Records of The Australian Museum, Supplement最新文献

{"title":"Prehistoric settlement on Norfolk Island and its Oceanic context","authors":"Atholl Anderson, P. White","doi":"10.3853/J.0812-7387.27.2001.1348","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3853/J.0812-7387.27.2001.1348","url":null,"abstract":"The likelihood of Polynesian settlement of Norfolk Island was recognized in the eighteenth century, but archaeological remains of a settlement site were only discovered in 1995. The excavation history of the Emily Bay site is summarized, its date put at about the thirteenth to fourteenth century A.D. and its East Polynesian nature, especially its contacts with the Kermadecs and New Zealand, recognized through its artefacts. The faunal remains show a dominance of fish and birds, and low diversity within each. The reasons for ending the settlement are unknown but speculated upon and several future research priorities noted. ANDERSON, ATHOLL, AND PETER WHITE, 2001b. Prehistoric settlement on Norfolk Island and its Oceanic context. In The Prehistoric Archaeology of Norfolk Island, Southwest Pacific, ed. Atholl Anderson and Peter White, pp. 135–141. Records of the Australian Museum, Supplement 27. Sydney: Australian Museum. Records of the Australian Museum, Supplement 27 (2001): 135–141. ISBN 0 7347 2305 9 There are two small archipelagos in the northern Tasman Sea. One of them, consisting of Lord Howe Island and Ball’s Pyramid, has never produced any evidence of prehistoric human settlement, even by extensive test-pitting, coring and drilling (Anderson, 1996a, Macphail, 1996). In the other, consisting of Norfolk Island, Nepean Island and Phillip Island—the Norfolk Island archipelago—indications of earlier habitation were observed from the beginnings of European settlement. These were, and remained, enigmatic, namely, clusters of bananas growing in Arthur’s Vale, the existence of small rats, pieces of wrecked canoes and other wooden artefacts which were ascribed variously to origins in Tonga or New Zealand, and from the interior of the island some stone adzes and chisels. By A.D. 1793 Commandant King, clearly influenced by the fact that two Maori taken to Norfolk Island had recognized the newly-discovered stone tools as Maori “toki” (adzes) from the North Island (New Zealand), concluded that the various pieces of evidence constituted “a feasible proof” of Norfolk Island having once been settled from New Zealand (King, 1793, cited in McCarthy, 1934: 267). If this seems a prescient observation now, it was not one that the history of archaeological discovery subsequent to 1793 and prior to the current project would have easily allowed. Many stone adzes and flakes, recovered particularly from Emily Bay and adjacent areas, were of forms regarded as generically East Polynesian, but some Norfolk Island collections were found by Specht (1984) to contain many stone implements, and some of shell, in nonPolynesian forms and materials, Melanesian types especially. Further examples of non-Polynesian implements, not recorded by Specht, occur in the Norfolk Island Museum collection, where they were catalogued by Anderson (n.d.). Since New Caledonia is relatively close to the north and","PeriodicalId":371360,"journal":{"name":"Records of The Australian Museum, Supplement","volume":"37 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2001-11-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"115436782","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Land snails from Norfolk Island sites","authors":"Diana Neuweger, P. White, W. Ponder","doi":"10.3853/J.0812-7387.27.2001.1346","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3853/J.0812-7387.27.2001.1346","url":null,"abstract":"Fourteen sequences of land snails were sampled by corer from the Emily Bay settlement site and four from Cemetery Bay. Thirty-nine samples of modern land snails were collected from six environmental zones on Norfolk Island. The modern fauna is depauperate compared to the prehistoric one, with loss occurring mostly among the larger species. We suggest this is due first to predation by Rattus exulans introduced by prehistoric Polynesians and later to habitat loss following European settlement. We consider we cannot use the land snail data to make any interpretation of direct human impact on the Norfolk Island environment. We note however that the density and diversity of snails is high in the prehistoric cultural layer and below it, showing that the settlement area probably provided a more vegetated and wetter environment for the earliest settlers than is now present.","PeriodicalId":371360,"journal":{"name":"Records of The Australian Museum, Supplement","volume":"5 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2001-11-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"121337178","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Polynesian Plant Introductions in the Southwest Pacific: Initial Pollen Evidence from Norfolk Island","authors":"M. Macphail, G. Hope, Atholl Anderson","doi":"10.3853/J.0812-7387.27.2001.1347","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3853/J.0812-7387.27.2001.1347","url":null,"abstract":"Thick organic swamp sediments, buried under land fill on Kingston Common, preserves evidence of the Norfolk Island flora and vegetation back to the middle Holocene and probably much earlier times in the Late Quaternary. These sediments provide (1) a bench mark against which the impact of humans on the flora and vegetation of a long-isolated island can be assessed and (2) a means of determining whether particular plant genera and species are introduced or native to the island. Although sediments contemporary with Polynesian occupation about 800 years ago were destroyed by European draining and cultivation of the swamp during the early nineteenth century, the pollen data indicate that New Zealand flax (Phormium tenax) was introduced to Norfolk Island by Polynesians. Other putative exotics such as Ti (Cordyline), a bull-rush (Typha orientalis) and, less certain, herbs such as the sow thistle (Sonchus oleraceus), were part of the native flora long before the earliest recorded Polynesian settlement. Wildfires have been part of the landscape ecology of Norfolk Island since at least the middle Holocene.","PeriodicalId":371360,"journal":{"name":"Records of The Australian Museum, Supplement","volume":"27 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2001-11-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"130856965","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Molluscs and echinoderms from the Emily Bay settlement site, Norfolk Island","authors":"Colin Campbell, L. Schmidt","doi":"10.3853/J.0812-7387.27.2001.1345","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3853/J.0812-7387.27.2001.1345","url":null,"abstract":"The Emily Bay archaeological molluscan fauna as an ensemble is almost entirely intertidal in its natural occurrence, with seven species preferring sand or mud substrates and 13 species preferring hard substrates. The only exceptions are the pelagic cephalopods Nautilus and Spirula. The gastropod species Nerita atramentosa is dominant in both numbers and by weight. The rocky intertidal platform was the focus of mollusc collecting. The four most common species derive from this zone and habitually cluster in colonies, which would have made them a preferred prey. Among the many factors that may have contributed to eventual abandonment of Norfolk Island, a scarcity of easily harvestable coastal marine resources would probably have been significant.","PeriodicalId":371360,"journal":{"name":"Records of The Australian Museum, Supplement","volume":"24 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2001-11-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"130707497","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"The radiocarbon chronology on the Norfolk Island archaeological sites","authors":"Atholl Anderson, T. Higham, R. Wallace","doi":"10.3853/J.0812-7387.27.2001.1337","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3853/J.0812-7387.27.2001.1337","url":null,"abstract":"Radiocarbon determinations were obtained for archaeological sites at Cemetery Bay and Emily Bay, Norfolk Island. Sample materials were rat bone gelatin, marine shell and wood charcoal. Ages on bone gelatin are contradictory and suggest a laboratory problem, while ages on marine shell appear to include an old-carbon offset of 500-600 years: dates on these samples are consistent with those on charcoal when appropriate corrections are made. Ages on charcoal were divided according to the expected inbuilt age of the sample taxa. The samples with lowest inbuilt age were subjected to Bayesian analysis which concluded that the main archaeological site, at Emily Bay, had been occupied from the early thirteenth to the early fifteenth centuries A.D. The Norfolk Island settlement occurs within the same age range as other Polynesian settlements of southern islands.","PeriodicalId":371360,"journal":{"name":"Records of The Australian Museum, Supplement","volume":"69 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2001-11-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"130696877","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Genetic Variation in Archaeological Rattus exulans Remains from the Emily Bay Settlement Site, Norfolk Island","authors":"E. Matisoo-Smith, K. Horsburgh, J. Robins, Atholl Anderson","doi":"10.3853/J.0812-7387.27.2001.1342","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3853/J.0812-7387.27.2001.1342","url":null,"abstract":"Analyses of mitochondrial DNA variation in archaeological samples of Rattus exulans obtained during the 1997 excavations at Emily Bay, Norfolk Island suggest a high degree of variation in the prehistoric populations on the island. The ten samples sequenced produced five unique haplotypes. This result is consistent with a scenario of multiple introductions of the species to the island. There are clear affiliations with East Polynesian and New Zealand samples, however other lineages also appear to be present on Norfolk Island. Three haplotypes that had previously not been identified in tropical East Polynesia appear on Norfolk. One of these has also been identified in an archaeological sample from New Zealand. The other two haplotypes have yet to be identified elsewhere.","PeriodicalId":371360,"journal":{"name":"Records of The Australian Museum, Supplement","volume":"11 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2001-11-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"134527313","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Domestic and Religious Structures in the Emily Bay Settlement Site, Norfolk Island","authors":"Atholl Anderson, R. Green","doi":"10.3853/J.0812-7387.27.2001.1338","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3853/J.0812-7387.27.2001.1338","url":null,"abstract":"At Emily Bay, domestic structures include earth ovens, scoop hearths and a possible rectangular house inferred from posts and postholes. An area of stone paving nearby is argued to be a religious structure, or marae. Made of naturally available stone, it lies slightly below the surface of the darker sand cultural layer. Obsidian flakes were found above it and postholes beneath. Several edging blocks of various shapes are noted. Radiocarbon dated to c. 700-600 B.P., this platform fits within the known parameters of other East Polynesian marae of similar age.","PeriodicalId":371360,"journal":{"name":"Records of The Australian Museum, Supplement","volume":"36 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2001-11-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"125674091","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Mammalian and Reptilian Fauna from Emily and Cemetery Bays, Norfolk Island","authors":"I. Smith, G. Clark, P. White","doi":"10.3853/J.0812-7387.27.2001.1341","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3853/J.0812-7387.27.2001.1341","url":null,"abstract":"Large mammal remains described from the prehistoric settlement at Emily Bay consist of elephant seal and turtle. Rattus exulans remains similar to those elsewhere in Polynesia were the only rodent remains found throughout excavations at Emily and Cemetery Bays: there is no evidence that this animal was eaten. A partial dog mandible from Emily Bay is described: it may be prehistoric but neither its date nor osteometry are definitive. An intrusive recent pig is noted.","PeriodicalId":371360,"journal":{"name":"Records of The Australian Museum, Supplement","volume":"42 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2001-11-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"133996963","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Avifauna from the Emily Bay Settlement Site, Norfolk Island: A Preliminary Account","authors":"R. Holdaway, Atholl Anderson","doi":"10.3853/J.0812-7387.27.2001.1343","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3853/J.0812-7387.27.2001.1343","url":null,"abstract":"The avifauna of the Emily Bay settlement site, Norfolk Island, southwest Pacific, is described. Most of the remains, which consisted of nearly 10,000 identifiable bones (mostly fragmentary) and several thousand unidentifiable elements and fragments, were of several species of petrel and shearwater (Procellariiformes) and boobies (Sulidae), but some land birds were also represented in small numbers. Two species of migratory wading bird (Charadriiformes) were identified in the deposits, but no terns, which are dominant members of the present avifauna. The taphonomy of the remains indicates intensive use of birds as food, but some material of other than cultural origin was also present. Remains were not distributed evenly throughout the excavated parts of the site, and were concentrated in areas where other evidence such as post holes and fires scoops indicated points of occupation. Some species that are present on the island and palatable were not represented in the collections: possible reasons for their absence are canvassed. An estimate of the biomass is presented, with the proviso that the variation in density of deposition made extrapolation to the remainder of the site problematic. The size of the sample, the preservation of elements such as vertebrae of small petrels, and the good condition of material of apparent natural (non-cultural) origin indicate that the collection represents a good sample of the avifauna used as food by the Polynesian inhabitants of Emily Bay.","PeriodicalId":371360,"journal":{"name":"Records of The Australian Museum, Supplement","volume":"14 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2001-11-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"121049787","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Shell and Bone Artefacts from the Emily Bay Settlement Site, Norfolk Island","authors":"L. Schmidt, Atholl Anderson, R. Fullagar","doi":"10.3853/J.0812-7387.27.2001.1340","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3853/J.0812-7387.27.2001.1340","url":null,"abstract":"Amongst molluscan shell from the Emily Bay site were 40 specimens of fragmented bivalves, especially of Gari livida, which were examined for evidence of their use as artefacts. Experiments using modern specimens of the same taxa showed that it was impossible to define deliberate breakage sufficiently clearly to define shell tools on that criterion. Analysis of usewear by microscopic inspection of edges was the main discriminant adopted. In addition vegetable residues were identified on several edges. These means identified 19 pieces as tools, which had been used mainly for scraping soft materials. Two other tools were identified by morphology. A small assemblage of bone and marine ivory artefacts was also recovered from Emily Bay. Most were pieces of fishing gear.","PeriodicalId":371360,"journal":{"name":"Records of The Australian Museum, Supplement","volume":"257 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2001-11-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"123687852","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}