Thankful for Exciting New Research Possibilities

img_5519 Here in the Anthropology Department, we have much to be grateful for these days. Last month, two new pieces of equipment arrived to the department. The purchase of these was made possible due to the generosity of Mr. Richard H. Cox, former Vice President of Alexander & Baldwin and a long-time friend of Dr. Kenneth P. Emory, who made a substantial donation to support current research in the department.

The first piece of equipment, a portable XRF (X-ray flourescence) instrument, allows us to non-destructively source stone tools in order to track trade and interaction in Hawai‘i and the Pacific. The wonderful thing about this instrument is that it is completely non-destructive, which means that it is well-suited for working with museum collections. Our first two projects, which are focused on obsidian objects from New Britain (from the Ethnology Collections) and Tikopia (from the Archaeology Collections) have already yielded some very interesting preliminary results. For the New Britain-based project, Dr. Robin Torrence, who works at the Australian National Museum, sent us geological samples from known obsidian quarries on and near New Britain. By comparing the concentrations of trace elements found in the geological samples to those contained in the cultural objects, we are able to tell where people obtained the stone used to create their tools.

img_5340 The second piece of equipment is a wide-format scanner, which is being used to scan maps as part of our ongoing digitization efforts, which are essential for achieving our overall collections management goals. Some of the maps that we are currently scanning also form the basis of a new archaeological field research program on Rapa Nui (Easter Island) that is planned for late 2015. We are very excited about expanding our digital archives and also about our future research endeavors that have been made possible by Mr. Cox’s generous gift!

 

Categories: Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Midden Madness and Other Tales from a Summer Spent at Bishop Museum

50-ha-005

Guest blog by Marty Kooistra, Archaeology Collections Summer Intern

Reflecting upon my summer as an Anthropology Collections Intern for the Bernice Pauahi Bishop Museum, I’m left with countless memories I will cherish for a lifetime. As an intern, I enjoyed a variety of responsibilities, such as: scanning reports, sorting midden, cataloging fishhooks, and re-housing artifacts (coral and urchin abraders). Some assignments were punishing, for example sorting midden. This is a task we’d dubbed “midden madness” for obvious reasons. Imagine a large zip-block bag full of different colored sand. Now imagine sorting these sand grains into piles by color and you will begin to understand the madness. Our midden piles consisted of urchin, shell, fire cracked rock, fish bones, fish scales, coral, and charcoal, but it’s essentially the same concept. After a week, however, you develop a sense of camaraderie among fellow interns and sorting midden becomes entertaining – even therapeutic, as some would later describe it. In fact, I wish I were sorting midden right now!

During my first few weeks as an intern, I was tasked with reassigning fishhooks into the Hawaii Archaeological Survey (HAS) database. Bishop archaeologists, Dr. Emory and Dr. Sinoto, excavated these fishhooks between 1953-1959 at South Point (Ka Lae) located on the Big Island of Hawai‘i. My work involved swapping out the old HAS identification numbers and assigning new HAS identification numbers, along with noting the material used to construct each fishhooks – either invertebrate (shell) or vertebrate (bone). Additionally each fishhook was assigned a field catalog numbers during excavation, a second identity of sorts, this number was also recorded. For example the numbers on the fishhook in the second photo are H1-G7-24. H1 is the site designation, G7 the excavation unit, and this particular fishhook was the 24th artifact from that unit. Once you get a rhythm going it’s quite fun.

Occasionally, disintegrating tags or microscopic writing make deciphering these numbers a challenge. The first number, H1, is predictable, since all fishhooks were from South Point, but it’s sometimes hard to read the other two numbers. Fortunately, each fishhook was drawn to scale and cataloged meticulously in one of several reference binders. For example, I came across a fishhook with two numbers: H1-G13-1 and H1-H12-19, so I looked these numbers up in the reference binder. Interestingly, this particular hook was broken at the time of deposition. If you look at the dates, one drawing is from 8/2/1954 and the other is from 3/5/1955. So the pieces were excavated a year apart, from different excavation units, and later pieced together. The ability to review 60-year-old notes, and uncover the journey of each particular fishhook was quite amazing. For a split second, I was a time traveler and instantly reminded why I chose to pursue a career as an archaeologist.

During our last week, Mara invited us to meet the eminent authority on Polynesian fishhooks, Dr. Yosihiko Sinoto. Two fellow interns and I packed into Sinoto’s office, where he regaled us with tales of his journey to Hawai‘i, subsequent “kidnapping” by Dr. Emory, and early career as an archaeologist. One such tale involved walking along the shores of the Marquesas Islands and discovering a sand dune covered with discarded fishhooks. The excitement in Sinoto’s voice as he pulled out old photos of the site, and relived this day with us is something I will always cherish. After six weeks, saying goodbye to Bishop Museum, the wonderful staff, and my fellow interns was probably the hardest part, but our paths will cross again.

Categories: Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Artifacts from the House of Taga

mas-04799_reduced Guest blog by Helen Alderson, visiting researcher

As mentioned in my first blog, Micronesia is home to some impressive monumental structures. One of these is the House of Taga, on the island Tinian in the Marianas. The House of Taga’s impressive stone columns are inspiring, but what lies beneath them tells a story about cultural change over time, as Marcian Pellett discovered in 1958 (Pellett and Spoehr 1961).

The House of Taga collection at Bishop Museum holds a variety of different pottery sherds, and a lesser amount of associated ornaments such as shell beads. Interestingly, the elaborate “Marianas Red” pottery was found at an older stratigraphic context that the “Marianas Plain” pottery which was found in the same context as the Latte columns that form the foundation of this monumental structure (Pellett and Spoehr 1961:322). Why did pottery become simpler over time? To me, this may ring of a change in investment in labor, from the creation of elaborate pots to the construction of monumental architecture. However, in other parts of Micronesia, different researchers have different theories as to why pottery became plainer, and in many cases disappeared altogether. On Pohnpei, for example, Rainbird (1999) suggests that pottery disappears because its social meaning (i.e. the remembrance of ancestors) was transferred into tombs.

I find the elaborate patterns of the Marianas red ware truly striking. They include delicate shell inlay, and bright red slip. It is exciting to be able to find and match the intricate designs on some of the sherds with those drawn by Pellett and Spoehr (1961), which you may also wish to do using the photos provided. Their article can be found here: http://www.jps.auckland.ac.nz/document//Volume_70_1961/Volume_70,_No._3/Marianas_archaeology,_by_Marcian_Pellett,_p_321-325/p1

Pellett, M. & Spoehr, A. (1961). Marianas archaeology: Report on an excavation on Tinian. The Journal of the Polynesian Society, 70(3): 321-325.

Rainbird, P. (1999). Entangled biographies: western Pacific ceramics and the tombs of Pohnpei. World archaeology, 31(2): 214-224.

Categories: Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Janet Davidson and Nukuoro

mas-00217 Guest blog by Helen Alderson, visiting researcher

A few weeks ago, I wrote a blog that talked about Nukuoro, a Polynesian outlier in Micronesia. While the museum collections here can tell us a lot about how cultures operated in the past, they can also tell us about the researchers who amassed them. The collection of Nukuoro artifacts lends a fascinating insight into the interests and motivations of Dr. Janet M. Davidson, who travelled to the remote atoll while she was in her early 20s in 1965.

In Pacific Island archaeology, we are fortunate to have many scholars who have dedicated their careers to increasing understanding of our unique heritage. Like many others, Dr. Davidson is an inspiring Pacific Island archaeologist who has left a legacy of research at Bishop Museum. She has long been my role model, as a prominent female New Zealand archaeologist, and I was fortunate to see her awarded the Roger C. Green Lifetime Achievement Award at the New Zealand Archaeological Association’s Conference in Christchurch, New Zealand this year in  June.

Davidson championed the idea of a more holistic archaeology in the Pacific. Frustrated at the lack of research on shell artifacts during a time in which lithics and ceramics were treated with a greater preference, she collected and analysed hundreds of shell fishhooks, coconut scrapers and adzes. She illustrated that shell artifacts are pivotal to studies of change over time on atolls, not only in material culture, but in the implications they have for understanding cultural interaction and integration (Davidson 1968:59). In my own research on volcanic high islands in Micronesia, I have found that monumental architecture is often treated with interest and preference over portable material culture. Davidson’s work serves as a reminder to us all that all material culture is relevant to societies’ development.  mas-00659

In another line that is still relevant today, Davidson also called for a greater focus on studying the geographic region Micronesia, particularly Eastern Micronesia (Davidson 1968:51). In particular, she stressed the importance of building a comparative collection database of artifacts (Davidson 1968:59, 63). In her Nukuoro collection, there is a representation of a variety of different artifacts, including ornaments, adzes, and fishhooks.

Finally, Davidson warned against stereotyping a culture based on its linguistic or physical attributes. Nukuoro is linguistically Polynesian, and has many Polynesian societal qualities. Nevertheless, the society has also taken on a variety of other material culture traits, particularly from neighbouring Micronesian islands (Davidson 1968:60-61).  For example, within the Nukuoro collections here at Bishop Museum, a distinctive sliced Tridacna shell adze type is prominent. This type is not widespread in Polynesia, but is found in Micronesia and Melanesia (Davidson 1968:61). In the collections here, I have seen similar adzes from Pohnpei – a volcanic high island in Micronesia, and even Vanuatu, Melanesia. Davidson’s collections and research remind us to think of Oceania as an interacting sea of cultures, who interacted and innovated with each other.

See also: Davidson, J. M. (1968). Nukuoro: archaeology on a Polynesian outlier in Micronesia. Prehistoric culture in Oceania, 51-66.

For an overview of Dr Davidson’s contribution to Pacific archaeology, see Kevin Jones’ summary for the NZAA: http://www.nzarchaeology.org/citations/Janet%20Davidson%20Citation.pdf

Categories: Uncategorized | Leave a comment