THE WITNESS of WANELEK Susan Bulmer Department of Cons
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
VARIATION AND CHANGE IN STONE TOOLS IN THE HIGHLANDS OF PAPUA NEW GUINEA: THE WITNESS OF WANELEK Susan Bulmer Department of Conservation, Auckland PREAMBLE Ralph Bulmer’s interest in archaeology began in childhood, largely due to his mother’s father, Harold Hughes, who was an architect and archaeologist. His work was to restore monuments such as Caernarfon Castle, and he published substantially on field archaeology. Family outings often took Ralph to his grandparents’ home in North Wales, and he grew up loving the many archaeological monuments of the countryside there. His mother was very enthusiastic about her father’s work and passed this on to her elder son. She knew the sites her father worked on well and enjoyed visits from archaeologists to the family home in Bangor; I remember her story of being terribly impressed, as a teenager, with the handsome young Mortimer Wheeler. Ralph’s personal interest in archaeology was sustained during his university years at Cambridge and although he did not intend to take up archaeology himself, his best friend Christopher Houlder did. Ralph saw much of archaeological staff and students and even occasionally helped on excavations in Britain and later in New Zealand. During his first fieldwork in Papua New Guinea, at Baiyer River, in 1954, he soon recognised the potential for archaeological research in the Highlands. The many stone artefacts he collected as a sideline to his other anthropological work and his observations on Highlands field evidence, such as the swamp ditches in the Baiyer and Wahgi valleys, led to my own first fieldwork in Papua New Guinea in 1959. He was often assumed to be an archaeologist; we had a family joke about his being greeted enthusiastically by nearly monoglot colleagues in foreign parts as “Ah ! Professor Bulmer! The famous archaeologist!” Although he never himself excavated or even participated in an excavation of a Papua New Guinea site, his personal and intellectual enthusiam for archaeology was instrumental in establishing archaeology in the new Anthropology Department at the University of Papua New Guinea in 1968. This local academic base has been responsible for the fact that the country is now one of only four in the Pacific Islands that has its own indigenous practising archaeologists. Ralph was frequently invited to give public lectures on archaeology. He felt comfortable about this in the 50’s and 60’s when, as he was prone to say, Papua New Guinea prehistory could be written on the back of a postcard. But by the 1970’s, when archaeological research had outgrown Ralph’s postcard, he was happy to leave the field to specialists. In any case, by then his fame as an ethnoscientist had eclipsed his archaeological reputation, even in foreign parts. INTRODUCTION This essay concerns the stone artefacts of Wanelek (formerly Wanlek), an open settlement site in the Kaironk Valley, Madang Province, in the Highlands of Papua New Guinea. The purpose is to discuss these tools in general terms, as an assemblage, and to consider their significance in regard to variation and change in stone technology during the 50,000 years of Highlands prehistory. The Wafielek assemblage is unique so far in the Highlands in reflecting the products of the manufacture of kinds of tools that had previously only been found in small numbers away from their place of manufacture or had not been previously known at all. The assemblage poses a traditional problem in stone tool analysis, that of the definition and significance of similarity and difference. This is particularly intriguing in that the assemblage is strikingly similar to assemblages of stone tools associated with the Lapita “complex”, ancestral to Polynesian culture, and to the stone tools of more recent Polynesians, particularly of New Zealand and the Chatham and Easter Islands. Its dating is from 2500 to 850 BC, substantially earlier, but overlapping in time with the ancestral Lapita “complex”. Does the Wanelek asssemblage reflect the importation to the Highlands of a “new” stone technology, or is it the technological “descendant” of the indigenous late Pleistocene stone technology of the Highlands? This discussion is a departure from much of the past analysis of Highlands stone tools in that it discusses an assemblage of several kinds of formal tools. Most comment during the 30 years of Highlands archaeological study has emphasised the small number of formal tool types, the lack of coincidence of the advent of the edge-ground axe-adze with that of agriculture, and the increasing “simplicity” of Highlands stone tools (e.g. Golson 1977a, White 1977:23, White and O’Connell 1982:64-5). These points of view are 470 Stone Tools in the Highlands of Papua New Guinea: the Witness of Wanelek 471 misleading in that they refer to and depend on very limited archaeological evidence. Most of the analysis of Highlands stone tools has been concerned with working-edges of flake and core tools, and the variety of methods and approaches to stone artefact analysis that has been explored elsewhere in the Pacific (Witter 1987) has yet to be applied to Highlands assemblages. It is not easy to bring stone technology in the Highlands into focus, where 50,000 years of prehistory is at present still filtered through a handful of excavated sites (Bulmer 1982) and where the predominant agricultural settlement pattern was one of short-lived shifting occupation. The small assemblages left behind by such settlement have been further biased by the fact that good quality rock suitable for artefacts was very restricted in its availability. This meant that sites of tool manufacture were relatively rare, and broken artefacts were not readily discarded but instead systematically recycled by being refashioned into new smaller artefacts. Characteristically, very little waste was left behind except at hunting and collecting camps where informal flake and pebble tools were made and used from local rock of whatever quality. This kind of archaeological evidence calls for careful analysis and interpretation. In order to address properly the questions of complexity and change in stone technology, sites of the manufacture and use of a full range of artefacts need to be excavated. Wanelek is such a site, with stone artefacts representing general occupation of an agricultural settlement and of sufficient quantity and variety to reflect a wide, perhaps the entire, range of stone tool technology, forms and functions of the community that lived there. Further, the artefacts and rock detritus, from all stages of manufacture and curation, indicate that all of the tools were made and used on the site. THE WANELEK SITE Wafielek is an open settlement site at about 1650 m a.s.l. It consists of a relatively flat broad ridge about 450 m long and 100 m wide. The ridge runs roughly east-west across the the upper Kaironk valley. Located in between the central Highlands valleys and the Ramu lowlands, Wafielek is thought to have been a community based on trade between the two areas (Bulmer 1977a). The reasons for its particular location, other than its elevated and central site, were access to local rock resources for tool making and to a mineral spring where trade salt was manufactured (Bulmer 1973:10-11). Both axe-adzes and salt were trade goods in the Highlands, and the few sherds of pottery found in the site also point to trade contacts with the lowlands. The residents were also agriculturalists, on the basis of the artefacts and the garden soils in the site. Stone artefacts were found scattered over the entire site, wherever pigs had rooted up the topsoil. In addition there were heavy concentrations of artefacts along the two sides of the ridge, in the gardens along the north side of it as well as in the roadcutting along its southern side. The face of the road cutting provided nearly a complete longitudinal cross-section of the deposits, showing occupation deposits and features up to 150 cm below the present ground surface. Excavations showed the Wafielek site contained five stratified occupation horizons. On the surface was a thin topsoil (A), probably related to the most recent gardening on the site, some two generations ago. Beneath A was an earlier garden soil (B), with a burnt and partly consolidated surface. The top of this soil appeared to have been removed, probably through later digging into it through the thin soil above. Garden soil B consisted of mixed topsoil and natural orange clay subsoil, and it lay on top of a horizon of redeposited subsoil (C), derived from erosion and/or levelling elsewhere. Beneath this was a dark grey brown, almost black, buried topsoil (D) which contained a great deal of charcoal. This horizon had a number of distinct occupation levels, appearing to have been built up over a relatively long period of time. A grey soil (E) underneath had a large number of postholes in its surface, and contained scatteree charcoal and a few artefacts. Layer (F) was a natural orange clay substratum with some postholes in its surface, indicating that the natural topsoil had been cleared from the settlement site when it was originally occupied. Archaeological excavations of about 70 sq m of the site explored several areas where features were visible along the road cutting. Excavations were also extended across the centre of the ridge in order to establish the overall stratigraphy of the site and the extent of habitation features. The only archaeological deposit present in the centre of the ridge was (A), the recent garden soil, resting directly on the natural clay (F),although a few scattered stone artefacts showed that the area had probably been occupied during earlier periods, but any earlier deposits apparently had been removed from the highest part of the ridge, as a consequence of erosion following gardening and pig rooting.