Download Report

New Discoveries of Archaeological Sites with
Polynesian Plainware Ceramics on Tutuila Island,
American Samoa
Presented at the
Samoa Conference III: Opportunities and challenges for a sustainable
cultural and natural environment
25-29 August 2014
National University of Samoa, Apia, Samoa
1
2
By Joel D. Klenck and Epifania Suafo’a-Taua’i
Introduction
Archaeologists from the American Samoa Historic Preservation Office (“ASHPO”) and
American Samoa Power Authority (“ASPA”) excavated and analysed cultural assemblages
from three sites: Maloata, Fagamalo, and Leone, on Tutuila Island, in American Samoa.
All sites were excavated to comply with the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966
(“NHPA”), as amended. The Act requires all federally funded projects to record and mitigate
damage to historic sites, usually greater than fifty (50) years of age. The ASPA Archaeology
Department (“AAD”) and ASHPO also requires construction crews to follow the American
Samoa Coastal Management Act of 1990 (“ASCMA”) and adhere to the provisions of the
Samoan Project Notification and Review System (“PNRS”), which further protects historic sites.
1
Principal Investigator, Senior Advisor, President, PRC, Inc. (Contract Archaeology Firm);
Former Territorial Archaeologist, American Samoa Historic Preservation Office, 6800 Bird
Road, Ste. #381, Miami, Florida, 33155; Telephone: (904) 444-1576.
2
Principal Investigator, Senior Advisor, Director, Archaeology Department, American Samoa
Power Authority, P.O. Box 2175, Leone Village, Pago Pago, American Samoa; Telephone:
(684) 699-2316.
To fulfil the requirements of the NHPA, archaeologists completed Phase I, II, and III mitigation
activities at Maloata, Fagamalo, and Leone, sites on or near the western coastline of Tutuila
Island. Archaeological methods at these locales comprised pedestrian surveys, mitigation of
shovel-test pits, excavation of square-metre excavation units, and dry sieving using quarterinch mesh screens.
Archaeologists retrieved an array of artifacts including Polynesian Plainware ceramic sherds,
adzes, adze pre-forms, volcanic glass, lunate-shaped lithic artifacts, debitage, a lithic
denticulate, fire-cracked rocks, clays annealing to basaltic cinders, clays of various colours, and
circular stone features. The retrieval of ceramic artifacts at these sites indicates ceramic
utilization was more widespread than previously recorded and the potential presence of pottery
making facilities at Fagamalo and Maloata.
Background
Archaeological research in the Pacific documented a rich and varied record of human
occupation in Samoa between 2900 and 2700 cal BP (Addison & Matisoo-Smith 2010; Rieth &
Hunt 2008). However, some dates suggest an earlier chronology, for the initial occupation of
Tutuila, between 3400 and 2750 cal BP (Rieth et al. 2014). The first published archaeological
field study was by Jack Golson (1969; 1972). Later archaeological research included several
large projects in both Western and American Samoa (Green & Davidson 1965; Green &
Davidson 1969; Green & Davidson 1972; Kirch & Hunt 1993).
The Samoan archipelago has been of great interest to Pacific researchers, especially after the
retrieval of ancient ceramics by Golson (1969) and later by Green and Davidson (1972; see
Figure 1). It was not until Green’s work that a more complete sequence of Samoan ceramics
began to emerge (Green 1974). Green proposed a ceramic sequence for Upolu that was
quickly embraced by Oceanic archaeologists and now stands as the conventional culturehistorical reconstruction for the entire archipelago (Bellwood 1979; Davidson 1987; Kirch 1986;
Kirch & Hunt 1993).
Figure 1: The Samoan Archipelago showing the location of Tutuila Island.
Early work in American Samoa was limited and focused mostly on regional scale settlement
patterns and chronology. Notable works include the archaeological survey of surface artifacts
by Kikuchi (1964) and test excavations by Janet Frost (1978).
Subsequently, studies of
Polynesian occupations began at Manu’a (Hunt 1987; Kirch & Hunt 1993; Clark & Michlovic
1996) and the western end of Tutuila (Ayres & Eisler 1987) including the archaeological
excavations at the Tataga-Matau Adze Quarry (Leach & Witter 1990).
Evidence for early settlement and human occupation in Samoa, dating between ca. 3,000 to
2,000 years ago, comes from the Mulifanua Ceramic Site or Ferry Berth Site, which is
approximately 800 metres from the western side of Upolu Island (Green & Davidson 1972;
Green 1974; Leach & Green 1989). In eastern Tutuila, early occupation sites include the Aoa
Valley Site (Clark 1989; Clark & Herdrich 1988, Clark & Herdrich 1993, Clark & Michlovic
1996). Also excavated was the To’aga Site that is located on a relatively narrow coastal flat on
Ofu Island in the Manu’a Group (Kirch & Hunt 1993; Kirch et al. 1989; Kirch et al. 1990). These
sites yielded early ceramics, including decorated Lapita pottery, from Mulifanua Village, and
Polynesian Plainware. The term Polynesian Plainware was proposed by Green (1974), and
later became popular term used by Hunt (1987), Clark and Michlovic (1996), and in later
studies (Eckert 2006). Several sites on Upolu, Manono and Apolima islands in Western Samoa
also date to this early Polynesian Plainware period (Clark, Sheppard, & Jones 1997; Clark,
Wright, & Herdrich 1997).
The general academic consensus is that Polynesian Plainware ceramic sites ended sometime
around 1700 BP (Kirch 1986; Addison et al. 2006; Addison et al. 2008). This disappearance or
decline of ceramics in American Samoa is documented at the To’aga Site (Kirch & Hunt 1993)
and at Aoa (Clark & Michlovic 1996). Potential causes for the cessation of ceramic use in
Samoa include transitions in function; the development of new technology, especially umu
ovens that did not require ceramic material; the influx of new populations into American Samoa;
cultural transitions that lessened the availability of ceramic specialists; or a combination of
aforementioned factors.
From 2011 to 2013, excavations at the Vaota Lodge Site on Ofu Island exhibited complete
ceramic pots shaped like ‘ava bowls (Clark 2013). During the 2013 season, excavators
retrieved a complete but deteriorated ceramic vessel with eight basaltic ‘umu rocks with the
remains of a black sea urchin inside the container. Recent discoveries of Polynesian Plainware
sherds at western sites on Tutuila Island, specifically at Maloata, Fagamalo, and Leone,
evidence the island-wide distribution of ceramics (Suafo’a-Taua’i & Klenck. 2013; Suafo’aTaua’i & Klenck. 2014; and Klenck & Suafo’a-Taua’i 2014).
Archaeological Methods
At Maloata, Fagamalo, and Leone, on Tutuila Island, in American Samoa, archaeologists
employed standard archaeological methods to ensure cultural material was properly acquired
(see Figure 2). These methods included pedestrian surveys (Phase I), shovel test pits (Phase
II), and one-metre square excavation units (Phase III). All excavated areas were mapped using
a global positioning satellite (“GPS”) device, compass, and measuring tape, and were plotted to
scale on a map. Photographs were taken of excavation units and archaeological features.
Archaeologists recorded level and feature forms, stratigraphic profiles, and feature drawings
during the excavation of each unit. Plan views and profiles were drawn to scale of each cultural
or natural subsurface feature. Depths were recorded as centimetres below the datum (“cbd”).
Archaeology teams screened all excavated soil through quarter-inch mesh.
Figure 2: Location of Maloata, Fagamalo, and Leone archaeological sites
reported or excavated during 2012.
The size of the archaeological crews differed with each excavation: five at Maloata, six at
Fagamalo, and nine at Leone. At each site, excavations of features were led and conducted by
archaeologists having between thirty-three and nine years of archaeological experience.
The number of one-metre square excavated units at each locale varied: four at Maloata, eight
at Fagamalo, and nine at Leone. At each site, crews excavated between 30 to 183 centimetres
below the datum (“cbd”) until no cultural remains or archaeological features were visible or
retrieved from screened debris. At Leone the datum was positioned in the southeast corner of
the excavation units. At Fagamalo the datum was positioned in the northwest corner because
of the severely sloping ground. Similarly, at Maloata, because of the differing elevations of the
excavation units on the side of the road, archaeologists established two datum points on the
northwest and northeast corners of the excavation units.
Surface reconnaissance was extended from fifty to one-hundred metres surrounding the
excavation units. In addition, the crews excavated two and four shovel-test pits (“STPs”) at
Maloata and Fagamalo, respectively. At Leone, archaeologists transitioned from Phase I
reconnaissance surveys to a Phase III excavation because the midden layer, the floor from a
prehistoric fale, was visible from a natural profile caused by tidal activity.
All cultural materials were placed in plastic bags noting their provenience, locus, stratum, depth
measurements, date, and excavators. In addition, the location and presence of major artifacts
were recorded in field books. At the conclusion of the excavation, field crews transported all
artifacts to the ASPA laboratory or ASHPO. Here, the artifacts were washed, sorted, measured,
photographed, and analysed.
In addition, soil samples and charred materials (retrieved in tinfoil) were collected from each
stratum and transported to the two offices. Charred samples were sent to laboratories at the
University of Georgia or Beta Labs in Miami, Florida, for radioisotope analysis.
The three sites of Maloata, Fagamalo, and Leone represent a range of typologies: a disturbed
cultural assemblage impacted by modern construction efforts, a multi-purpose utilitarian site,
and a fale or habitation, respectively.
Maloata
The goal of the archaeological survey and excavations at Maloata was to mitigate the loss of
archaeological assemblages caused by a water pipe installation project. The project was
partially funded by the Federal government and was therefore subject to Section 106
requirements of the NHPA.
The cultural assemblage at Maloata represented the remains of artifacts heavily impacted by
natural precipitation, water runoff, and modern construction. No archaeological features or
cultural strata were identified or preserved. Also, the site remains undated: A possible charred
artifact displayed contamination from modern carbon.
The first archaeological work performed in Maloata village was carried out Ayres and Eisler
(1987). There, archaeologists conducted surface surveys and excavated seven test units, at
twenty-metre intervals, in an east-to-west direction. In December, 2005, preliminary survey and
field work at Maloata was conducted by Suafo’a-Taua’i and Tautala Asaua. In August, 2006,
the ASHPO recommended monitoring and Phase III mitigation at the nearby Fish Farm site
because a modern pipeline project would affect the area (Suafo’a-Taua’i 2007). The report for
this archaeological assemblage at Maloata was submitted to the ASHPO in December of 2013
(Suafo’a-Taua’i & Klenck 2013).
In September, 2011, ASPA archaeologist monitoring construction efforts identified three (3)
pottery sherds of Polynesian Plainware. Excavators retrieved another sherd from an excavation
unit. Archaeologists halted the construction work and contacted the ASHPO, who
recommended that archaeologists excavate four (4) square-metre units along the north side of
the dirt road, west of Maloata Stream (Figure 3).
Figure 3: Location of the archaeological assemblage at Maloata,
Tutuila Island, American Samoa.
The surface reconnaissance at Maloata was extended another fifty (50) metres outside the
excavated area. In addition, the crew excavated four (4) shovel-test pits (“STPs”). These efforts
revealed no additional cultural remains.
Artifact Type
Ceramic Non-Rim Sherds
Retouched / Total Basaltic Flakes
Adze Preforms
Complete or Broken Adzes
Basaltic Scraper
Total Count
4
55 / 2,322
22
20
1
Table 1: Artifacts Retrieved from the Maloata Waterline Site.
Despite the heavily disturbed nature of the archaeological assemblage, the retrieved remains
were noteworthy (See Table 1). From Maloata, archaeology crew retrieved four (4) ceramic
sherds of Polynesian Plainware, twenty-two (22) basaltic adze preforms, twenty (20) complete
or broken adzes, and one (1) basaltic scraper. The lithic debitage consisted of 2,322 basaltic
flakes. Fifty-five (55) specimens from this total indicated re-touched flakes (Figure 4).
Figure 4: Lithic adzes and Polynesian Plainware sherds from Maloata.
In addition, archaeologists recognized two types of unique artifacts in the excavation units.
First, archaeologists retrieved lunate-shaped debitage or untreated lithic material. Second,
excavators collected sixteen (16) basaltic cinders and two bags of other times of cinders with
hardened clay material annealed to the artifacts (Figure 5). These types of artifacts were
collected due to an intuition by Suafo’a-Taua’i that they might be of cultural significance. These
artifacts were subsequently observed during the Fagamalo excavation.
Figure 5: Cinders with hardened clay material annealed
to the surface and lunate-shaped debitage.
Although cultural features of the Maloata site were most likely destroyed by modern
construction, the excavation at Maloata represented the first discovery of Polynesian Plainware
ceramics in western Tutuila.
Fagamalo
Similar to Maloata, the objective of archaeological survey and excavations at Fagamalo was to
mitigate the loss of archaeological assemblages impacted by the emplacement of a water
storage facility. The project was partially funded by the Federal government and was therefore
subject to Section 106 requirements of the NHPA.
Figure 6: Location of the archaeological assemblage at Fagamalo,
Tutuila Island, American Samoa.
Closest to Fagamalo were the excavations at Maloata Village by Ayres and Eisler (1987), the
fish farm at Maloata Village by Suafo’a-Taua’i (2007), and the salvage excavation at Maloata in
this report (Suafo’a-Taua’i & Klenck 2013). Of note is that Suafo’a-Taua’i and two other
archaeologists excavated Fagamalo seven months after Maloata and were cognizant of
material assemblage from the latter locale. The report for the Fagamalo site was submitted to
the ASHPO in January of 2014 (Suafo’a-Taua’i & Klenck 2014).
During a pedestrian survey in May, 2012, archaeology crews discovered six ceramic sherds on
the slope of a hill with basaltic debitage, fire-cracked rocks, an adze preform, a broken adze,
and a grinding stone. Subsequently, archaeologists excavated eight one-square-metre units to
cover the area where the ceramic material was found, on the slope of a hill (Figure 6). The
excavation of the material was accomplished during four weekends in June, 2012. The crew
excavated a minimum of forty (40) centimetres and a maximum of 175 centimetres below
datum.
The excavations revealed features comprising circular stone features over a pavement of
stones (Figure 7). Within the circular features were clays of different colours (Figure 8), ceramic
sherds in various states of firing (Figure 9), and hardened clay material annealed to cinders
(Figure 10).
Figure 7 (Left): Circular stone feature at Fagamalo.
Figure 8 (Right): Clays of different colours surrounding
circular stone features at Fagamalo.
Figure 9 (Left): Polynesian Plainware sherds at Fagamalo.
Figure 10 (Right): Clay material annealed to surface of cinder at Fagamalo.
Archaeologists also retrieved lunate-shaped lithic material (Figure 11), adzes of different types
(Figures 12 and 13), a lithic denticulate (Figure 14), fire-cracked rocks, ash, charred remains,
and other artifacts (Table 2).
Figure 11: Lunate-shaped lithic at Fagamalo.
The archaeological features at Fagamalo were divided in four square-metre quadrants. In Units
1, 2, 7, and 8, the features comprised an upper level (Phase 1) characterized by large stones
covered with grey clay and associated with lithic and ceramic material. These large boulders
were purposefully covered with the grey clay because the soil surrounding the large stones
comprised silt-sand loam and clays of a variety of colours.
Figures 12-14 (Left to right): Adzes of different types and a lithic denticulate.
The lower level (Phase 2) comprised a circular stone feature on a platform of flat stones. This
platform included ma’avai or smoothed stones from ocean or riverine contexts. The ceramic
sherds within these structures exhibited different stages of firing. The colours of these pottery
materials ranged in colour: bright orange, red, brown, and black (caused by charring).
Archaeologists retrieved ceramic specimens that appear to have been retreated or burnt during
re-firing processes perhaps to mend apertures in ceramic vessels.
In addition, charred material was present in an around the archaeological features and artifacts
at Fagamalo. Two samples, 15172 and 15173, were sent to the radiometric facilities at the
University of Georgia and exhibited dates of 2400+/-25 BP and 2240+/-25 BP, respectively.
The excavation at Fagamalo represented the second discovery of Polynesian Plainware
ceramics in western Tutuila.
Artifact Type
Ceramic Non-Rim Sherds
Ceramic Rim Sherds
Retreated Sherds
Adze Preforms
Adze Fragments
Complete Adzes
Denticulate Lithic Tool
Volcanic Glass
Ma’avai / Waterworn Stones
Basaltic Flakes
Cinders
Fire Cracked Rocks
Ash Rocks
Lithic Scrapers
Total Count
52
6
101
6
6
2
1
8
6
1,607
617
1,309
308
3
Table 2: Artifacts Retrieved from the Fagamalo Site.
We suggest the Fagamalo represents a multi-purpose utilitarian site. Twenty-one metres west
of the excavated area, archaeologists identified three grinding stones near a small stream. In
addition, we believe the materials at the excavation site at Fagamalo suggest a ceramic
manufacturing locale, either a kiln, part of a kiln, or another area involved with pottery making.
The archaeological materials at Fagamalo included clays of different colours, ceramic sherds in
various states of firing, hardened clay material annealed to cinders, fire-cracked rocks, ash, and
charred remains. Moreover, the features at Fagamalo: circular stone features surmounted on
pavements of stones were small, not exceeding 1.5 metres in length, and did not resemble the
larger circular or semi-circular structures of a Polynesian habitation or fale (Figure 7).
Also, the lithics at Fagamalo were unique: adzes with angled edges and a denticulate perhaps
used to shape and incise ceramic vessels (Figures 13 & 14). Other artifacts had an unknown
function including boulders covered with grey clay and lunate-shaped lithic fragments. For the
latter, Lorena Sciusco, of the National University of Samoa, suggested these lunate-shaped
lithic materials were possibly employed to prop up the ceramic vessels during the firing
process—allowing heat to circulate over the entirety of the ceramic vessel. Lastly, the ceramic
sherds exhibited different stages of firing. Some fragments were totally charred, which might
associate with the re-firing or retreating process to mend cracks in ceramic vessels. Other
fragments were partially fired, with layers of clay flaking off sherds at the touch. The suggestion
that the Fagamalo site represents pottery manufacturing is tentatively made. The features and
material culture at Fagamalo does not detract from our hypothesis and yet we have no
archaeological analogues in Polynesian prehistory for comparison.
Leone
The objectives of the archaeological excavation at Leone were two-fold. First, the salvage
excavation was conducted to accommodate American Samoa legislation regarding the
protection of cultural property. Second, archaeologists conducted mitigation at this locale to
follow Section 106 requirements of the NHPA because Federal aid was used to partially fund
the road revetment project.
This Leone site was located between a modern road, a shoreline heavily affected by tidal
activity, and planned road-revetment construction. During the initial survey, an array of surficial
artifacts appeared from a narrow colluvial channel running through the site: retouched debitage,
scrapers, adze preforms, and a single Polynesian Plainware sherd.
The first archaeological work performed in Leone was carried out at Tataga-Matau, a
prehistoric adze quarry in the hills overlooking Leone on tribal land (Leach & Witter n.d.; 1987;
1990). The late archaeologist David Kennedy conducted a survey in 2010 for the road
revetment project but did not identify the prehistoric site in this report. In 2011, David Addison
and an archaeology crew surveyed an area around a bridge, south of the prehistoric site in this
report. Here, his archaeology crew discovered the concrete foundations of a historic property.
The final report for the Leone site will be submitted to the ASHPO in several months (Klenck &
Suafo’a-Taua’i 2014).
In May, 2012, Joel Klenck identified the prehistoric artifacts from the colluvial depression during
an inspection of the road revetment project area near the shoreline. The area was cordoned off
and archaeologists from ASHPO, ASPA, and local volunteers excavated the site during August,
2012. Also, the midden layer of the site was visible from a profile caused by the tidal activity.
Nine one-metre square units were excavated to a depth of 183 centimetres below datum
revealing a pavement-like surface consisting of coral, basalt, and other flat stones (Figure 15).
Figure 15: Archaeological assemblage at Leone, Tutuila Island, American Samoa.
The archaeological remains on and in the midden layer comprised two non-rim sherds of
Polynesian Plainware pottery (Figure 16) and mostly basaltic lithic debitage and tools (Figure
17).
Figure 16 (Left): Polynesian Plainware sherds at Leone.
Figure 17 (Right): Lithic retouched flake, scrapers, and blade at Leone.
Also, found in the midden layer were adze preforms, broken adzes, a scraper, charred organic
remains, and other artifacts (Table 3). The Leone site remains undated: A single charred
sample indicated contamination from modern carbon.
Artifact Type
Ceramic Non-Rim Sherds
Retouched / Total Basaltic Flakes
Adze Preforms
Broken Adzes
Basalt Blades
Basalt Scrapers
Total Count
2
58 / 412
11
10
2
3
Table 3: Artifacts Retrieved from the Leone Site.
The circular shape of the floor stones, adze preforms, adzes, and other lithic tools and debitage
on (an in) the midden floor is typical of prehistoric fale at other locales in Polynesia. A fale is
usually a domestic dwelling but may serve as a place for the temporary housing of visitors from
other tribes and occasionally a site for inter-tribal meetings and ceremonies. Also, the local
inhabitants at Leone expressed the excavated area was the site of an ancient fale. This factor
inspired villagers to volunteer for the Leone excavation.
Discussion
Although temper and clay analysis has not been performed on the ceramic sherds in this
report, other studies in Tonga and Samoa indicate “Lapita and ‘Lapitoid’ (Polynesian Plainware)
were “manufactured near their collecting sites using locally available temper sands” (Dickinson
et al. 1996:87). In Western Samoa, Lapita sherds from Mulifanua on Upolu evidence local
temper sands from Upolu (Petchey 1995). With the exception of several petrographically exotic
tempers such as temper from New Caledonia in a ceramic fragment from Vanuatu, the
academic consensus is that most pottery was manufactured at nearby locales (Dickinson
1971). Conversely, adzes were routinely transported throughout Polynesia over considerable
distances (McAlister et al. 2013:259).
The three sites in this report contain two types of Polynesian Plainware. First, thin, finetempered wares comprise several sherds at Fagamalo and a single fragment at Leone. The
second and most dominant type of Plainware at Maloata, Fagamalo, and Leone, is a thick,
coarse-tempered ware. These two ceramic types are also present at other sites in American
Samoa including the To’aga site on Ofu Island and Vainu’u on Tutuila (Kirch et al. 1990:7;
Eckert & Welch 2013:15). Questions remain; however, as to the composition and material
assemblage of Polynesian kilns. To date, we found no articles that note the discovery or
potential discovery of kilns from Polynesian prehistory.
As Maloata and Leone are near shorelines and sea levels continue to rise, this study indicates
the importance of conducting historic preservation efforts in coastal areas to ensure prehistoric
and historic sites are surveyed and excavated before heightened tidal activity and beach
erosion.
Also, the discovery of three ceramic assemblages in western Tutuila, in a twelve month period,
evidences the importance of Federal, territorial, and locale historic preservation statutes. The
archaeological assemblages at Maloata, Fagamalo, and Leone are now available because
statutes were in place to ensure archaeologists searched for and retrieved cultural
assemblages prior to modern construction efforts.
The discoveries in this report create new questions: sources of clay and temper materials,
cultural position and gender of the manufacturers of ceramic vessels, vessel functions, reasons
behind the halt of pottery manufacturing in Samoa around 1700 cal BP, and the relationship
between early Lapita ceramics and later Polynesian Plainware. Further, we do not have
definitive knowledge of the composition, architecture, or artifactual assemblages pertaining to
prehistoric Polynesian kilns.
The discovery of Polynesian Plainware in diverse geographical locales, on the coast or further
inland, with different site types, a habitation and multi-purpose utilitarian site, indicates the
distribution of ceramics throughout Tutuila Island was more expansive than previously
published. Further, these diverse locales might support the notion that ceramic manufacturing
in Tutuila was a more ordinary undertaking as opposed to a specialization directed by a tribal
authority.
Finally, the carbon dates from the charred samples at Fagamalo do not conflict with the
consensus view that ceramic materials appeared on Tutuila by 2700 cal BP and declined (or
halted) around 1700 cal BP.
Acknowledgements
We extend our appreciation to Director David Herdrich of the American Samoa Historic
Preservation Office; Professor Lorena Sciusco of the National University of Samoa; Professor
David Addison of the Samoan Studies Institute; Professor Jeffrey Clark of North Dakota State
University; and the executives and managers of the American Samoa Power Authority,
especially Mr. Utu Abe Malae, Mr. Joachim Fong, and Mr. Fa’i Mareko. Lastly, we thank the
volunteers that participated in the excavations, particularly the helpful, numerous, and
enthusiastic volunteers from Leone.
References
Addison, D.J., and E. Matisoo-Smith. 2010. Rethinking Polynesians origins: a West-Polynesia Triple-I
model. Archaeology in Oceania 45:1-12.
Addison, D.J., T. Tago, J. Toloa, and E. Pearthree. 2006. Ceramic deposit below AD 5th-6th century
volcanic ash fall at Pava'ia'i, Tutuila Island, American Samoa: preliminary results. New Zealand
Journal of Archaeology 27:5-18.
Addison, D.J., J. Toloa, T. Tago, and S. Vaueli. 2008. Samoan Plain Ware ceramics of Tutuila Island,
American Samoa: Some thoughts on their spatial and chronological distribution. Recent
Advances in the Archaeology of the Fiji / West-Polynesia Region. D.J. Addison and C. Sand
(eds.):97-115. Dunedin: Dept. of Anthropology, Gender and Sociology, University of Otago.
Ayres, W.S. and D. Eisler. 1987. Archaeological survey in western Tutuila: A report on archaeological
site survey and excavations (85-2). Report on file, Historic Preservation Office, American
Samoa Government, Pago Pago.
Ayres, W., J. Wozniak, G. Robbins, and E. Suafo’a. 2001. Archaeology in American Samoa;
Maloata, Malaeimi, and Malaeloa. In Archaeology of Easter Island Pacific and the Pacific,
edited by Christopher Stevenson, Geogia, Lee and F.J. Morin,
Bellwood, P.S. 1987. The Polynesians: Prehistory of an Island People. London: Thames and Hudson.
Clark, J.T. 1989. The eastern Tutuila archaeological project: 1988 final report. Report on file, Historic
Preservation Office, American Samoa Government, Pago Pago.
Clark, J. T. and D.J. Herdrich. 1988. The eastern Tutuila Archaeological project: 1986 final report.
Report on file, Historic Preservation Office, American Samoa Government, Pago Pago.
Clark, J.T. and D.J. Herdrich. 1993. Prehistoric settlement system in eastern Tutuila, American Samoa.
Journal of the Polynesian Society 102(2):147-85.
Clark, J.T. and M.G. Michlovic. 1996. An Early Settlement in the Polynesian Homeland: Excavations at
'Aoa Valley, Tutuila Island, American Samoa. Journal of Field Archaeology 23:151-167.
Clark, J.T., P. Sheppard, and M. Jones. 1997. Late Ceramics in Samoa: A Test Using Hydration-Rim
Measurements. Current Anthropology 38(5):898-904.
Clark, J.T., E. Wright, and D.J. Herdrich. 1997. Interactions within and Beyond the Samoan
Archipelago: Evidence from Basaltic Rock Geochemistry. In Prehistoric Long-distance
Interaction in Oceania: An Interdisciplinary Approach. Edited by Marshall I.Wiesler. New
Zealand Archaeological Association Monograph.
Clark, J.T. 2013. Personal Communication in July of 2013.
Davidson, J. 1987. The prehistory of New Zealand. Auckland: Longman Paul.
Dickinson, W.R. 1971. Temper sands in Lapita-style pot-sherds on Malo. Journal of the Polynesian
Society 80:244-246.
Dickinson, W.R., R. Shutler, Jr., R. Shortland, D.V. Burley, and T.S. Dye. 1996. Sand tempers in
indigenous Lapita and Lapitoid Polynesian Plainware and imported protohistoric Fijian pottery
of Ha’apai (Tonga) and the question of Lapita tradeware. Archaeology in Oceania 31:87-98.
Eckert, S.L. 2006. Report on Analysis of Polynesian Plain Ware from the Ulu Tree Site, on the island of
Tutuila, American Samoa. Submitted to David Addison, American Samoa Power Authority, file
in ASPA Lab/Office, Aitulagi Bldg, Tafuna Village.
Eckert, S.L. and D.R. Welch. 2013. A commanding view of the Pacific: highland land use as viewed
from Vainu’u, a multi-component site on Tutuila Island, American Samoa. Archaeology in
Oceania 48:13-25.
Frost, J.O. 1978. Archaeological Investigations on Tutuila, American Samoa. Unpublished Ph.D.
Dissertation. University of Oregon, Eugene. Report on file, Historic Preservation Office,
American Samoa Government, Pago Pago.
Golson, J. 1969. Preliminary Research: Archaeology in Western Samoa, 1957. In Archaeology in
Western Samoa. Volume I. R.C. Green and J.M. Davidson (eds), Auckland: Bulletin of the
Auckland Institute and Museum 6:14-20.
Golson, J. (ed). 1972. Polynesian navigation: a symposium on Andrew Sharp’s theory of accidental
voyages. Wellington: Polynesian Society by A.H. & A.W. Reed.
Green, R.C. and J.M. Davidson. 1965. Radiocarbon Dates for Western Samoa. The Journal of the
Polynesian Society 74(1):63-69.
Green, R.C. and J.M. Davidson. 1969. Archaeology in Western Samoa Vol. I. Auckland: Bulletin of the
Auckland Institute & Museum.
Green, R.C. and J.M. Davidson. 1972. Archaeology in Western Samoa Vol. II. Auckland: Bulletin of the
Auckland Institute & Museum.
Green, R.C. 1974. A Review of Portable Artifacts from Western Samoa. Auckland: Auckland Institute
and Museum.
Hunt, T.L. 1987. Archaeological Survey and Assessment of the Proposed Fiti'uta Site, Ta'u Island,
Manu'a Group, American Samoa. Prepared for the American Samoa Government Department
of Public Works. On file at the American Samoa Historic Preservation Office.
Johnson, P., Q. Winterhoff, and T. Currey. 2008. Results On The Archaeological Monitoring Of The
2008 Septic Tank Installation Project, Tutuila Island, American Samoa, January-December
2008. On file at the American Samoa Power Authority archaeology laboratory.
Johnson, P., Q. Winterhoff, and T. Currey. 2009. Results On The Archaeological Monitoring Of The
2009 Septic Tank Installation Project, Tutuila Island, American Samoa, January-December
2009. On file at the American Samoa Power Authority archaeology laboratory.
Kikuchi, W. 1964. Petroglyphs in American Samoa. Journal of the Polynesian Society 73:163-166.
Kirch, P.V. 1986. Rethinking East Polynesian Prehistory. The Journal of the Polynesian Society 95:940.
Kirch, P.V. and T.L. Hunt. 1993. The To'aga Site: Three Millennia of Polynesian Occupation in the
Manu'a Islands, American Samoa. No. 51. Berkeley: Contributions to the University of
California Archaeological Research Facility.
Kirch, P. V., Hunt, T. L, Nagaoka, L and Tyler, J. 1990. An ancestral Polynesian occupation site at
To'aga, Ofu Island, American Samoa. Archaeology in Oceania 25(1):1-15.
Kirch, P. V, Hunt, T. L and Tyler, J. 1989 A radiocarbon sequence from the To'aga site, Ofu Island,
American Samoa. Radiocarbon 31(1): 7-13.
Klenck, J.D. and E. Suafo’a-Taua’i. 2014. Preliminary Report on the Archaeological Site of Leone
Village, American Samoa. To be stored on file at the American Samoa Historic Preservation
Office.
Leach, H. M. and R.G. Green. 1989. New information for the Ferry Berth site, Mulifanua, Western
Samoa. Journal of the Polynesian Society 98:319-329.
Leach, H.M. and D.C. Witter. n.d. Final Project Report on the Survey of the Tataga-Matau Fortified
Quarry Complex, near Leone, American Samoa. On file at the American Samoa Historic
Preservation Office.
Leach, H.M. and D.C. Witter. 1987. Tataga-Matao “Rediscovered.” New Zealand Journal of
Archaeology 9:33-54.
Leach, H.M. and D.C. Witter. 1990. Further investigations at the Tataga-matau site,
American Samoa. New Zealand Journal of Archaeology 12:51-83.
McAlister, A., P.J. Sheppard, and M.S. Allen. 2013. The Identification of a Marquesan Adze in the Cook
Islands. The Journal of the Polynesian Society 122:3:257-274.
Petchey, F.J. 1995. The Archaeology of Kudon: Archaeological Analysis of Lapita Ceramics from
Mulifanua, Samoa and Sigatoka, Fiji. Unpublished M.A. Thesis, Department of Anthropology,
University of Auckland.
Rieth, T.M. and T.L. Hunt. 2008. A radiocarbon chronology for Samoan prehistory. Journal of
Archaeological Science 35:1901-1927.
Rieth, T.M., A.E. Morrison, and D.J. Addison. 2008. The Temporal and Spatial Patterning of the Initial
Settlement of Sāmoa, The Journal of Island and Coastal Archaeology 3:2:214-239.
Suafo’a, E., 1994. Post-Field Summary Report: Archaeological Investigations of Site T-15 Tafuna Plain
Sewer Project, American Samoa. On file at the American Samoa Historic Preservation Office.
Suafo’a-Taua’i, E. 2007. Maloata Fish Farm: Monitoring and Evaluating for Cultural Material Remains.
On file at the American Samoa Historic Preservation Office.
Suafo’a-Taua’i, E. and J.D. Klenck. 2013. Preliminary Report on the Archaeological Site of Maloata
Village, American Samoa. On file at the American Samoa Historic Preservation Office.
Suafo’a-Taua’i, E. and J.D. Klenck. 2014. Preliminary Report on the Archaeological Site of Fagamalo
Village, American Samoa. On file at the American Samoa Historic Preservation Office.