Selkirk Cave Andersonetal02

8/6/2019 Selkirk Cave Andersonetal02

1/17

A N A R C H A E O L O G I C A L E X P L O R A T l O N O F R O B I N S O N C R U S O E l s L A N D tJ U A N F E R N A N D E Z A R C H I P E L A G O t C H I L E

A th o l ! A n d e rs o n t S im o n H u h e r le , G lo r i a R o ja s ,A n d r e a S e e le n f r e u n d , I o n S m it h e n d T r e v o r W o r t h y

A progranune of archaeological and palaeoenvironmentalresearch which aims to work on each of the remote easternarchipelagos of the South Pacific (Juan Fernandez Islands,Islas de los Desventurados and Galapagos Islands) is now inprogress. It has a primary palaeoenvironmental focus,which seeks to reconstruct archipelagic environmentsbefore and after settlement by Europeans, and to formulateways of separating natural from human induced changes insedimentary and palynological records. Secondarily, itlooks to explore the possibility of prehistoric occupation.There has been some conjecture as to whether prehistoricPolynesians, or pre-hispanic South American Indians,might have reached one or another of the archipelagos inthe remote eastern Pacific (Black 1980; Finney 1998; Green1998; Heyerdahl and Sjelsvold 1956; Irwin 1992 andTerrell 1986) but the archaeological evidence remainsexceedingly scarce and enigmatic. Through both.approaches, the research programme seeks to contribute toour understanding of human colonisation across the pacific.

The programme began with research in the JuanFernandez Archipelago (3350'S 80000'W), an isolatedgroup which lies 700km west of Santiago and beyond theknown. expansion of prehistoric Polynesians eastwardacross the Pacific. It is possibly one of the few groups thatremained untrodden by humans prior. _to. Europeanoccupation some 400 years ago. The first fieldwork, in1997 (Haberle n.d.), consisted of palaeoenvironmentalinvestigations upon Alexander Selkirk Island (formerlyMas Afuera, S7.6lcm2 and up to 1319m in altitude). Wereport here the initial results of archaeological research inMarch 2001 on Robinson Crusoe Island (formerly M a s aTierra, 88km2 and up to 930m in altitude).TIlE mAN FERNANDEZ ISLANDSThe Juan Fernandez Islands were discovered in 1574 and asmall colony of Spanish and South American Indians wasestablished in 1591-96. They introduced goats and pigs andcut firewood, grew vegetables and caught and dried fish forthe Spanish colonies in Chile. Three years after theirdeparture another colony was established for similar

purposes.' It was abandoned by the time of the first Dutchvisit in 1616, but in 1624 three Dutch sailors were putashore voluntarily. Another Spanish colony, established inthe late 17'"century, introduced dogs to suppress the goatsand thereby reduce the growing attractiveness of the islandsto pirates and buccaneers, especially the English. The mainEnglish force arrived in 1680 under the pirate BartholomewSharp. The Spanish drove them off but a Mosquito Indian,called WIll, was left behind, the. first of a long line ofresourceful castaways. Will was picked up in 1683 and thenthe pirate Edward Davis left 9 men ashore in 1687. Theyplanted com and vegetables, hunted the goats and seals andtook muttonbirds, and they were recovered in 1690. In 1704Alexander Selkirk took voluntary leave of Dampier'ssquadron and remained ashore for four and a half years- his experiences later becoming the basis of DanielDefoe's allegorical romance Robinson Crusoe, published in1719. During the early 181h century there were several othergroups of castaways or deserters inhabiting the. island forbrief periods as British and Spanish interests competed forcontrol. Anson's raids on Spanish shipping, which includeda sojourn on Robinson Crusoe Island in 1741, induced theSpanish Viceroy eventually to order the formal colonisationand protection of the Juan Fernandez Islands in 1749. Thefirst colony consisted of 62 soldiers, 171 colonists and 22convicts, together with cows, sheep, mules, pigs andpoultry, Another 275 colonists soon arrived fromConcepcion and a substantial fort was constructed inCumberland Bay. By the 1790s the settlement, essentially apenal colony, consisted of about 300 people, and smaller. forts had been constructed at Puerto Ingles and PuertoFrances. The islands were abandoned in 1814, the penalcolony re-established in 1815 and then abandoned again in1817, a pattern of official colonisation and abandonmentthat continued through the lC)'l'century (Woodward 1969).

Concurrent with settlement was rapid change in theJuan Fernandez environment. The impact of Europeanoccupation since A.D. 1574 on the biology of the islands hasbeen devastating. The native flora has suffered dramaticreductions in abundance and diversity due to logging, over-grazing by introduced mammals, fires, ~dintroduCed plants

An Archaeological Exploration of Robinson Crusoe Island 239


2/17

o 2 3scale1 :50.000

ISLA ROBINSON CRUSOEN/

4 Skin

FIGU RE 1 . Robinson Crusoe and Santa clara Islands, showing the m ain valleys and th e location of sites described in th e text.

(about five newly introduced species per decade). Similarly,the endemic fauna has suffered from introduced predatorsand over-exploitation (Castilla 1987; Wester 1991).

The flora and fauna had developed in isolation on threesmall volcanic islands, which began to emerge four millionyears ago. Plant communities exhibiting up to 70% speciesendemism, included survivors of many ancient groups thatwere once much more widespread in the southernhemisphere (Stuessy et al: 1992). The islands were heavilyforested at discovery and remained so through the 17m and18m centuries, despite occasional burning and felling. In1&35 , however, the minor trade m sandalwood (Santalumferndndezianum; now extinct) rapidly intensified and thatseems to have triggered a general deforestation for a regulartrade in building timber and firewood (Woodward1969: 168). This activity was accompanied by frequent forestfuesand soil erosion to the extent that further felling wasbanned in 1872 (although itresumed in. 1877). Soil erosionseems to have accelerated during the late 1911>entury, andresidents of San Juan Bautista describe substantialmudflows across the Cumberland Bay flats in the early 20mcentury, prior to reafforestation of the surrounding slopes.

There was similar but much earlier devastation of furseal and elepbant seal colonies - three million skins beingtaken from M a s Afuera alone in 1797-1804. Populationsof introduced animals also proliferated. As early as 1616,Schouten and LeMaire reported large herds of cows, pigsand goats, as well as introduced plants and vegetablesgrowing wild (Woodward 1969:17, 118).

240 An Archaeological Exploration of Robinson Crusoe Island

Tbe historical evidence suggests that the human impactwas exclusively post-European, and that seems to be theconclusion indicated by Haberle's (n.d.) initialpalaeoenvironmental research. He focused on a peat depositat l000m altitude on Alexander Selkirk Island, just above thetree line where dense stands of Dicksonia ex tema form a sub-alpine community. The high-resolution pollen and charcoalrecord reveals that prior to European arrival the uplandvegetation responded primarily to climate change and internalcommunity dynamics, with fires only playing a minor role inthe island ecosystem (Haberle n.d.). The arrival of Europeansand the subsequent introduction of goats and exploitation andburning of forests resulted in the progressive destruction ofnative vegetation, loss of native species diversity, and theinvasion of introduced plants. This is marked in the pollencore by a rise to dominance of herbaceous taxa beginning ata point dated, Wk 9303, to 330 60 B.P. (Haberle n.d.).ARCHAEOLOGICAL FIELDWORKArchaeological fieldwork in the Juan Fernandez group hasbeen confmed to Robinson Crusoe Island (Figure 1). It beganin 1999 when Caceres and Saavedra (Caceres 2000; Caceresand Saavedra 2000; Caceres et at. 2000) initiated a project inPuerto Ingles. Their main purpose was to documenthistorical remains in that area, in part as precautionarymitigation in the vicinity of a substantial treasure-huntingoperation, directed by Bernard Keiser, which is currentlymining the ridge and adjacent areas immediately behindAlexander Selkirk's Cave. Keiser is searching for a

F IG

su lofmillpn

caanbeInortoce(1Marfe0 1b e(~

catl(ss


3/17

T

)I(/ -:......1. ,1 /\m i . ~ ,GlrlD'\o ).@ ~'I

f 03 ~.I JF IGURE 2 . C umbe rl and Bay, sh ow in g th e location of testpits. N orth is t o th e righ t and 20m m = 100m.

substantial hoard reputedly buried at this spot, under the signof the scorpion (a somewhat indistinct natural rock marking)in AD. 1713 or 1714 by the Spanish Vice-Admiral Juan deUbilla y Echevezzia. Five seasons of digging have yet toproduce any treasure (Keiser pers. comm.),

Caceres and Saavedra excavated inside and outside thecave. Archaeological remains consisted mainly of glazedand unglazed pottery, some fragments of which may havebelonged to large and medium sized vessels used for thetransport and storage of food and water. Some of theunglazed sherds found by Caceres and Saavedra are similarto others found near the Spanish fort at Cumberland Bay,.constructed inA.D. 1749-50. According to Orellana et ill.(1975) these sherds are reminiscent of early HispanicMapuche pottery from southern mainland Chile. Caceresand Saavedra (2000) obtained a TLdate of A . D . 1625 40for a ceramic sherd from one of the test pits located in frontof the cave. Excavations around several cannons near thebeach and a battery on the northeastern slope of the bay(Sobrecasas 1962) revealed mainly 20th century remains.

Our main excavations were inside Alexander Selldrk'sCave, the largest and most accessible cave on the island,and one easily visible from the sea. The material fromthese, and from an excavation in Glasgow rock shelter.Cumberland Bay, is still being processed and will be thesubject of a second report. It will suffice here to note thatso far we see nothing at either site that is .significantly

different from material recovered by Caceres andSaavedra and we have no reason to think that we haveencountered remains of pre-hispanic occupation.

Our archaeological survey concentrated upon the mostprobable areas of early occupation. Most of the high,cliffed., coastline of Robinson Crusoe Island is inaccessibleby land and dangerous to approach by sea, especially onthe more exposed southwestern side. Potential coastaloccupation was essentially confined to the northeasternbays, especially Cumberland Bay which has been the mainfocus of settlement historically. The others are, indescending order of size, Puerto Ingles, Puerto Francesand La Vaqueria. We searched each of these forarchaeological remains of possible pre-hispanic age.

InCumberland Bay, the coastal flat and nearby slopesare mostly covered by the small town of San Juan Bautista,but in the other cases the land is open and almost bare ofvegetation, providing excellent surface visibility. However,it is apparent that there has been significant soil erosion inthe recent past on Robinson Crusoe Island (above). This hasresulted in extensive stripping of the steeper hill slopes andre-deposition in the lower valleys, often resulting in theaccumulation of l.S-3.Om of poorly-sorted colluvium,including clay, silt, gravel, and angular basalt clasts, uponthe original rounded cobbles and boulders in the streambeds. Yet while archaeological sites must have had a lowsurvival rate in the open landscape, some do remain



4/17

B rown -g re y t o da rk b ro wn s ilt , clay , gra ve la nd a ng ula r b as altS tiff, c om p a ct b rown c la y, m o t tle d, r ela tiv ely s to ne le ssS t on e le s s dar k b r own s ilt y- cla yRounded bould er s

01 02 03- . . . "; - . . . - -:---j.- __~._X XX X X

X XXXX XeX~ .Reference

Angula r bou lde rsCharcoalD inne r p la t eModem b uild in g r ub b le

. F IGURE3 . S tr at ig ra phyof te st pi fs i n Cumber la nd B a y .

(below). We searched the open slopes of the lower valleys,cleaned-downand examined numerous watercourse banks,and inspected all rockshelters and caves, digging small test-pits in any features that looked at all promising.

The sites discussed hereinc1ude seven test-pits dug inCumberland Bay, several open sites. one partly-excavated,in Puerto Frances, and a site on high ground discovered byNational Park (CONAF) staff. From this latter, PiedraAgujereada, exposed material was collected and theremaining intact section excavated.Cumberland BayThe testpits were situated to sample both the near-beach(testpits 01-04), and the back-beach (testpits 05-07)deposits. Exposures along the shore and in the testpits showthat the flat ground in Cumberland Bay has a commonupper stratigraphy consisting of layers of compact, oftensticky, brown clays and clay-Ioams containing angularbasaltic fragments and gravels. In testpits.Dl , 03 and 04this material was underlain by loose. rounded cobbles and

242 An Archaeological Exploration of Robinson CrusoeIsland

04 05. . . . -- . . . . - _- - : J . _ .:.. . . . - _

- . -

06 07

=

r'oJ'v~~~~~~~~~

X X/ 8 > .X . .. .X X, . . .X.... X

XX ~X -

(

I-. . . . . .

-A -

. A . . -- - . . ---- - -

boulders, which, in tum, lay upon a cemented beachboulder platform. In testpit 02 the clay and angular basaltwere so cemented at O.8m that they could not be penetratedwith a crowbar. Testpit 06 went down onto basalt bedrock,while test-pit 07 and 05 were terminated at 1.8m and 3,Omrespectively in wet brown silty-clay (Figures 2 and 3).

In the upper 10-3Ocm of these test-pits there occurredmodem artefactual materials, notably plastics and iron,mixed with ceramic fragments. Small and generallyundiagnostic sherds occurred sparsely, along withcharcoal, down to the top of the loose cobbles in testpits 01and 04, and throughout 02. In testpit 03 there was anintervening layer of clay free of cultural material orcharcoal. A piece of a modern dinner plate was recoveredat 1 .Om intestpit 05 and charcoal, without sherds, occunedvery sparsely. down to 2 .Om. No sherds or charcoaloccurred below the top O.3m in testpit 06. A small charcoalsample was recovered at 104m in testpit 07 (Figure 3J. Nosign of a pre-ceramic artefactual horizon was observed inany testpit.


5/17

Itis quite possible that our testpits, widely dispersedas they were, missed remains of a pre-hispaniccolonisation site in Cumberland Bay. However, theyshowed at least that there is no evidence of a pre-hispanichorizon, marked by a palaeosol or charcoal band, in thestratigraphy of the coastal flat, nor any artefactual remainsother that those of the historical era. Charcoal, where itoccurs, is in individual pieces or small, discrete patches atvarying depths and it is probably from forest firesassociated with the deposition of the clay layers. Theseenclose modem material to at least 1.0m depth near the hillslopes and O.3m near the shore, and ceramics down toO.6Sm.Puerto FrancisThis valley has a small coastal flat and a constricted buteasily negotiable lower course for several hundred metresbefore opening out into a broad middle valley with a sidestream entering on the right bank About SOOmup the latter.at an altitude of approximately 200m a.s.l. is a line of basaltoverhangs. These are narrow and cover a floor area of 12mlength by a maximum of 1m wide. Two testpits dug to O.5minfine silt and clinkery basalt encountered only rabbit bone.In the main valley low, eroded, spurs are littered withboulders, On the right bank at about SOOminland and 80mabove sea level (about s O m above the stream bed) there is acurved line of five boulders but no associated culturalmaterial. About 2kms along the boulder beach to thesoutheast of the stream mouth, where the main spur reachesthe sea, is a small rockshelter, with a dry floor of fine siltover an area of 5m by 2.5m. A testpit to O.7m reached stiffbasaltic clay and rock without encountering any charcoal orcultural material. Two historical sites were located in thelower valley, Puerto Frances I and II.Puerto Francis IThis site is situated about 350m inland on a low erodedspur about 20m above the stream bed, on the left bank. ItsGPS location is 33 39' 51" S by 78 46' 49" W It isentirely on the surface and consists of a 6m by 4m patch ofpottery, bottle glass, broken basalt erc., on the top of thespur, with. scattered material, mainly down the seawardslope, over an area of20m by 10m. In the denser patch wasa 50cm by 30cm piece of a slightly concave basalt grindingstone (probably a metate). Around itwere 8 basalt flakesand a piece of a cylindrical implement. such as a cerealroller (mano), but which had also been used as a pounderor hanunerstone. Heavily weathered bone fragments in thevicinity included a cattle phalanx and a goat incisor.

A single light olive green bottle was represented byseven pieces. It had a ground lip. deep wrench marksaround the neck and a very crudely applied string rim,suggesting a date of manufacture earlier that the 191h

Icentury (Newman 1987). Portions of two larger copperalloy spikes were present, one heavy square-sectionedspecimen, more than 7cm in length. There was also a leadmusket ball 15.6nuri in diameter and 18.9gms in weight.

Thirty-six sherds were collected from the surface ofthe site. Subsequent inspection enabled this to be reducedto 21 sherds which cover all the variation in the larger set(access to the Juan Fernadez Islands is by small plane oversome 700km of open ocean so we were obliged to keepremoved sample weights to a minimum; discardedmaterial was deposited with CONAF in San JuanBautista). The procedure for analysing this and otherassemblages from Robinson Crusoe Island was as follows.The sherds were sorted into different categories basedinitially upon paste composition (that is type, size anddensity of temper in the clay matrix), and then by sherdshape and size with base, handle and rim shapes beingdistinguished. Surface treatment and colour and sherdthickness (thin < 5mm, medium 5Smm, and thick 8mm)were also recorded. No petrographic or physical analysishas been carried out Interpretive grouping into typesfollows th e work of Saavedra and Westfall (2000) forpottery assemblages recovered by Caceres and Saavedra atthe excavations in Puerto Ingles, especially fromAlexander Selkirk's Cave.

The .Puerto Frances I assemblage contains threegroups of low-fired hand made earthenware vessels, in theSaavedra and Westfall (2000) Groups 1,3 and 5 (Table 1).Group 1 is exclusively body sherds, buff brown on the

Puerto F ra n ce s IGroup 1 .G roup 3Group 5T O T A L

11 1 5 2 )1 1 5 19 ( A 3 )

2 1 (l0 0)Puerto F ra n c es I IGroup 5Group 7T O T A LPiedra Agujereada

2 1 1 5 )11 1 8 5 )

1 3 (1 00 )Area A AreaS1 9 (7 6) 1 1 (7 9)3 1 1 2 ) 2 ( 1 A )3 ( 1 2 1 1(7)

2 5 (1 00 ) 1 A ( 1 00 )

G roup 1G roup 5Group 1 AT O T A L

T AB L E1 . D istrib ution of poH ery types b y site and area: sh erdnumbers (% of site or area total in b rackets).

An Archaeological Exploration. of Robinson Crusoe Island 243


6/17

oo0-MiddenhCharcoa land s erds

o ~1.0m.5

-0 oCJ

G rey ash and calc ined boneC)F IG UR E 4. Stratigraph y of P uerto Frances II.

outside. with some pieces almost grey on the inside. Ingeneral the sherds are very badly fired, and disintegrate inprolonged immersion. Vessel walls are 6 to 7rnm thick andvessel shapes cannot be reconstructed. Some sherds showblack stains from an irregular firing process. Group 3 has-only one body sherd, light brown to tan in colour, with atemper of fine black sand. The surface is slightlyburnished. The Group 5 sherds have been fired inoxidation, although two pieces show smoked blacksurfaces on the outside. Two pieces are bright orange, .having.been fired to a slightly higher temperature.

Additionally, there are a few medium to high firedglazed, wheel-thrown earthenware pottery fragments, oneof which is a black glazed earthenware fragment, of thekind which was used in 18m -191h century Chile duringmourning. It was especially imported from England, forthat purpose, by wealthy families. Other glazed fragments.belong to large thick walled containers, most likelybelonging to storage vessels used on ships for the transportof bulk grain and oil f rom: Europe to South America in the18m and 1~ centuries.


P ue rto F ra nc es IIThis site is exposed at a depth of 1m in the right bank of thestream at 120m inland and 8m above sea level. Its GPSlocation is 33 39' 40" S by 78 46' 34" W. The stratigraphyshows a shallow, heavily-fired deposit of ash and calcinedbone in light-brown, horizontally-bedded, gravels an d silt,contiguous with a dark brown layer of scattered midden,charcoal and ceramic sherds lying upon a layer of boulders.The site extended along approximately 3.0m of the bank andan area of 23m by O.5mwas excavated (Figure 4).

There were two fragments of dark green bottle glass,lacking any further distinguishing marks, three fragmentsof basalt cobble and 19 sherds, 13 of which were analysed(the remaining 6 being redundant, above). Eleven of thembelong to Saavedra and Westfall's (2000) Group 7, abrown to black fairly well burnished pottery. Wallthickness of 4 to 5rnm suggests fairly small vessels. Asthere are no rim, base or shoulder sherds it is impossible toreconstruct vesselform. The clay has had sand and smallamounts of finely crushed shell added to itThe remaining

1

(

F IG

tw cothinflnot

COlpr ean tasth etibribrecre icaTv


7/17

mo

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

'J ! 'J !aAreaB

Bur t soil area/. -rindstone

Area A

F IG U RE 5. The site at Piedra Aguiereada.

two sherds belong to Group 5. One is a body sherd and theother fragment comes from the base of a vessel, at theinflexion point between base .and walls. However, there isnot enough of it to infer the vessel shape.

Some of the most interesting material from this siteconsisted of faunal remains. Cattle are represented by aproximal tibia fragment, another long bone shaft fragmentand 9 pieces of rib, o n e of them with cut marks. There wasa section of an ovicaprid right mandible, broken anterior tothe 2nd premolar and posterior to the 2nd molar, a distaltibia, two cervical and thoracic vertebrae, 6 long bone andrib fragments. Nine small pieces of turtle bone wererecovered. Pink-footed shearwater (Puffinus creatopus)remains included broken pieces of humerus, ulna,carpometacarpus, radius and scapula, plus three phalanges.Two individuals are represented. Fish bone included th e

remains of two medium-sized Carangids, probably jacks ortrevallies and an additional individual of unidentifiedgenus. Lastly, there were fragments of limpet shell.Piedra Agu je readaThis site lies on heavily eroded land at about 250m a.s.l.near the top of the main ridge to the southeast of the valleyof the same name (Figure 1). Its GPS location is: 33 38'44" S by 78,47' 24" W. Two site areas, separated about40m by a subsidiary spur, are exposed. Site Area Acontained a partially intact cooking area and an extensivescatter of flaked stone and sherds. Site Area B consisted ofa scatter of pottery sherds and cattle bone, a hammers toneand/or grinding stone, a gunflint (Kenmotsu 1990) and thebase fragment of a dark olive green bottle (Figure 5).



8/17

Yellow claygrading brown to red clayand saprolite

.'White ash and bone

Burntbrick red ash

o/Charcoal~. in~hollowr---m 50

FIGURE 6. Excavation of the cooking area at Piedra Agujereoda.

The cooking area (Figure 6) is approximately 2.4mlong and consists of heavily broken and calcined bone in amatrix of wood ash lying in a slight hollow of burnt clay(Figure 5). Approximately half of the feature wasexcavated, the material being sieved to 3mm and all boneand charcoal retained. In addition, bulk samples, about12kg in total, of the ashlbone mixture were carried over toSan Juan Bautista and water-sieved to 3mm. However, thebone had been so heavily broken and then burnt, thatalmost none of it could be identified to species. There issome cattle rib evident, but the presence of ovicaprid orpig bone, for example, cannot be ruled out. One small ratmandible was located next to the fired area, and one large,burnt, limpet within it. InArea B were pieces of a cattleradius, metatarsal, femur, rib (with cut marks) and a molar.

Scattered across the site were the remains of severallarge stone implements. One vias a flat, rectangular,sandstone slab, which had several deep, straight, scoremarks on one surface. Another, smaller implement of thesame kind was represented by two fragments. A thirdartefact consisted of 63 scattered' pieces, amongst thepottery sherds in Area A, of a heavily smashed basalt


_./' \/Charcoal/\ patch /

implement that could be partly refitted. to indicate ashallow, dish-shaped bowl. Judging by the shape and sizeand the very smooth and glossy dished surface, this wasprobably a metate. In Area B was a cylindrical basaltcobble, possibly a mano, broken into 14 pieces. One endof it has been heavily damaged by hammering orpounding. This assemblage of implements seems torepresent two functions at the site; grinding or sharpeningof knives or cutlasses and the grinding and pounding ofsome other material, probably grain or maize. However,the smashing of the implements is unusual and it has beencarried out deliberately and to a fine degree offragmentation. Itmay be suspected that this was an act ofdeparture but of what motivation we can only guess.

All of the exposed ceramic sherds were collected andsorted on site. Because of restrictions in transport, 94 bodysherds (35 from Area A, 59 from Area B) which wereotherwise represented in the retained collection and had noother distinguishing features, were discarded. The sherdsin general show signs of erosion, making it difficult toestablish surface finish, or determine if the vessels had anyslip decoration. There are two main groups of pottery, one

coanthi

dib)mm71pishh~sttr.h:towsllxhi

hs:81c -ob

e1fr1


9/17

corresponding to low fired hand-built earthenware vessels;and the other to medium to high-fired glazed, wheel-thrown earthenware (Group 14).

The low-fired pottery assemblage is made up of twodistinct groups, 1 and 5, within the categories establishedby Saavedra and Westfall (2000). Group 1 refers tomedium-sized vessels with black sand temper present i~medium to low quantities. Vessel walls are between 6 and7mm thick and the only shapes we can infer are from onepiece which shows a flat base with everted walls. Twoshoulder pieces indicate 'that SOmeof the vessels may havehad composite shapes formed by rounded bodies withstraight necks above the shoulder, known as "olla" in thetraditional Chilean mainland pottery tradition, where flathandles come off On one or two sides from the rim downto the shoulder of the vessel. There is only one flat handlewith a rim piece attached to it, and one rim piece whichshows the insertion of a broken off handle. The vessels hadbeen fired in oxidation at a low temperature to a buffbrown colour. Some of the pieces almost disintegratedwhile being washed. Some body sherds show black stainsfrom an irregular firing process.

Group 5 is quite similar to group 1, but the vesselshave thicker walls and there is a high proportion of blacksand temper; probably because bigger vessels need astronger fabric to support the vessel walls duringconstruction. The Group 5 pots had also been fired in anoxidising atmosphere to a low temperature, resulting in abuff brown colour.

Group 14 includes very large wheel-thrown,earthenware vessels, with walls that are over 15mm thick.The sherds probably belong to vessels used for storage offood, water and oil, although the shape cannot bereconstructed from the current remains, The outer surfacehas the eroded remains of a : thin glaze coat. The vesselfabric has large quantities of black sand temper mixed withcrushed quartz, which could well be part of the originalclay composition. Finger marks from the wheel can be seenquite clearly on the inner surface of one of the body sherds.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONSExplorations on Robinson Crusoe Island in 2001 haveshown that a. rich and diverse archaeological landscaperemains to be studied. In addition to the known sites at andnear Alexander Selkirk's Cave in Puerto Ingles, and themore obvious historical monuments, including thedispersed batteries of cannons, there are open sitesremaining in the heavily eroded sediments, at least in thePuerto Frances district. Our investigations of these, andour testpits in Cumberland Bay were intended, in the firstinstance, to determine whether there was any evidenceindicative of pre-hispanic occupation of the island.

The Cumberland Bay testpits show that charcoal canbe found below the level of modern and historicalartefactual remains. Radiocarbon dates have been obtainedon very small fragments of unidentified charcoal from 2mdepth at testpit 05 and from 1.35m depth at testpit 07_These (Table 2), suggest that there had been forest firing inthe pre-European era, around the late first millennium andearly second millennium A_D. While interesting andpotentially significant, they do not provide a strongindication of prehistoric occupation in the absence ofcultural remains or of any horizon of charcoal, burnt rocketc. Our inquiries of the Clerk of Works and long termresidents in San Juan Bautista also failed to elicit anysuggestion of charcoal, shell, burnt rock or anything otherthan hill-slope deposits in holes dug to 3m deep forconstruction, rubbish disposal etc., in the municipal area.On present evidence, then, there is nothing to suggestprehistoric occupation of Cumberland Bay. As this is thelargest bay, one of the most sheltered, and with the greatestextent of coastal flat land to be found in the archipelago, itwould almost certainly have attracted prehistoricoccupation had any occurred in the islands. The date forPiedra Agujereada: is on a sample of small diameter andtwig-sized charcoal identified as the lowland forest treeMyrceugenia [emandeziana. The sample came fromdirectly under the burnt brick-red ash (Figure 6). The age,though quite early, runs into the historical era and since itwas clearly associated with remains of introduced animalsi t is probably indicating some inbuilt age. The modem date

L a b . N o . Site Conventional d13C CalibratedAgeB.P. A ge A .D .

ANU-11633 Tp-07, 1.35m 1340 40 -24.0 642 (666) 773ANU-11634A Tp-05,2.0m 1010 170 -26.6 6 63. (1 020) 1 29 8ANU-11635 Piedra Agujereada 64 0 21 0 -24.0 9 91 {1302,1 369 ,138 2) 1 662ANU-11637A Puer to F rances I I 21 0 50 -24.5 Modern

TABLE2 . Rad ioca rbon ages fo r cha rcoa l samp les f rom Juan Fernandez I slands. Cali brat ions a re Me thod A , two s igma , b y Stuiver etal. {1998).



10/17

for Puerto Frances II is on a sample of charcoal identifiedas pieces of cut timber from the lowland forest tree Fagaramayu. While the matter of prehistoric occupation cannotbe closed, on the current radiocarbon and archaeologicaldata, there is little to encourage the suggestion.

The question of why there appears to have been noprehistoric occupation of the Juan Fernandez Islands is onewhich requires a broad contextual discussion that we wish toleave until the analysis of the major rockshelter sites, butclearly all the factors of prehistoric voyaging geography inthe far eastern Pacific were unfavourable: immense distancefrom East Polynesia; location in an otherwise empty ocean;relatively high latitude in heavier seas and prevailingeasterly winds; the probable absence of a southern SouthAmerican voyaging tradition, including of suitable vesselsor any sailing technology. and so on. As in the case of theremote western islands of Polynesia (Anderson & White2(01), occupation was likely to havebeen either very brief(Norfolk Islandjor absent (Lord Howe Island).

In its absence, so far as we could see, our interestturned to the historical sites, representative as they are,consequently, of the human colonisation. era of thearchipelago. The sites which we investigated describefairly ephemeral events centred upon exploitation ofintroduced, probably feral, animals, especially cattle. In asense they are megafaunal hunting sites, although not ofthe indigenous taxa of that kind, the seals and elephantseals, which are entirely absent amongst the remains(having been decimated in the earliest phase of settlementand, probably, little to the taste anyway of Europeancolonists). PiedraAgujereada, lying on the misty uplands,with its very large cooking area and heavily calcined bone,its abundant flaked stone and its scatter of butchered boneand domestic artifacts is almost eerily reminiscent of aninland moa-hunting site and the coastal sites, especiallyPuerto Frances IIwith its remains of turtle, bird, fish andshellfish, as well as those of big game, have the broadermaritime diversity of coastal Archaic Maori settlement(Anderson 1989). The similarity is not profound, ofcourse, but it probably represents a common aspect ofcolonisation behaviour which is an emphasis uponforaging and the selective exploitation of large game,albeit feral animals in the Juan Fernandez case.

The domestic implements in these sites includedcereal grinding stones (metates and manos), sharpeningstones, water jugs and other ceramic vessels, glass bottles,various pieces of metal, gun flints and lead musket balls.They represent a standard range of basic functions:shooting, butchering, cooking, preparing cereal foods, andthe carriage of water and some other fluids, probablyliquor. The remains are fairly scarce and emphasise thesmall-scale and brief occupancy of the sites. .


They also suggest something about the period ofsettlement and the ethnicity of the site occupants. Thecereal grinding implements are characteristically SouthAmerican rather than British. The pottery is mostly ofcommon low-fired ceramics which, where the shape of thevessels can be inferred, as at Piedra Agujereada, isstrongly reminiscent of mid 181h century wares from southcentral Chile (see also Orellana et al. 1975) . The mainfeatures of this pottery are jts thick walls, low quality insurface finish and the presence of flat handles placed onthe rim of the pot. Pots of this period frequently have aninflexion or shoulder at the meeting point of body andneck. The presence of black sand tempered clay is afeatured observed in the ceramic assemblages of theMaule area of south central Chile (Rees et aI.1996). Thisis not surprising because the people in the first substantialcolony in 1749 came mainly from the Concepcion Bayarea in south central Chile (Guarda 1990). It is probablethat. most of the labour force was of mixed Mapucbe ethnicorigin. It may be that the shell-tempered pottery found atPuerto Frances IIis of local manufacture, since shelltemper is very rare in pottery made in mainland Chile. Thefrequent occurrence of struck basalt flakes is interesting,and might also reflect the activities of South AmericanIndian settlers, although none of the flakes show any signsof secondary working or the manufacture of formalimplements.

The open sites found so far do not represent theearliest colonisation era but rather the period whenpermanent settlement was becoming established on theisland. Quite possibly they were associated with theexpansion of military establishments in the mid to late 1811>century when a battery of cannons was installed at PuertoFrances. There is a track to that bay from San JuanBautista and it passes close to Piedra Agujereada. As thepopulation bad increased rapidly by deliberatecolonisation, and a network of conununications anddefence expanded on the island, so may have systematicexploitation of the large reserves of feral animals. Analysisof the rockshelter sites, now in progress, may enable us toput this phase into a longer sequence of the colonisationera in the Juan Fernandez Islands.ACKNOWLEDGEMENTSWe acknowledge, with gratitude, support from theNational Geographic Society Research Grant (No.6660-99), CONAF of Chile for pernrission to conductfield studies in the Juan Fernandez Archipelago, theMuseo Nacional de Historia Natural, Santiago, forsupport and advice during trips to Chile, and IvanCaceres for access to his unpublished reports. Forsupport during fieldwork the authors would especiallylike to thank: the I. Municipalidad de Juan Fernandez,

M;wio ufa~RcacNtTeM-AloRIAIp ,UI

COAlC iAIAlCIcM

c.oamAC:CInFiGP IS'G


11/17


12/17

~ , - ., > ' -' i, ', ',-," : ; c _ . - f - : "

~..;.

~:-:-"{( ~.-..~

c: E d i t e d b y S t u o r t B e d f o r d I ( h r is t o p h e S o n d 0 n d D a v i d ' "B u r l e y

NEW ZEALAND ARCHAEOLOGICAL ASSOCIATIONMONOGRAPH


13/17

New Zealand Archaeological AssociationMonograph editors: Simon Holdaway and Dorothy Brown, Anthropology,University of Auckland, Private Bag 92019,AucklandEditors this volume: Stuart Bedford, Christophe Sand and David Burley

Cover: Copy of cover of R. Shutler and M.E. Shutler 1975 Oceanic Prehistory(permission of Pearson Education Inc., San Francisco)

Orders to:New Zealand Archaeological AssociationPublicationsAuckland MuseumPrivate Bag 92018AucklandNew Zealandemail: [email protected]

2002 New Zealand Archaeological AssociationISSN 0111-5715ISBN 0-9597915-8-2Page layout by Aldo Ganter (OPAO Production, [email protected])Printed by Repro Graphics Ltd., Auckland.
mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]


14/17

C O N T E N T S

INTRODUCTION 7Richard Shutler Jr.: B ibliography 1950 to 2001 . 1 7OVERVJEWSRed is co ve rin g th e S oc ia l A s pe cts o f An ce str al O c ea nic S oc ie tie s th ro ug hArch a eo logy, L ingu is ti cs , a nd E thnol ogy .

Roger C. Green2 1

Obs id ia n, c ol on is ing and e x ch ange .Jim Specht

37

They 've Grown Ac cu stomed t o Your F ac e.Ma tt h ew Sp ri gg s

51

N EW GUIN EAB ig pots on a sm all Lou Island. 5 9

WalAmbroseGourds inNew Gu in ea .,A s ia a nd th e P a ci fic . 69

J ac k Go ls onLapita and T ype Y pottery in the KLK site, S iassi, P apua New Guinea. 79

Ian L i ll eyL ap ita wo rk ed s h el l a rt ef ac ts -N ew Dat a f rom E ar ly L ap ita , 91

Katherine Szabo a nd G le nn S ummer ha ye sFEA site, Boduna I s land: Fur the r Inves tigat ions. 101J. Pe te r Wh i te , Co smos Co roneo s, Vince Neall ,William Boyd and Rob in To r re nc eMICRONESIAS ta tu s A rc h ite ctu re a nd S to ne R e so ur ce s o n P o h np ei, M i cr on es ia :Experim ents in Stone T ransport. 109

W i lliam S . Ay re s a nd Ch ri sto ph er J. SchellerP r eh i st or ic Po tt er y Movemen ts inWes te rn Micrones ia : T e c hno log ic al a nd Pe tr ol og ic alS tudy of P otsherds from Fais Island. 123

M i ch ik o I nto h a nd "W i lliamR. D ic kin so n

3


15/17

SO UT HE RN M ELA NE SIAO f S hell, S tone and B one. A review of non-ceram ic artefacts recovered fromth e first 1 00 0 y ea rs o f V an ua tu 's a rc ha eo lo gic al re co rd .

S tu art B e dford an d M atth ew S prig gsThree th ousand years of fish ing in New C aledonia and the Loyalty Islands.

Janet Davidson, Foss Leach and C hristoph e SandP etrologic C haracter and G eologic S ou rces of Sand T em pers in PrehistoricN ew C aledo nian P ottery.

W illiam R . D ic kin so n

13 5

153

165

O ld Sites, New Insigh ts: A R eanalysis of the 195 2 G ifford and Sh utlerN ew C ale do nia C olle ctio ns.

C hr is to ph e S an d, P atric k V. K irch , and Jam es Coil" F ur th e r d eta il o n th e A rc ha eo lo gic al E x pl or atio ns in th e S outh ern N ew H ebrides, 1 963 -1 96 4. 1 89

Mary E liz ab eth S hu tler, R ich ard S hu tler Jr. and S tu art B edford

173 Wallac'DepartnResearcAustraliCanben

N ew F ish R ecords from O undjo (S IT E 26), L a G ra nd e Terre: FurtherC o ntr ib u tio ns o f O to lith s.

Marshall I.Weisler20 7

AtbonCentre:AustralCanben

CENTRAL AND E AS TE RN P AC IF IC

A dz es o f Interaction: S am oan B a salt A rtefacts inFiji.G eo ffre y C la rk

THE FAR EAST

227

WilliruDeparllUniver:OregonStuartNewZPOBo :WilliaSchoolSoutheLismoi

On th e D efinition and Im plications of E astern Lapita C eram ics in T onga..D av id V . B u rle y, Alice Storey, Jessi Witt

213

An Archaeo log ic al Exp lo ra ti on o f Rob in son Cru soe I sl and, J ua n F er na nd ez A rc hip ela go , C h ile . 2 39A th oll A nderson , S im on H ab erle, G loria R ojas, A ndrea S eelen freu nd,Ian S mith and T rev or W orth y

On Sh utler and M arck (1 975 ).J ef f Ma rc k

251

DavidDepartSimonBurna]Canad

A LAST WORD

Geof!SchooAustnCanbeJameDepalUniveSerbChrisCOSIT:MaroJanelCuraJMuseTong

4


16/17

I I S T 0 F C O N T R I B U l O R S

Wallace AmbroseDepartment of Archaeology and Natural History,Research School" of Pacific and Asian Studies,Australian National University,Canberra ACT 0200, Australia.Atholl AndersonCentre for Archaeological Research,Australian National University,Canberra ACT 0200, Australia.William S. AyresDepartment of Anthropology,University of Oregon, Eugene,Oregon, USA.Stuart BedfordNew Zealand Historic Places TrustIPouhere Taonga,PO Box 105-291, Auckland, New Zealand.William BoydSchool of Resource Scienceand Management,Southern Cross University,Lismore, NSW 2480 Australia.David BurleyDepartment of Archaeology,Simon Fraser UniversityBurnaby, British Columbia

. Canada V5A IS6.Geoffrey Clark.School of Arcbaeology and Anthropology,Australian National University,Canberra, ACT 0200, AustraliaJames CoilDepartment of AnthropologyUniversity of CaliforniaBerkeley, California 94720, USA.Chris CoroneosCosmos Archaeology PlLMaroubra NSW 2035, Australia.Janet DavidsonCurator of Pacific Collections.Museum of New Zealand Te PapaTongarewa, PO Box 467, Wellington, New Zealand.

William R. DickinsonDepartment of Geosciences,University of Arizona,Tucson, Arizona 85721, USA.Jack GolsonCentre for Arcbaeological Research.,Australian National University,Canberra, ACT 0200, Australia.Roger C. GreenDepartment of Anthropology,University of Auckland,Auckland, New Zealand.Simon HaberleSchool of Geography and Environmental Science,Monash University,Victoria 3800, Australia.Patr ick V. KirchDepartment of Anthropology,University of CaliforniaBerkeley, California 94720, USA.Michiko IntohNational Museum of Ethnology,The Graduate University for Advanced Studies,Senri Expo-Park, SuitaOsaka, 565-8511, Japan.Foss LeachArchaeozoology Laboratory,Museum of New Zealand Te Papa Taongarewa,P.O. Box 467, Wellington, New zealand. .Ian LilleyAboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies Unit,The University of Queensland 4072, Australia.JefIMarckPO Box 27129,Omaha NE 68127, USA.Vince NeallInstitute of Earth Sciences,Massey Unversity, PaImerston North. New Zealand.

5


17/17

Gloria RojasMuseo Nacional de Historia Natural,Santiago, Chile.Christophe SandDepartement Archeologie,Service des Musees,BP 2393, 98846 Noumea, New Caledonia.Christopher J. SchellerDepartment of Anthropology,University of Oregon, Eugene, Oregon, USA.Andrea SeelenfreundR ob erto P e ra ga llo 6 64 4,Las Condes.: Santiago, Chile.Yos ih iko SinotoDepartment of Anthropology,B e rn ic e P . Bishop Museum,P .O. Box 19000A, Honolulu, Hawaii, USA.Mary Elizabeth ShutlerTorrey Pines Road, La Jolla, California.Richard Shutler Jr .Department of Archaeology,Simon Fraser University,Burnaby, British Columbia, Canada V5A IS6.Ian SmithAnthropology Department;University of Otago,P.O. Box 56 Dunedin, New Zealand.Wilhelm Solheim IIArchaeological Studies Programme,University of Philippines,Dillman, Quezon City, 1101, Philippines.Jim SpechtAustralian Museum,6 College Street, Sydney, NSW,2010.Matthew SpriggsSchool of Archaeology and Anthropology,Australian National University.Canberra, ACT' 0200, Australia.

A lic e S to re yDepartment of Archaeology,Simon Fraser UniversityBurnaby, British Columbia, Canada V5A IS6.Glenn R. SummerhayesFellow, Department of Archaeology and Natural History,Research School of Pacific and Asian Studies,Australian National University,Canberra ACf 0200, Australia.Katherine SzaboDepartment of Archaeology and Natural History,Research School of Pacific and Asian Studies,Australian National University,Canberra ACT 0200, Australia.Robin TorrenceDepartment of Archaeology,University of Sydney,NSW 2006 Australia.Marshall I.WeislerAnthropology Department,University of Otago,P . O . Box 56, Dunedin, New Zealand.Jessi WittDepartment of Archaeology,Simon Fraser University, .Burnaby, British Columbia, Canada V5A IS6.Trevor WorthyPalaeofaunal Surveys,2A Willow Park Drive,Masterton, New Zealand.J. Peter WhiteDepartment of Archaeology,University of Sydney,NSW 2006 Australia.

RIBIT hco :phUrha lCO !f r cWtmst rdoid(exW~FucaN cexaoctri

Ceit ,eaarnrrep IalarfoeewatGth

6

Documents

Selkirk Cave Andersonetal02