Rapa Nui Journal: Journal of the Easter Island Foundation

Volume 22 Issue 1 May Article 3

2008

Ritual House Posts, and "House Societies" in Polynesia: Modeling Inter- and Intra- Household Variability

Jennifer G. Kahn Bernice P. Bishop Museum, Honolulu

Follow this and additional works at: https://kahualike.manoa.hawaii.edu/rnj

Part of the History of the Pacific Islands Commons, and the Pacific Islands Languages and Societies Commons

Recommended Citation Kahn, Jennifer G. (2008) "Ritual House Posts, and "House Societies" in Polynesia: Modeling Inter- and Intra- Household Variability," Rapa Nui Journal: Journal of the Easter Island Foundation: Vol. 22 : Iss. 1 , Article 3. Available at: https://kahualike.manoa.hawaii.edu/rnj/vol22/iss1/3

This Research Paper is brought to you for free and open access by the University of Hawai`i Press at Kahualike. It has been accepted for inclusion in Rapa Nui Journal: Journal of the Easter Island Foundation by an authorized editor of Kahualike. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Kahn: Ritual House Posts, and "House Societies" in Polynesia

Ritual House Posts, and "House Societies" in Polynesia: Modeling Inter- and Intra- Household Variability*

Jennifer G. Kahn Bernice P. Bishop Museum, Honolulu

recent paper by Kahn and Coil (2006) publi hed data (Society Island Marque a Island, Hawaiian Island, and A on intra-site variation in late prehistoric Society Island New Zealand) is recon tructed by examining the available house tructures, focusing on the raw materials used to and relevant archaeological data and hypothese to be tested fashion house posts. Variation in the woods used to con- with future work are proposed. I clo e by turning to the truct po t differed both by site function and socio­ archaeological implications of thi data, specifically how economic tatu of the occupant . Hou e ite serving a greater attention to house post variation - either through elite dwellings or tho e used for specialized, ritual activitie detailed excavation recording techniques and/or wood char­ were constructed from ritually charged and economically coal identification of charred wood fragment in po thole valued tree species, while lower status sleeping hou e were fill - can be u ed a evidence for interpreting the ocial made from common tree species tbat lacked ritual or cos­ ignificance of inter- and intra-hou ehold variation in Poly­ mological association. This pattern was linked to the crea­ ne ia. tion of acred pace on the landscape for a well-defined ritual and social elite who controlled many key a pects of Ho SE POSTS AS RJT AL ATTRACTORS I agricultural production and the ritual calendar in the late TRO E IAN SE SOClETIES" prehi toric Society I land chiefdoms. A "Ho Thus, the wood type used to con truct ignificant architectural elements of hou e structures, such as house Levi-Strauss introduced the concept of the "hou e" a a posts, can have broad ramifications for Polyne ian archae­ social structure, or corporate body holding a landed e tate ology. In this paper, ethnohi torical and archaeological data made up of material and immaterial wealth, and perpetuated for Polyne ian hou e posts are reviewed, including ize and through the transmissions of right names, good, or privi­ hape, raw materials used in their con truction, po t em­ leges (1979:45, 51). Indone ia, Melane ia, and Polyne ia, placement practices, and evidence for their role in domestic were among the areas where Levi- trauss argued that cul­ ritual. Contemporary household archaeology studies in tures were organized as "hou e societie ". In modem Au ­ Polynesia and elsewhere share an innovative view of dwell­ tronesian-speaking cultures ofOceania and island Southeast ings, arguing that hou e structure had both functional, Asia, the role of "houses" as ocial groups i well­ ideational, and ritual meaning and that their architectural documented (Car ten and Hugh-Jone 1995a; Fox 1993a; element had social and co mological import (Kahn 2005; Macdonald 1987; McKinnon 1991, 1995; Reuter 2002' Wa­ Kirch 1996; Kirch and Sahlin 1992; Ladefoged 1998; Sut­ ter on 1990). The e tudie illu trate how dwellings and the ton 1990, 1991; Weisler and Kirch 1985; Oake 1994; ee daily activitie carried out in or around them uch a food also Deetz 1982; Marshall 2000; Me kell 1998; Robin preparation, food sharing feasting, and gift exchange, have 2003; Skyes 1989). Following from this, I argue that varia­ ritual and symbolic meaning. In modem Au trone ian tion in the architectural element of houses, including the "house societies" architectonic feature including architec­ wood u ed to fa hion hou e po t and the form and mor­ tural elaboration and spatial layout of hou e tructure , tem­ phology of house po t layout, can have ocial relevance. ples, and communities, often repre ent facets of social dif­ Using the "hou e ociety" theoretical per pective, I ferentiation linked to hierarchical rank, social status, and will elaborate on thi theme. Diver e ethnographic and eth­ wealth and gender difference (Fox 1995; McKinnon 1991; nohistoric data illustrate the spiritual significance of hou e 2000' Parmentier 1987; Reuter 2002; Waterson 1990; ee posts in modem Austronesian ocietie, particularly their al 0 Firth 1957). roles as ritual attractors. This ethnographic data i u ed as Argument have been put forth that Lapita cultures an analogy for exploring whether or not prehi toric Polyne­ were organized a "hou e ocietie" (Chiu 2005; Green sian societies, who e members poke language belonging 2002; Kirch 1997; Kirch and Green 1987, 200 I) and that to the Au tronesian family and who are regarded a ancient ance tral ocial grouping within Polyne ia dating to c. 2600-2000 BP (Ance tral Polyne ian Society or APS) are "socielie amai 011," shared the cultural idea ofhou e po ts best interpreted as "hou e ocieties" (Kirch and Green a ritual attractor . The main body of the paper reconstructs 2001:201-218). To date, the e studie have relied heavily on the myriad of ways in which the ritual treatment of hou e lingui tic reconstruction and a somewhat thin archaeologi­ posts was expressed in Polynesia at the time of European cal record, a we lack large cale excavations of Lapita or contact and in the historic era. The material nature of hou e APS residential sites. Green (1998, 2002) ha reviewed posts in four prehistoric Ea tern Polyne ian ocietie both archaeological and ethnohi toric evidence that ancient *This paper has been peer-reviewed. Received 8 December 2007; Accepted 4 January 2008; Revised version received March 3,200 .

Rapa Nui Journal 14 Vol. 22 (1) May 2008

Published by Kahualike, 2008 1 Rapa Nui Journal: Journal of the Easter Island Foundation, Vol. 22 [2008], Iss. 1, Art. 3

Samoan ocieties were organized around the "house," while hou e po t , including the types of woods used in their con­ Tcherkezoff (in press) has made a similar argument for struction and their elaboration, through carving or other modem Samoa. Proto-historic Tokelau societies can al 0 be decoration, varies according to "hou e" rank. Drawing from interpreted as an example of Polyne ian "hou e ocie­ this, I hypothesize that in ancient Polyne ian dwelling struc­ tie" (see Green and Green 2007:238), while Kirch (1996) tures, house posts served, in part a material repre enta­ has highlighted the importance of the "house' at multiple tions of the "hou e s" ocio-economic, political, and piri­ cales of social organization in Tikopia, a Polynesian Out­ tual statu (much in the arne way that face motifs on Lapita lier. However, it is in Eastern Polynesia that archaeologists pottery may have functioned, after Chiu 2005), in addition have utilized the material record in addition to ethnohi toric to functioning as symbols of venerated ance tor and a and lingui tic evidence to argue most convincingly for the genealogical markers (see below). pre ence of ancient "societies amai on." Examples include The social significance of Au trone ian house po t , ca e tudies from Hawai'i (Ander on 2001); the Society particularly their embodiment of ance tor, is highlighted in Islands (Kahn 2005, 2007; Kahn and Kirch 2003); and ew domestic ritual in which po t playa central part. Varied Zealand and the Cook I lands (Walter 2004). As Polynesia Au trone ian "opening the hou e" rituals focus on hou e was ettled, we can expect the "hou e"-based APS societies post a important architectural features or ritual attractor . to have diverged along local pathways, retaining some key Po ts are' ritually planted" during hou e construction or are or basic components of social organization centered on the provided offerings during hou ehold rites (Bloch 1995:81­ "hou e," while transforming or losing others. 82; Car ten 1995: Ill; Waterson 1990: 124-125). [n highland A common characteristic of ethnographically studied Bali societies, tbe ancestors are called to live as guardian Austronesian "house societie "i that feature of buildings spirits within the dwelling tructure, once the first hou e serve symbolic rather than purely functional purposes. This post has been erected and offerings are made at its base i because the material construction and layout of the physi­ (Reuter 2002:262). In a imilar manner, Gibson (1995: 139­ cal house articulate the dwelling with symbolism and ritual 140, 141-143) de cribes how Ari dwellings are con tructed meaning (Kirch 1996; Water on 1990:91). Ethnographic under the upervision of ritual peciali ts. After conferring and lingui tic data from Au tronesian "house societies" with the ance tor and spirits, the specialists choo e the tree de cribe hou e po ts a 'ritual attractors," ignificant fea­ trunk to be cut down and incorporated into the hou e a ture or points of reference around which key activitie are po t , beam , and ridge poles. Particular care i taken in organized (Fox 1993b; Green 1998; Kirch and Green 2001; fa bioning the hou e po ts and in their emplacement. Meijl 1993; Sather 1993). Commonly found in dome tic Thus, in modem Au trone ian hou e societie , hou e contexts as embodiments of deitie or having cosmological post can repre ent the ance tor, deitie , or spirits and or spiritual references, ritual attractor are durable to erni­ erve a important ritual attractor within daily life and in durable features (posts, altar, etc.) with inten ified ritual varied dome tic ceremonie .A material embodiments of focu (Adams 2007; Gillepsie 2007; Heitman 2007; Kahn ritual trength, we can view Au tronesian house po t as 2007). Cross-culturally ceremonie associated with ritual more than functional objects - they also serve a ritual ob­ attractors enhance their role as repositories for maintaining, ject and tatus ymbols, forming parts of ritual land capes holding, and augmenting the tangible and intangible prop­ and embodying kin labor and identity. erty of the "house" (Gillespie 2007; Helms 2007). In Poly­ ne ia, the use of ritual attractors or other cosmological fea­ THE ROLE OF HOUSE POSTS I POLY ESIAN tures also provides social continuity in re idential architec­ SOCIETLES ture, linking the dwelling tructure and the social group (the "house") with the ancestors (Kahn 2007). Green (2002:264) ba argued that, in the Eastern Lapita In many Austrone ian societies, the importance of Complex (c. 3000-3200 BP), ritual tyle dwellings bad four house po ts as ritual attractor i clearly ba ed on their close important ritual attractor , one of which was the main po t. association with the ance tor and their metaphoric repre­ All Polynesian culture derive a common ancestry from sentation as pathways within which the gods descended Lapita (Kircb 2000). With the settlement of Western Poly­ (McKinnon 1991 :94, n12; Waterson 1990: 124). Hou e ne ia, and later movement into Eastern Polyne ia, the e po t , and the timber u ed to fa hion them, legitimated the "hou e ocieties" diverged into local context , thu , one hou eholds' status in a symbolic manner, symbolizing the may expect that the common origin in hou ing to appear as seats of the gods and ance tors. There i al 0 some indica­ remnant in architectural features and cultural attitude to­ tion that the insignia used to decorate house post had im­ ward dwellings. *Pou, the PP pboneme for house po t portant ritual implication, a enior and junior family lines can be reconstructed to Proto-Ea tern Oceanic (*mpoLi had different rights to ridge pole in ignia (carved and deco­ "post '). It is found widely in Polyne ian languages and Fi­ rated po t fac;ade) (Water on 1990:34). McKinnon jian, referring to a po t or hou e center post (see Green (1991 :98-99) note that in Tanimbar, ridge poles were more 1998:264). Kirch and Green (2001:254) have advanced an elaborately carved and decorated in named houses, while ethnographic hypothe is that the PP *pou served a a gen­ unnamed house only had acce to mailer carving motifs. eral term for po t, but may al 0 apply to posts or stone up- The ethnographic data al 0 highlight that the materiality of

Rapa Nui Journal 15 Vol. 22 (1) May 2008 https://kahualike.manoa.hawaii.edu/rnj/vol22/iss1/3 2 Kahn: Ritual House Posts, and "House Societies" in Polynesia

right "regarded a repre entations (or temporary recepta­ Tikopia (Polynesian Outlier) cle ) of the deitie ". We can anticipate that, with the settlement of Polyne- In varied contexts (temple, hou e ,canoe heds) ia, the particular material or piritual treatment of house Tikopian posts are described as both symbol and embodi­ posts might diverge from culture to culture, while the gen­ ments of ancestors, ancestral deitie ,and pirit (Table I). eral theme - house po t treated as embodiments of the Particular posts are named for, or belong to, gods (atua) gods/ancestor /deitie / pirit - may be retained. Using eth­ linked to particular lineages, often chiefly lineage (Firth nographic analogy and reading the ethnohistoric ources 1940:64, 96, 101; 1970: 116, 126). Spirits may inhabit po t through the lens of the House Society approach, I po e the (Firth 1930-31 :303) or be embodied as carved figure on questions - did Polyne ian societie hare the basic cultural po t and there are clear reference to po t having piritual notion of the ritual nature of house posts found in other involvement (Firth 1970:221, 338) analogous to ritual at­ Au tronesian "hou e ocietie" and, if 0, how can this be tractors. u ed to interpret prehi toric social organization in these Posts and rafters of the acred temple hou e are deco­ societies? Second, I explore how these notions may have rated with bark cloth and leaves, representing offerings to been expressed and materialized locally in Polynesian con­ thegod (Firth 1940:164; 1967:211-213) and dedications to texts, whether in post emplacement practices, post size, post the spirits which inhabit them. Decorating po ts and rafter material (i.e., type of wood), decorative techniques, and with pigment is an acknowledgement of spirit a sistance in evidence for ritual offerings. Finally, I di cuss the archaeo­ the major ritual cycle "The Work of the God" (Firth 1967: logical implications of this data for carrying out household 454-5) and acred offerings are often left at the ba e of tem­ archaeology in the region. ple po ts (Firth 1940: 98; Table I). Posts in sacred temple symbolize a clan's acred rite and ritual power. Ethnographic, Ethnohistoric, and Archaeological Within Tikopian dome tic contexts, hou e po t u e i Data from Select Case Studies linked to "certain prescribed ocial categories" (Kirch 1996:262) and the materialization of ocial rank (Firth I begin with a discussion of Tikopia, a Polyne ian 1957:81; Table 1). Firth (1970:126) notes that "centre po t Outlier, where Firth' ethnographic materials (1940, 1957, [] or rafter[s] or tone...were ymbol of ownership, of 1967, 1970) and Kirch' later observations (1996) provide control, of power". When a chief enters a house, he is given detailed de criptions of house features and their association a " eat of honor with his back to a po t" (Firth 1970:40). In with ceremonial activities. Eastern Polynesian societies lack daily u e, a po tire erved as a backrest for the headman robust ethnographic studies and house posts are referenced of the house, while other are u ed for important male vi i­ minimally in many accounts. I focus on four Ea tern Poly­ tor or the elde t on, and yet others for the remaining on , nesian ocieties, the Society Island , the Marquesa Islands, in rank order. Larger, older, or high-ranking household the Hawaiian I land, and ew Zealand, ca e tudies with leave one po t unu ed a a backrest, where offerings to strong ethnohistoric data and/or available archaeological "ance tor and lineage gods" are placed (Kirch 1996:262; data, although reference to the sacred nature of house posts ee Firth 1957: 77, 81). and/or embelli hed hou e posts are found throughout Oce­ Most of the Tikopian de cription mention particular ania. A wider reaching ethnohistoric review will undoubt­ treatment of posts during ceremonies (i.e., ritual offerings, edly reveal more data I. decoration with pigment or vegetation, etc.), rather than The Eastern Polynesia examples necessitate a holistic their fabrication from acred wood (Tables I, 2). There is u e of the etlUlohistoric records, as few early sources (early some indication that the mo t sacred center po t within European explorer accounts) refer to cultural concept of hou e was the largest in ize. Descriptions of canoe shed dwelling or hou e ba ed rituals, nor do they specifically po t refer to tone found when the posts are dug, which mention house posts. are then left in place and are felt to embody pirit (Firth Information can often be found in later mi ionary 1967). Whether this refers to natural stone encountered account , legend , and creation myth recorded in the post­ when the po t is dug or refer to past practice of placing contact era, native lexicon, and post-contact ethnographies. stones in postholes as ritual offerings is difficult to distin­ Thus, data must be drawn from a wide body of source type guish, as is whether similar practices were associated with ranging from different post-contact periods, including early house posts. and late European explorer accounts, missionary accounts, traditional accounts (oral histories, chants, legends, myths, Society Islands (Central Ea tern PoLynesia) and genealogies), memory ethnographies, and early lan­ guage lexicons. These source type are critically reviewed Ethnohistoric and archaeological data for Ma'ohi in Kahn (2005). hou e po ts have been reviewed elsewhere (Kahn and Coil

I For example, Green (1998:264) de cribe data for hou e po t as ritual attractor in amoa and other parts of Western Polyne ia. Kirch (1994:262) also provide an ethnohistoric example for posts as ritual attractor in a Futunan paramount chief re idence. There, posts de­ marcated sacred spaces and the main supporting po twa viewed a a god' dwelling.

Rapa Nui Journal 16 Vol. 22 (I) May 2008

Published by Kahualike, 2008 3 Rapa Nui Journal: Journal of the Easter Island Foundation, Vol. 22 [2008], Iss. 1, Art. 3

Table I. Ethnohistoric and Ethnographic Data for House Posts as Ritual Attractors and Material Symbols of Wealth and Statu

Location ymbolize / Embody Ances- Involved in Sign of Ownership, Control, Power tors, Deities, Dome tic Ritual Spirits

Tikopia Ancestors Decorative treatment amed po t u ed as backrests Offerings ( ocial rank)

ociety Islands Deities Decorative treatment Po t ize Offerings Polishing, carving, dyeing, wrapping with cloth Dedication ritual House opening ceremony Marque a Sacred body parts of high tatu Decorative treatment Tiki carvings, lashings I land or wealthy Dedication ritual individual House opening ceremony Hawaiian ? Decorative trcatment Named ridge post 1 land Offering Ore ed posts Dedication rituals New Zealand Mauri (life force) Decorativc treatment Carved with human figure, red pigment (central posts)

2006) and the data are briefly ummarized here. The ritual 23; Recited in 1822 by High Prie ts of Pora Pora nature of Ma'ohi houses is expressed through metaphorical and Tahiti). associations of high ranking dwellings and marae (ancestral temples), the most telling of which is this passage from Varied forms ofdecorative treatment drawing attention Henry (1928: 150-151): "The hou e of a great man became to Society Island house posts (polishing carving, dyeing, hi marae... From thi circum tance aro e the e word : Be­ wrapping in cordage or barkcloth, or their large size) are ware of the front door of my hou e my hou e i my marae, described in the early European voyager account the front door has the front tep...." (Beaglehole 1962(1):364; Morri on 1966: 163-164). Mis­ Origin myths recorded in the early 1800's refer to the sionary texts and the earlie t Tahitian lexicon al 0 illustrate creation of the first god's house and other house structure. ritual ceremonies concerning hou e po t . Dedication ritual The e creation chants draw attention to the piritual nature at the end of house construction or the opening of a new of the ridge pole and other hou e posts (termed pillar ); house, particularly elite residences and houses of special­ po ts were created by, and embodied the fonn of, the crea­ ized ritual function situated near marae, included the ritual 2 tor god, Ta'aroa . planting of post, chanting of prayer, and elaborate decora­ ...Ta'aroa was a god's house; his backbone was tion of mid-line and end posts with colored matting and the ridgepole, hi rib were the supporters... cordage) (Davies Journal 1808-24 Febmary 1810; cited in (Henry 1928:336, fl; Dictated in 1822 by coun­ Newbury 1961:127-128). Ritual cleansing and "opening" selors and high priests of Porapora and Mo'orea). ceremonies for newly constructed dwellings are common in modern Austronesian "house societies". They underlie the Ta'aroa fixed the dome of the sky, the shell Ru­ ritual nature of the house structure and its embodiment as mia, upon pillars. He aid '0 Tumu-nui and Pa­ an animate, living entity with its own life force (Gibson paraharaha, bring forth pillar, let there be a front 1995:139-145; Reuter 2002:263; Waterson 1993:223-4). pillar, let there be a front pillar and a back pillar.' The e practices are also analogou to those recorded in And there were brought forth pillars; Hotu-i-te­ modern Au tronesian 'hou e ocietie" where po t erve a ra i (Fruitfullness of the ky or Life-Supporting ritual attractor . Overall, the ethnohi toric accounts sugge t Tree) for a front pillar, and Ana-feo (Coral Aster) that po t ize and post decoration were important material for a back pillar.... and there were the pillar to symbols of household rank and statu in protohistoric tand by, the pillar to it by, the pillar to blacken Ma'ohi society. by, the pillar to debate by, the elocution pillar, Archaeological data support that house posts in late and the pillar to exit ... (Henry 1928:342-343 f. prehistoric Ma'ohi hou e had ritual import in addition to

2 Similar creation myths are found in the Tuamotu I lands. Stim on (ms. cited in Beckwith 1970) recorded a Tuamotuan legend oftwo demi-god (Mamo and Rigorigo), wbere tbe eyes ofone are plucked out and used as lamps and the body i u ed a a post to support the hou e. J Fata, storage posts within or outside the house or scaffolding for platforms where offerings were left for the gods in the Society I land, al 0 had piritual significance (Ellis 1831: 192) and were emplaced in a ritual manner with stones in sacred mira leaves (Henry 1928: 135).

Rapa Nui Journal 17 Vol. 22 (1) May 2008 https://kahualike.manoa.hawaii.edu/rnj/vol22/iss1/3 4 Kahn: Ritual House Posts, and "House Societies" in Polynesia

Table 2. Data on House Po tlPostbole Form and Morphology. Ethnographic or ethnohi toric evidence i coded as (E), archaeological evidence is coded a (A). The information presented for Tikopia i ba ed on ethnographic data because archaeological data are unavailable. "Data unavailable" i Ii ted when both archaeological and ethno­ historical data were unavailable.

Po thole Size!Shape Offerings in Posthole Raw Material Tikopia Central po t largest? (E) Stones? (E) Data Unavailable

Society I lands Mid-line, central posts largest (A) Pits sugge t po t emplacement Breadfruit (A) (particularly pecialized houses for ceremonies (A, E) Stones? (E, High status house: other sacred and/or valued ritual activities and elite hou es) A) wood Organic (E) Low statu hou e : common wood -low statu (E) Marque as Data unavailable Data Unavailable High Statu Hou es: Breadfruit (po t ), Palm Islands or Coconut (ridge pole) (E)

Hawaiian Variation suggested (A) Organic, under main post (E) Mountain apple (comer post?) (A) I land Support stones in comer posts Same wood type u ed for all posts and all raf- (A)? ters (E)

New Zealand Superior houses-dressed posts (square! Organic (dog jaw bone), under "Superior" culpted hOll e : T5tara (E, A), rectangular) central posts (A) Pukatea (A) Common hou e - unshaped po t Polerrhatch hou e or dressed timber hou es (round) (E, A) lacking sculpted element: wider variety of wood types (A)

functional purpo e. That both round-ended houses and 120 ALT/B, 123, ee Figure I) and elite residential leeping orne rectangular hou es have mid-line postholes bigger houses (170) have larger po thole than tho e interpreted a than the rest (Davidson 1967: 125-127, 138; Kahn 2005) commoner house (171B, 171 C) and some commoner draw attention to the correlation between house ize, roof houses lack mid-line hou e po t that are larger than the height (and therefore house height), post diameter and the side po t (Oake 1994), illu trating that po t ize i more ize of the trunk used, these correlations are al 0 noted in than a purely functional attribute. the ethnohistoric account (Orliac 1982:273; parrman In a recent tudy of late prehistoric 'Opunohu Valley 1944:73). Central po t formed the key load bearing sup­ house site (Kahn 2005) careful excavation documented ports in Ma'ohi hou e (and indeed mo t pre-contact Poly­ numerous postholes a sociated with pit and/or urrounded ne ian house) and can then be expected to be larger than by packing clay and support stones. Becau e a urpri ing other po t. However, prehistoric Ma'ohi houses inter­ number of medium- to large postholes were a ociated with preted as specialized house sites for ritual activities (Sites pits and their constellation ugge ted they were dug when the original post wa placed, I argue these prac­ Table 3. Scientific and Cornmon Names for Select Wood Taxa tices likely represent po t emplacement ritual , imilar to tho e mentioned in the ethnohistoric Taxa Common Names account (Ellis 1831; Orliac 1982:273). While po t Arlocarpus sp. Breadfruit; 'Urn (Societies), Kuru (Marquesas) replacement activities were, in part, necessitated Calophyllum inophyllum 'Ali (Societies), Tamanu (Societies, Marquesas) by post rot, the act of replacing a Ma'ohi hou e post likely had ritual connotation given the Aus­ Hibiscus liliaceus Hibiscus; Piirau (Societies), 'Au (Marquesas) tronesian-wide importance of hou e po t as sym­ fnocarpus[af?i[er Tahitian Chestnut; Mape (Societies) bols of the ance tor and "house" growth (Bloch Ficus prolixa Banyan; 'Ora (Societies), Aoa (Marque a ) 1995:81-82; Car ten 1995:111; Firth 1967:198­ Cordia subcordala Tou (Societies, Marquesas) 199; Kirch 1996:262; Malo 195 J:124, s.4; Water­ son 1990: 124-125). Excavations at other Casuarina equislefolia Ironwood; 'AiIO, Toa (Societies) 'Opunohu Valley house sites (Green et al. Pacific Rosewood; 'A mae (Societies), Miro Thespesia populnea 1967:132-133; Oake 1994) and in Tahiti (Orliac (Societies, Marquesas) 1982:273) have found a similar a ociation of pit Cocos nuci/era Coconut; Niu (Societies), Nii (Marquesas) feature with internal posthole, uggesting a Melrosideros polymorpha 'Ohi 'a lehua (Hawai' i) practice of ritual emplacement of po t within Syzgiwll mallaccen e Mountain apple; 'Ohi'a ai (Hawai'i) po tholes. PodocQ/pus lolara Totara (New Zealand)

Rapa Nui Journal 18 Vol. 22 (1) May 2008

Published by Kahualike, 2008 5 Rapa Nui Journal: Journal of the Easter Island Foundation, Vol. 22 [2008], Iss. 1, Art. 3

25 ~------, wood u ed in hou e construction ignal ite function, rank, and status, and in particular, the lDSmali OMedium .Large anctity of the occupant living in, or carrying

20 out ritual and craft activitie in and around the house structure (Kahn 2005; Kahn and Coil 2006; Orliac 2000).

15 Marquesas Islands (Central Eastern Polynesia)

10 The ritual nature of Marquesan hou e i like­ wise illustrated in the ethnographic and ethno­ hi toric literature. In the po t-contact period, 5 Handy (1923) note that specialist or master builders supervi ed the building of Marque an house platform (paepae), in addition to super­ o ','... vising the building of me 'ae (temples) and 170 171B 171C 171D 171E 120 ALT/B 123 AlB other ritual structure. Langsdorff's earlier ac­ Site count (1813:129) described how newly-built Marque an house were opened with con ecra­ Figure l. Posthole sizes for recently excavated 'Opunohu Valley hou e site (after tion ceremonies carried out by "prie ts or magi­ Kahn 2005, Table 5.20). Po thole recovered in late prehi toric ociety Island exca­ cians" and were accompanied by feasts and vation have been cia sifted into three ba ic ize categorie: mall (10-16 cm di­ oration , suggesting that the completion, if not ameter, or less than 16 cm diameter)' medium (16-26 cm diameter), and large (26­ the debut, of hou e con truction was a ritually 40 cm diameter). formalized affairS. For fir t-bom ons of chief or men of wealth, hou e consecration and Finally, there is convincing archaeological evidence opening ceremorue involved decoration of the hou e inte­ that in certain Society I land context , hou e po t were rior, whereby a ymbolic loin cloth (hami) of acred red fashioned from sacred wood 4 (Kahn and Coil 2006; Table and white bark cloth wa tied around the hou e ridge pole. 2). In a small sample of excavated 'Opunohu Valley hou e Handy (l923:79-80) argues that thi loincloth ymbolized sites, only specialized hou e ite (ScMo-120B, ScMo-123) the lIIalla and strength of the dwelling structure, much in used for sacred activitie and high tatus elite residence the ame way that the tapu loincloth uffounding the loin (ScMo-170) had house po ts fashioned from breadfruit of the fir t born son repre ented hi virility and power. In (Artocarpus atiUs) wood, an economically important and thi way, elite Marque an hou e per onified living bodie yrnbolically charged tree species (Table 3). In contra t, the and were treated in a symbolic manner as individual with lower-status sleeping hou e (ScMo-171 B), had po ts con­ a high degree of sacredne . That dwellings were named structed from purau (HibiSCUS tiliaceus) and mape individually, as with other important and often sacred po ­ (Jllocalpus fagifer), widely available, commonly used sessions (canoes, weapon) under cores their social impor­ woods lacking symbolic propertie or great economic tance (Handy 1923:61,86). value. These archaeological data confirm practices briefly While ethnohi toric sources do not specifically link mentioned in the historic text which note how branches Marque an posts to the ance tor or deities, posts were from acred tree were u ed in a ritualized manner to carve adorned or given special treatment during rituals in both ceremonial idol and to fashion posts for constructing fare house and temple contexts (Table I). European Explorer 'arioi ( pecialized meeting hou e ), elite residence, and de cribed temple (me 'ae) post and tho e found in "public offering platforms situated on ceremonial temple ites hou e ' situated near dance/fea ting grounds (tohua) a (Emory 1933:23; Henry 1928:382' see Orliac 1984b, 1990; elaborately decorated with vegetation and bound with tapa Orliac and Wattez 1987). They al 0 provide confinnation cloth streamer (Kru en tern 1813[ 1968]: 127; Porter that ritually important, acred or economically valued

4 Symbolically charged tree specie are found throughout Polyne ia and their .woods o~~n played imponant role in ri~als. Their acred. properties derived from diver e ource - ome trees were affiliated with particular delt1e~,.whlle ott.ler ~ere planted 10 or ne~r temple Ite and attracted acred bird iliat were them elve con idered emanations of the gods and spmt (ee dl cu Ion In Kahn and Coil 2006; Kolb and Murakami 1994; Orliac 1984b, 1990; Orliac and Wattez 1987, among other ). Sacred woods were o~en highly valued and .u ed t~ fab­ ricate ritually significant object (canoes, house posts, temple uper tructure temple i~ols, etc.). Et~nohl tonc ources and native leXicon are invaluable source material in the region for detennining which particular tree pecles were conSidered sacred for particular Island groups. . d' I 5 Handy's later account (1923) argue that the luhuna who laid the fir t cour e of tone in ~arquesan pa~pae cons~ru.ctlOn. serve simp y as master builders rather than priests, while both Handy' and Lang dorfrs (1813) account Illu trate that ntual speCialIsts directed house opening ceremonies.

Rapa Nui Journal 19 Vol. 22 (1) May 2008 https://kahualike.manoa.hawaii.edu/rnj/vol22/iss1/3 6 Kahn: Ritual House Posts, and "House Societies" in Polynesia

1970:39-40; Terrell 1988). Crook describes the front house ethnohistoric and ethnographic sources we can infer that the post as "wrapt with black and yellow sennet and sometimes use of banyan, temanu, ironwood, or breadfruit wood to bound with tapa cloth" (n.d.:cxxxiii); his early description fashion Marquesan house posts would strongly signal a of the e practice during his missionary stay in the 1790s sacred and/or elite dwelling or specialized use house in a intimates that hou e po t decoration di played hou ehold public context. Additional archaeological work is needed to economic resource and household rank. Late European te t whether certain Marquesan hou e posts were elaborated explorer account (Porter 1970:39-40) and later ethno­ in their material fonn; thi i often repre ented in the ar­ graphic sources (Linton 1923:285-290 pI. XLIB,C; Handy chaeological record as larger po t - either postholes with 1923: 154) refer to geometric and/or tiki figure carving on ubstantial diameter and/or substantial depth. The Marque­ the front and end house posts, as well as ornamental lash­ san ethnohistoric accounts suggest that the end posts of ings, which were po itioned to serve a a fonn of public houses may have been larger and/or more highly decorated display. Tiki figure found on hou e po t were imilar to than the center posts. those carved on canoe bow and stem piece (Handy 1923: 159) and the men who carved designs on the front and Hawaiian Islands (Eastern Polynesia) end hou e post were considered craft specialists (tuhuna ha 'a tikitiki). In Hawai'i, late ethnohi toric texts de cribe how, at In chants given at the completion of a Marquesan hrines dedicated to Kane, po ts were featured in prayers house (Handy 1923) the raw materials u ed in the construc­ spoken to promote abundance, while offerings wrapped in tion ofa legendary house for Atanua, wife of Atea (the crea­ bundles were left at po t ba es (Handy 1972a:386). In other tor god), are personified, underscoring the ritual ignifi­ ritual contexts, including certain heiau, goddess figure and cance of the building material . The chant reference bread­ ancestral water spirits (mo '0) were represented by po t im­ fruit wood used for the end posts and palm wood u ed for ages (Kamakau 1968: 85). As in other Polynesian societies, the ridge pole (Handy 1923:151-152; Table I). In 1813, the construction of Hawaiian houses followed proscribed Porter (1970:39-40) noted that breadfruit wood was used to rule (Fornander 1919, Vol. 6:58-63, 78-81; Kamakau fashion house po ts in "public houses" used by the elites 1976:96), many of which involved the appearance and per­ adjacent to tohua, while well-poli hed coconut (Cocos fection of house posts. Particular care wa taken in cutting nucifera) timber were u ed for the ridge pole. Later ac­ timber for the main post upporting the ridge pole and af­ counts (Gracia 1843:123) imilarly mention hou e po ts terwards, trips of barkcloth were tied around each fashioned from breadfruit, as were wooden tiki found in (Fornander 1919, Vol. 6:52). During construction rituals, the ritual temple contexts (Millerstrom 200I:35). In the Mar­ comer house posts were symbolically aligned (Fornander quesas, breadfruit was the primary cultigen, and represents 1919, Vol. 6:60), leading Valeri (1985:280, 392 n. 106) to an economically important tree with significant ritual im­ argue that contact period dwelling structures in Hawai'i portance (Elli 1831; Handy 1923; Ragone 1991). Banyan ignified ocial being. Special attention wa al 0 paid to (aoa) wa con idered the mo t acred tree (Handy the ridge po t; it name, pou hana, was a figure of peech to 1923:120) and it wa commonly planted on or near me'ae denote persons of importance and in hou e layout, this post platfonns (tribal ritual spaces), while ironwood (Casuarina wa somewhat isolated from other posts (Table I). Cro s equisetifolia) and temanu (Calophyllum inophyllum) could purlins were never attached to it, and it wa only lashed at also be found in the sacred tree groves. the top to the main ridge pole (Buck 1957:86). Organic of­ Limited archaeological evidence is available concern­ ferings such as fish or red taro, were placed under the main ing the material fonn of prehistoric posts in the Marquesas po t of a new sleeping house during consecration ceremo­ I land which reflect the lack of household archaeology nie (Handy I972a: 116, I972b: 177; Table 1). While Hawai­ carried out in thj archipelago. Ottino and de Bergh ian ource do not refer to the ymbolic embodiment of (1990:8) provide a photo of an elaborately carved post with hou e post as ance tor deitie or god, the involvement a tiki repre entation (date unknown) which wa recovered of house post in dome tic ritual trongly ugge t that this from an elite funerary context, and possibly from a funerary notion was held. Similar to practice in the Marquesa , Ha­ 6 platform . A post (date unknown), fashioned from tou waiian houses symbolized the human form and social rela­ (Cordia subcordata) was recovered by the same authors at tions?; in particular, the ridge pole represented the crest, an elite funerary tructure in Hakaohoka (1990:51-52). Or­ hair, or helmet of high ranking male , the head of the fam­ [iac (1990:41) identified the wood from a house post on ily, the ali 'i, or the priests (Valeri 1985:302-303). Nuku Hiva (M.H. n. 94-12-2) as breadfruit wood. From the

6 The authors note (1990:8) that the po t i likely fa hioned from breadfruit wood, but thi is not based on wood identification analy e . 7 Descriptions ofHawaiian hOll e opening ceremonies also support the notion that the house structure corre ponded to a human body. At the e inaugural ceremonie ,a thatch ofgra s hanging above the entryway, termed pika (also the term for navel) was ritually trimmed (Valeri 1985:302). Thi ymbolized cutting the umbilical cord ofthe hou e, and as Valeri argues, the hOllse was then "born like a human being" (1985:302, ee Brigham 1908: 103). Thi is analogous to many modem Au trone ian "hou e ocietie" where' houses are frequently thought ofas bodies, haring with them a common anatomy and a common life history" (Carsten and Hugh-Jone 1995b:3, ee al 0 Gib on 1995, Waterson 1990).

Rapa Nui Journal 20 Vol. 22 (1) May 2008

Published by Kahualike, 2008 7 • Rapa Nui Journal: Journal of the Easter Island Foundation, Vol. 22 [2008], Iss. 1, Art. 3

Posts were made of uhiuhi, naio, 'a 'ali 'i, mamane, articulates with site function and social behaviour. Further pua, and other hard woods, while straight trees were se­ wood charcoal identification of late prehistoric Hawaiian lected for the rafters, such as 'ohi 'a hamau, lama, ha 'a. house posts is warranted, given the archaeological data pre­ (Kamakau 1976:96; see also Kolb and Murakami 1994:65­ sented by Wei ler and Murakami and data in the ethnohis­ 67, Table 2). Some of the taxa used in hou e construction toric account that wood u ed in house construction was also had ritual use, including the genus Metrosideros (0 'hia deemed ritually impoltant and may then differ between low lehua), used for carving temple idols, temple hou e posts, and high tatus residences. and palisades (ibid.:67, see Fomander 1919, Vol. 6:12). The wood used in house construction was deemed ritually im­ New Zealand (Eastern Polynesia) portant (see Fomander 1919, Vol. 6, 58-63, 76-81) and Ka­ makau suggests that it was "not con'ect" and indeed, it was Elements of the dwelling structure changed over the ritually inappropriate, to mix different woods in a house, course of ettlement in New Zealand. At European contact, thus all house posts should be of the same wood type, and dwellings were differentiated into two major categories, the same was true for the rafters (Kamakau 1976:99). Buck "common" houses of simple pole and thatch construction, (1957:83) notes that post thickness varied with house size; and the more elaborate "superior" houses, constructed from the height of the ridge posts detennined the height of the dre sed and/or fitted timber and ometimes elaborately house, and house height, like house size, depended upon the carved (Be t 1924:559-561; Prickett 1982: 116; Wallace and social position of the owners (see also Kamakau 1976:96; Irwin 2004). Superior houses could either serve as sleeping Stewart 1828: 182). Wood used for house posts and house hou es for elites or their guests (whare puni) or as special­ rafters was dressed in well-made houses (Kamakau ized public meeting houses (whare whakairo) (prickett 1976:98), suggesting that post decoration differed between 1982). Both whare puni and whare whakairo retained cen­ high status and conunoner houses. tral posts in the mid-line which supported the ridge pole. While prehistoric house sites (or parts thereof) have The ethnographic data suggest that the larger superior been excavated within cultural-resource management pro­ houses had dressed posts with squared or rectangular ends, jects, settlement pattern studies, and household archaeology while the smaller pole and thatch structures lacked well­ projects, the Hawaiian Islands still lack an easily accessible finished post (Prickett 1982: 129). The central supporting database or publications with detailed reporting of house post of the ridge pole could be embellished with carving or posthole size and morphology. An exception is site MO-Al­ painted designs (Best 1924:571). 3, the Halawa Dune site on Moloka'i, where round-ended In Maori meeting houses, the central posts were not structures were excavated (Kirch 1975). These pole and used as seats of honor for high status persons, as visitors to thatch houses had postholes varying in size (diameter), whare whakairo seated themselves along the back walls. depth, and inclusion of stones in the posthole interior (see There is convincing evidence, however, that the center posts Kirch 1975:28, Table 9)8. Weisler and Murakami (1991) as well as the ridge pole retained a sacred or symbolic char­ 9 published data on a late prehistoric uncarbonized post inter­ acter in superior houses . The placement of the batten near­ preted as a support for a sub tantial house or other fonn of est the ridge pole (a tapu part of the house) and the adzing substantial structure. The post was of medium diameter (17 of these timbers were completed according to special rules cm) and the authors sugge t it may have been a comer post, of form; departures from these were evil omens and could as a possible support tone (upright stone slab) was found at cause social chaos (Prickett 1982: 115; after Best 1898: 130). the perimeter of the postrnold, "a feature sometimes found In the course of constructing new superior houses, stringent in the comer of prehistoric houses" (1991 :283). The post social restrictions were followed (Best 1924:561), as the wood was identified as mountain apple (Syzgium malac­ house was considered tapu and placed under the care and cen e). This is the fir t documented use of mountain apple control over the gods. These practices were not followed for house posts, a genus which was also used for house raf­ when building "simple inferior huts", presumably referring ters, temple enclosures, and religious idols (Kolb and Mura­ to common pole and thatch houses. Maori legends single kami 1994:67). Weisler and Murakami (1991) posit that this out the ridge pole (which was supported by the massive post, or the wood u ed to fashion it, wa perhaps trans­ central posts) and they refer to the building of an elaborate ported up to 20 km, indicating selection of particular wood meeting house, where the ridge pole was fashioned from species for house construction and considerable effort to totara (Podocatpus totara). Early ethnohistoric sources access these species. refer to large and elaborate central house posts which sup­ More detailed reporting of hou e posthole feature ported the roof weight (Ollivier and Spencer 1985), while recovered in Hawaiian excavations is needed to further un­ later accounts note that central posts were sometimes deco­ der tand how variation in posthole form and morphology rated with red pigment in addition to carved human figures

8 Postholes also varied in size and morphology at the A 1-765 habitation site excavated in the Halawa Valley (Hendron 1975: 139), with ome having stone-rimmed bottoms and sides. This structure has been interpreted as a pole and thatch dwelling. 9 Salmond (1975:40) notes how the physical structure of Maori meeting houses represents the body ofthe ance tor in a quite literal manner; the ridge pole repre ented the spine ofthe ance tor, a well as the main line ofdecent from the founder. This is similar to Tahitian myths where the ridgepole and other post embodied the human fonn ofthe creator god, Ta'aroa.

Rapa Nui Journal 21 Vol. 22 (1) May 2008 https://kahualike.manoa.hawaii.edu/rnj/vol22/iss1/3 8 Kahn: Ritual House Posts, and "House Societies" in Polynesia

(Barrat 1979:36; Salmond 1975:37). Sutton (1991:543) uperior houses rather than common houses 12, supporting and Sahlins (1985:62) have argued that the front central Prickett' interpretation of the ethnohistoric account. post may represent the mauri or life force, defined by Po thole size, particularly those of the center po t , Sahlin as "a physical emblem... repre enting the pre tige clearly varies in New Zealand by house type. Le ub tan­ and tability of tbe tribal group." In this way, Maori cen­ tial rectangular dwellings lack squared or rectangular posts tral house posts conform to descriptions of ritual attractors. and appear to have been fashioned from un haped poles New Zealand offers perhaps the mo t sub tantive (Davidson 1984: 154). Sutton's Type 1 undefended hou es archaeological data for bouse posts in Eastern Polynesia. at Pouerua (interpreted a high tatus dwellings and proto­ Unlike many other areas, prehistoric ew Zealand house typical whare whakairo) had y tematic and hierarchical tructure have, for a long time, been exposed in large difference between the front, center, and side wall po t horizontal excavations which have uncovered po thole (1990:188,1991:543). Central posts either in the front wall patterns. This, coupled with the long history of wood char­ or the rear center post were the largest. In contra t, Type 2 coal identification in ew Zealand, provide tbe area with houses only sometimes maintained large front central po ts one of the more ro- and had more ir­ bust databa e for regular posthole ize posthole size and patterns (1990: 191). morphology and for Taken as a whole, wood cbarcoal identi­ the evidence for fications originating central po t being from po thole con­ the large t or thick­ text or from well­ est and having pe­ preserved post cial alignments and/ butts 10. or objects placed as The archaeo- offering within logical data indicate their po tholes, of­ that central posts fer firm evidence differed from others that the form and in their size, form morphology of alignment, and em­ Maori central post, placement (inferred at least in the well­ from object placed made uperior struc­ within the po thole). tures, had both func­ Based on the excava­ tional and symbolic tions of a whare pllni Figure 2. Native wor hiping a po t. From Gill 1885; photo courtesy orthe Bi hop meaning. David on (superior sleeping Mu eum Archive. (1984: 157) similarly house), Leach et al. argue that the cen­ (1999:34) argued that two of the four central posts were ter post upporting the ridge pole and nearest to the door clearly larger than the side post , perhaps attributable to had a high (the highe t?) degree ofsymbolism. symbolic and functional rea on . The largest po twas Timbers recovered in archaeological excavation of aligned to the back wall and had a dog jaw bone placed in Maori house sites often include totara (PodoCGlpliS to­ the po thole, interpreted as an offering as ociated with the tara), but a range of other pecie have been identified construction of the house (Leach et al. 1999:94)". Other from center po t a well a other house elements (Wallace central posts were specially aligned, had square cross­ 1989:223-225). While ome variation in ew Zealand section, and were of ub tantial size and depth, suggesting house post wood reflect environmental diver ity and/or their symbolic significance. Posts with quare to rectangu­ local availability, there are tentative suggestions that the lar cross-section have been interpreted a dre ed timber wood u ed differ between the common and uperior type and/or carved po t in other Maori house ite (Bellwood and reflect house function and house status. At undefended 1978:23-24, Figure 10) and appear to be correlated with house sites in Pouerua, Type [ hou es 50 III and 50 II2

10 However, a search ofthe ew Zealand radiocarbon database (http//www.waikato.ac.nz/nzcd) failed to recover maLlY dated posts and wood charcoal identifications from house context. Samples with wood charcoal identifications were derived from hou e walls or wall slabs near po t butts or pali ade posthole. The exception is NZ7581 deriving from a small hou e po t; the wood charcoal wa identified a tarairi (Beilschmiedia tarairi). Wood charcoal identifications from ew Zealand house po t have al 0 been publi hed in other contexts (Irwin 2004; Leach et al. 1999; Sutton 1990). 11 Davidson (1984: 172) also refers to waterwom stones and adzes placed in palisade postholes at Otakanini Pa, which appear to be deliber­ ately placed ritual offering. 12 Bellwood (1978:46) notes that posts ofType B, with square or rectangular cro section and tapered base, were used as pali ade po t and house po t .

Rapa Nui Journal 22 Vol. 22 (1) May 2008

Published by Kahualike, 2008 9 Rapa Nui Journal: Journal of the Easter Island Foundation, Vol. 22 [2008], Iss. 1, Art. 3

(interpreted as high status dwellings and prototypical whare locales, house posts were named for particular gods or an­ whakairo), house posts were fashioned from puriri (Vitex cestors. Inorganic and organic materials were poured on or lucens), porokaiwhiria (Cracophyllum sp.), koromiko (Hebe placed at their bases, and the decoration of posts in house­ sp.), ponga (Cyathea sp.lDickinsonia sp.), manuka hold rituals was viewed as a form of offering to these dei­ (Leptospermum scoparium), but not totara (Damm and ties (in Tikopia, Society Islands, and po sibly Hawai'i)17 Sutton 1990:58, Table 3.1)13. Yet, in the Makotukutuku (Table 1). structure, interpreted as a prehistoric superior sleeping House po ts serving as ritual attractors to which offer­ house, most elements, including the center posts, were fash­ ings were made and/or as symbols of the gods or ancestors, ioned from totara (Podocarpus totara), while one center appear to have been a widespread phenomena in contact-era post was fashioned from pukatea (Laurelia novae­ Polynesia. For example, missionary texts concerning Tu­ zelandiae) (Leach et al. 1999)14.15. At Kohika (Wallace et valu societies (residents of an atoll group situated in West­ al. 2004), the center post in the HS area house (interpreted ern Polynesia) describe how posts in specialized community as a carved whare whakairo) had a sculpted human figure houses served as ritual attractors. An engraving found in on the post supporting the ridge pole'6. Both ide wall posts Gill (1885:15, ee Figure 2) entitled "Native Worshipping a and center posts were sculpted, often with tylized human Post" depicts a resident ofNiuato atoll inside an open-sided figures, and they were fashioned from totara. In contrast, round-ended hou e. The "worshipper" kneels in front of the in Area D, interpreted as a locale for pole and thatch houses central side post of the house, offering a "sacred leaflet," in addition to dressed plank houses, there was a diverse while coconuts have also been placed on the ground at its range of woods for house timbers, these included pukatea base as offerings (1885: 15, 204). Gill' text (1885:15) re­ (Laurelia novae-zelandiae), kauri (Agathus australis), to­ cord that thi central house post was considered a "god," tara (Podocarpus totara), matai (Prumnopitys taxifolia), more pecifically an item within which the god wa en­ rimu (Dacrydium cupressinum), and kahikatea shrined (e.g. a ritual attractor), and as such, the post was "an (Dacrycarous daClydioide) (Wallace et al. 2004: 140). object of daily worship." Gill's reference to Narromanga Thus, sculpted elements of superior house typically appear Island likewise refer to posts "sacred to the "shooting star" to be fashioned from totara, while elements of pole and god. These descriptions of the enshrinement of god in thatch houses and/or dressed timber houses lacking sculpted Tokelauan posts clearly describe posts as ritual attractors in elements seem to be made from a wider variety of wood manners similar to the ethnographic and ethnohistoric data types. already accounted for Tikopia and Eastern Polynesian lo­ cale . DISCUSSION The ca e tudy al 0 demonstrates metaphoric associa­ tions of posts and ancestors in creation myths, where gods This holistic review of ethnographic, ethnohistoric, and de cend down the posts and/are transformed and embodied archaeological data emphatically supports a shared cultural into house posts (in tbe Society Islands, Tuamotu Islands, notion of ritual house po ts in Polynesia (Table 1), imilar and New Zealand). Sometime tbese relation hip are re­ to those found in modern Austronesian "hou e societies". It created in household rituals (Tikopia). In other locales, uch is clear that, in the four ca e tudie, house po ts erved as as New Zealand, posts in close association with the ridge ritual attractors in domestic contexts; however, the particu­ pole denoted a sacred space within the house; this was al 0 lar ways in which this was embodied or materialized in lo­ highly elaborated in Tikopia, the Society Islands, and the cal contexts differed, as is also found in modern Austrone- Hawaiian Islands, where posts served as backrests for high ranking persons and/or the gods or ancestors which inhab­ ian "hou e societies". Data support the linkage of Polyne­ ls sian house posts with household ancestors, deities, or spirits ited them . The centrality of house posts in domestic ritu­ in all case studies excepting the Marquesa Islands. In some als, whether based on ethnohistoric descriptions or archaeo-

IJ Examination of wood charcoal from bouse post excavated on the Pouerua Pa also found that bouse po ts were ometime fashioned from totara but were also made from a variety ofother woods (see Sutton et al. 2003, Appendix 2). 14 At Makotukutuku carbonized butts of hou e post and charcoal from interior po thole fill were identi fled to species. The fact that the taxa u ed for the Makotukutuku house posts and other house elements differed from those found in the hearth (i.e. taxa used as firewood) (Leach et al. 1999:99, Table 2) indicates that the woods for house construction were intentionally selected. 15 Davidson (1984: 153) discusses the Moikau house, a twelfth century structure, rectangular in plan, which resembles a well-made sleeping house (whare puni) and the Pa Bay houses (1984: 155), late nineteenth century whare puni. Those superior houses also had posts fashioned from totara. 16 Exceptional pre ervation ofwooden artifact at Kobika allowed for the identification of po t timbers rather tban charcoal recovered from within the posthole fill. 17 Hou e posts were al 0 felt to embody the deitie in other Oceanic societie, uch a Fiji, where kava wa poured a offering at the bases of po t in feast marking the end of illness (Hocart 1929:61, 191). 18 Kircb (1994) provides similar evidence for Futuna (Western Polynesia) where house posts demarcated sacred spaces within tbe para­ mount chiefs residence. Ethnohistoric evidence for these practices are also found in Easter Island, wbere posts were ometimes named for ancestors, and were carved with anthropomorpbic images. Here, the central post was felt to have "magical" properties (Metraux 1940: 197), and house posts functioned as resting places for chiefs (Van Tilburg 1994:73).

Rapa Nui Journal 23 Vol. 22 (1) May 2008 https://kahualike.manoa.hawaii.edu/rnj/vol22/iss1/3 10 Kahn: Ritual House Posts, and "House Societies" in Polynesia

logical evidence for offering put into the posthole, is found pects of household socio-economic tatus and ite function. in all four case studies. These data clearly support that Specific local pattern will vary and the etbnohistoric data house posts served as ritual attractors in Ea tern Polynesian indicate ome potential diver ity. U e of breadfruit, an eco­ societies, as they were points of reference around which nomically important and acred tree, is particularly impor­ critical activitie were organized (Fox 1993b: 14). tant for fashioning house posts in Polyne ian cultures where Diverse line of evidence then illu trate that wooden arboriculture is prevalent (Society Islands, the Marque a po t erved more than functional upport for Polyne ian Islands). It is particularly correlated with high tatu and/or dwelling; they also served as symbols of the ancestors and specialized public hou e in the e cultures, whose origin conveyed information about the social group's rank and myth and fu t fruit rituals recount how breadfruit symbol­ status (Table 2). This is perhaps most clear in the Marque­ ized one' relation to a ocial group, family cohesion, and san data, where hou e po t are de cribed a public di plays growth and continuity in the family unit (Elli 1831; Heruy of dome tic wealth and status. Yet, varied material di plays 1928; Ragone 1991). Use of breadfruit wood in high tatu of piritual power, household wealth, or rank are associated and/or specialized public hou es may have represented a with Polynesian house po ts (Table 1), these include carv­ growth metaphor, and perhap wa considered a good omen ing of ancestral figure on posts, adze dre ings, intricate for the ocial group' continued access to growth, power, la hings with colored cordage, and painting with pigments. and continuity. In contrast, data from the Hawaiian I land The e practices are mo t often referred to in elite contexts, suggests that using the same wood type for all po t and/or and there i archaeological data from the Society Islands rafters was ritually important, perhaps more significant than and ew Zealand (and ugge tions from Hawai'i) that post the particular woods used. This is clearly different from size, post shape, and post finishing practice varied between Marque an pattern , where ethnohi toric de cription note elite and commoner dwellings. Interestingly, while Firth's how the wood used for house posts differed from tho e data for Tikopia, cia ified a simple chiefdom lacking ma­ u ed for ridge poles, and where the end posts rather than jor hierarchy/rank: difference often refer to elite contexts, center po t , were signaled out particularly for pecial carv­ his overall de cription ugge t that that po t had ritual ing or other kind offini hing treatments. symboli m in both chiefly and commoner contexts. In con­ Finally, both methodological and theoretical i ue are trast, data from New Zealand, the Society Islands, and the foregrounded by the present study. More data are needed Hawaiian Islands typically refer to the elaboration of house from well-excavated hou e ite in Polyne ia where sub- posts only in elite residences or sacred, ceremonial con­ urface feature are encountered and, in particular, po thole text . Hence, orne of the statu differences that we see ma­ data need to be published in greater detail. Researcher terialized in the e complex chiefdoms may be les formal­ should clearly report not only the particular dimensions of ized in the impler Tikopian chiefdom, but more archaeo­ posthole (diameter, size, bape, depth), but all objects logical data is needed to te t this propo ition. What i clear found within the posthole contents, as these may relate to is that house posts formed an important representation of po t emplacement practice . Thi require that care be taken the residential groups' social identity, this could be materi­ in excavating posthole fill, in order to differentiate stones or alized in the u e of sacred woods, or in the carving of an­ other object within the po thole fill from tho e relating to ce tral motif:, or a combination of the two. From an ar­ exterior deposits. There are also indications that the u e of chaeological per pective, posthole form and morphology pace around po ts will differ from other areas of the hou e, ( hape, diameter, depth, objects placed in po thole) provide a the e features were u ed a backrest for chief: or other information on hou e post size, post decoration or finishing high status individuals and areas where libations and other technique , and post emplacement practices. These data can offerings were left during household ritual. Offering of also be used to reconstruct hou ehold ritual practice site aried organic materials may leave micro-trace di cernable function, and the wealth and status of the house occupants with oil chemical re idue tudie, requiring that compara­ in certain locales. tive oil amples from area just exterior to postholes be Ethnohi toric and archaeological evidence suggest that taken. Finally, particular care hould be taken to document hou e po ts, a di plays of the ocial group's wealth and all the po tholes recovered in household excavation , as identity, could be founded in the very wood from which the differences between central posts often signaled out as the post was made. In certain Polynesian societies, particular most sacred posts within both Polynesian and other Aus­ tree species were imbued with divine properties (Kahn trone ian houses, vel' u other hou e po t (i.e., side po ts) 2005; Kolb and Murakami 1994; Orliac 1990). Archaeo­ may illuminate differences which cannot be detected from logical data ugge t that, in at least the Society Islands, and small samples alone. perhap the Hawaiian I lands, the woods used to fashion material objects, such as house po ts, were chosen not only CO CLUSIO S for their phy ical properties, but according to the cultural and symbolic value of the wood (Table 2) ( ee al 0 Kahn Utilizing ethnographic analogy and reading the ethnohis­ 2005; Orliac 1984a, 1984b, 1990). Hence, it i likely that, in toric accounts through the len of the "house society" per­ certain Polyne ian locales, the use of sacred and rare woods spective, r have shown that the cultural concept of bouse in house construction (ie., as house posts), will reflect as- po t as acred items, indeed as ritual attractors, was shared

Rapa Nui Journal 24 Vol. 22 (1) May 2008

Published by Kahualike, 2008 11 Rapa Nui Journal: Journal of the Easter Island Foundation, Vol. 22 [2008], Iss. 1, Art. 3

among many prehistoric Polynesian societies of Austrone­ their contents in the field, and later analysis of the woods sian descent. Consonant with my expectations, there ap­ used to construct late prehistoric Polynesian houses, a pre­ pears to have been local changes through time as this con­ served in posthole fill, will provide data concerning house­ cept was adapted to different Polynesian societies in isola­ hold socio-economic status and site function. Such studies tion. Because the cultural concept of house posts as ritual will follow tlle current interest in micro-scale analyses attractors was shared across geographical boundaries and is which have documented that the study of "lowly" everyday found in both Western Polynesia, Eastern Polynesia, and the archaeological features, such as postholes, can be an effec­ Polynesian Outliers, we can identify it as long-standing tive means for developing richer behaviour-based interpre­ cultural tradition shared anlong many, if not all "house" tations of prehistoric social organization (see Pauketat and based societies ofOceania. Ait 2005). Posthole size and morphology have traditionally been u ed in Polynesian archaeology to distinguish temporary ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS use structures/habitations from more substantial, perma­ nently used habitations, and little further attention has been This paper benefited from the comments and careful read­ paid to such features. This is reflected in the poor reportage ing of two anonymous reviewers. I began writing the text at for posthole features in some parts of Polynesia, such as the the School of Social Science, University of Queensland, Hawaiian archipelago and the Marquesas Islands, where while I held a position as a Post-Doctoral Research Fellow basic posthole size, diameter, and morphology is oftentimes in Archaeology and I thank the School for financial support not provided in publications. I argue that greater attention during that time. David Addison, Roger Green, Patrick should be paid to post size, post morphology, and po t Kirch, Sidsel Millerstrom, Marshall Weisler, and an anony­ wood type because, in many Eastern Polynesian contexts, mous reviewer generously provided ethnohistoric and eth­ these data can likely be u ed to differentiate houses of dif­ nographic references. Bishop Museum Library staff mem­ fering social status and rank from one another, and to pin­ bers are thanked for tracking down hard to find references. point specialized use site of a highly sacred nature. This Finally, I am most indebted to Roger Green for numerous certainly holds true for the Society Islands, but these hy­ discussions concerning pou and the wood types used to potheses remain to be tested in other areas of Ea tern Poly­ fashion them, for introducing me to the New Zealand radio­ nesia. Such data will permit finer comparisons of house carbon database, and for directing me to the wonderful en­ architecture and the use of space across Polynesian chief­ graving found in Gill 1885. doms of varying complexity, critical to addressing larger que tion concerning the elaboration of rank and hierarchy CES sy terns and their articulation with emerging social com­ REFERE plexity. In the last two decades, inter- and intra-household Adam, R. L. 2007. Maintaining Cohesion in House Socie­ variability has emerged as an important field of archaeo­ ties ofWest Sumba, Indonesia. R. Beck, Ir. ed: 344­ logical analysis in Eastern Polynesia (Anderson 2001; Kahn 362. The Durable House: Hou e Society Models in 2003, 2005; Kirch and O'Day 2003; Kirch and Sahlins Archaeology. Occasional Paper 35, Center for Ar­ 1992; Oakes 1994; O'Day 2001; Sutton 1990; Taomia chaeological Investigations. Carbondale: Southern Illi­ 2000; Van Gilder and Kirch 1997; Walter 1993; Weisler and nois University. Kirch 1985). The tudy of prehi toric households in this Anderson, P.-K. B. 2001. Houses of the Kama'aina: His­ region takes many forms and i often articulated with an torical Anthropology in a Rural Hawaiian Valley. investigation of status difference and access to material Ph.D. Dissertation, University ofCalifornia, Berkeley. goods and labor. Diverse forms of data are used to investi­ Barrat, G. R. 1979. Bellinghausen: a visit to New Zealand: gate diversity between households, including site proxe­ 1820. Palmerston: North Dunmore Press. mics, elaboration of surface architecture, analyses of mate­ Beaglehole, J. c., ed. 1962. The Endeavour Journal ofJo­ rial culture assemblages, the number and type of sub- seph Banks 1768-1771. 2 volumes. Sydney: Angus and urface features, and pre ence activity areas. In some dry Robertson. leeward locales, faunal and marine shell analyses have Beckwith, M. W. 1970. Hawaiian Mythology. Honolulu: proven particularly effective for establishing how access to University ofHawaii Press. subsistence goods varied among elite and commoner resi­ Best, E. 1898. Omens and Superstitious Beliefs oftlle dences (Kirch and O'Day 2003; O'Day 200 I; Weisler and Maori. The Journal ofthe Polynesian Society 27: 119­ Kirch 1985). Because extremely poor bone and shell preser­ 136. vation characterizes most wet windward contexts through­ Best, E. 1924. The Maori as He Was: A BriefAccount of out tropical Eastern Polynesia, more durable material re­ Maori Life as it was in Pre-European Days. New Zea­ mains (such as postholes) must be used to identify inter­ land Board of Science and Art Manual No.4, Domin­ and intra-household variability in these areas. It is likely ion Museum. that in many Eastern Polynesian contexts, detailed docu­ Bellwood, P. 1978. Archaeological Research at Lake Man­ mentation of the form and morphology of postholes and gakaware, Waikato, 1968-1970. University ofOtago Studies in Prehistoric Anthropology Volume 12,

Rapa Nui Journal 25 Vol. 22 (1) May 2008 https://kahualike.manoa.hawaii.edu/rnj/vol22/iss1/3 12 Kahn: Ritual House Posts, and "House Societies" in Polynesia

Monograph 9. New Zealand Archaeological Associa­ York: Hwnanities Press, Second edition. tion. Firth, R. 1957. We, the Tikopia: A Sociological Study of Bloch, M. 1995. The Resurrection of the House Amongst Kinship in Primitive Polynesia. Second edition. ew the Zafimary ofMadagascar. J. Carsten and S. Hugh­ York: American Book Co. Jones, eds.: 69-83. About the House: Levi-Strauss and Firth, R.1970. Rank and religion in Tikopia: a study in pa­ Beyond. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ganism and conversion to Christianity. Boston: Beacon Brigham, W. T. 1908. The ancient Hawaiian House. Mem­ Press. oirs ofthe Bernice Pauahi Bishop Museum ofPolyne­ Firth, R. 1930-31. Totemism in Polynesia. Oceania (1 )3, sian Ethnology and Natural Histmy v. 2, no.3. Hono­ no. 4, pp. 291-321, 377-399. lulu: Bishop Museum Press. Fornander, A. 1919. Fornander Collection ofHawaiian Buck, P. H. (Te Rangi Hiroa), 1957. Arts and Crajis ofHa­ Antiquities and Folk-Lore. T. Thrum ed. Honolulu: waii. Honolulu: Bernice P. Bishop Museum Special Bernice P. Bishop Museum Memoirs 4, 5, 6. Publication 45. Fox, 1 1, ed. ]993a. Inside Austronesian Houses: Perspec­ Carsten, 1 and S. Hugh-Jones, eds. 1995a. About the tives on Domestic Designsfor Living. Canberra: Aus­ House: Levi-Strauss and Beyond. Cambridge: tralian National University. Cambridge University Press. Fox, 1 1. 1993b. Comparative Perspectives on Austronesian Carsten,l and S. Hugh-Jones. 1995b. Introduction. About Houses: An Introductory Essay. Inside Austronesian the House: Levi-Strauss and Beyond. 1 Carsten and S. Houses: Perspectives on Domestic Designsfor Living, Hugh-Jones, eds.: pp. 1-46. Cambridge: Cambridge 1.1. Fox ed.: 1-28. Canberra: Australian National Uni­ University Press. versity. Carsten, 1 1995. Houses in Langkawi: Stable Structures or Fox,1. 1. 1995. Austronesian Societies and Their Tran for­ Mobile Homes? About the House: Levi-Strauss and mations. The Austronesians: Historical and Compara­ Beyond. J. Carsten and S. Hugh-Jones, eds.: 105-128. tive Perspectives. P. Bellwood. 1. 1 Fox and D. Tryon Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. eds. 96-111. Canberra: Australian National Univer ity. Chiu, S. 2005. Meanings ofa Lapita Face: Materialized Gracia, M. 1843. Lettres sur les lies Marquises, on me­ Social Memory in Ancient House Societies. Taiwan moires pour servir d I 'etude religeuse, moreale, Journal ofAnthropology 3(1): 1-47. poIitique, et statistique des lies Marquises et de l'Oce­ Crook, W. P. n.d. Account ofthe Marquesas Islands. Syd­ anie orientale. Paris: Gaeme Freres. ney: Mitchell Library. Gibson, T. 1995. Having your House and Eating it: Hou e Damm, C. and D. Sutton. 1990. A Two-Phase Open Settle­ and Siblings in Ara, South Sulawesi. About the House: ment Site, N15/501. The Archaeology ofthe Kainga. A Levi-Straus and Beyond, 1. Carsten and S. Hugh­ Study ofPrecontact Maori Undefended Settlements at Jones, ed .: 129-148. Cambridge: Cambridge Univer­ Pouerua, Northland, New Zealand. D. Sutton ed.: 53­ sity Press. 70. Auckland: Auckland University Press. Gill, W. W. 1885. Jottings from the Pacific. London: The Davidson, 1 M. 1967. Excavations ofTwo Round-Ended Religious Tract Society. House Sites in the Ea tern Portion of the 'Opunohu Gillespie, S. D. 2007. When i a House? The Durable Valley. Archeology on the Island ofMo 'orea, French House: House Society Models in Archaeology, Polynesia, R. C. Green, K. Green, R. A. Rappaport, A. Occasional Paper No. 35, R. Beck, Jr. ed.: 25-50. Rappaport, and 1 Davidson eds.: 118-140. Anthropo­ Center for Archaeological Investigations. Carbondale: logical Papers oftbe American Museum ofNatural Southern Illinois University. Hi tory 51 (2), pp. 11 1-230. Green R. C. 1998. From Proto-Oceanic *Rwnaq to Proto­ Davidson, 1 1984. The Prehistory ofNew Zealand. Auck­ Polynesian *Fale: A Significant Reorganization in Aus­ land: Longman Paul. trone ian Housing. Archaeology in New Zealand 41 (4): Deetz, 1 1982. Households: A Structural Key to Archaeo­ 253-272. logical Explanation. Archaeology of the Household: Green, R. C. 2002. A Retrospective View ofSettlement Building a Prehistory of Domestic Life, R. Wilk and Pattern Studies in Samoa. Pacific Land capes: Ar­ W. Rathje eds.: 717-724. American Behavior Scientist chaeological Approaches, T. N. Ladefoged and M. W. 25:6. Beverly Hill: Sage Publication. Graves, eds.: 127-152. Los Osos: Easter Island Founda­ Ellis, W. 1831. Polynesian Researches during a Residence tion. ofnearly Eight years in the Society and Sandwich Is­ Green, R. C., K. Green, R. A. Rappaport, A. Rappaport, and lands. London: Fi her, Son & Jackson, 4 vols. J. Davidson. 1967. Archeology on the Island of Emory, K. P. 1933. Stone Remains in the Society Islands. Mo 'orea, French Polynesia. Anthropological Paper of Honolulu: Bernice P. Bishop Museum Bulletin 119. the American Musewn ofNatural Hi tory 51 (2): 111­ Firth, R. 1940. The Work ofthe gods in Tikopia. London: 230. The London School of Economic and Political Green, V. 1. and R. C. Green. 2007. An Accent on Atolls in Science. Approaches to Population Histories of Remote Oce­ Firth, R. 1967. The Work ofthe gods in Tikopia. New ania. The Growth and Collapse ofPacific Island Socie-

Rapa Nui Journal 26 Vol. 22 (1) May 2008

Published by Kahualike, 2008 13 Rapa Nui Journal: Journal of the Easter Island Foundation, Vol. 22 [2008], Iss. 1, Art. 3

ties: Archaeological and Demographic Perspectives. Society' of the Opunohu Valley, Mo'orea: Overview of P.V. Kirch and J.-L. Rallu, eds.: pp. 232-256. Hono­ an Archaeological Project, 2000-2002. Bilan de la Re­ lulu: University ofHawaii Press. cherche Archeologique en Polynesiefranr;aise 2001­ Handy, E. S.c. 1923. The Native Culture in the Marquesas. 2002. H. Marchesi ed.: 21-36. Service de la ulture et Honolulu: Bernice P. Bi hop Mu eum Bulletin 9. du Patrimoine: Dossier d'Archeologie Polynesienne 2, Handy, E. S.c. 1972a. ative planters in old Hawaii: their Punaauia. life, lore, and environment. Honolulu: Bi hop Mu eum Kamakau, S. M. 1968. Ka po'e kahiko: the people ofold. Press. Honolulu: Bi hop Mu eum Pre . Handy, E. s.c. 1972b. The Polynesian family system in Kamakau, S. M. 1976. The works ofthe people ofold: Na Ka'u, Hawaii. Rutland: C. E. Tuttle Co. hana a ka po'e kahiko. Honolulu: Bishop Museum Heitman, C. C. 2007. Hou e Great and Small: Reevauluat­ Pres. ing the HOli e in Chaco Canyon, New Mexico. The Kirch, P.V. 1975. Excavation at Site AI-3 and AI-4: Durable House: House Society Models in Archaeology, Early settlement and ecology in the Halawa Valley. R. Beck, Jr. ed.: 248-272. Occasional Paper No. 35, Prehistory and Ecology in a windward Hawaiian val­ Center for Archaeological Investigations. Carbondale: ley: Halawa Valley, Molokai. P.V. Kirch and M. Kelly, Southern I1tinoi University. eds.: 167-184. Honolulu: Pacific Anthropological Re­ Helm, M. W. 2007. Hou e Life. The Durable House: cord 24, Department of Anthropology, Bernice P. House Society Models in Archaeology, R. Beck, Jr. ed.: Bishop Museum. 487-504. Occasional Paper No. 35, Center for Archaeo­ Kirch, P.V. 1994. The Pre- hri tian Ritual Cycle of Futuna, logical Investigations. Carbondale: Southern Illinois Western Polynesia. Journal ofthe Polynesian Society University. 103(3): 255-298. Henry, T. 1928. Ancient Tahiti. Honolulu: Bernice P.Bi hop Kirch, P.V. 1996. Tikopia social space revisited. Oceanic Museum Bulletin 48. Culture HistOlY: Essays in HOllor ofRoger Green. J. Hendron, G. H. 1975. Report 4: Excavation of Eight Inland David on, G. Irwin, F. Leach, A. Pawley, and D. Prehistoric Habitation Sites. PrehistOlY and Ecology in Brown, eds.: 257-74. Dunedin: ew Zealand Journal of a windward Hawaiian valley: Halawa Valley, Molokai. Archaeology Special Publication. P. V. Kirch and M. Kelly, eds.: 117-152. Honolulu: Kirch P.V. 1997. The Lapita Peoples: Ancestors ofthe Pacific Anthropological Records 24, Department of Oceanic World. Cambridge: Blackwell Publishers. Anthropology, Bernice P. Bi hop Museum. Kirch, P. V. 2000. On the Road ofthe Winds. Berkeley: Hocart, A. M. 1929. Lau 1 lands, Fiji. Honolulu: Bernice P. Univer ity ofCalifornia Pre s. Bishop Museum Bulletin 62. Kirch, P.V. and R. C. Green. 1987. Hi tory, phylogeny, and Irwin, G. ed. 2004. Kohika: The Archaeology ofa Late evolution in Polyne ia. Current Anthropology 28: 431­ Maori Lake Village in the Ngati Awa Rohe Bay of 443,452-456. Plenty. Auckland: Auckland University Press. Kirch, P. V. and R. C. Green. 2001. Hawaiki, Ancestral Kahn, J. G. 2007. Power and Precedence in Ancient House Polynesia: Essays in Historical Anthropology. Societies: A Case Study from the Society Island Chief­ Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doms (French Polynesia). The Durable House: House Kirch, P.V. and S. J. O'Day, 2003. ew Archaeological Society Models in Archaeology, R. Beck, Jr. ed.: 198­ In ights into Food and Status: A Case Study from Pre­ 223. Occasional Paper No. 35, Center for Archaeologi­ Contact Hawaii. World Archaeology 34(3): 484-497. cal Investigations. Carbondale: Southern Illinois Uni­ Kirch, P.V. and M. Sahlin. 1992. Anahulu: The versity. Anthropology ofHistOlY in the Kingdom ofHawaii, Kahn, J.G. 2005. Household and Community Organization vol. 2: The Archaeology ofHistOlY. Chicago: Univer­ in the Late Prehistoric Society Islands (French Polyne­ ity ofChicago Press. sia). Ph.D. dissertation, Department ofAnthropology, Kolb, M. J. and G. M. Murakami. 1994. Cultural Dynamic University ofCalifornia, Berkeley. and the Ritual Role ofWoods in Pre-Contact Hawaii, Kahn, J. G. 2003. Maohi Social Organization at the Micro­ Asian Perspective 33(1): 57-78. Scale: Household Archaeology in the 'Opunohu Val­ Kru en tern, AJ. 1813. Voyage Round the World in the ley, Mo'orea, Society I lands (French Polynesia). Pa­ Years 1803, 1804, 1805, and 1806. London: John cific Archaeology: assessments and prospects. C. Sand Murray. ed.: 353-367. oumea: Le Cahiers de I'Archeologie en Ladefoged, T. . 1998. Spatial Similarities and Change in ouvelle-Caledonie 15. Hawaiian Archjtecture: The Expression of Ritual Of­ Kahn, 1.G. and 1. Coil. 2006. What house posts tell u about fering and Kapu in Luakini Heiau, Re idential Com­ status difference in prehistoric Tahitian ociety: an in­ plexes, and Houses. Asian Per, pectives 37(1): 59-73. terpretation ofcharcoal analysi , acred woods and Langsdorff, G.H. von. 1813. Voyage and Travels in the inter- ite variability. The Journal ofthe Polynesian Various Parts ofthe World During the Years 1803, Society 115 (4): 319-352. 1804, 1805, 1806, and 1807. London: Henry Colburn. Kahn, J. G. and P. V. Kirch. 2003. The Ancient 'Hou e Leach, F., 1. Davidson, and R. Wallace. 1999. The Form

Rapa Nui Journal 27 Vol. 22 (1) May 2008 https://kahualike.manoa.hawaii.edu/rnj/vol22/iss1/3 14 Kahn: Ritual House Posts, and "House Societies" in Polynesia

and Con truction of the Makotukutuku House, a Pre­ ser University. European Dwelling in Palli er Bay, ew Zealand, New O'Day, S. 1. 2001. Excavation at the Kipapa Rockshelter, Zealand Journal ofArchaeology 2 I: 87-1 17. Kahikinui, Maui, Hawai i, Asian Perspectives 40(2): Levi-Strauss, C. 1979. Nobles sauvages. pp. 41-55. CultLlre, 279-304. Science et Developpement : Contribution Q une His- Ollivier, 1. and 1. Spencer. 1985. Early Eyewitness Account toire de I 'Homme. Toulouse: Edouard Privat. ofMaori Life-2. Extract from the Journals of the Ships Linton, R. 1923. The Material CultLire ofthe Marquesas Ma carin and Marqui de Castires 1772. Wellington: Islands, Honolulu, Bernice P. Bi hop Mu eum Mem­ Alexander Turnbull Library Endowment Trust with oirs VIII (5). lndosuez New Zealand Limited. Macdonald, c., ed. 1987. De la HLitte au Palais: Societes 'Q Orliac, C. 1982. Materiaux Pour I 'Etude Des Habitations Maison' en Asie du Sud-Est Insulaire. Paris: CNRS. Protohistoriques aTahiti (Polynesie Franr;ai e). Ph.D. Malo, D. 195 I. Hawaiian Antiquities. Honolulu: Bernice P. Dis ertation, Univer ite de Pari I, Sorbonne. Bishop Special Publication 2. Orliac, C. I984a. A Propos d'Ull Pilier de Bois Decouvert a Marshall, Y. 2000. Tran formations of uu-Chah-Nulth Papara: Determination Botanique et Interpretation Houses. Beyond Kinship: Social and Material Palethnologique. Bulletin de la Societe des Etudes Oce­ Reproduction in House Societies. R. A. Joyce and S. D. aniennes 19 (228): 1661-1666. Gillespie, eds.: 111-143. Philadelphia: University of Orliac, C. 1984b. Deternunation Botanique de Quatre Ti'i. Pennsylvania Pre . Bulletin de la Societe des Etudes Oceaniennes 19 McKinnon, S. 199 I. From a Shattered Sun: Hierarchy, (229): 1739-1742. Gender, and Alliance in the Tanimbar Island. Madi­ Orliac, C. 1990. Des Arbre et des Dieux choix des Materi­ son: University of Wisconsin. aux de Sculpture en Polyne ie. Journal de la Societe McKinnon, S. 1995. Hou es and hierarchy: The view from des Oceanistes 90( I):35-42. a South Moluccan ociety. About the House: Levi­ Orliac, C. 2000. Fare et Habitat Q Tahiti. France: Edition Strauss and Beyond, J. Carsten and S. Hugh-Jones, Parenthe e .. eds.: 170-88. Cambridge: Cambridge Univer ity Pres. Orliac, C. and J. Wattez. 1987. Un Four Polynesien et son McKinnon, S. 2000. The Tanimbare e Tavu: The Ideology Interpretation Archeologique. A.P.R.A.I.F. emours, ofGrowth and the Material Configurations of Houses ed.: 69-75. Nature et Fonction de Foyers Prehistori­ and Hierarchy in an Indonesian Society. Beyond Kin­ ques. Nemours: Centre National de la Recherche Scien­ ship: Social and Material Reproduction in House tifique. Societies. R. A. Joyce and S. D. Gillespie, eds.: 161­ Ottino, P. R. and M. . de Bergh 1990. Hakao 'hoka: Etude 176. Philadelphia: University ofPennsylvania Press. D 'une Vallee Marquisienne, Travuax et Documents Meijl, T. von. 1993. Maori Meeting-Houses in and Over Microedites. Paris: Or trom. Time. In ide ALI tronesian Hou es: Perspectives on Parmentier, R. J. 1987. The Sacred Remains: Myth, Hi tO/y, Domestic Design for Living. J.J. Fox, ed.: 194-218. and Polity in BelaLi. Chicago: Univer ity ofChicago Canberra: Au tralian ational University. Press. Meskell, L. 1998. An Archaeology of Social Relations in an Pauketat, T. R., and S. M. Alt. 2005. Agency in a Post­ Egyptian Village. Journal ofArchaeological Method mold? Physicality and the Archaeology ofCulture­ and TheO/y 5(3): 209-243. Making. Journal ofArchaeology Method and Theory Metraux, A. 1940. Ethnology ofEaster Island. Honolulu: 12(3):213-236. Bishop Museum Bulletin 160. Porter, D. 1970. Journal ofa Cruise Made to the Pacific New Zealand Radiocarbon Database. Ocean, Vol. 2. Upper Saddle River: Gregg Press. Prickett, . 1982. An Archaeologist' Guide to the Maori Miller trom, S. 2001. Images Carved in Stones and Settle­ Dwelling. New Zealand Journal ofArchaeology 4: I 11­ ment Pattern Archaeology in Hatiheu Valley, Nuku 148. Hiva, the Marquesas Islands, French Polyne ia. Ph.D. Ragone, D. 1991. Ethnobotany of Breadfruit in Polyne ia. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University Islands, Plants, and Polynesians: An Introduction to ofCalifornia Berkeley. Polynesian Ethnobotany, P. A. Cox and S.A. Banack, Morrison, 1. 1966. Journal de James Morrison Second eds.: 203-220. Portland: Dioscoridies Press. Maitre aBord de la "Bounty." Paris: Societe des Oce­ Reuter, T. A., 2002. The HOLi e ofOur Ance tors: Prece­ anistes 16. dence and Dualism in Highland Balinese Society. Lei­ Newbury, C. W., ed. 1961. The History ofthe Tahitian Mis­ den: KlTLV Pres. sion 1799-1 30, Written by John Davies, Missionmy to Robin, C. 2003. New Directions in Classic Maya Hou e­ the South Sea Islands. Cambridge: Cambridge Univer­ hold Archaeology. Journal ofArchaeological Research ity Pre for the Hakluyt Society. 11(4):307-356. Oake, . R. 1994. The Late Prehi toric Maohi Fare Hau­ Sahlins, M. 1985. Islands ofHistory. Chicago: Univer ity pape: An Examination ofHousehold Organization in ofChicago Press. Mo 'orea, French Polynesia. M.A. Thesis, Simon Fra- Salmond, A. 1975. Hui: A Study ofMaori Ceremonial

Rapa Nui Journal 28 Vol. 22 (1) May 2008

Published by Kahualike, 2008 15 Rapa Nui Journal: Journal of the Easter Island Foundation, Vol. 22 [2008], Iss. 1, Art. 3

Gatherings. Wellington: A.H. & A.W. Reed. Sather, C. 1993. Post, Hearths, and Thre hold: The Tban Longhouse as a Ritual Structure. Inside Austronesian Van Tilburg, J. A. 1994. Easter Island. Archaeology, Ecol­ Houses: Perspectives on Domestic Designs for Living. ogy, and Culture. Washington: Smithsonian Institution. 1. 1. Fox. ed.: 64-115.Canberra: Australian ational Press. University. Wallace, R.T. 1989. A Preliminary Study ofWood Types Skyes, K. 1989. The Chiefs House, Symbol of Power. Used in Pre-European Maori Wooden Artefacts. Saying Households and Communities, Proceedings ofthe 21 st So Doesn't Make It So: Papers in Honour ofB. Foss Annual Chacmool Conference. S. MacEachern, D. 1.W. Leach. D.G. Sutton, ed.: 222-232. Auckland: ew Zea­ Archer, and R. D. Garvin, eds.: 490-504. Calgary: land Archaeological A ociation Monograph. University ofCalgary. Wallace, R. T. and G. 1. Irwin. 2004. Appendix: Inventory Sparrman, A. 1944. A Voyage Round the World with Cap­ of wooden and fibre items found at Kohika. Kohika: tain James Cook in H.M.S. Resolution. London: The The Archaeology ofa Late Maori Lake Village in the Golden Cockerel Pre . Ngati Awa Rohe Bay ofPlenty. D. Sutton, ed.: 249-259. Stewart, Ch. 1828. Voyage to the Pacific Ocean. and Resi­ Auckland: Auckland University Press. dence at the Sandwich Islands in the Years 1822, 1823. Wallace, R. T., G. 1. Irwin, and R. eich. 2004. The 1824, and 1825. New York: John P. Haven. Houses, Pataka, and Woodcarving at Kohika. Kohika: Sutton, D. C. 1990. Conclusion: interpretation and implica­ The Archaeology ofa Late Maori Village in the Ngati tions. The Archaeology ofthe Kainga. A Study ofPre­ Awa RoheBay ofPlenty. D. Sutton,ed.: 122-148. contact Maori Undefended Settlements at Pouema, Auckland: Auckland University Press. Northland, New Zealand, D. G. Sutton, ed.: 183-208. Walter, R. 2004. New Zealand archaeology and its Polyne­ Auckland: Auckland University Pres. sian connections. Change Through Time: 50 Years of Sutton, D. C. 1991. The Archaeology ofBelief: structural- New Zealand Archaeology. L. Furey and S. Holdaway, i rn in stratigraphical context. A Man and a Half: Es­ eds.; 125-146. Auckland: ew Zealand Archaeological says in Pacific Anthropology and Ethnobiology in Hon­ Association Monograph No. 26. our ofRalph Bulmer. A. Pawley, ed.:540-50. Walter, R. 1993. The Community in Ma'uke Prehistory. Auckland: Polynesian Society Memoir 48. The Evolution and Organization ofPrehistoric Society Sutton, D. c., L. Furey, and Y. Marshall, 2003. The Archae­ in Polynesia. M.W. Graves and R.C. Green eds.: 72-86. ology ofthe Pouema. Auckland: Auckland University Auckland: ew Zealand Archaeological Association Press. Monograph. Taornia,1. 2000. Household Unit in the Analysis ofPrehis­ Waterson R. 1990. The Living House: An Anthropology of toric Social Complexity, Cook Islands. Asian Perspec­ Architecture in South East Asia. ew York: Watson­ tives 39(1-2): 139-164. Gutpill Publication. Tcherkezoff, S. In press. Soeur ou Epou e, il Faut Choisir. Water on, R. 1993. Hou e and the Built Environment in L'Enigme de l'Exogamie Villageoise aSamoa. Frere/ I land South-East A ia: Tracing Some Shared Theme Sceur: La Relation Essentielle de Parente, F. Hertier in the uses of Space. Inside Au tronesian Hou es: and E. Copel-Roguier, eds. Paris: Ed. Des Archives Perspectives on Domestic Designsfor Living. J .1. Fox Contemporianes. ed.: 221-235. Canberra: Department of Anthropology, Terrell, 1., ed. 1988. Von den Steinen 's Marquesan myths. Research School of Pacific Studies Australian Na­ Canberra: Target Oceania. The Journal ofPacific His­ tional University. to/yo Weisler, M. 1., and P. V. Kirch. 1985. The Structure of Set­ Valeri, V. 1985. Kingship and Sacrifice: Ritual and Society tlement Space at Kawela, Molokai, Hawaiian I land. in Ancient Hawaii. Chicago: University ofChicago New Zealand Journal ofArchaeology 7: 129-158. Press. Weisler, M. and G. M. Murakami. 1991. The Use of Moun­ Van Gilder, C. and P. V. Kirch. 1997. Household Archae­ tain-Apple (Syzgium malaccense) in a Prehi toric Ha­ ology in Kipapa and akaohu, Kahikinui. Na Mea Ka­ waiian Dome tic Structure. Economic Botany 45(2): hiko Kahikinui, Studies in the Archaeology ofKahiki­ 282-284. nui, Maui. P. V. Kirch, ed.: 45-60. Archaeological Re- earch Facility, Univer ity ofCalifornia.

Rapa Nui Journal 29 Vol. 22 (1) May 2008 https://kahualike.manoa.hawaii.edu/rnj/vol22/iss1/3 16