o :E i6
:€E := o
i: it
:@ JE
o
io i;
!64 iE 6' ;>c ici iG-
:o i> io
;o
z
a(! iE :o
0 @ o
io :tr !G
N
I
:x 6 :s +t icF
i='
:o t>
io 8
a li
:g :o ic ;o
io
+6 i3 i2
:o :o i= ;o io :6 -----o ;-c io : 'c_-_t
o o o
F
its
IE :6 i:6
@ @
{q
_i:E
1-
-;
ID
!6
ib -----io6 :.! i3 :3 j-g
o
:G
i;ic
-.o iq
N
i-o to
___j
;6 ix iE :o
!
6 e
:
i:i: !>
ID o
i6 io lo
i.-s
i'-
:
N
|::; II In
io :q
t4
!o
a o o o q
I
n b
io icr
6 a o
;E !=
tF
to
ot
HA I ig
I N lD:| @
@
;'tt
6
:q :c
J(a
r^
!o
ts iF, I i€
iE iF
iE || -$ i: iB l; ig JE
ls |
;5 :q
I r I -'c
(o
itr ;o
l:
s.
q o !
= --
;
6 o
(t
=3
E 6 o o
o
CD
o
.E
o
E
F o
o
E
g f
t
o o
(v
6
E q
.c q
;o
o 3 o o
ol
o
o E
l)
o
o
J
o
E Y
o o
o
-9
g
a 6 3 o
o
o
6
3
E
q E |! q
F
F
t! o o
o
t
!:
v
C\i
13:
4 o
t: l@;
o a
6
l:
:o
!> o io 10 io ---.i E
idi o ;o) o
[-- : l.iR l$i9
:N
(a
z "l 0
U Fl
q
o
-ig ;o
+l N ci
o
io i=
idl
to i-
;
;g :ts i-g !o ,a !o -i$
ut
+l sl
o
; 1l
iz ;v !F
o
i=
@
J
N
F
s]
o o
-g
+l
,;
io io i=
q
tl rli
z
-1 i io o
q
r-'!
o o
n rl o N
6
o
+l
F
N
qt
E Q
6 .9
e
z
o
6 Eo
lo i@
-ir
;9 :!
a:i Ni .iiY
o
B
o
!t
= ;ol o N ;ol io i;liEl
F
o
o 6
:61
i'l iol
B
o 6
1l FI
:61 iiil iol iEl iol
o o 6
iFl
;rl ;FI
;
o F. +l
:!@
t\l
6 E q
o
i:
ld ig
i€
o :s !o
::x
!o q\l ------;
F
+l
o
s o
6iz
o o oo J4 -
oi oi h: g,; =,i
.E: o:
L:^
f;
-..: . i6ie :F
5
F
o
P
o
t
cvi
:
3 o
:
o
(
2tFl o:El Fa-l
igl
v: F:
iol
i
o
€
o
o o
o
o
e
thI
FI ul
iFl
-283-
iEl i!. !;l :(01 t=l
€ ;=l 2 iEl o
-g
o 6 d
3 @
E
G
o o
F
oi
ibl
o
F
iel !-l
i8l rol iot
!Et !ol
:@
I
1
o
i
I
I
e o
o o 6
i
!'l igl :ol lxl
o
F
E
!
5i
;h jo)
It! :
ic io
E o E
F:
_: o:
il
iE iX i5 ir iF -! io t=
tz io :F
i.e tq
l6 tg o
io
;tr
oc
,ol
:tr ia io ;61 itl
i^el i-l
isi< !E i6 lo) ic !F -tE !g
o (o io :o i6 +l itt ia io
8 N
,E :G io
io io
l.s
i.e iF
:';P
i9 ao
i> :G lo
io i9 iz io I iF ;.= D i5
j't
ig :e
io iG ;o
iJl l6I
iEl
iEl -iE bl !o el ;ltl a) i= oi .El io€ -o 9i EI rE* zi EI z =l v o: :l9l P el o iog ib Fi = 6l EI -l 6l i gt jgE -ct ET
-i
@
gEi gl a-fi'f ol1l ol il:tl il
FI
o io
io
is t.g I!
:e
q i=
is
8l ol .6: ol --l ol ; ci o sl oee:6i ]l e€ 3l il =: 3l o6 OG EI fl EI EI EI EE gl od
o o o
+l
:o :o ;6 ic :o !o a6 ;o :4
!el i4l
:l3l ol el ;l
iFo
i6
io ict t(! b :E I6 c\i
:6
3 itl 9l ol
F o o
I'-
:!t
iF iE :ts ia t6 i0 :(o
.l JI
o Io
io io io iED
to tb o ot
iE io
ot
!l
io lo lc iE Iu
!
!o lo :o
i:' ls it;5 io i6 i.o
toi l0: l6! tci tot 16,
!*
a
E
io :t lc io ir io
it
(\l
l6
I
:P
l=_ io
t!
io iF ;o
l*'
'ii-sE
o
E
o
o: o: oi
l"
@
€
ol -iEl!el ol ol -: .ga 3l _Eigl 6iol ol E: ol E:91 5:
sisl iol :51
ib io
o
I
oi o: z:
I
a
=3 o a xo
t@
I
i9 iZ
l*
io io ls !o :6 ic
I
Itl
l6 je
i lJ) ao
l- i8
lo o to IG
j---_.:
ia :o
o,-l N:'-l
o
o !
EiE
8:tr
z
o:i c =: o: o:
o
o
!
€ ci iEi
>Fi
E
E
l=s
II
io
F o @
!@
!a
i2 io iF
E
(q
gt6
9:El
so 6
(D
:!
i6 ie :o
ol
q
:o fo :6 :o !> io
j-
o
i> lo :o
it it!
ih iE ;(! !o ie
t!
i&
I
o
a
+t:l
o
*6
G
:
:o :i6 > io iF
ti
G
d
-iRi5 ^:*ig
!e IO
:F
3
.s
o
E
+l o;
io
!
q
E
g
o q
iE
I
:-. :o
!6
IE a6
;e :o
i !2 :o
!o !,= 'ic i-IO ;o :o ;G tio
r.g
g
o
15 i= :G i8. ir
io
E
@ o
i8 !6
i(o 1-V
i8. ir
o
a
.;
i6 :G
:J :o i'=
-'i o :or I :o o
+l
i6 !o
AI
i3 !o| g
li ie
l
@-
i?,
;c
I'
i= :o io iE :6
co
a
i5
ti
iE :F
6
o
. E
:o
+l
+t iNit qli3 i! ig !o :o to
i5
o
N
:q
1,! :o :o
o
cl
is
i
o F
e
i9 io
E
c
Q
F
i.e
ci
:o
;> i(! io 'E ;d
(p
z o s'
i.s i'= io
o rO :c
ol
q tl
:F
o o
z
io iE i6 !c
c
o
I
i8 i8 l8 is !q t:
6
@
t:
iE
tx t@
d (g
H:g io
;E
'1,t
ls
!q i6 i> io io le +i:
t;
i6
t!(o l;ts
a i@
ig
@
q
lSi l-i-,
i-. iN
o i @ !o N to}
GI
I s
i:
:l iiit' iB io} t3 iB ln !9 -c 1- i3 io io
to
o' 0
n i N o ! d n io ao o :o, :c
FI
FI
ivo
!9s
G @
o
i;s !o9
iFi
ig:r!c !66
ieE IF
E
ti
t: li*' I i
I| |
o)
N
o q
13i6' l-i: l:ro
o ()
H
O
l:o)
loif
13i5 l-;f
o €
lr:F
d
t':o lo!C'
:6
t@
t1
iF' :ro io) io)
I
@
t-ij: l::G
J
;= i:!o
v J F
t+
:+ ;o
o
:o iz io iF
E
! io :o
o
\
N
t
+l
:d
F
-.1nis :'i
o @ $
=
;
o F +l
o .N q
N ot
0
B
z
8:; O,'O
6i! o:61
-i
iol :ol
o
o
;
(l
e
il
N;tl:>l
i€l i-l
a o 'g F
c
3
;
.9
o
i;=l =i9l Ji-l _-tEl
Viel 2irl o:gl L;Ol 'tOl
--i=t :xl ;vl
i*l
5:;l Ei3-l siEl
eisl :lDl
ifl
;o
:6
i* !.Y
i
o
ol
;
;c
E Y
o-
i9.
:= :c
a@
i'6 iE ;o i'r ib i> !q
o
RI ol
il
ul
;E :x :0) i.tr
z ;E o :o
o
-!! el FI
@
N;
f
|
F ;o 'i6 :e .9 i6 i; = o
E
o
iP
:G io
io !Fl
o
E!
&o
o
oi Gi Oi
o
o:
o
o:
^: o:
ei rior: oj ai =i E: o: s!
2i o: F:
i
! !
o 6
a
c
o
o/ ol ol ql
il 6l
_i5
i.s
F
c6
o !g F ;O
ol FI
E! o: o: o;
ol cnI gl 6l 9l FI
-284-
E
i:e
F iFE 5 iFF 3, ic F iF>
iE
lE
E ieio :E
\ ; +l \
io :Y :(!
t-:i :;cs * tN
i9
N
!o ro
+l
I
G
I
o
i:E$E
o.
F
sio
o
;;9
i l
;rt
z o F
S;
efl eD
-iE
.d€
EF
EE
io
a
;
ig io
E
6
E
; o
3
o
E
o
c
6
Tl
Zl ol FI
E
;
Y j
O
icE I !FOA
o
o
E
#€iFgg
=o
F o e G o o o
-iE65 Od ;E EE -] ]eF odl
'
6
76
p 6
s
g; cPi o6 EEi4.E€ 6gi d€
36
E
:o .i 6 io
i6
Fg
i€e r@-
oo
E-E
o
Y E
:o io
E
E
:F iEsB irEE
EO go
o
I6
I
o co
s iF5# E ;c 8i E i*;EE
E
E
iE
v = r: E :v60
E
]
P
iE
6 o (! o
o
c o o o
!6
I
c
to
i't
l'
6
F
o !
.9,
:: ti
$ iggf:;
E i€E !F r!
i=
l@
!E ggo is-e =Eo
iF
o
+ q
iE
E iEE'"co
fi
a
:o
l* .ioio
5
E
N
li
lE:;i | - is t: iEE
6
:>
irli
€
F
i6
lSi€E : It ie€ ie 5s
I
+l
iE'
rge lcIIl'
| :
D A
:6
g
-=6
:o
i.e
l: if:H{ ls IJ iEE
*aq
;n
o id 't is Z iE
li
:=
-iEEe ; xQ io !c 9 E!
i:i
:U i6
i+ io
E
5
E iE i€
-:^L
ie
l@ l@
iE g G ||-!o- ;E I
o
E !E 6 i8 iE
; iJi_
|I "
6 (! o
i6 i! !o
_i4iE *^ 43 !o
l.
lE it$ I C ic'E
I
=
=
g
!f
o
i6 c:o. o is (g iJ F i9 ;:Y E :E
t I
>
t-i.9
6 o
ic
+
|
i!o. i6 JO
tF
I E igE
o
6
ic
.. iUF -*F .e! d;l =l 5 ing @l a: oi
t; t;o
iE
G
5
lo
R:3 o ;o
E
lP=
i6 I :; tg I| ;E :=iE.e"6 lo ls :6 l.e
+r i5 ;
:.= :'6
o o 'b ol
io
io;c
:o
::
I
;
i1t
6
E G
:..: io
F
rG
z
ie
c
F
a
a
o
E
o =a
io io
:g
f
z
(g
o
o o
U
_IE
6
Y
G
EG o
G
a
g
.=
-(t
r' o
G
o G
OY
N= tr-5 T
z
Y
o
i
=
6
E
6 o
F
;t :.o :ai i-
o
so
izI
zI
6
o
g
io :o
o
ao ..i a
Y
o
6
Y
3
;t
c
o @
3
=
+t
=;
E
o !i N o
o
Y
G
o
o
o
=
o
G
o
E
o\
3
3 o
=
G
o o
o
io
(t E Y
;s ir ;o
@
o
iEH i9&' : go
(, q o
;
iiYo) >-
i-g= E :F5 E ihg :96
.E q.
E
G
6
o F
!tre
o
5s N.=
r'5 T
z =
E
a!
|! c
g,
I
z
-287-
o
o
E
N.=
o o o o o
r5
z
E
o o
o
E 6
=E 6
@
o
F
q o g
!
>9
o o
a
E
o
o @
o 6 q
=6
o o q
o
;
-g E 6 @
F
o q
o
o
(! 6 ! F
= g c o
e a E
E
-- c
r';f
z
.c
6 F
o
ct,
c 6
o
I
o
o. E
€ o
o
F
OI
:o o 6
E 6
'6
o o
G
E
=
o
6
(!
o
.c
o
E
o-
z
E o o o
z
=
=o q 6
G
3 o
-
6 o g
o o
T
o o
o)
'-o
o
N-=
t o g
CD
1!-
=
o
.9
J
6 a x o o
o
o o
-= = (!
E
5c
o
N
I'
-tt o
= c
3
Eo c a
o I
o
(t
6
=
|q
;
!
-9 6
o
o
5e
7
E
tGa
+l
.9. 6
^91
66
-E
.E
o l_
Eo
=.8 6.E
@
o F
o o
q
c
io 5 .y :5 N= ;E
i'
;v
c(!
E
6
!
= 6 o
o t!
ID
@
o
'6
o o o
o
=3
-.i
o
@
.9) E
$
\
o f
(D
o
o
B
= -:rGE
= o 0 $ I o
tg
i= + i= :0) io
3 o
o
;c
0
o
+l
a
ol
G
oq
o
ro
;
;E
; .f
a
o E
o
o 3
3
o rb o .D
o (t
tir'
o
o o
o)
!,
fl o (D
(D
{iti
6 E (l
6I
o €
o
i6 i> +e
:
o)
!t
.E
.io)
.c o
E 'n
;6
o
o o
=q
o
io
o
z
I
o
i=
iF
o o
(o (r, {id
:o
@
iE
I
F
X -Ftst
c
:# :G
I
6 F o
o
:(!
f-
z
ct
o) 6 t (!
_.: g
I
a
o
i.e v)
;q
ot @
N a
N 6
(, (D
:o ;> :o io :6
t;
6
@
iE
ls
@
.o
:o :!
I
lj
0 o
a o
it
l,
3
=o
;
-!P
o
0
=
E
o o
o o 6
o c o
;
o
'
-g
c
E
o E F
:o iq iE
!E :E
0 o
o o
o N
a
i-o ic io ao io
@
I
rio'
@
d (t o)
@
o co o, 6 E
z
E
G
o
i6 :o
E t!
i:E :o ir! :3 io 1.9 ts i'6 :o io
o
]
E
io E
G -l
!
I I
@
i= i:t
U
J-1 F
i* 'io iot :o i> i> !o
=
* I
v- .
-
!E io
o
FI FI E
:> :o io io ;o i3 io t'=
=3
z
-6
g
a
G
p 3
a
c o
G
'
('o
z
o
U
o c
o 6 E
?l
o N ol
o N
o
+l
F
'=
I
': '= o
o c G c
= E
I !
o
o
E
o
E
o o o
F
.12
] I
o
o
zc f, o;
T
z
8ts
o
{
c tE
t!
c
(\l
OF
-z
-gt
=
2E t(! ov
;
o:
o
EF F,= d6 OE FJJ
I
o
E
3 o
= o
o F o o
I
o
f
c
! I
o 6 q (! E F
z
-g
7 .9,
(g
o o o ! o
s
= ._g
o
= E
IE
(D
a
(E
G
x
o
E 6
r>
a
t(! q
o
3
-g
o
(E
= E
o
@
ts
-!!
o o
a 6 3
o o o o o (! 3
o
-g
E
tr
cl
o o
o
o c 6
o o
q
o-
!
E
E
'=
o (D
€
'0, .!l
Eg ?E 8 fiE
E
4E EO Eo
E
FE
€4 Fr EU
€
fi :E
;
{E F F5 -,o 5 Et =.= qfEE
G96c
EEEE
EEE: tocE
s i lFs
-=.
!
-9
o
o
a o
T
di
E(D
oE,
=E
o o @
3
o q
.=
Ee
+l
.g
o
q
i
(U
=
F
.c
o
s tt
o '6 .9
6 o
J
.9
o
co
.9
6
o @
o
c
1J
b
fit
E (!
.c
'=
o N
i o g
o
o)
o
6
-9
G q
.c
E
o a
I
@
(E
=
z =o =@
o ot
i3 ro i> ig io
o
E
o I
6 o E E o o E q
:riJ
o
o
-9
!: i6 jtt !o iE
€o
o
o
i3
JQ g
€
q
!O 13 :t :o
U)
N
0
rb o o)
;
:: o o
el
@
a
I z
o o E ts
o
=o o 6 (!
3 o 6 a
EEFF
Cg:* !EEf 6EEE -eB:E s'g €*
$5-q'. $qEF EEFs
Eii! [EEg
s'$?E
gs;€ 5SEE FSov
-288-
IE
II
:E
l--l
3
i
I iE Iir
i:
l5 i.g
-i6 !E io
ls I:;E
:-s :!
i';
ig
F--------+ o
z (n
o
I iE f--: I :E
iE :K ;E
Fl
:6 io
F
I
iE !E |--E :-:
|I
z F
v H
-
o
E
:t
I
o
i= :E
o
;s :d !E
F
:j! !c
+l
Y
o
!9 :o
U
0
o
E o
o N
@
II I I|
i# i6 lrri
l*' i3 ig
lo t6:o
i:6 io i'd ,t
c
I o
:
o
o a
!r: :o
E
i=.4 ixo
tr
iFs
&
| :J =r i66
o g
g
O
=:< oo 6,E Fp Y9l
9E
-a
€;-
6= 63 9q EE ;6
o
rio
F
V
a.
E
o
:G
iE
lo __--.i g
=
6:E
o:o oro i=
r !: E
--i
a
.q
^6 E5 g9
N
ieo
iN
F
tt-
F
Y ia
Y
a:d
-!p
o
!x
tr .5
.F€ ao i.E
EE
8-
io xo o => U.E
9d s.: -c
EJ
is?
;i?ix=
iEsl i 6gl
i EEI
cl
iEsl
:5El i >Ll
iE 9l iobl i o-l
|F
E[
=oI iE rl t!
iggl :g=l N
: 6 --l I =31 E9.l
:!9sl !=ol
.-EFT
;L
_r*;ix.e o o : ok o si ' =F=i-gl 9i
6 o
l'E
;E iEG :sE iE*
i 6'tl
i!
lg
:c N;E i=
-__t
iFE
-1
;.8
o
F;I 8-
F=l
'o
I
o
)E oE EE
d>l o 6i
6 J
:' iF :=
I
o
F
Y
iBgl !iF! el 9l
iGol
iEtl
!€El rt E5 is€l d6
*e 96 igEl F9 EE oE 8- iEEI !s6l
F€
!FOl
!60 !FO
iEU
i es
I
iEE
i5 sl
iEE
!.!a€ jEe ir i
iE
ifgl
F F !5f ;; f; 'tEl i9
rocl
ado "ii
;o
>l
to
G
ir6
iis E;l ol
IE
;3
i5
:,E i!* !'=
i*
I
rEEl €.=
I
|
iE
N
+l
lo
i e
ot ttc ll -l 6 6l
e8l
o=l a!l
ie
:o
F
F !.e :c
5 El
E} dE Oj
>o
sg
6
o=:a;
tr
i)
aal gl-
5_a
:!
:o
:E
G 6t -- ol
99
:EF
i6
R-91
iE.> ie'6
ol
i;s i>-=
c -l
I
Fp
I
!8
E€I
El
'!og'6 i :EY 5E
E$f-i
i
oi
E*l
€ Fl
EE i
EI E:I !gl 6 E
T! ri El oi E Ol o>l :a: "i c.s
:
E ;.1 -o el o N lo
Tr 6l
E+
55 >€
---i oi
:
Q!
€E bE >!
;=
-o 65 6; €o o.: 6E xt =o
:
!X o= co :6 gs Os so
:E : g.b 5i -89 dlo I
Ji
Pi vi
Eo>
:o :o ig _-1o :c io i€
ioY i! ib'E -.:'6 i< o:6 i:.e i:Y -B -iE >i c
i e a o
-r-----1 6iq
iG
c i5
iE; :o:
i! I6
E
ft
o o :o o GI !- >
j
Ylcl
o
;d
io
i€ Iq I l--
iE o D iq
i-c :F
8E€i
I
;o i3
ic
,d;!
Eo .=c F,q -:
.2
o
I
:@ ia
| I
!E i6
o
N
so: iF xio E i-a :o -__.i 6l=
F
l$ t; tc
::< !c l9 :d
;: o
IE;E t:o
6
:9, s ie I|[_jc i5 io l3 |lo +t :x til iE I| -'E i5 lB .it I IO ic | ;rs [io !E I-:o :> |
ol
io
l.i3 tg!'E
ii
o
E .iiEs +l io
E
9
E 6 o
+l q N
iE
o
v
o
!E
o E
i9 io IO
!e i6
i> :s i^
iE
|
G
!& it --: 'i9 io N
l3 :S iE lrr t-:v IR iE f:o
I licl F-:
iG ic
ai i'6
lgiE lEi*
;G
F
;
D
3
lE i:
i.g
tFi-
-it
o
|tio+i3 :i I ie :b' |
f------E
o
o
ts
t F I:E
v
iE io iB
o r :o o i6,
i8 iE :'6
ls l+t
E E
P
,li
ie
,'6
i! I|I :3 is l--.i: I iE
Y
6 ;-o :c i.g N iF o o
F
* I o IC:X .g
o o
lF i9
o I:Y
6
;o :o :o :P i-
!.=
fi
ibtrl iBr-sl
I
;e ^l -iF iEEI i6nl ioJl
d-
E
6
:g6l iFEi i59l
3 +l
-i3:l
g=E
fi!EEI
s€F. !o-x o= *ic!r (!io ol
i: s.E B:3 Ei b El ii\:o EE E *ieEl :! J otl ri -io E SEE riit.El io ih !; :q
'iio r !6 :cL :o icr ie !o
=EEI io!l
3 -o
+
@
:ol iol iol i-l icl
iEl iEl
!:l i=t
esl
iE el
;bsl
iE:l
i€€l
:-l iol :bI
i
-.i 6 +l
iEEI
$
gl iH :-€l
,
iEEl .JgEI : o ol
; c -l
i6l odq :31 EP ;s El i3l iol c@ i O ol :=l ?4 :FI isl E€ g6 i: Fsl o ol iE EI iFFI
II F-=F
:c
ig
i iE
iB ie
li
€
6
z J
o U
J F
vp H
v p Fr
z U
6
i3 !o
a
e o o N
o
@
o
+l
l* iE l--E Il__--Eifi
a
l1i.s Itao
l*Y ie tH;5
ls ie t. IE i::E l9;g tii€ tHiai I -]ioiaic l---: l=i: l@
;F
ti
IT la ta
a: :Y
t{
t-
ao !> ;o :o :o :o
I
lEir tNi€
ia
iE is i5
Nio P!! aii __io!+
-= i6'
l;(! oiG
:o
l3
:3
::i
:c ix ;o
if
io
ct
+l
':N
N
T
ao
il: i-
-icE ;t5 s.E
i! -je i.ee
E
o D
i!E
+l
s iE*a ' :t _iE.e
o t)
(o
o o al
;s> i G'6
;i:: EE 9! f9
fr;i:g T E,i.E g aciRF-
a-o o-S 3Y '=o o:
€€i;c sEi5 a
c.
a p6
G!!b
i>
iod o E (! !
o o -!9
clI
o -g
o
o
G
o
o
F a; go
8iE
iEE
igE ids
6 E c
o!t! ta___-j:o t :F :o
'il E iE# i9 ? i3g
.E
e o a o 9
:(! io
iz
:;EI
e iar4 : E 6l
|
irsl
:;
(6
:o
B
:G ;o
o:sl ::cl 6iEl
=t
Ei E€ .go E5 =! 6; o igFl SEiEE tro f iF El o F:91 i$el :61il 6 i-ol F€ ia;l o :'r bl ri9l 6loo c6 ! .14 h:ol u;fi| .E e is 51
;I _i
iril
:.961 !.ll
isE
I
' i5rl
o
i=El
i6€l sl i6 9t i€=l ----+: ;P€I
= :6;l 3
=
iipl
3
Y
:i€frt : o ol
i$tl giFr| s
-'iogl ic ol ;F OI
o
I g
.9. q
G
B
t6
= Y
|
i€: iE;t ia!El I
-Eel
I ioEl 'F'tl
islrEl
:EI tiel ei9l
o ql i€ al EiEI ol c _al iEl --.1El -l e 9l' ol :EI iEel FI Ol n=l S;EI Brl 3:E iBEI 3i icEl !ii '--El c9l6l *i:l l
iE;l
o-i EEI o 6l
-,€!i -i
:3;l gi
ii:l
: =ol
iF{l
if El
oi oi ai =i
.:El
o*l o.el
-i=t'B;sl
€i;l
Ei*. tl g:el EiEI c frl F gl :FI F.:l s-
= o o 6 o G
E
=
6
@ o
o/ ol ol ol ol
;ol o ol iol ; OF 6€l ..iol oFl GJI
3 Hl
.E zo gE 6S 9!
F# 'E oo !o o^
.E
.gs
ir,, ::B (! oi6 F!
!c.9
.d
.9
6
io; 5 ioE
igf iF.9
q;J6 EA
lo rO
frii ri*
!ob i(!t, !! x
ip ;8 ie
;6
F
;-j
r4:o oiE +l;r
i.s
-E
io !!
#:E 6i!o
!o :> io -i!o{ ;E
c b -.j :o> lpE
A=
;= !6
iE
!o :g :o io
i o-
ii- E';q .olI'6
iq :J :G i=
a,;6 i@
+t ih c?!6 a!E :E oi qi.c qi; hio Yif o i3 q!* ol.E
::
!o
+r
to:J
iE
:o iG
is
| lo
iE
:o
E: lfi is
E v) f-l
'-r
@
:E
lH |-
fr
iE io
,o
iE
I
I| i= !E le;9 INiE
i
1
.Ec
60 -qg qt
FA
?i t9a
E: gE €E 'EEE
E E
E
:;G
6e &@:
.sFa $= E o:o
.s, xod
g
gt
:o =E:" 89E 060 9EE-
;!€ Fi: E;E
!.!PE
fiE$ >i,9
H:d 9;6 ocoS g=t
=*e E;S E5I at
EEi gl -89!
E+ o -el GE.] sl EI sl {-c
3l ()Fde o
-cl FI
:8o
(o
?OE oEo Eg: =6q
;:
5E
-294-
#
cx oo 9c c
tili
o
€
|t9.
I
b 6
o
o
o )=q
(t)
\3 U 'o
z J a
Q
ri
F
)€ ao
o
oo
z
)F O
L-
II
!g
l:9
i:if;
II
is q
o € o
o
-9
{
t?
o 6
o (!
!
6 o o
@
o
= o tE
o
! F
=tro o
6
G
E N
lRi "l trY =o
i
=o!
o
[;;
l€Fts6O
do NO o9 E
tooooo looooo
i
Eg
E
o 6
o
G
p o
@
]
gi dl o:
6 J
ol
6
o o o
6
o
:E iq
o o
.,ir i € F! iE (r.Y;
sd:= O
u,
i9
'ai
r: ?4
gE
i
NO
i
o a G o
a
E !s
P i€.r E :E;
I iI9 ; +:
g
o
E E
o
q A
N
o
o
o
o
6
o
d]
ci 6i
q>
s5 c^ -L
'F
li
@
i
3
(o
t:
F. o)
e
t: l!
t F
o
lit!
=Y F
6
li
rl
o
@
o (! (! E
o 6
o t o
o
+l
(s
+l
o
F
o cl
F
lo: lFi l+l
i
oi (o:
i
o
!
6
i
o
:
6
d
o
(o
9'6 OY
0
:
(o
o
q
'=E
p.S
g_e Y'E 60
Aio oZi *l:
F.
F
5e 3E: t.8
t
-@o 6A
g€ o! CF
6P =€ CP F.
:
x: tr: oi bi o!
^i (t)
bE eB
o .:: 6O :E
9i Ei cci B9 >'e i xo :'6 oY 3F
AF
(!! =i
6o >=
.g';
:s' 6R 9
ol:
o: Ei
N N
6 a 6
Ej. tg
.EE o.n EO 6g o.9
o 6l
@
o
(o
-295-
F I
E
r!
-!9
CL
tr
o q N o
o
F
a
G d
o N
CI
, g
o ol
{
o
o
ol
E
(r
o
E N N
I tr
6
(r
(g
J
oi o .i lJi 6i 9i oi
o
CL
c o ol 3 o oo xd
E!6
=@ oi
:
iE -lEE b ic.i i5i+ o;ct
@ @
l'N
z
E
if
ari
o o
=c o
E3
(r
o o t\
N
z
o
d JC'
(r:
(! N
oi
t,'i Ni
g
C\i
i i
F
=o o
o
-o o: ?ii
!e
o
E : :
@
FE
.i,
dl
t!
PE
;o'
Fh
:
oi
nO
xo
(6
o
gP
Y
o
o
o o
I
;f
6r4 E.:
tr.i 6i 'vi
dt @
i
i
----------
ot
o
o
.=
c
N
o
6
o
'a
t
c
o
o
oi ol:
o
o c
@
o
6 o (! a
G
9'6 OY
'aF t'E oo -r 60
i:
o
o
6
o
a o F E
c> =? e5
o
oooo
ti
o o
G
.gi >-=
oi
.g't
::.F
z
E o o .=> >=
6+:* Nq€o aoNo
li
E
Aci;
ol
>-
--E
:@
j
i
oi >i oj
c9
5o
6 Ol
AtsOatso! 6@66
!
i i
T:
ti
-g
E_E
o o
E
IE
G
o o o
looFoo 19€-tst INNO@O
.E
TL
G
I
@
o
o
t: It
CD
i
fr
o
= a
o
l*' lol
tr N
N
=
Y
o
E
e a
q
to l|o
(E
0)
a
o
o (!
N
N:
irs io
o@ NO qo
:o
;6 io,
:6 iE !t!
!E ;6
-.!>
-i=:b ;;
io iE iJ !o ic ;o i'u :o i6 io i;:o i6 i!
o
z Fl vt
v N o
rlr
b
iP ;o io .io
q
i9 i v:
o
z
ts
F IY
rl o
o)
E
r0
s o o o
lf E ioo ibo
:E-:
o
v)
E
::F
o
EE >dl
=.o 3+
z
.ga o> AL
EE
E
n o E (!
o .!t
t E
o'
v
(r (r
I o
J
t!
tg
o
!'=
6E
*r E;I Eb E
? I
Eo
I
Ebl s6l
R! vol l
8gl ]=
-cl
|
;EI
F;I 3:
o'E
fsl
I I
o o
CF
P
o a
o
o o o o
o
Y
G
E o
N o
a
g$i xol ogl H6 s5l
o
N
90
5g
io
E
=o o
E E
o a
G
o
o
!= E o
o
o
ioo
:-=
iEEI ; "€
6S TN 3@
|
E5
iEol
6
(!
F
E: o=
;6 9s
iEbt i+Et u6 ii9ol ;ioEl i5
e o 6
-!t E
ul
u,
@
E
ct)
U'
o a
G
Rt
T
oo oo
t!
(!
}P
tt
= i
EUJ
EE
I
e€ F3
|
O. I
o ro
z
-297-
ID
o
j
-s6 ai
iE'fl i *r
: 6.9
6
E
(!
oc (!6
|
i50l i F
o
o N
G
g€
|
r-o
o
oP
I
o
o
gE
I
s
6
-, G i
ioo!9a
F
F
g o
=';
o
o o
(E
:eql HF Eo
! oo
o o
6
o o o
(o
J
3
E
;.9rt :€o
3i
To
iG
I o
az
OF 6@
oo
iEE iE;
6
I
@@
o
i
G
6 o
i< :o
iEF too
.o
Eo GO o6 s3
6
itr
;
0a oo
0 a o
,b N
-o
o
io
ieS iF3
o
o
6 o F i> :o
i=
:8
o
i o9 !EO i eO :.=a) : i =o 5N i,o
o
o
!J IE
:! rO a6 E
a
@
i= is
iF ig
:6 :> i(!
o a o
@
it:o
;i
ic
o 0
a
@
if :G
:o ---.i h io iE ao
;o:
o (,
@
a a
:P
;o :E
-i
A
:u iG
r-E IE
to
s
T
@
6
;>
i_3
:c
ig ra
G
U
tsN @a QO NO
i> :6
c)
(D
oo
iF :oi -i :6
-!:oi o!
s
o G 3
oo o€ €o d@ Ob@
i3 !o
o o
air
o q
:g i(0
G'
cl
cr
E,
tr
tr
6
n
o o
)o (',
o
6
F
ia 6@
NFO oe+ o60
oo
F@
0No 9@O
ots NO @N
.9
€
;
3
Fo@ otso o00
o
F60 oNo @@6
o
O-F n@F
.9.
N@N ooN 990
F
600
6 tl
F. o)
ooo
;
d
o
s
OF OF €@
o F
6ob
E
3
N@ @o @6
E
o
v)
l)
o E
z F
Y
6 6 c
tl
f
E
=t
6
N
-
q!
o
tl
; o
o g6'
F
:
ho
oo) 9F
z
o o
s9 g* o iii EV
o> €i ': 9l to5 o?
U
vo
F5 :'; 'as ;c
:.> g-
6t
o 3
IU
(!
(!
|!
o o o o
G
E
o o I o o
EE &=
-: x,= =: EE @F
s6
g; >:
o a o F o o
@
o
o
-g
o o
-
o (! 3
-tP
-9
(t
KE
e
6C
q
E8
to F
FO
6
d
a o
F
fol
N
z
-298-
NN o@
o o o
o o
F i
E
o
=
6
s
(!
o
o J
'd,
E
-g
IE
o 'tr
Ec 6
.; c
o
=;
6
E I
o o
o
tr
o)
!
(!
xo
'
o o o
I o o
=e o gI
o T' c 6
o
o
I
o
go o
]
G
Io, c(! o
@
o N +l
E c o
o v
5q
G
6
o
zo
E
@
q
o o
Y
3 o 6 e .i
o o
)
;c
o
o
o
6
N o
=g xo '5
o r!
o
't
o o 6
o
'
o
o
Y'
r! o
! (!
o
=o a)
G
E
o
.5
E
=
(g
o 3 o
o
I
6
E
o
E
E
E
o
)
o
n
t
F ,i!t
L 3 d
o o
i
i
o
Eo
= d
;g
o o
(!
E
i
o
't =
3
6
o
o .r2
! e o
.9.
i i t
oo
E o 3 3
3
o
E
o
ao
o
@
z
o o
!l
o
i
i
o o o o
E Y
!.9
g
r!
!
o
:
E
=o
9@
i
a
o
3
6l q6
i
.g
E
=
o+
@
i
i
E
A@-O @NA* oN60
F
e
J
!
3
o 6
@@oo
tN NN @€
F
o
o
!
G
o
'=
!
OF6e
.;
'6
o
(6
= o
F o I
L
-lg
N
Ot
(o
EE
o
o
i
E
o ol
'
=o
oo
o
't
F i
i I
o ol
(D
o, E
Y
o
! I
i
o t{,
e @
@
a o ! o
?
6 n l:
o
N 'id
.;
--l
-o
o
n
o
!
:
I
o
F .i @ o
n5 e
o
.g
3 o
.9,
o
o
:
(!-
-t I
!
o
3
o
a
o
o q
ll
:
€
=6
6
:< E Y
Ni 0! oi
I
o
a o o
X
'6
o
c E 6
tr
o
@|-
d
o9 oo oo @o
oo
:
.r2
o
NO
ooo
=
< ri
E o
l o
J
E Y
> .=
6 6
o
{I
J
E Y
o o
E
zct
-9
-19
o
F
tt
o
@
6
q
6
*6
o
6+
-g E
i!
E 6 6
E
o
a 3 o
o tt o x
=
9; :6
F'=
o.9 !o FY
;
rs
a o
F
:o lo ;o
.z F
:^
o
E
o F o N @
N
> Io
F
:
o
'it
@
Y
D
E
a!
!o
c)
o
o)
E
o
*
IE
c -!P
o
@
o
ll
o o
o
6 a
.!2
n
o
E
o
n F +l
o
! r! q
6 E
o
6
]
o tt) o| N
o
o
o
c
E q
.9
E
.9
E
z
o
o o
(g
;
E
o
o Is
l:
F
o
.:
o
!
c(E
E
E
't
o
o E
c.
E
't o
o o)
z
E
o
o
|!
o
g
6 o
E
E I
t .i l
J
z
!o o
]o;
Eb t6 .i> a3 +x FO
@
z
o
o
o
-g
'=
o o 6 3
F o
o/
o
6l 6l
e
trl
I
J
NO6
dr6+ NOO NN6
it
io IE !6
o
:3 ;o
o
i: iY io
st
q
ol .9
o
E
o
OI 16
ll
l
ol al EI 6l ol ol
fl
-299-
o 3 E
a!
@
o
F
:6 i6 ic
G
E
!E
.E
; +l @
o
o
o F
N
+l
@
o
G
J
o g
= ,
j
i
E 6 co o
c
-i8i
=
0! 6!
o @
3i
i
(t:
ro:
F;
fi9i
a
-l I
-{g
o
OG.;
3
l! 99:
gi
; i
io :> i= JE :d :CL
:^ iol :o
-:!>q
o
g E
o o
e .=; a 6
o
E
Eo
h o iI n o o tr
:c io ;s
=G
e
zi
jo i3 i' is :o ;o !>
ic iq :c
o 6 o
o
io :> io
i!
o
ci
i .!4 IE 'E :0 io ig
6
3
2 .E
-.,i o,
c
o
=
(D
to
= 6
3
I
@
j
G
0
c
€
=o6
E o o
o
io
F
o c
o
J
=o
o
G
o o
E o
Y
@ I
o o
'=t
I
otso @FN
:': ;o
!s :o ;o io
I
=3 Ja x
G
o
U
t--
3
G TA
(,1,
6b
ii !:
o
I
Ai
o o
=6
o
o
^o
?o llst 9N tso ril.l' t .. ,lb oo oo ;iq) €o r!O li'= ,i o
=a
F
E o o a 6
6 o
tt??
=6
o ! (!
E
o
=
@
'6
Y
o
o
Zh
ao d
(D
=3
o
E
=
F
'5
q
F6
I
o
E
z
I NO lo€
o o
i
=
Eo o !
F
iF io a6 io
U
'-
CI
t;3 I oo l!o
o o
.;
:-
v
t g
3
t;;
o
6
i= ii !o ,tr, ;E ,o
Ia
a
.o
o
:6 iE iti=
z
e o
E
o ID
o o a @ @
o o €
Y
o
ll
t3 t?
€
.9
ts N N
,i!> o
:{
t; t:
o o
':
N
:= io
@
E
€
o
dt
ie
o
@ @
=g
N (,
!o .:c IE io ia
@
o @
o o q!
ic l= io
rn
IE
a o
ia io
o a
lq
i .=
i] ;v a: lo :> :d
6 J
o N
o
s o
o o 3
:c
;
!E
!9 i6 ao
E
r 6E
o o o o
io !E>
!sE t oi
E
t: o o
3 o
i=J
A
iFE
G
i F.o
i-co :FC
E
o o F
i I
'=
!c E
!o
e
i.!
o
i=
.e @
ol oo EN o@
@
@ @
+
o
o
o
=3 o
F€ t: 't 3€ :iEi €o 9F ei E F@
?i
o o€ @o
@ o 0 @ o o @ a o 6 @ ts
@+ F@
F
^
iI
60 tso @o N6 oq
o)
Y
;
.E
U
o
(J
z
Y
)
o
.t9
!
_i ib E!; g:6 ali
!o :o
G
iE
i6
:E :io =
6iJ E!r oi6
ai=a i 6
o
q
J
;igiE, io
l
!o
I
olE ciE pio -i!
6 o 3
3 o o
rg
:o lq
l
6
i6
i.E iro ik
+l ol ol NI
loi6 lNio lCot=
:G
ie
o G
t g
!]
t>
Y
o o
!9
;9 is
't
o ts
loi lF l+l ia i
(r)
j
E
t
F
z
H
o
F
o
---
too
loo
li
o o
(o
IEE I c@
tili t-t;
C
6
i
li
3
Y
!
Ioo
t:
6
3 o
o
t6+
lit:
E
o
ao I o@ I oo I
Lli
o o) o
o
tooo oo
lo
t:
IL
:
t::; t!oN lrNo
F-li
;o
q,
I
F lA t6 6 0 ? l@ @ o
!
|I 60: to;
R'
O
B
|o$
o
o
3
I oo | flN: I o@:
E F
o
t_
l9i l?i f-:
6
:
I
I I
t+i
l;i
nt o)
I
I
li
-@ NN 6€ @
o
=G
!
I I
li t:
E
o
I
i
z* xi i
G
o
c
?
a Jo
:
ni
o
z
NO: N@
I I
6
= €
I
o
o 3
;
I
i
:
sl elo
I
6: o: O:
o 6 E
oi
l.n
t--
li
is l?? i lEi I FF I FO
E
J
CL
o
lS:E f-i.a l"= !
!
i g o
o
E 6 u)
U
loo
.s L
too
o
o
U'
.g
,g)
tit:
li
ti= fi6
! F
l{9
t)
.9
-g
lgi
tllr--E
)e
Ff
o
li
I
Q
(J
I o0 I olno
o
o
o
oo)
o
loo
=(t 6q 6@
o
e =
=3
2
.9.
t55 loo
=3
g
o
lor It':-oro lFo I NO
.9,
t:
tilil! tiliit:
I
i
-i
€!
.E: g, @ @
2
.9
o o
=I
36 o
o F o-
o N
G@ o@
@
ts
o
o o @
tso qo
E
a c
tt c
o
G
Y
o
E
G
o
;o
@ @
Y E (! t g
(! q
E
E g
o @
OF 6@
-@ o@ G9 ?D
@6
oo ?0
6
o
.9
] o
o
.g
z Jo
! o ll
e = 't
.;
6
o a
a o
z
o
F
o N
o
6
N
+l
+l
o
o
--o
q
o
o N
o
.9.
E E o
rt
o
E
E o
G
=
6 xo
Q t-l
3
o
@
=
o
6
ol
ts
3
o
T
J
o
o
6
o
o o o
o
o,
F
G
o e
o @
.E
E
:6
I
=6 =
ro
o
o
z
.g
q
=3
=o o o
5 F
.E
o
c
o
o
;o
Y
c o o
F g
o
o. o o
=
E5 o
= E
-.9 F.g
o 9'6
o
dG
-g
=3
90 = >o o!
G
o
o F
N 6
E
o N
=aa
6od
Er
6
EEg
E
I
=.
!,
o (,
o
E *6
=
o!'E .9 E
o
o
(!D6
@
6nO o!c
-c
E!
E 6 q
t
+H -='
G
o o .(E FI
tg
ol t\ N
o F
G
G
o
-302-
G
ogo
.!1
9o
:(!
OF
=!
=E}
o
-]
F
o
gE
o
Y 6
o qs,
a GO -t 6-
}E EI
:o
J
Ec o14
-eg gcc h
fl
!o 9; Aa
.a
ctr 6* o OE
B
E6
;o => .EE or to -o EY o€E -o 6E
E I
gE d& 9E >s F6
o
ao
B: Fd 5=
o;
o ,a
a)
o
ZE 2o
I
:g
= =Y, Oao5 @
.!4
iE fuo-
o: zp Pg
Jo t:
] b3
@
E9 og 9g
a.
o
a
Y (L E
=
!
3
s G
to
j
E
o
o 3 o
= E
x>
sE'
E Y
e
6 o
@
Y
z
o
(tt
x6
D
3 g 6
6
F
=co
o
E
3
r!
6
6
-o c
o
E
E c
o
.p
-@
o'
o
-g
z
6 6
-g
@
@
o
IE
=
F
6)
6t
o 6 o 6
o
o @ +l
E
B
E
o
o
o
t!
't
o
G G
r!
ui
E
o
6
o
F
E
E
.G
q
E
!
(!
z s
:
(!
o E F c o
g
b a
z9
o o
o
o
6
t
o
o
o
/t
0
:
o
o
U
'o
z
o
E
.!4
L)
Y
o
6 E
o o q c
) j
o
,n
o o
E€ E8
x6 OF 90 E€ o6 9E
-: t6
n! EE =.9 4C
s.9 C:
0@ 6e >= 9ti
F"i
;< o6 o-
=< ?v E9 E= O€
BE -88 og
;8 9!-
!lo og rr 6
r9 =Er :6 o-! =o
9E
o6 OO
References
-
Refe
Adams, W.Y. & E.W. Adams. 1991' Archaalagi'cal typologit and practi.nl reality: a d.iahctirnl approach to artifact clossificatint, and sorting. cambridge, cambridge university press.
Aitken, RT.
1930.
Ethnoiogy of Tubuai. Benrice
P.
Bishop Museutn Bu1etin. Z0. Honolulu.
Allen, B.
1971'
Wet-field taro terraces on Mangaia, Cook Islands. T?te Jourtwl of the polynesi.an Society, Vol.80, No. B, pp. BZ1-32g. Allenn M.S. & S.E. Schubel. 1990. Recent archaeological research on Aitutaki, Southern Cooks: the Moturakau shelter. The Jounml of the porynesian. socicty, vol. g9, No. B, pp. 268-2gb. Allen, M.S. & D.W. Steadman. 1990' Excavations at the Ureia site, Aitutaki, Cook Islands: preliminary results. Archacology itt Oceania, Vol. 2b, No. 1, pp. 24_87.
Ayres, W.
1973'
The cultural contert of Easter Island religinus structures. PhD dissertation. Tulane University. Beaglehole, E., & P. Beaglehole. 1938. Ethnology of Pukapuka. Bernire P. Bisltop Museum Bulletin lbo. Honolulu. 1991. Puhapukan Di.ction'ary Manuscript (edited by K. Satisbury). Auektand, Pu-kapuka Dictionary Project, Department of Aathropolory, University of Auckland. Bellwood, P.
1969. Ardraeolory
1970'
1971' 1978'
on Rarrctonga and Aitutaki, Cook Island: a prelimjn ary rcport. Thc Jounral of the polynesianr Society, Vol. Zg, No. 4, pp. b16-b80. Dispersal centers in East Poiynesia, with special reference to the Society and
Marquesas Islands. In R.C. Green & M. Kelly (eds.), Studies in Oceani.c Culture History, Volume /, pp- 93-104. Pacific Anthropological Records, No. 11. Honolulu. Bernice P. Bishop Museum. Varieties of ecological adaptation in the Southern Cook Island s. Archaeolngjt and,
Physical,4nthropology itt Oceanri.a, Vol. 6, pp. 145_16g Archaeologicel research in the Cook Island s- Paciftc Attthropological Records, No. 27. Honolulu, Bernice p. Bishop Museum.
1979. settlement patterns. In J.D. Jennings
(ed,.),
The prehistory of polyncsin, pp.
308- 322. Massachusetts, Harvard University press.
Best, S.
1988'
Tokelau archaeology: a preliminary report of an initial surrey and excavations. Bulleth of the Indo-Pacific hehistory Association, No. 8, pp. 104-118. Canberya, Australian National University.
-303-
References
Best, S.n P. Sheppard., R.C. Green., & R parker. 1992. Necromancingthe stone: archaeologists and ad.zes in Samoa. The Jounwl of the Polynesian Society, Vol. I0l, No. l, pp. 4b-gb. Biggs, B. 1978. The history of polynesian phonology. In s.A. wurm & L. canrington (eds.), Seond In'tenwtbnal Conferene on Austronnsian Lhryuisti.cs- prowd.ings. Canberra, Australia National Universitv. Bowman, S. 1990. Eodiocarbon dating. London, British Museum publications Ltd. Bryan Jr., E.H. 1953' Introduction to the geography of atolls. In F.R. Fosberg & Marie-Helene Sachet. Handbaok for Atolr Research (second. prelimhwry Ed,ition), pp. r-9, Atol Research Bulletin r.z. washington, The pacific science Board. Bullivant, J.S., & C. McCann. L974' Contributions to the natural history of Manihiki Atoll, Cook Islands. Neu.r Zealand Oceanogtaphir Itwtitute Mernoir, No. 31. Wellington, Dept. of Scientific and Industrial Research. N.Z. Buck P.H.
1927.
The material culture of the Cook Islands (Aitutaki) . Memoirs of Board. of Ethnological Rexarch, Vol. 1.
Maoi
932a- Ethnolory of Tongarev a. Bendce P. Bishop Mu,seum Bulletin g2. Honolulu. 1932b. Ethnology of Manihiki and Rakahanga. knri.e P. Bisltop Museum Bulletilt gg. 1
Honolulu.
1934. Mangaian Society. Benr,ice P. Bishop Mtneum Bulketht l22. Honolulu. 1938. Vikings of the swvise. New york, J.B. Lippincott Company. Buddemeier, RW.
1991'
Climate and groundwater resoure interactions on atolls and small island.s. In J.E. Hay (ed.), Soulh Pacifi'c Enuironments: Interactinns with Weath,er and Climate, pp. 57-63. Auckland, Dept. of Environmental Sciene, Univ. of Auckland.
Burrows, E.G.
1939. 1940.
Breed and border in polynesi a. American Anthropologlsl, vol. 41, pp. 1-21. Culture-areas in Polynesia. The Jounwl of the Polynesian Society, VoI. 49, No.
B,
pp. 349-63.
Buse, J., with
1995.
R Taringa.
Cooh Islands Maori di"ctinrwry. Edited by B. BigBE
& R. Moeka'a, published by Ministryof Education, Govemment of the Cook Islands, School of Oriental and Afi{can Studies University of London, Institute of Paeific Studies USp, Centre for Pacific studies university of Auckland, pacific Linguistics ANU.
Campbell, A.RT.
-304-
Referenccs
1982.
Tongareua an'd the London, Missi.orwry Socicty: I 8 5 4- 1 I 0 6. (unpublished).
jounwls, letters
an"d, reporis,
1984. Irnpressiotu of Ton'gareua (Penrhyn lsland). Suva, University of South Pacific. 1985. Social relations in ancient Tongareva. Pacifrc Anthropolngi,cal Records, No. 86. Honolulu, Bernice P. Bishop Museum. Chappell, J.
1982.
Sea levels and sediments: some features of the context of coastal archaeological
sites i-n the tropics. Archacology ilt, Oceantia, Vol. 12, pp. 69-7g.
Chikamori, Masashi. 1989. The dead and the fishhook ethno-archaeolory of Pulapula Atoll, the Northen: Cook Islands. In The World, of Archaeolngr, pp. 181-200. Tokyo,
)t#Err1# Lflft' F€ffiafr?t na&*aAFl HH .ffi/.i7trt*tl1.
shinjinbutsu-oraisha inc. (in Japanese
-
7rt7)rffiffia
1990- Marae in Mangaia Island. In M. Chikamori (ed.), Cook Islands: Man
and
Prehistoric Societies, pp. 57-69. Ocmsinrwl Papers of Dept. of Archaeolngjr and. EthnoLogit,IGin Uniuersily, No. 7. Tokyo, Keio University. (in Japanese tr#iE
rz>fi4 THaT 7r: ttgrEffiFr'y r-#H-^ffiLftFltA -r 5;ffi++fr #nftfig,tffi.? € . Erb#4t#1.
1995a. Hilu's coconut tree: geomorphological development and prehistoric sites on the atolls, Northern Cook, Polynesia. Sfr.igaku-Thc Historical Sci.ence, Vol. 64, No. 2, pp. 1-19. Tokyo, the Mita Historical Society, Keio University (in Japanese with English summary, rE#.E r Y, hsffiZteffiFTDffi :1L8Ir ,y , -#Hffiffi.1,:*:lj a
#&LftFr€DI: fr.# aq-D. 1995b. Development of coral reefs and human settlement: archaeological researrch in the Norbhern Cook atolis and Rarotonga. In M. Chikamori, S. Yoshida & T. Yamaguchi (eds.), Archaeological Studies on the Cook Islands, Series l, pp. B-14. hfrtr
Occasi'atwl Papers of Dept. of Archacology and. Ethnology, I{ein [.Iniversity, No. 10.
Tokyo, Keio University.
1996. Pit agriculture in atoll environment. In H. Ryu (ed.), Anthrcpolngjt of human, artifacts and langtnges: .Essays ht. Honour of Naoirhi l{okubu, pp. B3l-845. Tokvo, Keivu Inc. (in Japanese, ,E*E rFif^e,a H v hH#r flrJffiHffi rErlEi$f)K#Eefi;fi1*: E l. .t) . a l.,rrot,\ffi#J HH .ffitsibtl. Chikamori, M., & S. Yoshida. 1988- An archaeologicai suwey of Pukapuka Atoll, 1985 (preliminary report). Occasional Papers of Dept. of Archaeology and Ethtwl,ogy, Kein (hfiuersr.ty, No. 6.
Tokyo, Keio University.
Clark, J.T. 1990. Holocene sea level changes in the south Pa,'ifis Implications for human settlement. In W.S. Ayres (ed.), Parctratinns of the South Pacifrc: Lapita and. Early Pacifie Maritime Settkrnent. Fullnan: Washinpon State University Press.
-305-
References
Clarke, D.L. 1977
Cordy,
-
Spatial information in archaeology. In D.L. Clarke (ed.), Spatio I Archaeolagy, pp. 1-32. London, Academic press.
R
1985. Settlementpattern
of complex societies in the
Pa.ific.
New
Zmland, Jounnl of
Archoeology, Vol. 7, pp. 1bg_1g2.
Cranwell, L.M.
1933- Flora
of
Manihiki. Records of the Auckland, Institute and Musum, Vol. 1, No. 4,
pp. 69-171.
Crocombe, RG. 1964. Land tenure in the cook Islands. oxford university press. Davidson, J.M.
1974.
1976'
Samoan structural remains and settlement pattems.
In R.C. Green & J.M. Davidson, (eds.), Archaeolory in Western Samoa Vol. 2, pp. 225-244 . Bullctitt of the Auckland hrctitute and Mu,seum 7. Auckland. The prehistory of Western Polynesia. In J. Garanger (ed.), La prehistoire Oceani'entte
fxe Congres, (hinn, Intenratinnalz d.es
Sciznces
prehistori4tns et
hotohistoriques, Nfue, pp. 2?-51. Davies, J.D. 1851- A Tahitian' an'd English diainwry. Tahiti, London Missionary Society press. Reprinted in 19g4 by Editions Haere po No Tahiti. Descantes, C.
1990.
Symboli.c stone structures: protohi.storic and, early historic spatinl pattenls of the
'opurr,ohu
vall.q, Mo'orea, Fretrch polynesin- MA. thesis, Department of
Anthropology, University of Auckland.
1993' Simple marae of the
'Opunohu Valley Mo'orea, Society Islands, French Polynesia. The Journal of the polynesia n society, Vol. r02, No. 2, pp. lg7-216. Dickinson, W.R & R.C. Green.
1998-
Duff,
Geoarchaeological context ofHolocene subsidence at the Ferry Berth
Lapita Site, Muli:fanua, Upolu, Samoa. Geoarchaalogy:,4n Intenwtiorwl Jounwl, Vol. 13. No. 3, pp. 239-268.
R
1974a. Stone structure type: the Koutu Ariki or chiefly court. In M.M. Trotter (ed.), Prehistory of the southern cook Island", pp. zg-Bb. canterbury Mu.surn Bulletin 7. Christchurch, Canterbur5r Museum. 1974b- Notes on the prehistory of Atiu. In M.M. Trotter (ed.), Prehistory of the Southern Cook Islands, pp. 87'94. Canterbury Museum Bultntht, 7. Christchurch. Canterbury Museum.
Duff,R&RDuff. 1974.
Stone structwe types: T-shaped paepae. In M.M. Trotter (ed.), prehistory of the Southern Cook lslands, pp.35-46 . Canterbury Museum Bulletin ?. Christchurch,
-306-
References
Canterbury Museum.
Dyen, I.
1965' A lexicostatistical dassification of the Austronesian languages. The In'tentatinnnlJountalaf Arneri.nn LhtguisticsMemoir 19. Bloomington, Ind.iana University.
L975.
Lin'guistic subgrouping and leicostatistics. The hague, Monton and Co.
Earle, T.
1991'
The evolution of chiefdoms. Ideology, pp.
l-l5.
In T. Earle
(ed,.), Chtefdatns:
powo, Ecorwrny,
antd
Cambridge, Cambridge University press.
Eddowes, M.D.
1991'
Ethn'ohistorhalperspectiues on the ffLarae of the Socinty Islands: the use.
Emery, K.O.
1953'
ncblagt of
MA. thesis, Department of Anthropolory, university of Auckland.
Beachrock-
In F.R.
Fosberg & Marie-Helene Sachet (eds.), Handbook for Atoll Research (Second Preliminary Edition), pp. 19-21, Atoll Research Bullctin t7. Washington, The pacific Science Board.
Emory,IiP. 1928. Archaeology
of Nihoa and Necker Islands. Bendce P. Bishop Mtneum
Bulletin 58.
Honolulu.
1933.
Stone remains
in the
Society Islands.
knirc P. Bishop Museum BuIIeth 116.
Honolulu.
1934a. Tuamotuan stone structures. Benire P. Bishop Mtneum Bulletin,llg. Honolulu. 1934b. ArchaeologT of the Pacific Equatorial Islands. Benri.ce P. Bishop Mu,seum Bulletfit 123. Honolulu.
1939'
Archaeology of Mangareva and neighboring atolls. Bulletin, I 68. Honolulu.
1943.
Polynesian stone remains. Popers of Peo.bod,y Musum of Ameri.mn Archaalagy and Ethnology, Vol.20, pp. g-21.
kmbe p. Bishop Muszum.
7947. Tuamotuan religious structues and ceremories. &nl,e P. Bulletit
1970.
1979'
Bishop Musanm
191. Honolulu.
A re-examination of East Polynesian marae: Many marae later. In R.C. Green & M' Kelly (eds'), Studies in Oceanic culture history, vol. 1. Porific Anthropological Remrds, No. 1r, pp. 78-92. Honoruru, Bernice p. Bishop Museum.
The Societies. In J.D. Jennings (ed.), The Prehistory of Polynesia. Cambridge, Harvard University press. Garanger, J.
1967'
Archaeology and the Society Islands. In G.A. Highland, R.W. Force, A. Howard, M. Kelly & Y'H. Sinoto (eds.), Polynesian oriture history, Essays in honor of Kenneth P. Emory. Benire P. Bishop Museum Specinl Publhatinn E6, pp. 3ZZ396.
1969'
L'Arch6ologie el les iles de la Soci6t6. Bullctirt de
-307-
la
Socitti des Etud,es oceanisuus,
References
168-169. Papeete.
Geertz, C.
1973' 1980'
The htterpretati.on' of cultures: selcaed ess@ys. New york, Basic Books Ine, Publisher. Negara: the theatre state in nilwteatth-century Bali. princeton, princeton University Press.
Gerard, B.
L974' 1978' 1982'
origine traditionnelle et role social des marae aux Iles de la societe. cahiers ORSTOM, Serie Sciences Hurnahws, Vol. 11, No. B_4, pp.2Ll_226. Le marae: description morphologique. Cahi.ers ORSTOM, Seril Sciznces Hurnahteq Vol. lb, No. 4, pp. 402:44g. Le marae comme objet de perspective de la culture Polynesienne. Jounwl d.e la Soci,ete des Oceanisles,
Vol. Bg, pp. LL7_lgg.
Gerlach, J.C. 1956? Report on an agricultural suruqr of the Northent Cook Group. Dept.
of Agriculture,
N.Z.
Giggs, J., & F.L. Peterson. 1989' Groundwater flow and development alternatives: a numerical simulation of Laura, Majum Atoll, Marshall Islands. Water Re.sures Rew,rch Center Techtt'ical Report, No. rg3. Honoruru, university of Hawaii.
Gill, w.w.
1876'
r855. 1876'
Life ht' the southent isLes; or scenes and, hrci.d.ents irt. the South pacifit and. New Guitrca,. London, the Religious Tract Society. Jottitt'g from the Pactfi.c. London, Religious Tract society. Myths and songs from the South Pactfir. London, Religious Tract Society.
Goldmanr l. 1970- ,$tcient Polynesinn. society. chicago, university of chicago press. Graves, M.W. and C.K. Cachola-Abad. 1996' Seriation as a method of chronologrcaliy ordering ar&itectural design traits: an example from Hawai'L Archaeology ilr Oceania, Vol. 81, pp. 19_82. Graves, M.W. and T.N. Ladefoged. 1995. The evolutionary significance of ceremonial architectue in Polynesia. In p.A. Teltser (ed.), Euolutionary archaeology: methodological issucs, pp. l4g-174Graves, M.W. and M. Sweeney. 1993. Ritual behaviour and ceremonjal structures in Eastern Polynesia: changing perspectives on ardtaeological variability. In M.W. Graves & R.C. Green (eds.), The evolution and organisation of prehistoric society in Polynesia, pp. 106-125. New Zealand Archacological Associati.ort Morcgraph
Ig.
Green, R.C.
1961. Moorean archaeolog'y: a preriminar.y rep_ort. Man.,yol.6r, pp. t6g-1?a. 1966' Linguistic subgroupiag within Polynesia: the implications for prehistoric
-308-
References
1969'
settlement. The Jountat of the polynesiant society, vor. Tb, pp. 6-9g. Description and dassification of Samoan adzes. In R.C. Graen and J.M. Davidson (eds.), Archaeology in Western Samoa, pp. Zl-82.
Bulleti* of the Auckland Institute and Mttseurn, No. 6. 1970. Settlement pattern archaeolory in Polynesia. In R.C. Green & M. Kelly (eds.), Studies in Oceanic Culture History, Vol.l-, pp. 18-82. pacifi"c Anthropotogi.u.l Records, No.ll. Honolulu, Bernice p. bishop Museum. 1971' Evidence for the development of the early Polynesian ad.ze kit. Neus lettt of New Zealand ArclweolagicalAssocia.tron, Vol. 14, No. L,pp. lZ_44. 1980' Makaha before 1880 AD: Makaha Valley historical project summary, report No. 5. Porific fudhropol'ogical Records, No. 31. Honolulu, Bernice p. Bishop Museum. 1984' Settlement pattern studies in Oeania: an introduction to a symposium . New Zealand Jountal of Archaeology, Vol. 6, pp. bg_69. 1986' Some basic components of the Ancestral Polynesian settlement system: building
blo&s for more omplex Polynesian societies. In P.V. Kirch (ed.), Island. Societies: Archoeolngical Approaches
to Euolutinn, and, Transfortnatinn,,pp. b0-96.
Cambridge, Cambridge University press.
1993'
Community-level organisation, power and elites in polynesian settlement pattem studies. In M'W. Graves and R.C. Green (eds.), The evolution and. organisation of prehistoric society in polynesia, pp. g-12. New zealand. Archaeolngical Associati.on. Mon ograph Lg.
Green, R,C. and K, Green.
1968.
Religious structures (Marae) of the windward Society Islands: the significance of certain historical r.eords. The New zealand Jountal of History,yol. z, pp. 6689.
RCr IC Green., Ra
Rappaport., d Rappaport, and J.M. Davidson. L967. Archaeology on the Island of Mo'orea, French Polynesia. ,*rthropol,ogical papers of the Atnerican Museum of Naturar History, vol. bl, part 2. New york. Handyn E.S.C.
Green,
1925. The native culture in the Marquesas. Mtire P.
Bishop Musu,m
Bulletin
g-
Honolu]u. L927.
Polynesian religion. Bendce P. Bishop Museurn Bulletin 84. Honolulu.
Henry, T. 1928.
Ancient Tahiti-
knice P. Bishop
Museum Builetht 4g. Honolulu.
Hodder, L 1982a. Theoretical archaeolory:
a reactionary view. In I. Hodd.er (ed.), symbolic and. structural archoeology, pp. l-16. cambridge, cambridge university press. 1982b. symbols in, actinn: Etltnoarchaeolagim,I studizs of naterial atlture. cambridge, Cambridge University Press. 1986.
Read.ing the past: curren't approach.es
to interpretation,
Cambridge University Press.
-309-
irt arclwcolngy. Cambridge,
References
1991.
Interpretive anchaeolory and
its
role- Amqican
Anti4uity, vol. b6, No. r, pp. z-
18.
Igarashi, Yuriko. 1997 Analysis of shell fishhooks excavated from Mangaia, the Cook Islands. Anthrcpobgitnl Scicnce, Vol. 105 No.5, pp.335-B3g. TheAnthmpological Society of Nippon. (in Japanese, E*H,H E+ r , y , #H? >ti I 7 Hafr,frrafrfirt, r)
Ht ttF4ffif*afrffi t lffi+*fiEf;
Vol. 105 No. b.)
Irwin, G.
1981' 1992'
How Lapita lost its pots: the question of continuity in the colonisation of Polynesia. The Jountal of the porynesian society, vor. g0, No. 4, pp. 4gl-4g4. The prehistori.c explaratbn and nlnnisatbn of th.e pacific. Cambridge,
Cambridge University press.
1998'
The colonisation of the Pacific Plate: chronological, navigational and social issues- rhe Jountal of the polyncsian, society, vol. r0?, No. 2, pp. l1r_r48.
Johannes, RE.
1981.
of the lagoott: fishhry and mairre lnre ht the Palnu Distria of Minonesia. University of California press. Johnson, G.A. 1977
'
Word,s
Aspects of regional analysis in archaeol ogy. Annual 6, pp. 479-b08.
1980'
Reui,ew of
.Anthropology, yo1.
Rank-size convexity and system integration: a view from archae
ologyr.
Eunomic
Geography, Vol. b6, pp.2J4-247.
Katayama, K.
1994.
Biological affrnity between Southem Cook Islanders and New Zealand Maori: Impiications for the settlement of New ZeaLand,. In D.G. Sutton (ed..), The
origitts
of the First
New zealand.ers,
pp.
zgo-242. Auckland, Auckland
University Press.
Kauraka,I( 1982. Tales of Manihiki.
Suva, Institute of Pacific Studies, University of the South
Pacific.
1983.
I*getd,s frontlr,e ololl. Suva, Institute of Pacfic Studies, University of the South Pacific.
Kirtley, B.F. 1971. A motif'htdex of traditintwl Polynesian narratiues. Honoiulu, University of Hawaii Press. Kirchn P.V.
1982'
Advances in Polynesian prehistory: Three decades in reviews. Ad.uantes itt World. Archocology, vol. l, pp. 5l-g7. Academic press.
1984.
The euolutian of the Polynesian chicfdorns. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
1986'
Rethinling East Polynesian prehistory. The Jounwl of Potylesinn, Society, yol.
-310-
References
95, pp. 9-40.
1990a' Monumental architecture and power in Polynesian chiefdoms: a comparison of Tonga and Hawaii. In R. Bradley (ed.), Monr::nents and the monumental, pp. 208-ZZZ. World, Archaeology, yol. 22, No. 2. 1990b' The Evolution of sociopolitical complexity in prehistoric Hawaii: an assessment of the archaeological evidence. Jounta,l of World Prehistory, Vol. 4, No. pp. B,
3
11-345.
1990c' Regional variation and local style: a neglected d.imension prehistory. pacific Studies, Vol. 13, No. 2, pp. 4t-b4.
1992. 1994'
in
Hawaiian
Kenneth Pike Emory, lggz-1992. Asian perspectiues, vor. 81, No. r, pp. r-g. The wet an'd the dry: irrigatiar, and, agrim.ltural intatsifrcatiotr, polynesia.. in Chicago, the University of Chicago press.
1996. Tikopia
social space revisited.
In J. Davidson, G. Irrrin, F. Leach, A. pawley and D- Brown (eds.), Oeanb Culture History:.Essays in Honour of Roger Grean, pp' 257'27 4. New Zealand Journal of Archaeology Special Publication. Dunedin North.
1997'
The La'pita Pmpks: ancestors of the Ocanic World,. Cambridge, Blaclwell Publishers Inc. Kirch, P.V. and J. Ellison. 1994' Palaeoenvironmental evidence for human colonization of remote Oceanic islands. Antiquity, Vol. 68, No. 259, pp. 810_821. Kirch, P.V., J.R Flenley and D.W' Steadman, 1991' A radiocarbon chronolory for human-induced environmental change on Mangaia, southern cook Islands, porynesia. Rad.iocarbon, vor. BB, No. B, pp. Brz-82g. Kircho P.v., J.R Flenley, D.w. steadman, F. Lamont and S. Dawson.
1992. Ancient envi:onmental degradation. National Gngraphi.c Resarch & Exploratiotr., Vol.8 No.2, pp. 166_t7g.
Kirch, P.V. and T.L. Hunt. 1988- The spatial and temporal boundaries of Lapita. In P.V. Kjrch and T.L. H*nt (eds.), Archaeology of the tapita Cultural Complex: A Critical Review, pp. 9-81. Thomas Burhe Memorial Washingtotr. State Museum, Research Report, No.
E.
Kirch, P.V. and M. Kelly.
1975'
Prehistory and human ecology in a windwand Hawaiian valley Halawa Vailey, Moloka'i. Pacifu Arr'thrcpol.ogim.I Records, No. 24. Honolulu, Bernice p. Bishop Museum.
Kircho P.v., D.w. steadman, v.L. Butler, J. Hather and M.I. weisler. 1995' Prehistory and human ecolory in Eastern Polynesia: Excavations at Tangatatau Rockshelter, Mangaia, Cook Islands. Archaeol.ogy ilt. Ow.nia,yo1. 30, No. 2, pp.47-65. Kloosterman, A.M.J.
19?6.
Discoverers of the Cook Islands and the names they gave (Second edition). CooA
-311-
References
Islands Library and. Museurn Bulletht l. Rarotonga.
Kolb, M.J. 1992.
Diachmnic design changes in Heiau temple architecture on the Island of Maui.
Hawaii. Asian Perspectiues, Vol. 81, No. l, pp. g_S7.
Kus, S.M.
1983' The social representation of spae: dimensioning the cosmological and the quotidian' In J.A. Moore & A.S. Keene (eds.), Areha,eolagical Hamrners and Theori.es,
pp.277-29g. New york, Academ.ic press.
Ladefoged, T.N. 1993' The impact of resource diversity on the sociopolitical structure of Rot.rma: a geographic infomation system analysis. In M.W. Graves & R.C. Green (eds.), The evolution and organi.sation of prehistoric society in Polynesia, pp. 64-7I. New Zealand Archaeologieal Associatinn, Motwgraph Ig. Lamont, E.H.
1867'
WiId life a,nong the pacific island,s. London, Hurst and Blackett publishers.
Leslie, D.M. 1980' Soils of Rarotonga, Cook Islands. New Zeala.nd. Soil Suntqt Rcport 49, Wellington, New Zealand Soil Bureau, Department of Scientific and Ind.ustrial Research.
Linton, A.M.
1933'
Notes on the vegetation on Penrhyn and Manihiki Islands. The Jounwl of the Polyn
esia
n
Society,
yol.
42, pp. 800_802.
Liller, W.
1993'
The monuments in the archaeoastronomy of Rapanui. In S.R. Fischer (ed.), Easter Isla nd Stu'di.e^* Contributbns to the History of Rapanui in Memory of Williann T, Mull.oy, pp. IZZ_L27. Oxford, Oxbow Books. Macgregor, G. 1935' Note on the ethnolory of Pu-kapuka. funri.e P. Bishop Mun^tm Occasinrwl
Vol.6, No.6. Honolulu. Martinsson-Wallin, H. Papers,
1994. Ahu
-
the ceremonial stone structures
of
Easter Islnnd,. Uppsala,
Department of
Archaeolory, Uppsala University.
Maude, H.E.
1986.
Sla.vers
in paradise:
the Peruuinn labour trade ht. Polynesi.a.,
l862 -.186d.
Suva,
University of the South pacific. McCormach G. & J. Kunzle.
1995'
Rarotonga's mourttaht' tracks and, plnnts: a freld,guide. Rarrtonga, Cook Islands Natural Heritage projects.
McCoyn P.C.
1979.
Easter Island.
In J. Jennings (ed.), The prehistory of polynesi.a, pp. tB5-66.
Harvard University press.
-312-
References
McKern, W.C.
1929. Archaeology of Tonga. Bendce P. Bishop Museurn Bulletin60. HonoluluMclean, R.F. 1991' Weather and elimate interactions with coastal environmental systems in the In J.E. Hay (ed.), South Pacifir Enuironnents: Interactinns with and, Clitnate, pp. 49-56. Auckland, Dept. of Environmental Science,
South Paeific. Weather
Univ. of Auckland.
Michel,
L
1980'
An ovenriew of agriculture on some Pacjfic atolls. South Pacifi.c Bulletitt B0(B), pp.8-12.
Morison, R.J.
1990.
Pacific atoll soils: chetnistry, mineralogy and, classificatinn.
Moriwakin H.
1978.
Problems regarding Holocene sea-level changes. Geographical Reuieut of Ja,pan, vol. 51, No. 2, pp. r?6-182. (in Japanese with Engtish s'mmary,
EEijtt artrtK#*&to#HE
: a&glE,aFrL
jE4t#;fi
#wE rft#
er-z)
Nagata, Yutaka.
1990'
Win'dwaues to
Hawaii frorn the Antarctic Seo. Tokyo, Maruzen Inc. (in Japanese,
rttv 4 oi&t*ffi'f4n'b : t6o)fi.0)TB#it /u*ffifi*ltl 'i(E€
Neumann, A.C. and I. Macintyre. 1985. Reef rcsponse to sea level rise: keep-up, catch-up or give-up. prcceed.hrys of the Fifth Intenrational coral Reef congress, vol. B, pp. 10b-110. Moorea, Antenne Museum-ephe.
Newhouse, J. 1980. What is an atoll ? South pacific Bulktht J0 (B), pp. 4_g. New Zealand Meteorological Senice. 1967'1981. RainAU observations. .ly'eu, Zea.land, Meteorolagfual Service Mi.x. pub. (1967-198 1). Weltin$on. Nunnn P.D. 1994. Oceanic islands. Oxford, Blackwell publishers.
110
Ottino, P.
1967' Early'Ati of the Western Tuamotu. In G.A. Highland, R.W. Force, A. Howard., M. Kelly & Y.H. Sinoto (eds.), Polynesian Culture History: Essay in Honor of Kenneth P' Emory, pp. 451-481. &rnice P. Bishop Museurn Specia,I h^tblicatinn, No.56. Honolulu.
Parker, RH.
1974'
Suwey of the Ara Metua. In M.M. Trotter (ed.), Prehistory of the Southern Cook Islands, pp. 63-69. Canterbury Mureurn Bulletht T. Christchurch, Canterbury Museum-
Pawley, A.
196?.
Pol5mesian languages:
a
subgrouping based
-313-
on shared innovations in
References
mor?hology. The Journal of the polynesian Society, Vol. ?b, pp. 89_64.
Paynter, RW.
1983.
E:rpanding the scope of settlement analysis. In J.A. Moore & A.S. Keene (eds.), Archaeological Ham,mers and Tlwori,es, pp. 233-275. New York, Academic press.
Peacock, J.L.
1986. The anthropolagical lats: ho,rsh light, nft
focus. cambridge, cambridge
University Press. Peebles, C.S. and S, Kuss. 7977. Some archaeological correlates of ranked societies. Amerirnn. Anti4uity, Vol. 2g, pp. 431-448.
Pirazzoli, P.A. and L.F. Montaggioni. 1986. Late Holoene sea-level changes in the northwest Tuamotu Islands, French Polynesia. Quatentary Research, Vol. 25, pp. Bb0-86g.
Pirazzoli, P.A., L.F. Montaggioni, B. Salvat and G. Faure,
1988. Late Holocene sea level indicators from twelve atolls in the central and eastem Tuamotus (Pacific Ocean). Coral Reefs: Jounwl of the htternatbrwt Society for Reef Studies, Vol. 7, pp.bT-6g.
Pompey, Sharman L 1973. The history of Penrh'yn (Tongareua) Islnnd, in the Heruq (Cook) Island,s of the South Pacific, I 8 2 7- 1 8 5G. Manuscript. Reilly, M.P.J. 1993- A political succession text from Mangaia. The Jounm.t of the Po$nrcsinn Socizty, Vol. 102, No. 2, pp. 7l-98. Renfrew, C. 1984. Approaches to socinl archaeology. Edinburgh, Edinburgh University press. Rere, Taira.
1991-
HLstory of Rarotonga,
up to /853. Published by Rangitai Taira, Rarotonga
(reprinted).
Routledge, S., & K. Routledge. !1921. Note on some archaeological remains in the Society and Austral Islands. Jounwl of Royal4nthropologieal Institute, VoI.b1, pp. - . Russell, M. 1953. Collecting geological data. Handbook for Atoll ResearcJr (Second plsliminsry Edition), pp. 16'18, Atoll Research Bullctitt lT. Washington, The Pacific Science Board.
Sahlins, M.
1955-
Esoteric effl.orescence in Easter Islands. Anerinan,,Attthropologrst, Vol. b?, No. b,
pp. 45r-481.
1958.
Social stratificatinn in Polyncsro. university of washington press.
1985-
Islan'ds of History. chicago, the university of chicago press.
-314-
References
Sato, Takashi.
1983.
its cultivation and utfization.
Coconut tree:
Hand,books of Tropim,l Cropg No. 13. Tokyo, Association for Intemational Cooperation of Agriculture & Forestry
fFffi# r= = t Hi*/.HtAtt#Jrffi*). (in Japanese,
>
- < a*Eh, bt1ry*
t -.r ffiffiffVtgg. tz 4t
Sauer, Carl O.
1925-
The morpholory of landscape. (Jniuersity of Catifondn Publicatiorts ht Geography, Vol. 2, pp. t9-S4.
Savage, S.
1962. A dirtiawry of the Maori rnnguage of Rnrotonga. wellington, Dept. of Island Territories. Reprinted in 1980 by Institute of Pacific Studies, and Universrty of South Pacific
in association with the Ministry
of Education, Government of the
Cook Islands.
Schofield, J.C.
1970.
Note on iate Quaternary sea level, Geology and Geophysics,
Fiji and Rarotonga. New Zealand. Joumal of Vol. lB, pp. Lgg-206.
-
Late Holocene sea level, Gilbert and EIIice Islands, west central pacific o@an. New zealand Jounwl of Georogy and Geophysics, Vol. 20, No. 3, pp. bO3-b2g. Seurat, L.G. 1905. Les marae: des iles orientales de I'archipel des Tuam otu. L' Anthropolngie, yol. 16, pp. 475-484. Shapiro, H.L. 1943. Physical differentiation in Polynesia. Pmbod,y Museu.m, Archaeological and, 1977
Ethnological Papers, Vot. 20, pp. B-9.
Shapiro, H.L., & P.H. Buck 1936. The Physical &araccers of the cook Islands. Mernoirs of Berni.ce p. Bislnp Museutn, Vol. 12, No.l. Honolulu. Sheppard, P.J., R Walter., & RParker. 1997. Basalt sourcing and the development of cook Island exchange systems. In M.I. weisler (ed.), Prehistoric Interaction in oceania: an interdisciplinary apprroach, pp -85- 1 10. New zeala
Sherratt,
n
d Archaeotogical Associatinn Monograpi., No.
2
1.
.A.
1990.
The genesis of megaliths: monumentality, ethnicity and social complexity in Neolithic norrh-west Europe. In R. Bradley (ed,.), Monunents and. The Monumental. World Archaeology, Vol. 22, No. 2, pp. 14g_167.
Shibata, Norio.
1990'
Cognitive space shown in Mangaian Language, Cook Islands: a case of spatial orientation (in Japanese). In S. Yamazaki & A. Sato (eds.), Asia n Language and, Lhryuistits, pp- 220-228. Tokyo, sansyodo. eE#dF r D 'v DeEHa=>li4 7
#E$cJ6*F5aeiffi : hlfi.a l
Ei*#l =€H)
Sflr
illiltde .t6,#;Wfdffi
-315-
rryra#=;EL-fiq
References
Sinoto, Y.H. 1969. Restawation de marae aux Iles de Societe. Bulletin de la
Societe d,es Etudes
Oceantieurcs, No. 16, pp.286-244.
1996. Mata'ire'a Hill, Huahine: a unique prehistoric settlement, and a hlpothetical seguence of marae development
in the Society Islands. In J-M. Davidson, G. Inrin' B.F. Leach, A. Pawley, and D. Brown (eds.), Oceanic Culture History: .E'ssoys in Hortour of Roger Green. pp. 541-553. New Zealand, Journal of Archaeology Special Publication.
Sinoto, Y.H., & P.C. McCoy.
7974.
Archaeology of Teti'aroa Atoll, Society Islands, interim report No. 1. Department of Attthropology Reprot 74-2. Honolulu, Bernice
p. Bishop Museum.
Sims, N.A.
1988.
Pearls and pearl-oysters, Poe e Parau. Cook Islnnds Fisheries Resoure prcfilc, No. 2. The ninistry of Marine Resources, the Cook Islands. Smith, P.S.
1903. Arai'Te-Tonga, the ancient marae of Rarotonga- The Jountal
of
polynzsian
Society, Vol. 12, pp. 218-220.
Spencer, J.E. & G.A. Hale. 1961- The origin, natute, and distribution of agricultural terracing. Vol. 2, No. 1, pp. 1-40.
Pacr,frc Vicwpoirtt,
spencer, T., J. Frenry, R Barrres, B. sykes, s. Tudhope, T. utanga and M. Wilson. 1994' Northent' Cooh Islands scientifin expeditinn Igg7. Unpublished Report, University of Cambridge. Spriggs, M. and A. Anderson. 1993. Late colonization of East polynesia. Atttiquity, vol. 62, No. 2bb, pp.200-2L7. Steadmann D.W.
1991. Extinct and Extirpated Birds from Aitutaki
and Atiu, Southene Cook Islands.
Pacific Sciztrce, Vol. 45, No. 4, pp. B2E-847.
Stuiver, M. and T.F. Braziunas.
1993.
Modeling atmospheric raC inlluences and r{C ages of marine samples BC. Radiocarbon, VoI. 35, No. l, pp. 1BZ-1g9.
to 10,000
Stuiver, M., G.W. Pearson and T.F. Braziunas. 1986. Radiocarbon age calibration of marine samples back to 9000 CAL yr Bp. Ra.diocarbon, Vol.28, No.28, pp. 980-1021. Stuiver, M. and P.J. Reimer. 1993. Extended raC data base and revised CALIB 3.0 14C age calibration program. Radiocarboru, Vol. Bb, No. 1, pp. 21b-280.
Stevenson, C.M. 1986. The socio-po[tical stmcture of the southem coastal area of Easter Island: AD 1300-1864. in P.V. Kirch (ed.), Island Soci.eties: Archaeological Approaches to
-316-
References
Euolut bn, an d
Transfonnatbn, pp.
69 -7 7
.
Cambridge, Cambridge University
Press.
Stimson, J.F.
1933'
Tuamotuan religion. funrice P. Bi,shop Musewn Bulletitt 103. Honolulu.
Stoddart, D.R
1972- Reef islands of Rarotonga. Atoll Research Bulletin 160, pp. 1,7. Suggs, RC. 1961. The ardtaeology of Nuku Hiva, Marquesas Islands, Freneh Polynesia. Atdhropologirnl Papers of the Arneritan Museum of Natural History, Vol. 49, Part l. Thompson, C.R 1986. The climate and weather of the Northern Cook Islands. New Zealand Meteorologi.cal Service misc. publ. 1S8 (g). Wellington.
Trotter, M.M.
L974. Prehistory of the Southern Cook Islands. Cwtterbury 1979.
Museurn Bull,ethr, 6.
Christchurch, Canterbury Museum. Niue Islands archaeological survey. Cunterbury Museutn Bulletin Z. Christchureh, Canterbury Museum.
Tuato'o-Bartley, N., T.E. Morrell & P. Craig. f
993.
Status of sea turtles in American Samoa in 1991. Pacific Science, Vol. 42, No. pp.2L5-221.
B,
Ucko, P.J.
1994. Forrrard. In D.L. Carmechael, J. Hubert, B. Reeves and A. Schanche (eds.), Sacred Sites, Sacred Piaces, pp. xrdii-xix. OneWorld Archaeolagy 23. London &
New York, Routledge.
Valeri, Valeri.
1985. Kttgship an'd m.cri1"..* ritual and society in qnciznt Hawaii (translated by
P.
Wissing). Chicago, the Universiff of Chicago press.
Van Tilburg, J.A. and G. Lee. 1987. Symbolic stratigraphy: Rock art and the monolithic statues of Easter Island. WorldArchoeology, Vol. 19, No.2, pp. 1BB-149. Vayda, A.P, 1968. Polynesian crdtual distributions in new perspective. In A.P. Vayda (ed.), Peoples and Cultures of the Pacifi.c, pp. 192-206. New York, The Natural History Press.
Verin, P. 1962a. Releve Archeologique de l'Ile de Mai'ao. Bulletilt de ta Socizte des Etud,es Oceaniennes, No. 138. 1962b. Documents sur I'Ile de Me'eita: extraits de 'Stone remains in the Soeiety Islands' par K.P. Emory. Bull.etfu de la Socizte des Etudes Oceanticnnq, No. 139, pp. 5980.
-317-
Refercnces
I962c. Wallin,
Prospection Artheologique preliminaire de Tetiaroa. Bullethr, de la Socicte Etudes Oceanicnnes. No. 140, pp. L03-124.
de.s
P.
1993.
Stone Stn^tctures: the archaeolngr and ethnohistory of the ,nctrae compkx in the Soci,ety Islands, French Polytrcsia. Uppsala, Department of
Cerernoruial
Archaeolory, Uppsala University.
Walter,
R
1993.
The mmmunity in Ma'uke prehistory. In M.W. Graves and R.C. Green (eds.), The evolution and organisation of prehistoric society in Polynesia, pp. 72-86. New Zealan d Archaeolngi.cal,4ssocia.ti,on Monograph
Ig.
1994.
The Cook Islands - New Zealand connection. In D.G. Sutton (ed.), The Orisins of the First New Zealanders, pp. 220-229. Auckland, Auckland University Press. 1996a. Settlement pattern archaeology in the Southern Cook Islands: a neview. ?he Jountal of the Polynesian Soeiety, Vol. 105, No. 1., pp. 63-99. 1996b. What is the East Polynesian 'Alchaii?: a view from the Cook Islands. In J.M Davidson, G. Irwin, B.F. Leach, A. Pawley and D. Brown (eds.), Oceanic Culture History: Essoys in Hotwur of Roger Green, pp. 513-529. New Z,ealand Jou:mal of Archaeology Special Publicahon.
Walter, R, and M. Campbell.
1996.
The Paraoa Site: fishing and fishhooks in 16th Century Mtiarrc, Southern Cook Islands. Man, artd Culture in, Oceania, vol. 12, pp. 47-60.
Webb, T.H. 1981. Soils of Mangaia, Cook Islands. New Zealand Soil Suruey Report 50, Wellington, New Zealand SoiI Buteau, Department of Scientific and Industrial Research.
Weisler, M. and P.V. Kirch. 1985. The structure of settlement space in a Polynesian driefdom: Kawela, Molokai, Hawaiian Islands. New Zealattd Jountal of ,4rch.oeology, Vol. 7, pp. 129-158Whistler, W..4. 1990. Ethnobotany of the Cook Islands. Allertonin, Vol. 5, No. 4, pp.347-424. Wiens, H.J.
1962. AtoII
enuironrnent and ecolngy. New Heven and London, Yale University Press.
Wilkes, O.R.
7974.
Summaryof Tupapa projects. InM.M. Trotter(ed.), Prehistory ofthe Southern Cook Islands, pp. 47-53. Canterbury Museum Bull.et*t 7. Christchurch, Canterburv Museum.
Williams, J. 1838. A twrratiue of Williamson, RW.
missionary enterprises in, the south sea islands. London, John Snow.
1924. TheSocinlandpoliticalsystentsof CentralPolynesia,Vol.2.
London, Cambridge
University Press.
1933.
Religious and cosmi.c beliefs of Central Polynesin, VoI. 2. Cambridge, Cambridge
-318-
References
University Press.
1937.
Religiort
and socinl organizatbn,
in, Cattra.l Polynesin. Cambridge, Cambridge
University Press. Wood, B.L. and RF. Hay. 1970. Geolory of the Cook Islahds. Bulletht of New Zealand, Geologicol Suruey 82. woodroffe, c.D., D.R stoddart, T. Spencer, T.p. scoffin and dw. Tudhope.
1990.
Holocene emergence
in the
Cook Islands, South Pacific. Coral
Refx Jountnl of
tlte Intenwtional Society for Reef Studres, VoI. g, pp. gl.gg. Yamaguchio Toru.
1991a. Traditional life in Manihiki. In M. Chikamori (ed.), Te Mata: Looking at the Past, pp.17-19. unpublished working paper, Department of Ethnolory and Archaeologl', Keio University, Tokyo.
1991b. Excavation in Te Kainga, Rakahanga. In M. Chikamori (ed.), Te Mata: Looking at the Past, pp. 2O'2L Unpublished working paper, Department of Ethnology and Archaeology, Keio University, Tokyo.
1995. Ardraeological monograph of Tongareva @enrhyn) Atotl. In M.Chikamori,
1996.
S.
Yoshida & T. Yamaguchi (eds.), Archaeological Studies on the Cook Islands, Series 1, pp. 17-106. Ocwsintal Papers of Dept. of Archaalogy and Ethnnlagjt, Kei.o Uniuersity, No. 10. Tokyo, Keio University. Ceremonial ardritecture in Tongareva Atoll, the Northern Cook Islands: its morphological features, distribution, and the prehistoric society. The Japanese Society for Oceanir Studies News Letter. No. 54, pp. 10-17. (in Japanese, ilJ trffi r 2 :t DE*C l- > )i v D yffinFa^freiE&I-fiiffi . Z EA
1998
t t7 z7+* - :r -Z V t -
r\ff. V 